# Were Mosquito bombers underutilised in WW2?



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

There were a decent number of bomber Mosquito variants built during WW2, though a lot of them came later in the war.

Of the marks that were built during the war there were approximately 290 B.IVs, 400 B.XVIs, 245 B.XXs and 400 B.25s (Canadian production). That's 1335+ bombers.

Mosquitos were used in small daylight attacks from May 1942 to May 1943, before being switched to the pathfinder role for the heavies at night. Then Mosquitos were used to put on diversionary raids before evolving into the Light Night Strike Force, which put on its own raids, often not as diversions for other BC raids.

Do you think that bomber variants were underutilised during WW2?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2012)

Short answer, is yes in my opinion. With a crew of two, and a survivability about twic that of a four engined type, and a bombload about 1/3 that of the bigger geavies, but a sortie rate per night about double, you can deliver 2/3 the bombload with a given strike, with 25% of the crew, and 200% the survivability. Your force structure is going to double at about 4x the rate it does for a smilar lancaster force. There are other spinoffs....for example the germans will not be able to tell fighter versions from bomber versions.

Cricisms have regularly been raised that Mosquitoes somehow could not mount high level raids, could not ndertake area bombing raids. I have found none of this to be true.

So my opinion is that the brits could have had a real game changer if they had concentrated on Mosquito production over the bigger 4 engined heavies


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

Parsifal, would area bombing of cities been the best use of Mosquitos? Considering that they could potentially hit targets more accurately bombing from low level and/or during the day?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Parsifal, would area bombing of cities been the best use of Mosquitos? Considering that they could potentially hit targets more accurately bombing from low level and/or during the day?


area bombing in Mosquito , sounds really stupid it takes all the attributes of the DH98 and ruins them .


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Parsifal, would area bombing of cities been the best use of Mosquitos? Considering that they could potentially hit targets more accurately bombing from low level and/or during the day?




Im not sure if it was the best use, but it was certainly possible with an all Mosquito force.. mosquitoes were more adept at precision pinpoint bombing, so there is not as great a need for a Pointblank strategy. its possible (or do-able) but not as necessary.


----------



## davebender (Apr 15, 2012)

Why do you think so? 

I suspect a Lancaster level bomber @ 3,000 feet was just as accurate as a Mosquito level bomber @ 3,000 feet.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why do you think so?
> 
> I suspect a Lancaster level bomber @ 3,000 feet was just as accurate as a Mosquito level bomber @ 3,000 feet.



I suspect it is because the Mosquito was more manouevrable, and thus could make more precise corrections to course to better target the bombs. I also think that a Mosquito would be more likely to survive a bombing mission at 3000ft, be it day or night, than a Lancaster (or a B-17, for that matter).

Why 3000ft? Is that just a number for comparison purposes?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2012)

Lnacs were used for precision bombing througout their careers, but the proportions of sories undertaken in daylight, at precision targetsincreased as the war drew to a close. Traditionally, it was the Mosquito that were given the task of precision raids. I suspect for three reasons. Firstly the airframe was a very pleasant and stable flyer, making its flight characteristics inherently accurate. It was capble of glide bombing which further increased its accuracy. lastly its high survivavbility would have increased the confidence of the crews to complete their missions rather than drop the bombload nervously and innaccurately Crew confidence was a BIG part of bombing accuracy. And the mosquito crews could approach that task with bucket loads of confidence.


----------



## davebender (Apr 16, 2012)

That's more or less the minimum safe height if you don't want to get caught in your own bomb blast.


----------



## stona (Apr 16, 2012)

Lancasters carried out precision raids with weapons that a Mosquito simply couldn't carry.
Someone will have to explain to me why the Mosquito would be inherently a more accurate weapon than the Lancaster which could carry a much larger load.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Apr 16, 2012)

Perhaps we should start by determining what bomb sight was used by each aircraft type.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2012)

stona said:


> Lancasters carried out precision raids with weapons that a Mosquito simply couldn't carry.
> Someone will have to explain to me why the Mosquito would be inherently a more accurate weapon than the Lancaster which could carry a much larger load.
> Cheers
> Steve



Both airframes were accurate delivery systems, but on balance my suspicion is that the Mosquirto was an inherently more accurate bomber. Mosquitoes could approach divebombing techniques more closely than the lanc. Moreover, because they were more survivable, the crews would not have felt as compelled to drop the bombload and get out of Dodge to the same extent as the poor old lanc crews. On the one hand one could argue that higher top speed would reduce accuracy for the mossie, but I had trainers that served in Vietnam (Americans) that stated that the number one impediment to bombing accuracy was flak followed by weather. Increasing speed decreases the volume of flak, and its efectiveness. Reduce the volume and effectiveness of the flak, reduce the ability of the enemy CAP to respond, and you create the conditions for a more accurate bomb run.


