# 8th Air Force use of Mosquitoes



## gjs238 (Jul 14, 2011)

Would the 8th Air Force have been better off using Mosquitoes, particularly when operations were suspended due to unsustainable losses?

Were Mosquitoes ever tried or contemplated?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 14, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Would the 8th Air Force have been better off using Mosquitoes, particularly when operations were suspended due to unsustainable losses?
> 
> Were Mosquitoes ever tried or contemplated?


 
I dont think they could be considered really. Firstly you cant just produce 2000 mosquitos in a few months. The mosquito was great for small precision raids but a massed formation would have been just as vulnerable as a B17. I think both sides missed a chance with the mosquito as a concept. If NAA were asked to design the B 25 without defensive armament and the aerodynamics of a P51 they could have brought something very different to the conflict.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2011)

For what purpose? U.S. 8th Air Force didn't need a night fighter. Nor did they need a light bomber to replace American made A-20s and A-26s.


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2011)

An interesting aside the official position of the USAAF was that the Mosquito was unsuitable as a daylight bomber. So they wouldn't have used it anyway.
That I should add was not the view of those who had to fly the aircraft, but the official view. The 8th Airforce normally used the Mosquito for weather recce and/or checking the weather over the targets so the main bomber forces could go for the secondary targets at an earlier stage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2011)

There seems to be a rather bigger difference in bomb load than most people acknowledge. The Mosquito could only carry four 500lbs unless fitted with bulged bomb bay doors which allow for a Single 4000lb bomb. The Mosquito could not carry four 1000lb bombs or eight 500lbs or even six 500lbs (unless tow were under wing which tends to cut into the performance somewhat), A rack was developed which allowed six 500lb bombs in the bomb bay it was seldom used or fitted apparently. 

While many sources claim the B-17 could only carry 4,000lb to Berlin this actually seems to be an "average" bomb load with 5,000lbs actually being quite common, ten 500lb bombs or five 1000lbs. A number of planes, usually divided by squadrons or groups carried large quantities of incendiary bombs. These bulkier bombs cut the load to just over 3,000lbs per plane and may be the reason for the 4,000lb "average". 

The idea that a single Mosquito could do the job of a single B-17 doesn't seem to hold up well. I don't know what ratio of Mosquitoes to B-17s would be needed to get the same bomb tonnage onto target "areas".


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2011)

The U.S. Army Air Corps was ruled by heavy bomber proponents. Any officer who proposed replacing B-17s with light bombers would likely get posted to a weather station in Greenland.

Aside from that, what advantage does the British made Mosquito have over the American made A-26?

*Mosquito Mk XVI.*
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10,700 lbs total payload (max weight less empty weight)
4,000 lbs bomb load.


*A-26B.*
Douglas A-26 Invader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
12,150 lbs total payload (max weight less empty weight)
4,000 lb bomb bay. An additional 2,000 lbs of bombs or fuel may be carried on wing hardpoints.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2011)

I have just shown that the Mosquito could NOT do the job of a B-17. If you think it can please post numbers from actual raids or manuals. 

See this website for actual operations by B-17s

303rd BGA Combat Missions and Reports

The Mosquito was an amazing aircraft that could do a number of jobs and could perform some bombing missions that a B-17 had no hope of performing, but this notion that that Mosquitoes could have replaced B-17s on anything approaching a 1 for 1 basis needs a complete rethink. 

AS for the a Comparison of wiki, entries, it is barely worth looking at except to note how little it actual tells us. In order to truly compare bombers you need to know what bomb load they could carry over what radius at what speed. Comparing max bomb loads or max ranges or max speeds presents way too little of the total picture. as does just listing a maximum weight of bombs. As noted the Mosquito was sort of an either/or aircraft. either 2000lbs inside (four 500lbs) or a single 4,000lb bomb. there was no option to carry 1000 bombs or 1600lb bombs or even eight 250lb bombs. 
The B-26 may have limitations also, I don't know what they are at this point but any real discussion of the capabilities needs more than wiki is giving us.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2011)

It is an interesting concept. At the time that this would have been contemplated (mid 1943) there were, perhaps, 400 BIV Mosquitoes built, some BIXs (92 built in 1943) and a few FBVIs (IIRC production of these started late '42/early '43). The BIV had a maximum bomb load of 2000lb, and I don't believe that they were capable of carrying wing ordinance. The BIX had the strengthened basic wing of the FBVI which allowed the use of external stores/fuel.

The 8thAF didn't have many more B-17s/B-24s than there were Mosquitoes available at that time, but the production rate back home was much higher.

Not sure how many of the BIVs that had been built were in use by the British at that time either. I know of 105 and 139 squadrons, but not sure about any others.

The conversion to use the 4000lb cookie wasn't tested untill later in 1943, and the Avro carrier must have come later than that. I don't believe that the Avro carrier/6 x 500lb combination was ver used in combat, mainly because of the RAF's infatuation with the 4000lb HC bomb.

