Programme about Amiens Prison Raid

[Dave Eadsforth]

Good day, good people!

I think I already know the answer to this question, but would welcome
comment. I have just viewed a video I took of a TV programme about the
raid on Amiens prison by Mosquitos in Feb 1944. The presenter stated
that the Mosquitos had to drop their bombs at no more than one hundred
and twenty-five miles per hour because 'any faster and they would have
fragmented against the prison wall instead of exploding properly'.

I think that the presenter (an ex-major, so may not have clocked it) was
fed a dud 'fact' from the script writer, but I can't think of where any
such erroneous limit could have originated.

Because...

1. I have never heard of a velocity limit on aerial bombs. Most bombs
in WWII were dropped from a substantial height, and most industrial
targets were made of hard stuff like concrete. Terminal velocity of a
GP HE bomb? Suspect rather high...

2. The safety airspeed for a Mosquito carrying bombs was comfortably
above 125 mph.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that someone believed
that, above a certain airspeed, the bombs (almost certainly using
delayed action fuses) might have passed straight through the wall -
expending their explosion in the courtyard, rather than demolishing the
wall. But if that was the case I can only think that the airspeed limit
would have been much higher because of the Mossie safety airspeed.

So, can anyone who knows anything about the Amiens prison raid comment
as to what might be the origins for such a garbled portion of the
script? Was there any limit of any sort associated with the raid that
might have been so badly misinterpreted?

Many thanks.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Keith Willshaw]

"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good day, good people!
>
> I think I already know the answer to this question, but would welcome
> comment. I have just viewed a video I took of a TV programme about the
> raid on Amiens prison by Mosquitos in Feb 1944. The presenter stated
> that the Mosquitos had to drop their bombs at no more than one hundred
> and twenty-five miles per hour because 'any faster and they would have
> fragmented against the prison wall instead of exploding properly'.
>
> I think that the presenter (an ex-major, so may not have clocked it) was
> fed a dud 'fact' from the script writer, but I can't think of where any
> such erroneous limit could have originated.
>
> Because...
>
> 1. I have never heard of a velocity limit on aerial bombs. Most bombs
> in WWII were dropped from a substantial height, and most industrial
> targets were made of hard stuff like concrete. Terminal velocity of a
> GP HE bomb? Suspect rather high...
>
> 2. The safety airspeed for a Mosquito carrying bombs was comfortably
> above 125 mph.
>
> The only possible explanation I can think of is that someone believed
> that, above a certain airspeed, the bombs (almost certainly using
> delayed action fuses) might have passed straight through the wall -
> expending their explosion in the courtyard, rather than demolishing the
> wall. But if that was the case I can only think that the airspeed limit
> would have been much higher because of the Mossie safety airspeed.
>
> So, can anyone who knows anything about the Amiens prison raid comment
> as to what might be the origins for such a garbled portion of the
> script? Was there any limit of any sort associated with the raid that
> might have been so badly misinterpreted?
>
> Many thanks.
>

There's a copy of the signal sent by 2 group with the
orders for the rain on line at

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/raids/ameins.html

This doesnt seem to give any basis for the claimed
limit.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read most of
the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred knots
over the target would have been absolute suicide.

TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that this
was a fact. :\

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[[email protected]]

test

--

-Gord.

[Krztalizer]

>
> test
>

C-. You forgot to answer the back page of questions. :)

[[email protected]]

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>> test
>>
>
>C-. You forgot to answer the back page of questions. :)

Yeh I know Gordon, I just selected Keith's post at random trying
to help Ed M. with a problem down-thread. Don't know a bunch
about bombs. :)

--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > 1. I have never heard of a velocity limit on aerial bombs.
>
> According to McBean & Hogden in "Bombs Away", the bombs
> used in the Amiens prison raid were 500lb MC bombs, fitted
> with 11 second delay fuses; dropped at very low level to skip
> over the ground and hit the prison walls. The walls were
> reportedly about 1m thick, hence the bombs would not easily
> go through them. I suppose fairly long delays were used to
> protect the bombers from the blast of their own bombs.
>
> It is not impossible that the need to "skip" the bombs over
> the ground imposed flying speed restrictions, as one would
> not want the bombs to break up before hitting the target.
> Another basic concern on such attacks was leaving enough
> time for the fuse to arm.
>

According to the signal sent from 2 group the bomb load
and fusing to be used was:

2 x 500lb M C Mk.IV fused T.D. 11 secs.
2 x 500lb S A P fused T.D. 11 secs.