----------



## davebender (Apr 16, 2012)

I suspect that 1960s bomb sights could compensate for high speed a lot better then WWII era bomb sights.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> I suspect that 1960s bomb sights could compensate for high speed a lot better then WWII era bomb sights.



Quite possibly, howeverr speed as an impediment to bombing accuracy is less of a problem than lack of speed in a high flak environment. Of the two issues in the accuracy equation speed has less impact than flak. Why can I say that? Because the RAF preferred to use Mosquitoes over Lancs for precision daylight raids over the lanc until the very end of the war.....and the Mossie delivered in that role far more effectively than any other allied bomber. its successes in precision attacks are generally accepted as outstanding.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Perhaps we should start by determining what bomb sight was used by each aircraft type.



Looks like most Lancasters used British built MkXIV bomb sights, and Mosquitos used Americanbuilt MkXIV bomb sights (Speryy T1)



> Although existing sources do not record when the Mk. XIV went into production in the UK, they do record that operational testing started in January 1942 and production examples started reaching squadrons in March. Its manufacture was done by small machine shops and instrument makers, and production was simply too slow to meet the demand. Between July and October, less than one hundred a month were being delivered. As the design was finalized, automated production was undertaken, and by mid-1943 900 a month were available. This was enough to equip the heavy bombers as they arrived from the production lines, and by late 1942 the Handley Page Halifax was being delivered with the sight head already installed.
> 
> To fill demand for other aircraft, and especially smaller ones like the de Havilland Mosquito, the Air Ministry started looking at US manufacturers to supply the bombsight. Frederic Blin Vose of Sperry Gyroscope expressed an interest in the design, and felt he could adapt the Mk. XIV to US production methods and have it in mass production rapidly.



Mark XIV bomb sight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Apr 17, 2012)

It appears to me this hand made bomb sight was preferred for precision work. The RAF installed it in Lancaster Bombers, not Mosquitos. That says a lot about the inherit accuracy of the Lancaster Bomber vs the Mosquito. 
Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> SABS was used operationally for the first time by No. 617 "Dambusters" Squadron on the night of 11/12 November 1943 for their attack on railway viaduct at Anthéor. No hits on the viaduct were recorded during this raid by any of the 10 Avro Lancasters dropping 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) Blockbuster bombs.[1]
> 
> 617 Squadron achieved an accuracy of 94 yd (86 m) at the V Weapon launch site at Abbeville on 16/17 December 1943.



86 meters is outstanding accuracy for a level bomber. Almost as good as the Ju-88A dive bomber which could place 50% of bombs within 50 meters of the aiming point.

Perhaps the RAF didn't need more Mosquito light bombers. What they needed were more accurate bomb sights for existing Lancaster Bombers plus a long range fighter aircraft to protect the bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

There weren't many aircraft fitted with the SABS.

And they were used mainly for weapons like the Tallboy and Grand Slam - which the Mosquito could not carry.

I don't know how much difference the SABS bom sight could have made at low level.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> It appears to me this hand made bomb sight was preferred for precision work. The RAF installed it in Lancaster Bombers, not Mosquitos. That says a lot about the inherit accuracy of the Lancaster Bomber vs the Mosquito.



Actually, no it doesn't.

It just highlights the emphasis on heavy bombers.

There is no data to suggest that the Mosquito was less accurate using the same bomb sights.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2012)

> 86 meters is outstanding accuracy for a level bomber. Almost as good as the Ju-88A dive bomber which could place 50% of bombs within 50 meters of the aiming point.



Essentially a meaningless number, because we dont know the percentage of bombs dropped that were within these parameter. I would argue that the mosquito operated to even closser accuracy tolerances, as evidenced by its extensive use against submarines (the hardest naval target to hit, because of the very small target area), and such operations as their attack on certain targets (requiring bomb accuracy tolerances of less than 20 yards for 100%. of the aircraft.

Put another way, in the flippant terms you are applying. Lancs and Ju88s are getting ther. With a little more effort and improvement, these aircraft might even start to approach the worst raids of the Mosquito, for accuracy. 