Using the Mosquito in massed formations like those of the B-17s would have been suicide. The formations used by the 8th AF was all about mutual defensive fire, and was designed to give maximum protection. As the Mosquito was unarmed the formation gave no benefit. The downside was, of course, that B-17s had to fly quite slowly to maintain that formation, and flying the same formation in Mosquitoes would completely negate its own defence - speed.

The other problem with the defensive formation was bombing accuracy. It was quickly determined that for all bombers to bomb accurately it required individual bomb runs. Which required a long straight approach. And presented teh defenders with great targets. The solution, devised by Le May, was for the bombers to remain in formation and bmb on cue from the master bomber. Thus, by definition, the bombs fell over a wide and long area. Essentially carpet bombing.

A Mosquito raid with BIVs would be devised differently. I would not send them all in one go, but in smaller groups, with a few different routes to target. Spread the defensive fighters over a wider area. You could vary the attack method - some could come in high, others in low for improved accuracy.

In a raid as distant as Berlin a Mosquito could fly to target and back twice in the time that it took the B-17s to do their mission and return. That is not inclding the time it tok for the B-17s to form up over England, which could take as much as 2 hours. In that time your Mossies are half way to Berlin.

Now, look at the Schweinfurt mission. There were 80 direct hits on target, 500lb bombs IIRC. So, if you could get 100% accuracy you would need only 20 Mosquitoes. But that is unrealistic. 100 Mosquitoes would require only 20% accuracy, however, and 200 would need only 10%. On the Scweinfurt mission the B-17s carried about 5000lb each, and over 250 of them bombed the target.

If the 8th AF did try using Mosquitoes for bombing, and there was a measure of success, I would think that the A-26 program would have been accelerated - I do believe it was delayed or whatever reason - and they would have been available sooner.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I have just shown that the Mosquito could NOT do the job of a B-17. If you think it can please post numbers from actual raids or manuals.
> 
> See this website for actual operations by B-17s
> 
> ...


 
I believe the Mosquito could carry 2 x 1000lb bombs (and probably 3 x 1000lb bombs) in the standard bomb bay, but the RAF preferred the 500lb or 4000lb HC bombs. With a slight modification to the bomb's tail the Mossie could also have carried 2 x AN Mk1 1600lb SAP bombs internally. But they were American bombs.

A Mosquito could also carry 2 x AP 2000lb Mk1 bombs inside the standard bomb bay. At least, they would fit inside the standard bomb bay.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2011)

The A-26 had a few problems of it's own as a fast "strategic" bomber. AS built is used single stage, two speed supercharged engines which rather limited it's altitude performance (like 22,000ft service ceiling, operational ceiling is even lower) which puts them in greater danger from flak. While the top speed of 355mph at 15,000ft is impressive it is not cruising speed or bombing speed. It's operating altitude certainly puts into the 190s preferred altitude range. 
Maybe it could have copied the Mosquitos success at high speed, low altitude penetrations but without some range charts from a manual we will just be guessing at the range penalty that might be involved.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 14, 2011)

Outside the domain of 8th AF, but wonder about Ploesti as well.
P-38's were tried. Were Mosquitoes tried?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I believe the Mosquito could carry 2 x 1000lb bombs (and probably 3 x 1000lb bombs) in the standard bomb bay, but the RAF preferred the 500lb or 4000lb HC bombs. With a slight modification to the bomb's tail the Mossie could also have carried 2 x AN Mk1 1600lb SAP bombs internally. But they were American bombs.
> 
> A Mosquito could also carry 2 x AP 2000lb Mk1 bombs inside the standard bomb bay. At least, they would fit inside the standard bomb bay.


 
Do you have a manual, bomb loading chart or mission reports that give such bomb loads? 
These loads may have been possible but my rather limited references on the Mosquito makes no mention of them.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Do you have a manual, bomb loading chart or mission reports that give such bomb loads?
> These loads may have been possible but my rather limited references on the Mosquito makes no mention of them.


 
I am not sure about the 2 x 1000lb bombs, as the reference I thought it wa sin doesn't say that. But, for the others it is a matter of dimensions.

The 1600lb AN MK1 SAP bomb is 83.5in long and 14.55in across the fins, which is wider than the body. We know that the 4000lb HC cookie was carried (with bulged bomb bay), and that is 30in diameter x 110in long. So probably wouldn't need tail modifications. The US ordinance manual 1944 (taken from a thread in here) states that the AN Mk 1 was used by the RAF as well.

The British AP 2000lb Mk1 was 13.5in diameter x 112.72in long. It may need cropping of the tail to fit lengthwise, but should comfortably sit side by side. The 500lb GP was 13in diameter x 70in long, but I can't find dimesnions of the 500lb MC bombs used in the Mossie.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2011)

400 Mosquitoes are a drop in the bucket compared to American requirements.


US Warplanes
Historically we produced about 3,300 A-20 light bombers during 1943. In this scenerio the Soviet Union would receive Lend-Lease B-17 heavy bombers and we would keep the A-20 light bombers. A reversal of the historical situation.


Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historically the massive new Willow Run B-24 plant began production during October 1942. By 1944 they were producing 650 heavy bombers per month.

In this scenerio there would not be a massive B-24 program. Instead there would be a massive A-26 program, which would enter production as soon as R2800 engines are available. By mid 1943 we should be producing at least 400 A-26 light bombers per month in addition to the A-20s.


Of course this isn't going to happen as the officer who proposed it is now a military attaché stationed at Vladivostok. 8)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 14, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Would the 8th Air Force have been better off using Mosquitoes, particularly when operations were suspended due to unsustainable losses?
> 
> Were Mosquitoes ever tried or contemplated?


 
There are various arguments for and against. 

As far as I know, the use of Mosquitos in large daylight raids was actually considered by a UK operational research group during the war - up to and including projections of loss rates - but never actually proposed, due to the realities of the air war.

On paper, a Mosquito B Mk IX or XVI could deliver a 3,000 lbs (6 x 500 lbs internally with an Avro bomb carrier) or 4,000 lbs (single 4,000 lbs HC or MC weapon) bomb load to Berlin. It would do so faster, using less fuel and risking less personnel (2 vs 10) than a B-17 or B-24, and likely do so at a lower loss rate.

However, there are several realities that would prevent this from actually being the case and going into large-scale service as a B-17/B-24 alternative.

Firstly, the first sub-type of the Mosquito capable of hauling a 4,000 lbs weapon - the B Mk IX - was not available until April 1943. Just 54 were produced before production switched over to the pressurised variant, the MK XVI, in July. This aircraft did not enter service until the end of November.

So, until the beginning of 1944, there are just 54 Mosquitos in service with the capability to haul a 4,000 lbs bomb load to Berlin ad back.

Using earlier types is not really an option. The earlier bomber Mks are slower, operate at a lower ceiling and have less internal bombload. A B Mk VI maxes out at about 380-385 mph at 20,000 ft, with 2,000 lbs internal (4 x 500 lbs). A B Mk XI/XVI maxes out at about 410 mph at 25,000 ft.

This means the intercept equation is much easier for German fighters - leading to significantly higher losses.

Secondly, the slow rate of production, combined with the drain on Mosquitos for other roles - notably night fighting, daylight fighter bombing and photo-reconnaissance - means that there is little chance of equipping a sizable bomber force with more capable variants until mid 1944.

This also rules out the Mosquito from 8th AF consideration. It wants to force the Luftwaffe into the sky and defeat its fighter force, all while blasting German production facilities. 

Thirdly, conducting raids of just 20-40 hard to intercept aircraft is not going to attrit the Luftwaffe's daylight fighter capabilities, even if the raids are escorted once the P-51B/C joins the ETO after December 1943. Its simply not going to bring large numbers of German aircraft into the sky. 

The bomber Mosquitos were also unarmed. Even though USAAF bomber gunners likely overclaimed in the region of 6-10 to one, they still brought down plenty of fighters over the course of the war. 


The key to the Mosquito's low loss rate during the war was a combination of speed, altitude and night.

It had a significant margin of performance over most German night fighters. The aircraft operated at very high altitudes (pathfinding and marking Mosquitos bombed from as high as 32,000 ft) and it had the night sky to hide it from both flak and fighters. It also operated singly or in smallish groups, further complicating the intercept equation for its opposition.

Switching to daylight operations strips the Mosquito of most of its advantages. 

German daylight single seat fighters have much higher performance than their night-time, multi-engine counterparts, removing the Mosquito of much of its performance advantage. 

Daylight operations would also require larger formations, increasing the time German radar can pick and vector interceptors onto the aircraft. Most large Mossie ops were 'nusiance raids' with up to 60 aircraft vectored to the target independently. 

If non-Oboe equipped Mosquitos wanted accuracy, they would have to bomb from lower heights, even in daylight (probably under 20,000 ft). This makes them more vulnerable to flak and fighters. One of the saving graces for Mosquito target markers was that Oboe allowed them to bomb relatively accurately form very high altitudes with relative immunity from interception and flak.

I love the Mossie, but using it to replace the 8th AF heavies on anything but a strictly limited basis doesn't make sense.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> As far as I know, the use of Mosquitos in large daylight raids was actually considered by a UK operational research group during the war - up to and including projections of loss rates - but never actually proposed, due to the realities of the air war.



The research group suggested that Mosquitoes could prosecute the war more efficiently than the Lancaster. As much as 3 times, IIRC. This is about bombs on target, number of crew and their training, cost of aircraft procurement, raw materials and loss rates. In the end the guy at the top (Bomber Harris) was bent on destroying cities, for which the Mosquito was less suitable.





