Stealthy Mosquito - Question for Devs

[Talisman]

Will the developers give the Mosquito a little bit of stealth? 

 

It appears that this wooden plane gave 1/10th of the radar signature of other wartime aircraft.

 

Found the following info on the internet:

 

But here is the stunner, The Mosquito was actually a stealth plane to German radar! German Radar batteries needed a clear resonance signature, a return signal reflected from the metal structure, to truly detect incoming aircraft. With the Mossy being made solely of wood most of the radar signal was actually absorbed by the plane, giving it 1/10th of the signature of other wartime aircraft! So the Mossy would look like small interference in the radar sweep. Giving it the full advantage of slippng in and out almost undetected! The RAF realized this and produced a total of 7,781 Mosquitos, becoming a super gun and run platform. So thus started the study of radar absorption and "stealth".

 

With the advent of radar at the outset of World War Two, the race was on to design a warplane that was undetectable by the revolutionary new range-finding technology. British aircraft designers got out to an early lead with the De Havilland DH. 98 Mosquito. Introduced in 1941, the twin-engine, fighter/bomber’s airframe was constructed of radar absorbing plywood. While not specifically designed to be stealthy from the outset, the plane’s low signature as well as its top speed of nearly 600 km/h (375 mph) made it a tough target to track for Axis radar operators.

 

 

The Mosquito did cause problems for German radars. It was certainly detectable, but we have the minutes of a meeting at Goering’s Karinhall on 18 March 1943, where this issue was discussed.

(Generalfeldmarschall Milch, Microfilm Records:35mm Vol-62, Frames # 5495–5498).

Goering: And so why can’t we detect [the] Mosquito?

Kammhuber: The Mosquito is a small wooden airplane. In general only large machines produce a good return echo.

Martini: We can detect it too. But sometimes it is not a good enough signal for it to result in a successfully vectored interception.

Goering: So the enemy can fly around as he pleases, and we cannot get at them. So what I said earlier is true.

Milch: Is there a way to eliminate the Freya jamming?

Martini: That’s in full swing.

There you have it, literally from the horses’ mouths.

 

 

[357th_KW]

There isn't any radar in BoX.  Mission designers and server operators can use some tools to fake it, but it is in no way a simulation of radar.

[AndyJWest]

I'd take random webpages that think that radar works by 'resonance' with a pinch of salt. As for the rest of it, quite probably correct, but of no significance to the IL-2 GB series until radar gets modelled.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

19 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I'd take random webpages that think that radar works by 'resonance' with a pinch of salt. As for the rest of it, quite probably correct, but of no significance to the IL-2 GB series until radar gets modelled.

Well, as the reflectance of electromagnetic waves is directly linked to the change in conductance on the interface between the two materials (air and airplane, in this case), there's certainly some truth to the story as wood conducts less well than metal and will therefore reflect fewer of the signal. That said, I highly doubt this was the reason that the UK produced 7781 mosquitoes as they imply.

[AndyJWest]

Resonance and reflectance are two different things.

[Avimimus]

Well... we are getting early warning radars? Right? So having Mosquito campaigns have lower likelihoods of interception is something the mission makers could do. Just simply have the intercepting flight be elsewhere occasionally?

 

That said - I gather that some of the arrays we have were mainly focussed on formations rather than individual aircraft?

[AndyJWest]

2 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Well... we are getting early warning radars? Right? So having Mosquito campaigns have lower likelihoods of interception is something the mission makers could do. Just simply have the intercepting flight be elsewhere occasionally?

 

That said - I gather that some of the arrays we have were mainly focussed on formations rather than individual aircraft?

 

Are we getting working radar? I don't recall seeing that. There are 3D models of radar ground units being included with Normandy, I believe, but I don't think they have any functionality, beyond what mission makers can 'fake' for them.

 

As for what the real radar receivers (Freya etc) could pick up, I'm fairly sure they could detect individual aircraft, under good conditions, but the Luftwaffe command structure was more set up to deal with heavy bomber formations/streams. Scrambling to intercept a single fast-moving target may not always be a wise move, if it compromises your ability to deal with larger threats.

 

Getting back to the original post, regarding the specifics of detecting Mosquitos: as I understood it, the whole point of the very-low-level tactics used in e.g. the Amiens Prison raid was to avoid detection. If Mosquitos were really 'stealth', why would this have been needed?