> Perhaps the RAF didn't need more Mosquito light bombers. What they needed were more accurate bomb sights for existing Lancaster Bombers plus a long range fighter aircraft to protect the bombers.



SABS wasnt used in maritime strike role by Mosquitoes, yet these were the most accurate attacks mounted by the RAF. SABS was a specialized piece of kit for a specific purpose(s). Not an instrument especially designed for accuracy. Its akin to saying all destroers should have been fitted with the 18m rangefinders fitted to battleships. DDs were more accurate in their fire and didnt have these larger rangefinders fitted (because they couldnt)....yet were still more accurate as delivery platforms


----------



## davebender (Apr 17, 2012)

Nor is there any data to suggest the Mosquito was more accurate then a Lancaster when attacking from the same altitude and using the same bomb sight. At least not any data that I've seen.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2012)

Further evidence of a circular, non-sequita argument to support a faulty position. There is no data on bombing accuracy, because reliable data for any aircraft for any nationality does not exist that is all encompassing or comprehensive. Anything of that nature, of any nationality should be treated very carefuly, because the variables relating to bombing accuracy are simply too many and too great 

The evidence that thje mosquito was an inherently more accurate bombing platform, necessarily has to take the form of surrogate measurement. There are so many variable, to the bombing accuracy issue, not just for Mosquitoes but for all aircraft that make such comparisons very difficult and not particularly useful. The best that you can hope for is to look at the general record, and the way the aircraft were used. Mosquitoes were precision bomber of the RAF, and by all accounts they were excellenet at it. Lancasters could also undertake this mission, unquestionably (as could the Ju88, provided the crews were competent and the mission not too difficult), but neither of these other aircraft ever undertook missions requiring the precision levels that the mosquito undertook that I know of, to the extent and sustained levels that Mosquitoes were asked to do.

As far as hard evidence is concerned, I recommend to you the report by Gp Captain Bennett to Harris supporting the adoption of the Mosquito as the principal type. He outlines that the Mosquito was at least twice as accurate as the Lanc especially at low level, cost less than a quarter per unit. had 25% of the manpower, and a loss rate of less than 1/3 that of the larger bomber. There were very sound reasons, other than the types high speed as to why it was the principal pathfinder aircraft in BC from September 1942 onward. Its a great pity that the RAF failed to listen to Bennet until after the war. 

I would also recommend the official BC website, wherein it gives figures on the tonnages needed to knock out a V1 site by each type employed. "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". (Lancasters needed over 140 tons to knock out each site) "The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons"!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

parsifal said:


> As far as hard evidence is concerned, I recommend to you the report by Gp Captain Bennett to Harris supporting the adoption of the Mosquito as the principal type. He outlines that the Mosquito was at least twice as accurate as the Lanc especially at low level, cost less than a quarter per unit. had 25% of the manpower, and a loss rate of less than 1/3 that of the larger bomber. There were very sound reasons, other than the types high speed as to why it was the principal pathfinder aircraft in BC from September 1942 onward. Its a great pity that the RAF failed to listen to Bennet until after the war.



I would very much like to see that report. Any idea where I could find a copy?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2012)

Please note also that FB Mosquitos were used on a lot of precision raids later in the war (bomber Mosquitos being assigned to nigh duties) and they didn't use the SABS or MkXIV bomb sights. Don't think they used bomb sights at all.


----------



## davebender (Apr 17, 2012)

Nonsense.

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within 30 meters of target.
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
Spring 1944 P-47. Medium flak. 50% within 300 feet of target.
SBD. 75% within a 250 foot circle.

I find it difficult to believe the RAF didn't tabulate bombing accuracy from training exercises and operational missions like Germany and the USA did. Where is that data for the Mosquito and Lancaster bomber?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2012)

None of those numbers are at all comparable, and remain meanigless, as i originally said. what is "an average pilot? What were the wweather conditions for each test? Were the tests undertaken under combat conditions, or in controlled test conditions. what were the altitudes of the various bombing runs. What were the visibility conditions. There are endless other variables not included. 