Jabberwocky said:


> On paper, a Mosquito B Mk IX or XVI could deliver a 3,000 lbs (6 x 500 lbs internally with an Avro bomb carrier) or 4,000 lbs (single 4,000 lbs HC or MC weapon) bomb load to Berlin. It would do so faster, using less fuel and risking less personnel (2 vs 10) than a B-17 or B-24, and likely do so at a lower loss rate.
> 
> However, there are several realities that would prevent this from actually being the case and going into large-scale service as a B-17/B-24 alternative.
> 
> ...



The first Mosquitoes to carry the 4000lb HC bomb to Berlin and back were the BIVs. These missions started in early 1944 (March?).






Jabberwocky said:


> This also rules out the Mosquito from 8th AF consideration. It wants to force the Luftwaffe into the sky and defeat its fighter force, all while blasting German production facilities.



This is not correct. The 8th AF wold have been happy to have never seen a LW fighter in opposition to their bombers. The whole aim of the 8th AF was to bomb the German industry. 

Elaborate route plans and feints were devised to try to fool the LW as to the target, and to (hopefully) minimise the opposition the bombers faced. That changed in 1944 when Doolittle took over the 8th AF bomber groups and the P-51 became available in significant numbers. The elaborate routes and feints were gone - teh bombers were essentially bait for the LW, the aim being to destroy them in the air or on the ground with Mustangs.

In the Schweinfurt mission the LW dropped bombs on the 8th AF formation! And rockets were fired from beyond the reach of the B-17 gunners.





Jabberwocky said:


> Thirdly, conducting raids of just 20-40 hard to intercept aircraft is not going to attrit the Luftwaffe's daylight fighter capabilities, even if the raids are escorted once the P-51B/C joins the ETO after December 1943. Its simply not going to bring large numbers of German aircraft into the sky.



Again, the aim of the bombers is to get bombs on the target. If the LW doesn't try to intercept them, all the better.






Jabberwocky said:


> The key to the Mosquito's low loss rate during the war was a combination of speed, altitude and night.
> 
> It had a significant margin of performance over most German night fighters. The aircraft operated at very high altitudes (pathfinding and marking Mosquitos bombed from as high as 32,000 ft) and it had the night sky to hide it from both flak and fighters. It also operated singly or in smallish groups, further complicating the intercept equation for its opposition.
> 
> ...



Historically the switch went the other way. Mosquitoes started bombing during the day, but were in very small numbers. The loss of a single aircraft made for a significant mission loss rate (eg several missions were flown with 6 a/c, and if one was downed the lost rate was 16.67%). The 8th AF loss rates declned in the early part of 1944 not because of fewer aircraft lost, but because they sent more aircraft to target.

But even during the day the Mosquito was difficult for the LW to intercept.

The 2nd TAF continued day operations with their FBVIs.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 15, 2011)

> The first Mosquitoes to carry the 4000lb HC bomb to Berlin and back were the BIVs. These missions started in early 1944 (March?).



Thank you. The early bulged B Mk IVs slipped my mind.

Still, just 54 were converted - numbers that would have been unacceptable for the 8th.




> This is not correct. The 8th AF wold have been happy to have never seen a LW fighter in opposition to their bombers. The whole aim of the 8th AF was to bomb the German industry.
> 
> Elaborate route plans and feints were devised to try to fool the LW as to the target, and to (hopefully) minimise the opposition the bombers faced. That changed in 1944 when Doolittle took over the 8th AF bomber groups and the P-51 became available in significant numbers. The elaborate routes and feints were gone - teh bombers were essentially bait for the LW, the aim being to destroy them in the air or on the ground with Mustangs.



As you yourself point out, it depends on the time period. Prior to the adoption of the Point Blank directive and the introduction of a long-range escort in suitable numbers, the first part of your argument is true.

However, once Point Blank is signed, the bombers do become "bait" (such an unfortunate way to describe them though).

The Point Blank directive states it is to "impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war". 



> Again, the aim of the bombers is to get bombs on the target. If the LW doesn't try to intercept them, all the better.



Agreed. But, combined with the Point Blank directive, the role of the bombers was more than just to hit targets in Germany. It was also to force German fighters to come to battle. 



> Historically the switch went the other way. Mosquitoes started bombing during the day, but were in very small numbers. The loss of a single aircraft made for a significant mission loss rate (eg several missions were flown with 6 a/c, and if one was downed the lost rate was 16.67%). The 8th AF loss rates declned in the early part of 1944 not because of fewer aircraft lost, but because they sent more aircraft to target.
> 
> But even during the day the Mosquito was difficult for the LW to intercept.
> 
> The 2nd TAF continued day operations with their FBVIs.


 
Yes, early Mosquito ops were daylight. Notably though, it was losses on low level fighter bomber ops that were high, not on high level bombing ops. 

8th AF heavy bomber loss rates declined as both a function of larger numbers of aircraft AND less effective German fighter opposition. 

In 1943, 70% of all 8th AF heavy bomber losses were due to fighters
In the first half of 1944, this is down to 58%
In the second half of 1944, its down to 25%

Flak becomes a much larger killer of 8th AF bombers from June 1944. 