Keith

[Eunometic]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read most of
> the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred knots
> over the target would have been absolute suicide.
>
> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that this
> was a fact. :\
>

A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
the wooden wonder at that speed.

How exactly did they aim the bombs?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Programme about Amiens Prison Raid
>From: (Eunometic)
>Date: 4/26/04 7:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
>> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read most
>of
>> the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred
>knots
>> over the target would have been absolute suicide.
>>
>> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that
>this
>> was a fact. :\
>>
>
>A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
>the wooden wonder at that speed.
>
>How exactly did they aim the bombs?


The British A-2 bombsight.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Krztalizer]

>
>A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
>the wooden wonder at that speed.
>
>How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>

At a hundred knots, I assume you open a window and casually drop em over the
side.

G

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > 1. I have never heard of a velocity limit on aerial bombs.
>>

Keith, Emmanuel,

Thanks for the info and comments. It strikes me that:

>> According to McBean & Hogden in "Bombs Away", the bombs
>> used in the Amiens prison raid were 500lb MC bombs, fitted
>> with 11 second delay fuses; dropped at very low level to skip
>> over the ground and hit the prison walls. The walls were
>> reportedly about 1m thick, hence the bombs would not easily
>> go through them. I suppose fairly long delays were used to
>> protect the bombers from the blast of their own bombs.

The 11 seconds would allow the bombs to come to complete rest before
exploding - which 1 sec or 2.5 sec probably would not.
>>
>> It is not impossible that the need to "skip" the bombs over
>> the ground imposed flying speed restrictions, as one would
>> not want the bombs to break up before hitting the target.

Re. Keith's comment below about the choice of bombs - I suspect that
skipping was probably not a consideration when the bombs were designed,
so maybe a crack in the side of the casing was considered a possibility,
and perhaps the bombs had to be dropped at less than maximum airspeed.
That would make the presenter's comment a bit more sensible. But I
still just don't believe the 125 mph figure. I have just looked up the
safety airspeed for a loaded Mosquito and it looks like being around 170
kts.

>> Another basic concern on such attacks was leaving enough
>> time for the fuse to arm.
>>
So, given the safety speed for a loaded Mossie, I suspect the speed for
the attack could not have been less than 200 mph, and at that speed a
2.5 sec delay would have placed the Mosquito 730 feet away - a distance
of under 250 yards; probably too close for comfort, so 11 secs does
indeed look far more attractive!
>
>According to the signal sent from 2 group the bomb load
>and fusing to be used was:
>
>2 x 500lb M C Mk.IV fused T.D. 11 secs.
>2 x 500lb S A P fused T.D. 11 secs.
>
>Keith
>
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Keith Willshaw <keithnospam@kwillsh
aw.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Good day, good people!
>>
>> I think I already know the answer to this question, but would welcome
>> comment. I have just viewed a video I took of a TV programme about the
>> raid on Amiens prison by Mosquitos in Feb 1944. The presenter stated
>> that the Mosquitos had to drop their bombs at no more than one hundred
>> and twenty-five miles per hour because 'any faster and they would have
>> fragmented against the prison wall instead of exploding properly'.
>>
>> I think that the presenter (an ex-major, so may not have clocked it) was
>> fed a dud 'fact' from the script writer, but I can't think of where any
>> such erroneous limit could have originated.
>>
>> Because...
>>
>> 1. I have never heard of a velocity limit on aerial bombs. Most bombs
>> in WWII were dropped from a substantial height, and most industrial
>> targets were made of hard stuff like concrete. Terminal velocity of a
>> GP HE bomb? Suspect rather high...
>>
>> 2. The safety airspeed for a Mosquito carrying bombs was comfortably
>> above 125 mph.
>>
>> The only possible explanation I can think of is that someone believed
>> that, above a certain airspeed, the bombs (almost certainly using
>> delayed action fuses) might have passed straight through the wall -
>> expending their explosion in the courtyard, rather than demolishing the
>> wall. But if that was the case I can only think that the airspeed limit
>> would have been much higher because of the Mossie safety airspeed.
>>
>> So, can anyone who knows anything about the Amiens prison raid comment
>> as to what might be the origins for such a garbled portion of the
>> script? Was there any limit of any sort associated with the raid that
>> might have been so badly misinterpreted?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>
>There's a copy of the signal sent by 2 group with the
>orders for the rain on line at
>
>http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/raids/ameins.html
>
>This doesnt seem to give any basis for the claimed
>limit.
>
>Keith
>
>
Thanks - have duly checked out...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Krztalizer
> writes
>I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen

Wow - you should write a book about them!

>and read most of
>the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred knots
>over the target would have been absolute suicide.
>
>TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that this
>was a fact. :\
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
>An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.
>

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read
most of
> > the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred
knots
> > over the target would have been absolute suicide.
> >
> > TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that
this
> > was a fact. :\
> >
>
> A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
> the wooden wonder at that speed.
>

Not ardly, the Germans had their work cut out
with light flak, that plywood structure was surprisingly
tough

> How exactly did they aim the bombs?

They had this amazing invention called a bombsight :)
specifically the Mk III Low-Level (Angular Velocity)
Bombsight designed for use at altitudes below 1000 ft
and primarily used by coastal command for anti-shipping use.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>
>
> The British A-2 bombsight.
>

The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III
Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use
below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>Terminal velocity of a
>GP HE bomb? Suspect rather high...

Must be higher than 125 mph. That's about terminal velocity of the
much less streamlined (and dense) human body.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>>
>>
>> The British A-2 bombsight.
>>
>
> The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III
> Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use
> below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command

According to the copy of the orders at the Bomber COmmand link you
posted above, Keith, teh bombers were all FB Mk VIs. (SOlid-nose
Fighter bombers).

That would suggest that they used standard WW2 fighter-bomber
techniques - Reflector sight, with a depressed reticle if possible,
and use of the Pilot's 4 lb (1.7 Kilo) Meat Computer to process TLAR
information. (TLAR = That Looks About Right).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Cub Driver
> writes
>
>>Terminal velocity of a
>>GP HE bomb? Suspect rather high...
>
>Must be higher than 125 mph. That's about terminal velocity of the
>much less streamlined (and dense) human body.
>
Cue for those old jokes...

A brunette and a blonde fall off a skyscraper at the same moment - which
hits the ground first?

The brunette - the blonde guy has to stop to ask the way.

(Yeah, I know - I was just trying to avoid being accused of sexism...)

>all the best -- Dan Ford

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Krztalizer]

>So, given the safety speed for a loaded Mossie, I suspect the speed for
>the attack could not have been less than 200 mph, and at that speed a
>2.5 sec delay would have placed the Mosquito 730 feet away - a distance
>of under 250 yards; probably too close for comfort,

Not to mention, the Jericho Raiders bombed in trail formation - the first guy's
bombs would have gone up in everyone else's faces at 120 knots. Bad form.

G

[Krztalizer]

>>I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen
>
>Wow - you should write a book about them!
>

For six years, I've researched for a book called "Two Minutes To Midnight", the
story of the Luftwaffe's failed attempts to stop the Mosquito strikes on
Berlin. A couple years back, I held the only postwar reunion of the Mosquito
hunters in Germany - I brought together the survivors of Kdo Welter (jets) and
JG 300's 10th Staffel (souped-up Bf 109 G-10s). I even tracked down Mosquito
airmen they shot down over Berlin. Still working on that one as the German
archival material (four file boxes full) is kickin my ass. For that project, I
began collecting Mosquito photographs, soon realizing that 90% of them would
not actually qualify for the project. Looking at the pile of ~200 Mosquito
photos, a couple friends pointed out that we already have more of them than a
typical YAMB (yet another Mosquito book), so we've decided to over-caption them
with every bit of info we can find for each photo. We're at the 90% stage at
the moment - Dave K is doing all the hard stuff while I do the horsetrading for
more Mossie pix.