[Tonester]

2 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

Will the developers give the Mosquito a little bit of stealth? 

 

It appears that this wooden plane gave 1/10th of the radar signature of other wartime aircraft.

 

Found the following info on the internet:

 

But here is the stunner, The Mosquito was actually a stealth plane to German radar! German Radar batteries needed a clear resonance signature, a return signal reflected from the metal structure, to truly detect incoming aircraft. With the Mossy being made solely of wood most of the radar signal was actually absorbed by the plane, giving it 1/10th of the signature of other wartime aircraft! So the Mossy would look like small interference in the radar sweep. Giving it the full advantage of slippng in and out almost undetected! The RAF realized this and produced a total of 7,781 Mosquitos, becoming a super gun and run platform. So thus started the study of radar absorption and "stealth".

 

With the advent of radar at the outset of World War Two, the race was on to design a warplane that was undetectable by the revolutionary new range-finding technology. British aircraft designers got out to an early lead with the De Havilland DH. 98 Mosquito. Introduced in 1941, the twin-engine, fighter/bomber’s airframe was constructed of radar absorbing plywood. While not specifically designed to be stealthy from the outset, the plane’s low signature as well as its top speed of nearly 600 km/h (375 mph) made it a tough target to track for Axis radar operators.

 

 

Wow!…youre stunned by this? Are you very new to WWII aviation? This has been common knowledge for decades so i dont understand why you seem to think its a revelation?

 

 

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think this would also depend on the aspect of the plane, head on or tail on the metallic propellers would give huge return signals to radar I suppose

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Well... we are getting early warning radars? Right? So having Mosquito campaigns have lower likelihoods of interception is something the mission makers could do. Just simply have the intercepting flight be elsewhere occasionally?

 

That said - I gather that some of the arrays we have were mainly focussed on formations rather than individual aircraft?

 

There are ways to work it out with the editor logic.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Well... we are getting early warning radars? Right? So having Mosquito campaigns have lower likelihoods of interception is something the mission makers could do. Just simply have the intercepting flight be elsewhere occasionally?

 

Agreed. I also think Mosquito career sorties should be hard-coded to have a much lower probability of interception than regular bomber careers; to simulate both its radar properties and, more importantly perhaps, the advantages of coming into the target area with such speed that the enemy has less time to react and properly vector defenders.

[Eisenfaustus]

6 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Scrambling to intercept a single fast-moving target may not always be a wise move, if it compromises your ability to deal with larger threats.

From reading Lw memoirs it seems to have been quite common to intercept single reconnaissance aircraft with one fighter pair - so the the majority of the unit was still available to fight larger raids. 
 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I also think Mosquito career sorties should be hard-coded to have a much lower probability of interception than regular bomber careers;

In his book Galland stated that the mosquito was virtually impossible to intercept - so yes it would be realistic. But would it be fun?

[Dragon1-1]

It is certainly plausible that it had lower RCS than you'd expect on account of its wooden construction, and if we ever get radar, this should be accounted for. However, the effect would not be very dramatic. Remember that WWII radars were quite primitive and relied mostly on the operators to decide what is a genuine threat. A smaller return would be more likely to be missed by the operator. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Well... we are getting early warning radars? Right? So having Mosquito campaigns have lower likelihoods of interception is something the mission makers could do. Just simply have the intercepting flight be elsewhere occasionally?

Just the 3d objects, not working radar.

 

Besides, what would we even do with working radar? It's perfectly able to simulate it as a mission maker. In fact, I've seen something similar during the Moscow career, when intercepting German bombers. There was an icon where the bombers where spotted, and every once in a while a new icon would appear to reflect their updated position. All that's missing is radio comms instead of map icons.

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

All that's missing is radio comms instead of map icons.

 

Yes, but will the radio comms be in Cantonese or Mandarin? 

[sevenless]

 

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I've seen something similar during the Moscow career, when intercepting German bombers. There was an icon where the bombers where spotted, and every once in a while a new icon would appear to reflect their updated position. All that's missing is radio comms instead of map icons.

 

Yep, that are the career mechanics for interception of recce planes. Would work perfectly well for interception of dusk or dawn Mosquito intruders as well. Only difference was that the Light Night-Striking Force (Berlin or bust) was usually flying at around 30.000 feet (9.200m), while special missions like Operation Jericho (Amiens prison) came in at treetop height of 500 feet (150m).