If there are test results for the lanc and the mosquito, I am not aware oif them. I am aware however that the Mosquito became the principal precision type of the RAF, whilst the Lanc didnt. i am aware that the Mosquito chalked some very impressive operational results, in excess of the results of all other types. so, whilst we probably dont have the actual reports you are looking fopr, we do have knowledge from the operational employment and results achieved, that ther Mosquito was the most accurate bomber of all the types employed by the RAF (BC that is). That shouldnt even be in debate....Mosquitoes were the main type of the PF force, whose primary objectives was to mark the target accurately. They did this without equal, from any nationality at any time in the war. Theres your proof of the accuracy of the type. its there, unnless you want o argue that night is day and the mosquito Pathfinders were not able to mark targets and aiming points accurately


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within 30 meters of target.
> Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
> ...



Clearly they did, as they had the Butt review (1942?) to look at the effectiveness of the night bombing campaign.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I would very much like to see that report. Any idea where I could find a copy?



tertiary source only Im afraid. But this is a start...

De Havilland Mosquito


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Clearly they did, as they had the Butt review (1942?) to look at the effectiveness of the night bombing campaign.



Yes agreed. I would even concede that accuracy of types had to have been tested at some stage. However the numbers quoted are not test results, because the test resulds are undertaken in completely different circumstances 

But report was a report into Force efficiency, not type or specific accuracy


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 18, 2012)

> Ju-87B.* Average pilots. *25% within 30 meters of target.
> Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
> 1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
> Spring 1944 P-47. Medium flak. 50% within 300 feet of target.
> SBD. 75% within a 250 foot circle.



Why overstate the Ju-87 accuracy but understate the P-47 by including flak affected accuracy? 
Why not include all the other relevant statistics from the dive bomber discussion - that you were a part of - in February?

Such as the post where you cited the Hyperwar data



> Ju87B-1 (the model in service in 1939-1940), "was to prove effective in the hands of *expert pilots*, who, in dives of eighty degrees to within 2,300 feet from the ground, *could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards*. Even *average pilots* could achieve a *twenty-five percent success rate *in hitting their targets



What's the definition of 'target' here? A 30-yard circle?
Also from the same thread



> Chris Bellamy’s ‘The evolution of modern land warfare: theory and practice’ says that a Ju-87 “in a dive could put 25% of their bombs in a 50 metre diameter circle”. (Pg 85)



And, then there is my next post:



> Some more information, gleaned from another forum:
> 
> "A study on of fighter-bomber attacks on bridges over the Savio River in Italy during the spring of 1944 found a sharp drop-off in bombing accuracy directly correlated with the intensity of flak fire. With no flak, P-47s could put half of their bombs within 180 feet of their target and required 30 bombs to score one hit. With medium flak, accuracy dropped to 300 feet, requiring 84 bombs per hit; with heavy flak, it was 420 feet and 164 bombs."
> 
> from Air Power by Stephen Budiansky



So, your table now looks like this:

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within a 50 m circle. 
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
P-47 CEP: 50% within 180 feet of target operating unopposed; 50% within 300 feet to medium flak opposition; 50% within 420 feet to heavy flak opposition
SBD: 75% within a 250 foot circle.

But, as always, there is more data to include.

From the same thread, we also had

Corsair: 68.2% within a 250 foot circle.

So, from FDR and the Holocaust by Berne W Newton, we have this paragraph on P 196



> In November 1944, the 1st Operation Analysis Section of Fifteenth Air Force reported on the relationship between altitude and bombing accuracy based on Mediterranean theatre experience. The Fifteenth's calculations showed that under good conditions, the Circular Error Probable at 15,000 feet of B-17s was 500 feet and that for B-24s about 515 feet. Put another way, under absolutely optimal conditions, one-half of bombs dropped would have fallen at distances greater than 500 feet from the aiming point.



Also there is foot note 60 from the same book, citing "A Study on the Bombing Accuracy of the USAAF Heavy and Medium Bombers in the ETO" dated 03-Nov-1945.

It found that the average CEP (ie 50% of bombs) on ten target complexes ranged between 825 and 1,175 feet. 

It also states that the average CEP of USAAF strategic bombers in Europe diminished from 3,400 ft in Jnauary 1943 to a rough average of 1,100 feet in 1944-1945. In the 15th AF, approximately 30% of bombs fell within 1,000 ft of the aiming point during 1944-1945. 

