# Mosquito better than B-17?????



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

As far as I know, it seems that, in terms of speed and of crash rate, Mosquito 
had much beeter record than all other bombers, including the famous B-17.

So, why Allies decided to choose B-17 over Mosquito?
and why B-17 is QUEEEN of Bombers?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Huh ?

The B-17 is a large Bomber, and the Mosquito is a Bomber-interceptor or nighfighter !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

B-17 isnt Queen of Bombers, B-29 is  Well the Lancaster was better than both in the real world 

Well the Mossie was British, and The B-17 was American, and it would make more sense for the USAAF to use their bomber rather than the British. Besides, Mosquito's were very good at other roles besides bombing and were being used for other duties (nightfighting, recon etc), and nearly twice the amount of B-17's were built compared to the Mossie and were more readily available. I agree using the Mossie would have made more sense but it wasnt the practical thing to do.


Welcome to the site as well


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Soren, the Mossie could carry almost the same load as the B-17 normally carried the same distance, and much faster


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Well the B-17 could carry good load more bombs !! Thats why it was used more for bombing than the Mossie !


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

What !! We are talking about the same mosquito here right ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yep, B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster  

Yes, in terms of maximum the B-17 could carry 17,600lbs, but not very far.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Yes thats right. I just thought you meant they had the same bomb load, wich they certainly havent


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

No that would just be stupid


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah you can say that again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

actually it wasn't uncommon for B-17s to carry a meer 2,000lbs to berlin, but the most common load was 6,000lbs...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 17, 2005)

I don't think a B-17 could carry a cookie to Berlin TWICE in one night though, I can think of a plane that could cough*mossie*cough


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

and the mossie was just as accurate by night than the B-17 was by day.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 17, 2005)

and it wasn't made out of essential war materials, it was the wooden wonder


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

fewer crew lost if, in the unlikely event, one was shot down..........


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

"Mossie could carry almost the same load as the B-17 normally carried the same distance, and much faster"

Ya, I too found that statement from some website regarding of Mossie's bomb load. But, it seems unbelievable. I meant, B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two. 

Here is what I found from RAF History on Mosquito:

"An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons!"

So, from this view, does it means that Mosquitor was much superior and technological advanced to any other bomber in WWII? Since Mosquito already qualifies several components of modern bombers: fly with high speed, solo mission, long distance, and most importantly all, the precise bombing.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 17, 2005)

Other mosquito variants would be night escorts, shooting down and german nightfighters and providing tactical and weather reconnaisance


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

> B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two.



but remember the mossie was much lighter so didn't need more engines..........

and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads...............


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

"and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads......"

I agree. And it seems also that whereas B-17 suffered tremendously in air until the arrival of P-51, the Mosquito was capable of conducting solo operation without accompanying fighters to safeguard itself from enemies' planes.

(MM.......something tells me that B-17 wasnt a good plane after all....)

In comparison with Mosquite's bombing record, how effect was B-17's role in strategic bombing?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

You are really comapring apples to oranges. Yes, the mosquito did fly solo missions against small targets, but large industrial targets required a large formation of aircraft with a large amount of bombs. 

Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well. 

The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 17, 2005)

Pathfinder mosquito's did very well as bombers, the LNSF very rarely lost aircraft either


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

"but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well. "

But cheddar cheese already stated that "B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster"

So, even in large bombing operation, I think a pack of Mossie can handle the job beautifually.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> You are really comapring apples to oranges. Yes, the mosquito did fly solo missions against small targets, but large industrial targets required a large formation of aircraft with a large amount of bombs.
> 
> Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well.
> 
> The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.



Well said


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah, comparing the 2 aircraft is a little silly. But It does show that the Mossie was a good bomber.

However, if there was a large formation of Mossies attacking a target, and Some 190's were scrambled to intercept them, the Bombers would turn into fighters and have to take out the 190's, correct? Thus meaning that the bombload would not be able to be dropped. In the same situation with the B-17, the escort fighters would take out the 190's and the bombers would bomb. It was far more logical to use the B-17 than the Mossie, which is the question in hand. Also, it was the combined day and night bombing the harmed Germany so much, and if the Mossie was used it would more than likely be at night, meaning there would be no daylight bombing.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

How about if we compare B-17 and Lancaster?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Oooo thats been done  Lancaster wins every time.

B-17 v Halifax might be interesting...


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Are you looking for an honest comparison, or are you just trying to find a way to bash the B-17?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Im not looking for a way to bash the B-17...I love the plane, but I dont think it was as good as the Lancaster. It was probably better than the Halifax though, and I dont know what else to compare it too.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

ya, can someone tell me why Lancaster is so great? even the Discovery Channel ranked it as the best bomber in WWII

http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=26

In terms of defense, B-17 was the best, so what made Lancaster special?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

That question was for Chiron, CC.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah sorry.