Btw, I have an archive of over 8,000 original photos of hundreds of aircraft
types and I am open to trade them for Mosquito photos. Hmmm? Anyone...? (One
note, I definitely have enough of RR299, the T.III airshow performer that went
down in the UK last decade.)

>>I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen
>
>Wow - you should write a book about them!
>

To finally answer your question, I YAMB! :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> >
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
> >>
> >>
> >> The British A-2 bombsight.
> >>
> >
> > The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III
> > Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use
> > below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command
>
> According to the copy of the orders at the Bomber COmmand link you
> posted above, Keith, teh bombers were all FB Mk VIs. (SOlid-nose
> Fighter bombers).

Keith seldom reads and understands his own URLs.

> That would suggest that they used standard WW2 fighter-bomber
> techniques - Reflector sight, with a depressed reticle if possible,
> and use of the Pilot's 4 lb (1.7 Kilo) Meat Computer to process TLAR
> information. (TLAR = That Looks About Right).

Art is right on again?

Does Keith live in a pickle barrel?

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Krztalizer
> writes
>>>I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen
>>
>>Wow - you should write a book about them!
>>
>
>For six years, I've researched for a book called "Two Minutes To Midnight", the
>story of the Luftwaffe's failed attempts to stop the Mosquito strikes on
>Berlin. A couple years back, I held the only postwar reunion of the Mosquito
>hunters in Germany - I brought together the survivors of Kdo Welter (jets) and
>JG 300's 10th Staffel (souped-up Bf 109 G-10s). I even tracked down Mosquito
>airmen they shot down over Berlin. Still working on that one as the German
>archival material (four file boxes full) is kickin my ass. For that project, I
>began collecting Mosquito photographs, soon realizing that 90% of them would
>not actually qualify for the project. Looking at the pile of ~200 Mosquito
>photos, a couple friends pointed out that we already have more of them than a
>typical YAMB (yet another Mosquito book), so we've decided to over-caption them
>with every bit of info we can find for each photo. We're at the 90% stage at
>the moment - Dave K is doing all the hard stuff while I do the horsetrading for
>more Mossie pix.
>
So what do you do in your copious free time?

>Btw, I have an archive of over 8,000 original photos of hundreds of aircraft
>types and I am open to trade them for Mosquito photos. Hmmm? Anyone...? (One
>note, I definitely have enough of RR299, the T.III airshow performer that went
>down in the UK last decade.)
>
>>>I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen
>>
>>Wow - you should write a book about them!
>>
>
>To finally answer your question, I YAMB! :)
>
Please let us all know when it's done - I'll have a cheque in the post
the same day...

>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR

Cheers,

Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth

[Krztalizer]

>
>>To finally answer your question, I YAMB! :)
>>
>Please let us all know when it's done - I'll have a cheque in the post
>the same day...

We're working hard on it every day - hope to be able to give some positive news
about it soon. If you go to Robert Bailey's website (excellent aviation
painter at

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/bailart/A_Letter_from_Robert_Bailey/Robe
rt_Bailey_s__Two_Minutes_t/robert_bailey_s__two_minutes_t.html

- you can see the cover art for our book.

v/r
Gordon
PS, the painting is of my friend Jorg shooting down my friend Harry over the
Doberitz "Opera Haus".

[Alan Dicey]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> According to McBean & Hogden in "Bombs Away", the bombs
> used in the Amiens prison raid were 500lb MC bombs, fitted
> with 11 second delay fuses; dropped at very low level to skip
> over the ground and hit the prison walls. The walls were
> reportedly about 1m thick, hence the bombs would not easily
> go through them. I suppose fairly long delays were used to
> protect the bombers from the blast of their own bombs.

This is speculation, but

If skip-bombing over the ground, wouldn't the fuses start to run on the
first impact? Which would be pretty much directly below the attacking
aircraft? Eleven seconds may have been chosen to allow safe separation
for the worst case (bomb dropped early/bomb missing the walls and
following the aircraft...)