 

Here is a good overview how they tried to intercept LNSF with Wilde Sau techniques:

 

Light Night-Striking Force of Mosquitoes | Weapons and Warfare

Edited September 21, 2021 by sevenless

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Just the 3d objects, not working radar.

 

Besides, what would we even do with working radar? It's perfectly able to simulate it as a mission maker. In fact, I've seen something similar during the Moscow career, when intercepting German bombers. There was an icon where the bombers where spotted, and every once in a while a new icon would appear to reflect their updated position. All that's missing is radio comms instead of map icons.

 

Not so simple really as you would need to account for the altitude of the aircraft. Below 500’ the contact should disappear. Also the if the German plotting table was too busy at the time then no interception would be attempted in that case. 

 

I did design algorithms to account for all of the above, (with some margin of error/variation) but it’s not something you’ll see in the career any time soon.

I think a different solution would be desirable, utilizing altitude ‘less than/greater than’ triggers etc among other things.

This logic does not yet exist in the editor.

 

I designed a workaround which actually works quite nicely, but it requires a number of larger, overlapping trigger zones. Not ideal.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Gambit21

[sevenless]

 

18 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

There you have it, literally from the horses’ mouths.

 

LOL! Well given the fact that one purpose of the Light Night Striking Force (LNSF) was the intent of Bennett to use them for diversionary raids to draw the german nightfighters away from the main force [1], I´d say they (the Mosquitos) were not that "stealthy" at all for german radar.

 

 

[1] Maynard, John Bennett and the Pathfinders, Arms and Armour London, 1996, ISBN 1-85409-258-8; Maynard, p. 120–121

[Talisman]

18 hours ago, Tonester said:

 

I say, Tonester old chap, re your comment  "Wow!…youre stunned by this? Are you very new to WWII aviation? This has been common knowledge for decades so i dont understand why you seem to think its a revelation?"

 

Looks like you might need to take a look again at what I posted.  I said  "Found the following info on the internet:"

 

My words did not indicate that I was stunned.  Reason for my post was to flag the issue for the dev's and have a discussion ahead of release.  I hope that helps you understand were I am coming from now. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

 

LOL! Well given the fact that one purpose of the Light Night Striking Force (LNSF) was the intent of Bennett to use them for diversionary raids to draw the german nightfighters away from the main force [1], I´d say they (the Mosquitos) were not that "stealthy" at all for german radar.

 

 

[1] Maynard, John Bennett and the Pathfinders, Arms and Armour London, 1996, ISBN 1-85409-258-8; Maynard, p. 120–121

 

Window and bombs dropping on targets can give the game away as well, lol.  The 1/10th signature can help increase the odds of getting home and the Mosquito had a good survival rate after all. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited September 21, 2021 by ACG_Talisman

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Not so simple really as you would need to account for the altitude of the aircraft. Below 500’ the contact should disappear. Also the if the German plotting table was too busy at the time then no interception would be attempted in that case. 

 

I did design algorithms to account for all of the above, (with some margin of error/variation) but it’s not something you’ll see in the career any time soon.

I think a different solution would be desirable, utilizing altitude ‘less than/greater than’ triggers etc among other things.

This logic does not yet exist in the editor.

 

I designed a workaround which actually works quite nicely, but it requires a number of larger, overlapping trigger zones. Not ideal.

Well, it's a simulation after all. There's always going to be simplifications. My point is, that the current career mode already features a basic form of "radar intercept". With the mentioned simplifications. Obviously, the plotting table will always be empty, and the altitude will always be higher than 500ft. But given those requirements, the current career generator is good enough to generate "radar intercept" missions.

 

I think we can at least both agree that for normal singleplayer missions, it's already possible since the mission designer knows exactly where the enemy will fly and can hence show any message/icon he wants when he wants, and that the only real problem is multiplayer missions.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well, it's a simulation after all. There's always going to be simplifications. My point is, that the current career mode already features a basic form of "radar intercept". With the mentioned simplifications. Obviously, the plotting table will always be empty, and the altitude will always be higher than 500ft. But given those requirements, the current career generator is good enough to generate "radar intercept" missions.