There are two notable drop off periods in 8th AF bomber losses: November 1943, at the suspension of deep penetration missions, and May 1944, when sortie rates climb beyond 10,000 per month for the first time.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 15, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> However, once Point Blank is signed, the bombers do become "bait" (such an unfortunate way to describe them though).
> 
> The Point Blank directive states it is to "impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war".



The key instrument in that was the use of the Mustang. Had the Mustang, and other escort fighters, not been available it would not have worked. If you can put sufficient bombers on operations, and 400 should be plenty, and they are attacking vital targets in Germany then the LW fighters have to respond. If not, the escort fighters can seek them out at their home bases - which they also did during 1944.






Jabberwocky said:


> Thank you. The early bulged B Mk IVs slipped my mind.
> 
> Still, just 54 were converted - numbers that would have been unacceptable for the 8th.



As to the number of Mosquitoes, about 1/3 of the Mosquitoes made were FBVIs. Had the bomber Mossie been required for a larger part of the daylight bombing campaign then the production priorities would have shifted to the bomber variant.

And there were some 90 odd PRIXs built as well as the BIXs, and they could so easily have been made as bombers. I'm not sure exactly what had to be done to convert a PR to a B versiion, but surely it could not be much.

Canadian production started in 1943 too (IIRC), and they delivered nearly 250 BXXs (Canadian BIV with Packard Merlins), and 400 odd B25s (improved BXXs).

In all nearly 6000 of the 7781 Mosquitoes built were delivered during the war.


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2011)

That doesn't mean German fighter aircraft had become ineffective. There were a lot more heavy flak shells in the sky during 1944 and they were aimed by improved radar.

*Production of Luftwaffe 8.8cm heavy Flak guns.*
Production Stats on German Tube-fired Weapons 1939-1945
183. 1939. Plus 42 larger 10.5cm and 12.8cm weapons.
1,130. 1940. Plus 290 larger weapons.
1,872. 1941. Plus 509 larger weapons.
2,876. 1942. Plus 766 larger weapons.
4,416. 1943. Plus 1,518 larger weapons.
1,933. 1944. Plus 1,795 larger weapons.
715. 1945. Plus 190 larger weapons. 

Looking at the production record I would guess the massive 1943 production gave Luftwaffe heavy flak units their authorized level of equipment for the first time. That's why production could decline during 1944.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 16, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Yes, early Mosquito ops were daylight. Notably though, it was losses on low level fighter bomber ops that were high, not on high level bombing ops.


 
I agree with pretty much everything you've posted, but, depending on the ops you're referring to, I think you may be wrong here. The initial daylight bomber ops were costly at high level, much less so at low level. Both were more expensive than the fighter-bomber ops of 1944 (against V-1 sites and the like), with some heavier losses on individual raids in '44 and '45. I've not split the fighter-bomber ops and losses by day/night, though I suppose I have the info to do so. All up the fighter-bomber losses ran, so far as I've calculated, at about 1.4%, though those of 23 Sqn in the Med were about 1.8% in 1943.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2011)

So were RAF night bombing raids conducted from 20,000 feet. But that didn't matter. Heavy bomber proponents in both air forces would spin the aircraft loss and bombing accuracy data to make it look like they were successful.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 17, 2011)

davebender said:


> That doesn't mean German fighter aircraft had become ineffective. There were a lot more heavy flak shells in the sky during 1944 and they were aimed by improved radar.



Actually, it does. At least, ineffective at killing US heavy bombers.

USAAF stats show that bomber kills by German fighters, both as a relative proportion AND as an absolute number, drop off notably from June 1944.

Fighter vs flak, 1944 (Source: USAAF statistical digest)

Jan: 139 - 27
Feb: 170 - 81
Mar: 178 - 112
Apr: 314 - 105
May: 211 - 122
Jun: 112 - 162
Jul: 80 - 201
Aug: 61 - 238
Sep: 137 - 207
Oct: 36 - 112
Nov: 50 - 146
Dec: 28 - 74

In late 1943/early 1944, the % loss rate to fighters (2%-3.2%) is about 2-3 times that to flak (0.6%-1.3%). In June, losses to fighters decline dramatically, as Luftwaffe fighter units have to cover the Normandy battle. Loss rates to fighters for the final six months of the year average .4%. 

Loss rates to flak stabilise at about 1.1% after May, declining in the final three months of the year to about .69%.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2011)

Are these based on post-war research or USAAF estimates during the war?

RAF Bomber Command tended to underestimate the Luftwaffe night fighter force, giving German flak more credit for kills then was actually the case. For example let's look at May 1944.

RAF Bomber Command estimate.
274 aircraft total lost.
.....137 shot down by night fighters.
.....50 shot down by flak.
.....remaining losses are unknown.