[Richard Brooks]

Eunometic wrote:
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
>> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and
>> read most of the available works about them - first I have heard
>> this. One hundred knots over the target would have been absolute
>> suicide.
>>
>> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree"
>> that this was a fact. :\
>>
>
> A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
> the wooden wonder at that speed.
>
> How exactly did they aim the bombs?

We'd just had a documentary about it on Channel 5 in the UK, just last week.
The narrator said they just used their judgement.

I can't remember whether I recorded it but I'll look through my tapes to
check,


Richard.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Programme about Amiens Prison Raid
>From: Alan Dicey
>Date: 4/27/04 3:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>>
>> According to McBean & Hogden in "Bombs Away", the bombs
>> used in the Amiens prison raid were 500lb MC bombs, fitted
>> with 11 second delay fuses; dropped at very low level to skip
>> over the ground and hit the prison walls. The walls were
>> reportedly about 1m thick, hence the bombs would not easily
>> go through them. I suppose fairly long delays were used to
>> protect the bombers from the blast of their own bombs.
>
>This is speculation, but
>
>If skip-bombing over the ground, wouldn't the fuses start to run on the
>first impact? Which would be pretty much directly below the attacking
>aircraft? Eleven seconds may have been chosen to allow safe separation
>for the worst case (bomb dropped early/bomb missing the walls and
>following the aircraft...)
>

Not if the first impact started the timer.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Krztalizer
> writes
>>
>>>To finally answer your question, I YAMB! :)
>>>
>>Please let us all know when it's done - I'll have a cheque in the post
>>the same day...
>
>We're working hard on it every day - hope to be able to give some positive news
>about it soon. If you go to Robert Bailey's website (excellent aviation
>painter at
>
>http://www.telusplanet.net/public/bailart/A_Letter_from_Robert_Bailey/Robe
>rt_Bailey_s__Two_Minutes_t/robert_bailey_s__two_minutes_t.html
>
> - you can see the cover art for our book.

It's a beaut - and 'Moonlight Strike' is great as well - in fact the
whole site is very impressive (and to think I've just wallpapered the
living room. Tch.)
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>PS, the painting is of my friend Jorg shooting down my friend Harry over the
>Doberitz "Opera Haus".

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Eunometic]

"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> Eunometic wrote:
> > (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and
> >> read most of the available works about them - first I have heard
> >> this. One hundred knots over the target would have been absolute
> >> suicide.
> >>
> >> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree"
> >> that this was a fact. :\
> >>
> >
> > A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
> > the wooden wonder at that speed.
> >
> > How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>
> We'd just had a documentary about it on Channel 5 in the UK, just last week.
> The narrator said they just used their judgement.
>
> I can't remember whether I recorded it but I'll look through my tapes to
> check,


No one seems to know for sure do they?

The task of bomb aiming at low level must have been formidable. For
instance if a bombsight was used it would need to know altitude above
ground. But how? A radio altimeter feeding into a computing
bombsight would be maybe 30ft. A barometric device about the same but
would need to also need to know the altitude above sea level which
adds another source of error. Maybe there more accurate devices but
I don't think so.

In an attack at 100ft a 50ft errror would produce a big error in bomb
hit: about 30/100 = 50%

In an attack at 8000 ft that is 30/8000 or about 0.4%

The most accurate method of attack I think of is the glide/slide
bombing using a computing bombsight (eg the Stuvi of the Ju 88 and I
think some of the British sights could work in a dive) but that still
isn't a low level attack whuch could get a bomb within 10 meters quite
with good consistantly.

I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking
T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb
to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method.

So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along
the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced.



>
>
> Richard.

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
> >
> >
> > The British A-2 bombsight.
> >
>
> The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III
> Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use
> below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command
>
> Keith


How did this work? How was altitude maintained? how was it entered
into the bombsight? Was it a computing bombsight?

[Eunometic]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Programme about Amiens Prison Raid
> >From: (Eunometic)
> >Date: 4/26/04 7:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
> >> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read most
> of
> >> the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred
> knots
> >> over the target would have been absolute suicide.
> >>
> >> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that
> this
> >> was a fact. :\
> >>
> >
> >A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
> >the wooden wonder at that speed.
> >
> >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>
>
> The British A-2 bombsight.
>
>


I forewarn you of my up an comming critical attack on the Norden next
week. I would welcome your comment.