Well the Lancaster flew night missions as opposed to the B-17 during the day. Also, the Lancaster had a MUCH higher payload and was MUCH more manoeverable. The Lancaster's also tended to fly in smaller groups than the B-17's. Granted, it was not as tough but it did not need to be.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

I think the Lancaster vs. B-17 debate has been over-debated. They both had their advantages and disadvantages and I honestly like them both. I would have loved to have seen the Sally B and the Lanc fly together when I was over there. They often both flew at the air shows I attended, but not together. I think that woud have been cool.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

"are you just trying to find a way to bash the B-17?"

No, actually I like B-17 as much as I love all the bombers. I just want to know every bomber's advantage and its disadvange being a role in strategic bombing in WW2. And I want to know why some bomers were much capable of conducting some missions, while other did not.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Okay, the way you worded a few things made me wonder. No offense was meant. The B-17 design and thinking at the time was that a well armed bomber would not be as vulnerable to enemy fire as they couls shoot back. Obviously that wasn't quite the case. Shooting back is one thing, being able to outmanuever and get away from the attacker is quite obviously another.

The B-17 could take substantial damage and make it back home. Granted, the planes could be damaged bad enough to be a write-off, but the crew could get another plane and fight on. The Lancaster was the heavyweight in Europe and was one heck of an aircraft as well. They both performed a hell of a job under the worst of conditions.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Agreed on all counts.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

The problem with debating like aircraft is that you will have devout fans of each type that will heartily argue that the plane they love is better than the other. The reality is that during the time, both types performed their roles as they were able to. This goes for the Fortress vs Lanc, Lightning vs Mosquito, etc. In both of those cases, I like them both and wouldn't think one "better" than the other.

By the way, speaking of that, I am 2 weeks away from getting my Mahogany P-38! I have a Mahogany Mossie already, so now I can put them side by side.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Nice! 8) Make sure the P-38 is on show more, and that its on a higher shelf


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Agreed on all counts.



I Agree as well. What isn't always mentioned is that the B-17 was designed in 1935/36 to fight it's way in and back out that itr was able to do as well 9 years later against a foe a generation ahead (or was it two by that time?) is increadible.

The Lanc a generation ahead of the B-17 was designed for night bombing and did an exceptional job at it. 

Hand in hand they were great and did the job they were there to do!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Heh, I am going to have a challenge just fitting it in with the others! I have a Mahogany Stuka and Corsair in there as well as some smaller metal WWII birds! I think I'm gonna need a bigger displlay case.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Nice! 8) Make sure the P-38 is on show more, and that its on a higher shelf



I did just get a Phantom Mustang model. It's got a clear shell that shows all the inner workings and motors that spin the prop and operate the landing gear. It is a limited edition that is no longer produced but is sometimes available on ebay.

The P-38 is my favorite but this is still cool.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Me too. Theres no way im going to fit all my models in my room


----------



## Chiron (Feb 17, 2005)

Nice info. Thanks. I bought the Fly Journal last month, which was the special edition devoted fully on B-17. One thing that I still had hard time to grasp is that before the appearance of P-51, why didnt US Air Force came up any solution to safeguard the B-17's vulnerability against fighters during bombing? I meant several B-17 veterans had commented on how dangerious was the condition of thier planes without P-51 around. 

Why so late? Thats why I had heard some academics (although they are Birtish) had commented that Mosquito should be in the forefront of strategic bombing, not B-17.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

That does sound cool, wmaxt!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Heh, I am going to have a challenge just fitting it in with the others! I have a Mahogany Stuka and Corsair in there as well as some smaller metal WWII birds! I think I'm gonna need a bigger displlay case.


Sounds like quite a collection! In fact, I think I remember some pics you've posted of part of it.
Myself, I have need for a larger case for my collection of WWII soldiers. (they are *not* dolls!  ) They look a bit silly standing amongst my wife's Barbie collection.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Well, part of the problem in those days was that many fighters simply did not have the range to escort the bombers deep into Germany and back. The P-38 did though, and for awhile, it did escort. It would have been an interesting experiment to fly the B-17 with the Mossie flying escort. That would have been doable early in the war, but I think it was a question of available aircraft versus missions to fly. 

There were American units that flew the Mossie though. I know I posted a pic of one a while back in one of these threads.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

The Americans had a chance to build Mossies but decided against doing so, iirc.

Where does this 6000lb come from for the Mossie? 

The normal load to Berlin for the B-17 was 5000lb, mostly 500lb and some 1000lb. These are good for structures but not good at destroying machinery as invesitigations by the Allies and the Germans found.