There is also a study entitled "Report No. 80 - Fighter/Bomber Accuracy, August 1944" - the report is "an attempt to evaluate the accuracy of bombing by fighter aircraft of the IX Tactical Air Command during Aug 1944" 

There is also this from Paul Gillespie's 'Weapons of Choice":



> Summing up the accuracy of his VIII Bomber Command's daylight bombing in the first year of the Combind Bomber Offensive, Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker noted that 10% of bombs fell dead on the aiming point, 25% within 250 yards, 40% within an area included in a circle with a radius of 500 yards and 90% within one mile



Some other data, from Air Power at The Battlefront by Ian Gooderson:

ORS 2TAF studied Typhoon fighter bomber attacks and found that in 37 rocket attacks, 33 (89%) of attacks were within 150 yards of the target. In 11 bomb attacks 5 (45%) were within 150 yards.

ORS 2TAF also studied Typhoon F/B accuracy between Oct-1944 and Apr-1945 and found an average radial error of 158 yards, with 50% of bombs falling within 130 yards of the target.

From the same study, 17 railway line targets were examined, with a total of 320 bombs dropped by Typhoons and Spitfires. It was found that the average line error was 69 yards, with on 50% of bombs falling within fifty yards either side of the target.

The book also has details of RAF heavy bombing attacks in Normandy, where the average standard deviation pattern was 620 yards and was found to be of a similar order for USAAF attacks. 

Between June and August 1943 Desert Air Force medium bombers were found to have an average radial error of 330 yards. In June 1944 the mediums of the Mediterranean Allied Tactical Air Force had an overall probable radial error of 170 yards. The author points out that to ensure a 95% change of hitting a 6,00 sq ft bridge target, the Desert Air Force would need 2,400 bombs, the MATAF would need 600.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2012)

parsifal said:


> tertiary source only Im afraid. But this is a start...
> 
> De Havilland Mosquito



Thanks.

I've seen similar before, but it would be great to see the originals.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2012)

I stand corrected. very impressive JW. were there any comments or conclusions in that discussion relating to the mosquito? If im reading the dialogue, attacks by the mediums of the DAF were placing an SD (standard deviation or roughly 68%) of the bombs within 180 yards of the target compred to about 660 yards for the high level heavies. i think one could expect low level mosquitoes to be be at least equal to other mediums operating at mid to low altitude. since it was hard work for a heavy to operate in a flak rich environment at low level, but more or less a standard days work for a medium or light to do this, the argument that the mosquito was a more accurate platform becomes pretty conclusive.


----------



## davebender (Apr 19, 2012)

We shouldn't need to rely on expectations. There's been plenty of time to tabulate bombing results for the Mosquito light bomber. Where is the historical data?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2012)

I don't have access to those records. Mhuxt might.

Do we count them as a whole, or specific mission profiles?

For instance, the low level day bombing raids had a higher degree of accuracy than the night bombers at high altitudes.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> We shouldn't need to rely on expectations. There's been plenty of time to tabulate bombing results for the Mosquito light bomber. Where is the historical data?



I dont know. But its a atrange way to mount a debate using a double negative, that mjuch i will give you. its typical of your style however, I would also say in passing. 

i do know that the mosquito was at times expected (an achieved) hits on moving submerging U-Boats. thats a target area of less than 20 square metres, or in the terms you want to express, a target radius of about 5m. this was against a moving target, often with heavy flak defences firing back. 

From November 1943, a total of 132 Mosquitoes were employed by Coastal Command on anti-shipping, of which I think 32 were directly employed on anti-uboat operation. from the Uboat.net site, the following data is provided

"From November 1943 on wards the Mosquito was also used to attack U-boats shortly after, or just before they entered a port. Warning of these opportunities was provided by code breakers. At that moment the U-boats travelled on the surface, and therefore were vulnerable to rockets or the 57mm shells of the FB.XVIII. For safety, the U-boats usually formed small convoys, with an escort of mine sweepers or so called Sperrbrecher ships, which had hulls reinforced with concrete as a protection against mines; both types bristled with anti-aircraft guns. For example, on 27 March 1944 six FB.VIs and two FB.XVIIIs attacked a convoy towards La Pallice, formed by U-960 with a escort of four M-class mine sweepers and two Sprerrbrecher vessels. Three mine sweepers suffered light damage, U-960 was badly damaged, two Mosquitos returned home with serious damage, and one crash-landed. 

U-boats sunk by this aircraft

1944
U-976, U-821 +, U-998, 
1945
U-804, U-843, U-1065, U-251 +, U-2359 +, 

8 U-boats lost to Mosquito aircraft. + means that the Mosquito shared the credit for the sinking.

What isnt shown in these figures are the very large numbers of U-boats hit, but only damaged. This happened often, largely because the U-Boats were close to their home bases and could limp back to port damaged. I have sources at home that suggest these 30 or so aircraft emplyed in these operations damaged several hundred U-Boats in this way. No other type, allied or Axis could come even close to that level of efficiency. 