[Keith Willshaw]

> >
> > The Mosquitos of no 2 Group usually used the Mk III
> > Low-Level bomb sight which was designed for use
> > below 1000ft and mostly used by coastal command
> >
> > Keith
>
>
> How did this work? How was altitude maintained? how was it entered
> into the bombsight? Was it a computing bombsight?

From what I recall the bombsight was uusually used
in attacks at a fixed height of around 300ft , the
bomb aimer dialled in a spacing for the stick of bombs
and it released them at the correct intervals.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Programme about Amiens Prison Raid
>From: (Eunometic)
>Date: 4/28/04 6:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Programme about Amiens Prison Raid
>> >From: (Eunometic)
>> >Date: 4/26/04 7:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and read
>most
>> of
>> >> the available works about them - first I have heard this. One hundred
>> knots
>> >> over the target would have been absolute suicide.
>> >>
>> >> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree" that
>> this
>> >> was a fact. :\
>> >>
>> >
>> >A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought down
>> >the wooden wonder at that speed.
>> >
>> >How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>>
>>
>> The British A-2 bombsight.
>>
>>
>
>
>I forewarn you of my up an comming critical attack on the Norden next
>week. I would welcome your comment.


I am no longer subscibed to this NG but I do look in now and again. I'll try to
look in and catch it if I get a chance..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Richard Brooks]

Eunometic wrote:
> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
> message >...
>> Eunometic wrote:
>>> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> I have tracked down and interviewed ~2 dozen Mosquito airmen and
>>>> read most of the available works about them - first I have heard
>>>> this. One hundred knots over the target would have been absolute
>>>> suicide.
>>>>
>>>> TV strikes again; within a couple of years, folks will all "agree"
>>>> that this was a fact. :\
>>>>
>>>
>>> A dozen agincourt longbowmen with fire arrows could have brought
>>> down the wooden wonder at that speed.
>>>
>>> How exactly did they aim the bombs?
>>
>> We'd just had a documentary about it on Channel 5 in the UK, just
>> last week. The narrator said they just used their judgement.
>>
>> I can't remember whether I recorded it but I'll look through my
>> tapes to check,
>
>
> No one seems to know for sure do they?
>
> The task of bomb aiming at low level must have been formidable. For
> instance if a bombsight was used it would need to know altitude above
> ground. But how? A radio altimeter feeding into a computing
> bombsight would be maybe 30ft. A barometric device about the same but
> would need to also need to know the altitude above sea level which
> adds another source of error. Maybe there more accurate devices but
> I don't think so.
>
> In an attack at 100ft a 50ft errror would produce a big error in bomb
> hit: about 30/100 = 50%
>
> In an attack at 8000 ft that is 30/8000 or about 0.4%
>
> The most accurate method of attack I think of is the glide/slide
> bombing using a computing bombsight (eg the Stuvi of the Ju 88 and I
> think some of the British sights could work in a dive) but that still
> isn't a low level attack whuch could get a bomb within 10 meters quite
> with good consistantly.
>
> I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking
> T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb
> to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method.
>
> So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along
> the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced.

I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear!

It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the
low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed
a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and
that) unlike our American Allies.

Richard.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Richard Brooks <richardbr
> writes
>Eunometic wrote:
>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>> message >...

SNIP lots
>>
>> I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking
>> T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb
>> to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method.
>>
>> So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along
>> the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced.
>
>I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear!
>
>It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the
>low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed
>a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and
>that) unlike our American Allies.
>
>Richard.
>
>
I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly)
a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the
RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman
was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must
have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so
freaking fast...)

I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our
efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were,
and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood
directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour!