Luftwaffe estimate. 
.....243 bombers shot down by night fighters.
German estimates are probably not 100% accurate but almost certainly more accurate then RAF estimates as they examined the aircraft wrecks.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> Are these based on post-war research or USAAF estimates during the war?
> 
> RAF Bomber Command tended to underestimate the Luftwaffe night fighter force, giving German flak more credit for kills then was actually the case. For example let's look at May 1944.
> 
> ...


 
Post-war analysis of the Office of Statistics Control war time figures.

There is a significant difference in the accuracy of assessment of losses between Bomber Command losses, flown in the dark and singly via bomber stream, to those of the 8th AF, flown in bomb groups during daylight.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2011)

266 LW NF claims for May 44, 3/4's or more are confirmed downed.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2011)

My data (243 claims) is from "The Other Battle" by Peter Hinchliffe. Where are you obtaining your data?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 18, 2011)

I counted 289 claims on Tony Woods claim list.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 18, 2011)

Milosh said:


> I counted 289 claims on Tony Woods claim list.


 
A quick count at the Bomber Command campaign diaries site gives 290 losses for the month.

RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

This could come down by up to 11 depending on how various writers count losses - there were 11 losses on the night of May 30/June 01.

Middlebrook Everett's 'Bomber Command War Diaries' would probably have more detailed loss statistics


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2011)

the authoritative Nachtjagd war diaries, volume 2. and my own personal archivs of the past 40 years. the May 31/June 1st date there were : 8 claims all confirmed by the Nachtjagd with cross checked sources......

remember that Woods listing is claims only and not officially confirmed as such.


----------



## Jay6768 (Jul 19, 2011)

The Mosquito was a great aircraft and is one of the few models that will always hold dear to those who progressed on to it after completeing their tour of duty. This would also apply to the elegent B17 they are all a class of their own but similar they are not. Its like try to move everything by a car when you were previously using trucks, no comparison.
Shame the last Mosquito crashed, does anybody know if there are still enough parts around to get one airborn again?
regards to all James


----------



## Jay6768 (Jul 19, 2011)

The Mosquito was a great aircraft and is one of the few models that will always hold dear to those who progressed on to it after completeing their tour of duty. This would also apply to the elegent B17 they are all a class of their own but similar they are not. Its like try to move everything by a car when you were previously using trucks, no comparison.
Shame the last Mosquito crashed, does anybody know if there are still enough parts around to get one airborn again?
regards to all James


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2011)

The Mosquito was a great night fighter and pathfinder aircraft. For the most part that's how it was employed so there is nothing to complain about.

However I don't think the Mosquito was superior as a light bomber. Trying to force it into that role en masse is setting the aircraft up for failure. Rather like trying to convert the Do-217 heavy bomber into a night fighter. Or the U.S. Army Air Corps trying to sink Japanese troop transports with B-17s during December 1941 when they could have used A-20 light bombers instead.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the role performed by the mosquito was under used. Both day and night bombing needed more precision. I dont think the mosquito or anything similar could have replaced the B 17 B 24 or Lancaster, but certainly could have complimented it with more precise attacks. I think I read somewhere that the Mustang had some problems escorting Mosquitos, they had different economical cruising speeds as I remember so the Mosquito had to throttle back so losing some of its speed and surprise quality.

Jay there is an almost complete mosquito in the Air Museum at Elvington Air Museum, I dont know who would want to fly a 60 yr old piece of wood though!


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2011)

No argument there. However without guided weapons there are only two ways to achieve precision bombing.

Dive bombing. 
The German solution and very effective for aircraft such as the Ju-87, Ju-88 and Me-410. However I don't think the Mosquito had dive brakes and structural strengthening required for this attack method.

Low level bombing.
This makes life much easier for flak gunners. I hope that wooden Mosquito could take a licking and keep on ticking, err flying.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> Dive bombing.However I don't think the Mosquito had dive brakes and structural strengthening required for this attack method.
> 
> Low level bombing.
> This makes life much easier for flak gunners. I hope that wooden Mosquito could take a licking and keep on ticking, err flying.


 

They certainly tried out air brakes dont know how good they were for diving though.
De Havilland Mosquito - Great Britain

Bomb sights improved enough for accurate though not pin point bombing, the problem being that you cant bomb precisely in a box formation.

I think I would get nervous @ 20,000ft in a vehicle that can be eaten by termites.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> No argument there. However without guided weapons there are only two ways to achieve precision bombing.
> 
> Dive bombing.
> The German solution and very effective for aircraft such as the Ju-87, Ju-88 and Me-410. However I don't think the Mosquito had dive brakes and structural strengthening required for this attack method.
> ...


 

If low level bombing makes life easy for flak gunners, dive bombing makes it even easier.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2011)

how about we get back on topic : 8th AF use of Mosquitos


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2011)

> If low level bombing makes life easy for flak gunners, dive bombing makes it even easier.


By 1942 gyro stabilized bomb sights such as the Lotfernrohr 7 were in widespread use. Consequently "dive bombing" during the second half of WWII actually means bombing at a steep angle, which is safer then attacking at a predictable 90 degree angle.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> However I don't think the Mosquito was superior as a light bomber.