 

I think we can at least both agree that for normal singleplayer missions, it's already possible since the mission designer knows exactly where the enemy will fly and can hence show any message/icon he wants when he wants, and that the only real problem is multiplayer missions.

 

Aye - although I had “intercept zones” over the continent (using Kuban as a test map) that would send aircraft dependent on which zone you were detected in. This is “fly anywhere” logic, not your typical SP logic.

 

This logic would work quite well in MP.

Then there’s the “break off/loss of contact” logic which I also constructed an algorithm for - pretty slick if I do say so. Not perfect as I had to work within availabie functionality - but it worked. 

 

If I opened up my development mission now it would probably take me a few days to figure out my own logic. Been a minute.

[Voyager]

Radar during WWII was extremely primitive and not fully understood. I would expect operators of different levels of experience could get radically different results from the same sets and same returns. 

 

Likewise, you'd likely see wildly different results from day to day as weather, both solar and water, impacted things to varying degrees. 

 

That said, the Mosquito is both much smaller than a B-17, and had half the giant spinning metal disks out front, so that alone should reduce RCS. Further, it flew faster so the window of intercept was less. So I can see it being considerably harder to detect, and considerably harder time being intercepted. 

 

Also, as I recall, didn't they mostly operate in singletons or small units? If you've got 100+ Lancasters streaming through a corridor, you don't have to spot that many to realize something is up. 

 

So harder to spot/catch than 4 engines? Almost certainly. Invisible? Given the state of the plane and the state of the radar at the time, who knows?

 

I also gather a large part of the LW air intercept was following the British radar altimeters back to the plane. Was the Mossie big enough to even carry one? Not having a glowing "Insert Cannon Here" sign also helps with sneakiness. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Aye - although I had “intercept zones” over the continent (using Kuban as a test map) that would send aircraft dependent on which zone you were detected in. This is “fly anywhere” logic, not your typical SP logic.

For an attacker, you mean? Yeah, that would complicate things. On the other hand, you can just assume that the player will more or less follow the waypoints. WW2 crews were supposed to do so, after all.

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Then there’s the “break off/loss of contact” logic which I also constructed an algorithm for - pretty slick if I do say so. Not perfect as I had to work within availabie functionality - but it worked.

It's possible, but as you say, that's a whole different level. Especially if you want to build in some kind of heuristics; i.e. the enemy were just spotted here, then there, so although you lost contact, you might see them over there. Very nice if you achieved such a thing!

 

In MP it would be pretty easy to create some kind of a system that shows if an enemy aircraft has been detected in a particular grid square within the last X minutes, so that's also a kind of radar, I suppose.

 

27 minutes ago, Voyager said:

I also gather a large part of the LW air intercept was following the British radar altimeters back to the plane. Was the Mossie big enough to even carry one? Not having a glowing "Insert Cannon Here" sign also helps with sneakiness. 

Are you sure (genuine question)? I'd guess they'd only use their radio altimeters when they'd need the accuracy - i.e. close to the target. Close to the target it doesn't really matter since the enemy is gonna find out soon enough where you are from the fires below.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Are you sure (genuine question)? I'd guess they'd only use their radio altimeters when they'd need the accuracy - i.e. close to the target. Close to the target it doesn't really matter since the enemy is gonna find out soon enough where you are from the fires below.

 

No, they weren't carrying radio altimeters. It's quite simplistic, but the basic mode of interception was for the German ground radar to guide the fighters into the vicinity of the bombers, and then the onboard Luftwaffe aircraft radar would guide them in the rest of the way.

 

5 hours ago, Voyager said:

Radar during WWII was extremely primitive and not fully understood. I would expect operators of different levels of experience could get radically different results from the same sets and same returns. 

 

Eh, not quite - radar by 1945 was quite well understood and could be used to good effect. I have a few wartime radar manuals on my computer, and for the 1940s it was quite sophisticated. Heck, the US Navy was putting radar in the periscope heads of its fleet submarines by late 1944 (ST Radar).

Edited September 22, 2021 by LukeFF

[DD_Arthur]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

No, they weren't carrying radio altimeters. It's quite simplistic, but the basic mode of interception was for the German ground radar to guide the fighters into the vicinity of the bombers, and then the onboard Luftwaffe aircraft radar would guide them in the rest of the way.

 

The LW also went to great lengths to examine crashed bombers and recover their equipment.