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>In article >, Richard Brooks <richardbr
> writes
>>Eunometic wrote:
>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>> message >...
>
>SNIP lots
>>>
>>> I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking
>>> T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb
>>> to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method.
>>>
>>> So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along
>>> the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced.
>>
>>I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear!
>>
>>It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the
>>low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed
>>a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and
>>that) unlike our American Allies.
>>
>>Richard.
>>
>>
>I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly)
>a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the
>RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman
>was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must
>have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so
>freaking fast...)
>
>I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our
>efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were,
>and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood
>directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
The Copenhagen(?) attack was also filmed, or at least part of the trip.
Mossies crossing the North Sea at near wavetop height, and flying over
Denmark just above the rooftops. Awesome, and extremely courageous.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Peter Twydell
> writes
>In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>>In article >, Richard Brooks <richardbr
> writes
>>>Eunometic wrote:
>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>> message >...
>>
>>SNIP lots
>>>>
>>>> I recall reading about Fw 190 pilots on the Eastern front attacking
>>>> T34 tanks simply by flying the nose over the tank and releasing a bomb
>>>> to slide along the steppe. It was regarded as accurate method.
>>>>
>>>> So I suspect they relied to a certain extent on the bomb sliding along
>>>> the ground. The accuracy required would be greatly reduced.
>>>
>>>I think it was down to dropping and keeping at least one finger in one ear!
>>>
>>>It was remarkable that they decided to take a cameraman along to film the
>>>low level raid, which seemed to go against the fact that the British seemed
>>>a bit dubious about cameras popping off everywhere (all "hush, hush" and
>>>that) unlike our American Allies.
>>>
>>>Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite rightly)
>>a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of course the
>>RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And the cameraman
>>was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was in a Mossie (must
>>have been a glazed nose variant - and with no armament or ordnance, so
>>freaking fast...)
>>
>>I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our
>>efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things were,
>>and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance, Hollywood
>>directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>>
>The Copenhagen(?) attack was also filmed, or at least part of the trip.
>Mossies crossing the North Sea at near wavetop height, and flying over
>Denmark just above the rooftops. Awesome, and extremely courageous.

I remember seeing that footage a couple of times - awesome is the word.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Richard Brooks]

Dave Eadsforth wrote:
> In article >, Richard Brooks
> <richardbr > writes
>> Eunometic wrote:
>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>> message >...
>
> SNIP lots
[and then some]

> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>
> I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our
> efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things
> were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance,
> Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

But at least our gallant serving men and women made up for it with their own
private collections. All hail the box Brownie!
Most of those glossy books we own would have been text only.


Richard.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>> <richardbr > writes
>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>> message >...
>>
>> SNIP lots
>[and then some]
>
>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
>> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
>> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
>> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
>> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>>
>> I think that we Brits have been too cautious about recording our
>> efforts. We have a duty to future generations to show how things
>> were, and I can only applaud the US for having put, for instance,
>> Hollywood directors on B17s to record it all - and in colour!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave
>
>But at least our gallant serving men and women made up for it with their own
>private collections. All hail the box Brownie!
>Most of those glossy books we own would have been text only.
>
>
>Richard.
>
Yup, and more revealing snaps were often sneaked by the little Kodak
'Bantam' 828 concertina front camera, which could fit a tunic pocket,
and was less likely to be snatched by a suspicious Snowdrop.

And, in recent years, some books have come out which could not have been
published just post-war. 'The Forbidden Diaries' by John Spencer, a B-24
navigator, was a particularly fascinating read.

Cheers,

Dave
>
>

--
Dave Eadsforth

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>In article >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>>> <richardbr > writes
>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>>> message >...
>>>
>>> SNIP lots
>>[and then some]
>>
>>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
>>> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
>>> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
>>> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
>>> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)

I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film
appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the
bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the
starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the
navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he
could.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Richard Brooks]

M. J. Powell wrote:
> In message >, Dave Eadsforth
> > writes
>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>> > writes
>>> Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>>>> <richardbr > writes
>>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote
>>>>>> in message >...
>>>>
>>>> SNIP lots
>>> [and then some]
>>>
>>>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>>>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was
>>>> of course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions.
>>>> And the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact
>>>> he was in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and
>>>> with no armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>
> I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film
> appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the
> bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the
> starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the
> navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he
> could.
>
> Mike

I think you're right as there is some great air to air footage across the
starboard wing too! Sadly a lot of the old documentary footage and snaps
held by next of kin just gets thrown on the bonfire unless someone has the
foresight to grab some of it. I remember as a kid, breaking into my fathers
bureau (normal for a child) and seeing photographs of carrier life possibly
on either Courageous or Indomitable carriers, photos of aircraft nose down
on the deck etc.