In addition, the remainder of the Coastal Command nosquitoes, ihn conjunction with Beaufighters also used in the anti-shipping role, were responsible for the sinking or disabling of nearly 500000 tons of German controlled shipping. I am unsure how much italian shipping (oir shipping in the Med) they were responsible for. 

Against land targets, I know of at least one occasion where Mosquito bombers were called upon (with no special trainng for the crews) to hit a target where the margin for error was less than 10m. The squadron pulled the mission off without a hitch.

In australia, Mosquitoes were legendary in the post war era for their accuracy. I was trained by guys that used them in the early parts of their careers. According to these old timers, there was no other aircraft of a similar vintage in any allied inventory that could come close to the Mosquito for accuracy. you know what, thats good enough for me, since these guys never gave me bad advice on anything that we looked at. 

Mosquitoes were an exceptionally accurate delivery system for offensive ordinance, whatever that ordinance was.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 20, 2012)

Found two references to Mosquito bombing accuracy. 

The first is from ‘The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare’ by Michael Russell Rip, James M. Hasik and gives the Mosquito a CEP of 137 m on a attack against a German night fighter control building at Florennes, using Oboe. Some more research on the subject found the drop height was 18,000 ft, carried out by B Mk VIs. No indication as to what type of bombs though.

The second is from the British Bombing Survey Unit which gives an average bombing error of “about 130 yards” for pathfinder Mosquitoes within Oboe range (roughly 250 miles). No mention of average drop heights though.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2012)

in fact U-boat.net gives a very innaccurate snapshot of the precision bombing capabilities of the Mosquito. 



The following are some examples:

On the 29th November 1943, Flying officer Woodcock engaged a single U-Boat firing a total of eight 57mm rounds. The U-Boat reported two hits from cannon fire, and near misses from depth charges that were also dropped on it. It was heavily damged, remainng out of service for eight months. 

on the 5th April 1944, the "Banf" wing of 37 a/c got 32 airborne in a devastating strike on German shipping. They were escorted by FB VIs of 333 Sqn. despite being intercepted by nearly 50 LW aircraft (17 of which were confirmed losses from OKL records), there were no combat losses to either the strike wing or the escort. The strike group sank all five merchantmen (estimated tonage was 25000 GRT) as well as all 5 escorts. There were a total of 15 bomb hits and numerous (20+) rocket hits, and an unknown number (but numerous) hits from the Molins guns on these targets. Accuracy was in excess of 50% on these targets, which were all underway at the time. i estimate bombing accuracy to be at least 50% within a target radius of less than 20m.

In that raid over 900 wehrmacht soldiers were killed incidentally as well as several hundred KM sailors. It was a major defeat for the Germans . 

On the 9th April 1944, 34 aircraft of 248, 243 and 135 sqns hit 3 surfaced u-boats in the Kattegat, U1065 and U 806 were sunk almost immediately, with heavy loss of life, when hit by no less than 70 RPs (these figures are based on KM sources). One of the PR Mossies was lost when one of these U-boats blew up as it was being photographed.

The other u-boat , U-843 was lost a few minutes later by the efforts of just two mosquitoes piloted by FOs Rawlins and Randall, using a combination of rockets, bombs and 57mm cannon fire.

To cap all this off some of the formation returned with ordinance unexpended. I have read that for this strike ther were 4 or 5 PR attached, and 4 or 5 a/c with unused ordinance. that means that about 20 a/c destroyed 3 U-Boats, or about 6 a/c per sinking. thats unparralleled by anyone.

On the 2 May a mixed fighter/bomber force of 22 aircraft, led by SL Deck sank one U-Boat and damaged another 9this U-Boat never put to sea again). Again aircraft returned without ordinance expended, and as CAP was expected, at least half the force were configured as fighters. That means that about 5 aircraft per kill were needed. thats a better performance than we could do 30 years later usiing Grummans. And they were using unguided weapons whilst we were using guided hi-tech weaponary.