Even loaded with a cookie[/i] the Mossie cruised 1/2 again as fast as the B-17. Makes it harder to intercept and it spends less time over enemy territory. When attacking a target, the speed would be near twice that of the B-17. The P-51s would have an easier time escorting Mossies because of the higher cruise speed. If shot down, only 2 are lost compared to 10-11 in the B-17. Mossies would not fly in a 'horde' like the B-17 but individual squadron or wing formations spreading out the LW defences. Mossies would simply overwhelm the LW.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2005)

Chiron said:


> Nice info. Thanks. I bought the Fly Journal last month, which was the special edition devoted fully on B-17. One thing that I still had hard time to grasp is that before the appearance of P-51, why didnt US Air Force came up any solution to safeguard the B-17's vulnerability against fighters during bombing? I meant several B-17 veterans had commented on how dangerious was the condition of thier planes without P-51 around.
> 
> Why so late? Thats why I had heard some academics (although they are Birtish) had commented that Mosquito should be in the forefront of strategic bombing, not B-17.



Part of it was political the AAF had set it's reputation on the self defending bomber then found out it couldn't. The sad thing was that in the METO and the PTO the P-38 was flying up to 1500 mile (RT) escort missions at the same time the 8th Air Force was tacking such heavy losses. When the P-38s started escorting inOctober '43 the losses dropped from 9/10% per mission to 4/5% per mission a number never surpassed by the thousands of P-51s that came later.
The P-38s had serious problems at first they were inexperianced,out numbered against experianced foe, with a plane that needed to be adapted to the job of high altitude -60 degree cold and 5-7 hour missions.
The P-51 came along and due mostly to cost and availability became the prime fighter. The P-38 was phased out of escort in the ETO by November '44. The P-38 is not mentioned much because of it's early trouble but mostly because it's politicaly incorrect timimg - if used earlier it could have saved many allied aircrew. When the P-51 came along they could and did say "nothing was available, when it was we used it".


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

I know what you mean, NS. My wife is an avid Barbie collector as well. My birds help offset all those pink boxes! Let her know that GI Joe was way more cool that that girly Ken!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

Sorry for going OT but Evan here is a wooden model or two for you.











More at http://ggi.cool.ne.jp/solid/


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Good points, KK and wmaxt. I agree. The other major problem with the P-38 at the altitudes over Europe was that the cockpit was not heated. Coupled with the fact that often the P-38 would not reach optimal operating temperature before hitting the cold air at altitude put a strain on the engine. It was also noted that the fuel octane and lead separated at high altitiude which caused valve failures. The P-38 did what it could, and it could escort the bombers to Germany and back, but they were not the best airplane for the job.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Nice KK! I have been collecting the ones that are already put together and painted up, like the ones on http://www.warplanes.com/index.cfm. I am also building a couple of balsa models (Spitfire now, P-40 later). The Spitfire has a 27 inch wingspan! I will probably hang that from the ceiling.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

Those are great models!


----------



## Chiron (Feb 19, 2005)

According to Canada Aviation Museum, the Mosquito can carry the same bomb load as the B-17, but with longer range and of course much faster.

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/collections/artifacts/aircraft/deHavillandDH98MosquitoBXX.shtml


----------



## NightHawk (Feb 19, 2005)

Heres a site i found about the "Mosquito, The timber terror"
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/ww2-allied/mosquito.htm


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep, B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster
> 
> Yes, in terms of maximum the B-17 could carry 17,600lbs, but not very far.



No. The Mossie could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs any distance (say Berlin). The B-17 could typically carry about 6,000 lbs of bombs the same distance, but often less were carried because of the difficulties of forming up.

The missions were different. The Mossie was good for precision strikes, the B-17 for taking it to the enemy in massive formations. It's silly to compare the two.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

That makes sense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

i'll admit it is a bit silly to compare the two although it is interesting...........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The missions were different. The Mossie was good for precision strikes, the B-17 for taking it to the enemy in massive formations. It's silly to compare the two.



True if you don't care about all the collateral damage and still leave the target reletively undestroyed. The 'Black Thursday' ball bearing raid is an example since the factories were back to full production in a few weeks after clearing away all the debri. The Mossie's 4000lb cookie would have destroyed the machinery which the 500lb and 1000lb American bombs could not do.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Me too. Theres no way im going to fit all my models in my room



Think yourself lucky, I'm running out of ceiling!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 19, 2005)

The Mosquito was a great plane but it was NOT the end all be all. It was by nature low production, each aircraft was coustom fitted for each job it had to do and it was not very rugged again by nature. It was not strong or manuverable enough to be an escort fighter or armed and rugged enough to be a daylite bomber the way a B-17 bomber was.
*This is not to put the Mossie down it wasn't designed to go there* 
It's high lights were Photo Recon, Limited attack raids (single or small groups low level strikes. Night prefered), Pathfinder, and Night Fighter. The P-38 was a better fighter, Not as good on night or long distance strike attack, and as good or better for the rest. More to the point while the P-38 had some dedicated planes like the Droop snoot (both with and without radar) Photo and some night fighters (and these could do other jobs if desired) they, ALL P-38s could do any of the jobs asked of it. THATS important in the field where there isn't time to order up a mew plane every time something new comes up!