Richard.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, M. J. Powell
> writes
>In message >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>>In article >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>>>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>>>> <richardbr > writes
>>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>>>> message >...
>>>>
>>>> SNIP lots
>>>[and then some]
>>>
>>>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>>>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
>>>> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
>>>> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
>>>> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
>>>> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>
>I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film
>appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the
>bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the
>starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the
>navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he
>could.
>
>Mike

Lots of info about the Mosquito at:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/mosquito1.html

Follow the links for specific attacks. The Amiens page says the raid was
accompanied by a PRU a/c, so filming could have been from the Nav's seat
or through the nose. The Copenhagen attack was filmed by DZ414, a B Mk.
IV of the RAF Film Unit, so the same applies. I would guess that the
footage I've seen on TV was shot from the cockpit over the sea (shots of
Mosquitos flying alongside to starboard) and from the nose over land.

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Peter Twydell
> writes
>In article >, M. J. Powell
> writes
>>In message >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>>>In article >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>>>>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>>>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>>>>> <richardbr > writes
>>>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>>>>> message >...
>>>>>
>>>>> SNIP lots
>>>>[and then some]
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>>>>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
>>>>> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
>>>>> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
>>>>> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
>>>>> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>>
>>I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film
>>appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the
>>bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the
>>starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the
>>navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he
>>could.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Lots of info about the Mosquito at:
>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/mosquito1.html
>
>Follow the links for specific attacks. The Amiens page says the raid was
>accompanied by a PRU a/c, so filming could have been from the Nav's seat
>or through the nose. The Copenhagen attack was filmed by DZ414, a B Mk.
>IV of the RAF Film Unit, so the same applies. I would guess that the
>footage I've seen on TV was shot from the cockpit over the sea (shots of
>Mosquitos flying alongside to starboard) and from the nose over land.
>
Yup, I came to the same conclusion on the two-position shoot, given the
number of different sequences we saw. However, I did wonder whether the
programme also mixed in other library footage to lengthen the action.
We saw glazed nose Mossies on the ground, and we also had some shots
from the camera aircraft looking DOWN on a flight of Mossies which
occurred after the narrative had talked about a low-level sea crossing
to avoid German radar. Not much help to avoiding radar if your camera
aircraft has popped up a few dozen feet to get a nice shot!

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Peter Twydell
> writes
>In article >, M. J. Powell
> writes
>>In message >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>>>In article >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>>>>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>>>> In article >, Richard Brooks
>>>>> <richardbr > writes
>>>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>>>>>> message >...
>>>>>
>>>>> SNIP lots
>>>>[and then some]
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the RAF brass regarded the Amiens raid as (quite
>>>>> rightly) a unique effort to date, and worthy of recording. It was of
>>>>> course the RAF film unit, subject to normal secrecy conditions. And
>>>>> the cameraman was very likely to return by virtue of the fact he was
>>>>> in a Mossie (must have been a glazed nose variant - and with no
>>>>> armament or ordnance, so freaking fast...)
>>
>>I've had another look at my recording of the Amiens raid. The film
>>appears to have been taken from the navigator's seat, judging by the
>>bits of the cockpit frames that appear. There is also a shot of the
>>starboard wing and engine looking along the top surface. Perhaps the
>>navigator was given a camera and told to take what he could when he
>>could.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Lots of info about the Mosquito at:
>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/mosquito1.html
>
>Follow the links for specific attacks. The Amiens page says the raid was
>accompanied by a PRU a/c, so filming could have been from the Nav's seat
>or through the nose. The Copenhagen attack was filmed by DZ414, a B Mk.
>IV of the RAF Film Unit, so the same applies. I would guess that the
>footage I've seen on TV was shot from the cockpit over the sea (shots of
>Mosquitos flying alongside to starboard) and from the nose over land.

Oh, right. I was unaware of the PRU Mosquitoes going along.

Mike