This enabled them to fit their night fighters with devices to home in on H2S transmissions and Monica tail warning radar fitted to British bombers.

 

This only became apparent to the allies after a brand new JU88 night fighter landed at Woodbridge early one morning after an inexperienced crew flew the reciprocal of their correct course and delivered their state of the aircraft into allied hands.

 

This “ten percent” of  normal radar reflections I find very suspicious and sounds like a figure plucked out of thin air to me.

 

Mosquitos were difficult to intercept simply because when they entered German radar coverage they were already flying high and fast.

 

The best raid warning the LW had was by monitoring the tremendous amount of radio and H2S transmissions made by allied bombers on air test on the morning or afternoon prior to bombing raids.

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

This “ten percent” of  normal radar reflections I find very suspicious and sounds like a figure plucked out of thin air to me.

 

So you should, considering it comes from a post on the 'World of Warplanes' forum. 

 

http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/26743-dehavilland-mosquito-first-in-stealth/

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

The Monica TWR was also used by the US as a radio altimeter, so I guess it's technically true that the LW were tracking British emissions from a radio altimeter, it's just that wasn't the way it was fitted on British heavies.

 

As I understand it, this was most important as a stopgap capability after Mandrel jammers and Window crippled the effectiveness of GCI radars in setting up intercepts.

[sevenless]

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

This “ten percent” of  normal radar reflections I find very suspicious and sounds like a figure plucked out of thin air to me.

 

As mentioned with my Benett quote above. I wouldn´t buy that.

[Diggun]

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

The best raid warning the LW had was by monitoring the tremendous amount of radio and H2S transmissions made by allied bombers on air test on the morning or afternoon prior to bombing raids.

-... . ... - / -... . -. - / .-- .. .-. . / -... . ... - / -... . -. - / .-- .. .-. .

[cardboard_killer]

I'd guess that any day with acceptable weather was the best predictor of bombing attacks. The questions of where, when, how many, and at what altitude were probably more important.

[Gambit21]

20 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

For an attacker, you mean? 

 

No, for the player.

The same logic will work regardless of where you fly/where your waypoints are. 

 

Intruder missions etc were not based on waypoints as such, often they’d divert to secondary targets etc.

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, Diggun said:

-... . ... - / -... . -. - / .-- .. .-. . / -... . ... - / -... . -. - / .-- .. .-. .

 

This is the only Morse code I know:

 

-.-   ^.^   >.<

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

This is the only Morse code I know:

 

-.-   ^.^   >.<

 

I'm most familiar with

x.x

 

[Avimimus]

On 9/21/2021 at 8:59 PM, LukeFF said:

No, they weren't carrying radio altimeters. It's quite simplistic, but the basic mode of interception was for the German ground radar to guide the fighters into the vicinity of the bombers, and then the onboard Luftwaffe aircraft radar would guide them in the rest of the way.

 

Yeah... that is the dream of course - get ground control (e.g. for a Battle of Britain module)... then add in an on-board radar operator to guide the pilot in (for night fighters where the pilot didn't operate the radar - which was almost all of them)... and you have a night fighting module - that and a bunch of physics calculations on detection ? One can dream I suppose...

 

But I do find it interesting that the experience of the pilot was generally having someone on the comms guiding the plane verbally (whether that person was on the ground, a radar operator in the plane with you, or in an enemy plane messing with you).

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

Honestly I've always felt that there's enough difficulty in modelling night fighting and it requires sufficiently different gameplay from everything else out there that it's more worth building a night fighter sim from the ground up than it is trying to get it wedged into Il-2. You need a very good lighting engine, indifferent graphics for everything else, a vast map but really only one vast map, loads of electronic systems modelling, advanced multicrew, advanced crewmember AI, you can practically ignore dogfighting AI, flak/searchlights but no other ground units and no need for complex objects... It really isn't much like what we have, a low level tactical fighter/strike sim.

[Gambit21]

Somehow I doubt a nightfigher only product would pencil out very well.

[sevenless]

55 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Somehow I doubt a nightfigher only product would pencil out very well.

 

A niche within a niche-market. In other words commercial suicide as a flyable standalone B17, B24, Halifax or Lancaster sim would be. They were 7 hours in the air Berlin and back...Expanding flight-sim acitvities for intruders and interceptors in the dawn and dusk hours on the other hand would work, but not as a standalone product.