I honestly think the P-38J/Ls were the best fighters with the widest range of capabilities in WWII, I also think it was the most versatile of the war. I do not think it was the only good plane or that it could do everything that needed to be done!

This contention that the Mossie could replace every other plane that has ever flown is ridiculous. It was a great plane in it's designed/manufactered roles.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 19, 2005)

Oh dear, Chiron has opened this tin of worms again....what fun !!

Chiron, the Mosquito was a superb and unique aircraft, in ALL the roles it flew in, it became a LEGEND with the service it performed.....don't let anyone tell you different......

It's probably not fair to compare these two aircraft, the only thing they had in common, was they both carried roughly the same bomb weight into Germany.....

You should perhaps check back into some of the older topic postings, and you will find how this topic on the Mosquito has been ''discussed''....but you can take my word for it, the Mosquito was a dynamic and integral component to Germany's downfall........


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 19, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Oh dear, Chiron has opened this tin of worms again....what fun !!
> 
> Chiron, the Mosquito was a superb and unique aircraft, in ALL the roles it flew in, it became a LEGEND with the service it performed.....don't let anyone tell you different......
> 
> ...



I agree it was a great plane with a versatile airframe though the individual planes were pretty much limited to the rolls they were built to perform. That in no way tarnishes it's contributions.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The missions were different. The Mossie was good for precision strikes, the B-17 for taking it to the enemy in massive formations. It's silly to compare the two.
> ...



That was not the problem. The problem was that a ball bearing plant was a very hard target to destroy. The nature of the machinery was that nothing short of a direct hit was going to actually destroy it, and there was no way to tell where within the plant the machinery really was to a sufficent degree to target it. And B-17's could and did carry 2000 lbs bombs on occassion, and a 1000 lbs bomb was pleanty if it hit the machinery (or nearby). Targeting Schwinefurt was a mistake and this was realized and more appropriate targets, such as aircraft factories and fuel production facilities was adopted.

The problem with the idea that Mossies could have done the job the B-17's did is that it fails to consider the German response. Had the Allies concentrated their resources on bombers which had to go low to be effective, the Germans would have responded with better low-altitude interceptors, which are much easier to build. And AA defenses would likewise have been adjusted, and within a relatively short time bomber losses would have been excessive. The whole idea of the US daylight bombing campaign was not only to destroy targets on the ground, but also to destroy the Luftwaffe' by forcing it to engage in a resource hungry fight which German industry could not sustain.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 19, 2005)

After the 8th had attacked Schweinfurt 16 Oct. 1943, Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, reviewed the ball-bearing position and found that German Industry, fearing there would be a shortage, had so over-ordered that they had sufficent stocks to last them 6-12 months....

The Schweinfurt raid essentially failed because as soon as their escort left, the Luftwaffe fighters pounced and harassed them there and back....it was significant then, that without a long-range escort, deep-penetration in daylight was suicidal...the 8th withdrew then to regroup.....


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

The B-17G had a 17,600lb bomb load.It also had two 0.5in machine guns in the chin turret, one 0.5in machine gun in each cheek position, two 0.5in trainable machine guns in the dorsal turret, one 0.5in machine gun in roof position, two 0.5in machine guns in the ventral turret, one 0.5in machine gun in each waist position, and two 0.5in trainable machine guns in the tail turret.


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

Thats a really pretty pic Bounty
I agree with R G Loony I don,t think you can really compare a heavy bomber with a light bomber different tools for different jobs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Yeah thats a great pic, I also have that one on my computer 8)


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

Big head


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Nah, I have lots of pictures 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

thing is bounty the mossie didn't need all those guns...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

He didnt say it did...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

well there's no point in saying it if he's not trying to say it was better as it was better armed...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I dont think he was championing either plane, just giving a description of the Fort.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

i've notised he's done that with many planes now, it's quite good that someone's going round doing that really, anyone new to the subject gets a bitof info on the planes talk about and can participate more in the discussion................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Yep...


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Jan 15, 2020)

The B-17 and Mosquito were equally fantastic. The B-17 was one of the epitomizations of the air raids over Germany in WW2, while the De Havilland Mosquito was a jack of all trades like the Junkers Ju 88, doubling as a light bomber, night figher, fighter-bomber, maritime strike plane, and reconnaissance plane.


----------