On the 19 December 1944, meiktala (not sure of the spelling...but its in burma) aerodrome was hit and knocked out. Flak was described as moderate to heavy For some reason, the target was the control tower and nothing else. Two aircraft attacked at night, using blind bombing techniques. Each aircraft carried just 2 x 500lb bombs. PR undertaken the next day showed the the target completely destroyed, and a very large hole where the building had been before the raid. Initially it was believed that there had been just one bomb hit, until it was realized that all four bombs had hit the same spot......the exact aiming point the target itself. For the record, using this cockamamy "bombing accuracy" rubbish , that equates to a 100% hit rate within 20m of the target (the standard crater size of a 500 lb bomb). 

To lessen the chances of saying this is a fluke, the same results were achieved the day before and the day after when attacks on railway bridges at alor star and saye kinu were attacked and completely destroyed by a similar number of aircraft each time. There were no multiple craters....every bomb had hit into the same crater. 

If these examples dont demonstrate just how accurate the mosquito was as a bomber i dont know what will convince people.


----------



## davebender (Apr 20, 2012)

Any aircraft could navigate with Oboe including Lancaster bombers. This has nothing to do with Mosquito ability to put bombs on a target smaller then a city.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 20, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> The first is from ‘The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare’ by Michael Russell Rip, James M. Hasik and gives the Mosquito a CEP of 137 m on a attack against a German night fighter control building at Florennes, using Oboe. Some more research on the subject found the drop height was 18,000 ft, carried out by B Mk VIs. No indication as to what type of bombs though.



The bombs were probably taregt indicators.

What type of Mosquito was it? B.IV or B.XVI? No such thing as a B.VI.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> Any aircraft could navigate with Oboe including Lancaster bombers. This has nothing to do with Mosquito ability to put bombs on a target smaller then a city.



Lancasters couldn't fly as high as Mosquitos, so the range of Oboe was much more limited when using them.


----------



## davebender (Apr 20, 2012)

That has no bearing if we are talking about precision bombing using unguided weapons. Bomb release will happen no higher then 10,000 feet, and probably a lot lower.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> That has no bearing if we are talking about precision bombing using unguided weapons. Bomb release will happen no higher then 10,000 feet, and probably a lot lower.



Don't think the RAF bombed at 10,000ft since the days of the Manchester.

Real precision bombing would be done at very low level I'm sure.


----------



## davebender (Apr 21, 2012)

Bomb release is likely to be around 3,000 feet but the attack may start from a higher altitude. It depends on the aircraft. Some handled dive bombing better then others.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2012)

Low level Mosquito bombing was not doen at 3000ft. It was somewhat lower than that.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2012)

A lot lower, occasionally as low as 100 feet


----------



## Freebird (Apr 22, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Parsifal, would area bombing of cities been the best use of Mosquitos? Considering that they could potentially hit targets more accurately bombing from low level and/or during the day?


 


davebender said:


> Perhaps the RAF didn't need more Mosquito light bombers. What they needed were more accurate bomb sights for existing Lancaster Bombers plus a long range fighter aircraft to protect the bombers.


 
There is another possibility too, that the Mossies could be used as diversionary targets, to split the LW N fighter defences.

If you had several groups of Mossies flying out to different cities at the same time as the main (Lanc) raid it forces the LW to try to intercept multiple raids, as they can't tell which is the primary, so your heavy bombers are only facing a fraction of the NF.

Another tactic that was suggested was to have small groups of Mossies raid multiple targets strictly for nuisance value, it was suggested (by the Air Ministry) that a dozen or so Mossies caused a large disruption for little chance of loss.
Even a small raid would result in 10's of thousands of people woken up and sent to air raid shelters, NF scrambled, AA personnel mustered and ammunition wasted.
I've read that it takes at least 5,000 - 10,000 AA shells to bring down a bomber, so the Axis are using up resources to make guns ammo that won't be used on the Eastern front. Meanwhile, the Mossie flying at a much higher altitude has a lower vulnerabilty to the flak.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 22, 2012)

freebird said:


> There is another possibility too, that the Mossies could be used as diversionary targets, to split the LW N fighter defences.



The Light Night Striking Force was formed to do that very task.


----------



## Freebird (Apr 22, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The Light Night Striking Force was formed to do that very task.



Indeed, and it would have been a far better utilization of resources to concentrate on this type of night attack from mid '41 to mid '42,


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2012)

freebird said:


> Indeed, and it would have been a far better utilization of resources to concentrate on this type of night attack from mid '41 to mid '42,



Did the poms posses that capability mid-war. once they did acquire those skills, the mosquito squadrons tore into the LW Nfs mercilessly, ill grant you, but im not sure they could do the same earlier than they did


----------