 
Superior in comparison to what?

As a pure light bomber, I'd argue that it was without an equal during the war - both in its ability to hit a target and its ability to get crew home safely. Certainly, it was better than anything else the British could put in the air. 

I don't think that a light bomber (even one capable of hauling 4,000 lbs to Berlin twice in a night) was what the 8th AF needed - or even wanted - though.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 19, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> Superior in comparison to what? I don't think that a light bomber (even one capable of hauling 4,000 lbs to Berlin twice in a night) was what the 8th AF needed - or even wanted - though.



After the Schweinfurt raids the 8th AF/VIII Bomber Command suspended operations over Germany.
It would seem that during this period, the Mosquito (or some other alternative to the B-17/B-24) might have performed better over Germany than the B-17's B-24's, particularly since there were no B-17/B-24 operations over Germany.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2011)

I don't know about the entire 8th Air Force, but the 303th bomb group, which flew both Schweinfurt raids, flew 15 bombing missions between the two raids. 7 of which were over Germany, if not as far in as Schweinfurt. In the 3 months after the second raid they flew another 21 bombing missions, 16 of which were against German targets. Again not as deep but western Germany was not getting a free pass for those months.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 20, 2011)

Don't know if this will work - 8th AF targets in Germany in 1943, by date, from Davis:

City	Date	Target Struck	Sighting	Atk	Lost
Emden	1/27/1943	P/A	Vis	2	0
Wilhelmshaven	1/27/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	53	1
Hamm	2/1/1943	M/Y	recalled 
Emden	2/4/1943	I/A	Vis	39	5
Hamm	2/14/1943	M/Y	recalled 
Wilhelmshaven	2/26/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	64	7
Hamm	3/4/1943	M/Y	Vis	16	5
Vegesack	3/18/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	97	2
Wilhelmshaven	3/22/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	84	3
Bremen/Borgward	4/17/1943	A/Icomp	Vis	106	16
Kiel/Krupp	5/14/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	126	8
Emden	5/15/1943	I/A	Vis	59	1
Heligoland	5/15/1943	T/O	Vis	76	5
Flensberg	5/19/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	55	0
Kiel/Krupp	5/19/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	103	6
Emden/Nordseewerke	5/21/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	45	5
Wilhelmshaven	5/21/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	77	7
Wilhelmshaven	5/21/1943	P/A	Vis	1	0
Aurich	6/11/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Cuxhaven	6/11/1943	P/A	Vis	30	0
Jevres	6/11/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Misc., Ge	6/11/1943	A/F	Vis	17	0
Wilhelmshaven	6/11/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	168	8
Wilhelmshaven	6/11/1943	P/A	Vis	1	0
Bremen/Deschimag	6/13/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	102	4
Kiel	6/13/1943	P/A	Vis	16	3
Kiel/Deutsche	6/13/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	44	19
Misc., Ge	6/13/1943	T/O	Vis	9	0
Nordholz	6/13/1943	I/A	Vis	11	0
Dortmund	6/22/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Huls	6/22/1943	SynRub	Vis	170	15
Huls	6/22/1943	YB-40s	Vis	11	1
Vlieland	6/22/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Juist Island	6/25/1943	Shipping	Vis	18	3
Misc., Ge	6/25/1943	T/O	Vis	143	15
Misc., Ge	6/25/1943	YB-40	Vis	4	0
Wangerooge Island	6/25/1943	Shipping	Vis	2	0
Misc., Ge	7/17/1943	T/O	Vis	29	1
Misc., Ge	7/17/1943	Shipping	Vis 1 1
Rheine	7/17/1943	I/A	Vis	4	0
Hamburg/Blohm Voss	7/25/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	68	12
Heide	7/25/1943	M/Y	Vis	14	3
Kiel/Deutsche	7/25/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	67	3
Misc., Ge	7/25/1943	T/O	Vis	50	0
Rerik/West	7/25/1943	A/F	Vis	18	0
Bremerhaven	7/26/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Hamburg/Howald	7/26/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	54	2
Hannover/Gummiwerke	7/26/1943	Tires	Vis	42	10
Hannover/Nordhafen	7/26/1943	Tires	Vis	50	6
Hannover/Nordhafen	7/26/1943	YB-40	Vis	1	0
Langerooge	7/26/1943	Shipping	Vis	16	0
Misc., Ge	7/26/1943	T/O	Vis	2	0
Wesermunde	7/26/1943	T/O	Vis	15	3
Wilhelmshaven	7/26/1943	T/O	Vis	18	3
Alsleben	7/28/1943	T/O	Vis 8 0
Beeststorzwagg	7/28/1943	T/O	Vis 1 0
Kassel/Bettenhausen/Fieseler	7/28/1943	A/Icomp FW 190	Vis	47	7
Kassel/Bettenhausen/Fieseler	7/28/1943	YB-40	Vis	2	0
Oschersleben/AGO Flugzugwerke	7/28/1943	A/Iasy FW 190	Vis	28	15
Terschelling	7/28/1943	T/O	Vis	6	0
Wetrup	7/28/1943	T/O	Vis 2 0
Heligoland	7/29/1943	A/F	Vis	32	2
Kiel	7/29/1943	YB-40	Vis	1	0
Kiel/Deutsche/Krupp	7/29/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	48	2
Kiel/Kriegsmarine	7/29/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	42	2
Misc., Ge	7/29/1943	T/O	Vis	16	0
Warnemunde/Heinkel	7/29/1943	A/Iasy FW 190	Vis	54	4
Kassel	7/30/1943	I/A	Vis	3	0
Kassel/Bettenhausen/Fieseler	7/30/1943	A/Icomp FW 190	Vis	94	6
Kassel/Waldau/Fieseler	7/30/1943	A/Iasy FW 190	Vis	37	6
Bochum/Vereinigte Stahl	8/12/1943	Steel	Vis	117	23
Bonn	8/12/1943	I/A	Vis	106	2
Misc., Ge	8/12/1943	T/O	Vis	4	0
Recklinghausen	8/12/1943	T/O	Vis	16	0
Frankfurt-am-Main 8/17/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Heilbronn	8/17/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Misc., Ge	8/17/1943	T/O	Vis	4	0
Regensburg/Ober-Traubling	8/17/1943	A/Iasy Me 109	Vis	126	24
Schweinfurt/Kugelfisher	8/17/1943	Bearings	Vis	54	9
Schweinfurt/VKF 1	8/17/1943	Bearings	Vis	78	4
Schweinfurt/VKF 2	8/17/1943	Bearings	Vis	51	23
Baden-Baden	9/6/1943	T/O	Vis	8	0
Buhl	9/6/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Karlsruhe	9/6/1943	I/A	Vis	17	2
Misc., Ge	9/6/1943	T/O	Vis	40	0
Offenburg	9/6/1943	M/Y	Vis	51	13
Stuttgart	9/6/1943	I/A	Vis	46	10
Wasselone	9/6/1943	T/O	Vis	2	0
Hannover	9/22/1943	I/A	Vis (N)	5	0
Mannheim	9/23/1943	I/A	Vis (N)	4	0
Aurich	9/27/1943	T/O	Vis	19	0
Emden	9/27/1943	I/A	H2S	178	7
Esens	9/27/1943	I/A	H2S	18	0
Hannover	9/27/1943	I/A	Vis	4	0
Juist	9/27/1943	T/O	Vis 2 0
Misc., Ge	9/27/1943	T/O	Vis 21 0
Norden	9/27/1943	T/O	Vis 2 0
Ochtelbur	9/27/1943	T/O	Vis 2 0
Emden	10/2/1943	I/A	H2S	339	2
Munich	10/2/1943	I/A	Vis (N)	2	0
Frankfurt-am-Main 10/4/1943	M/Y	Vis	37	3
Frankfurt-am-Main 10/4/1943	I/A	Vis (N)	2	1
Frankfurt-am-Main/Heddern	10/4/1943	A/Icomp	Vis	78	4
Saarbrucken/Sarreguemines	10/4/1943	T/O	Vis	47	0
Saarlautern	10/4/1943	I/A	Vis	67	2
Wiesbaden	10/4/1943	I/A	Vis	16	1
Bremen	10/8/1943	P/A	Vis	197	16
Bremen/Deutsche	10/8/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	44	3
Bremen/Weser	10/8/1943	A/Icomp Fighter	Vis	33	1
Meppen	10/8/1943	T/O	Vis	3	0
Oldenburg	10/8/1943	I/A	Vis	18	2
Vegesack	10/8/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	43	5
Vegesack	10/8/1943	T/O	Vis	19	3
Anklam	10/9/1943	A/Icomp FW 190	Vis	106	18
Danzig	10/9/1943	UB/Yards	Vis	23	2
Marienburg	10/9/1943	A/Iasy FW 190	Vis	96	2
Coesfeld	10/10/1943	I/A	Vis	68	0
Dulmen	10/10/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Munster	10/10/1943	M/Y	Vis	138	30
Misc., Ge	10/14/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Schweinfurt/Kugelfisher	10/14/1943	Bearings	Vis	81	10
Schweinfurt/VKF 1	10/14/1943	Bearings	Vis	61	35
Schweinfurt/VKF 2	10/14/1943	Bearings	Vis	86	15
Duren	10/20/1943	I/A	OBOE	97	6
Duren	10/20/1943	I/A	OBOE failure - 2
Misc., Ge	10/20/1943	T/O	Vis	16	0
Wilhelmshaven	11/3/1943	P/A	H2X	539	7
Coesfeld	11/5/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Gelsenkirchen	11/5/1943	M/Y	Vis	232	5
Gelsenkirchen/Buer	11/5/1943	O/Sy	Vis	49	2
Gelsenkirchen/Nordstern	11/5/1943	O/Sy	Vis	47	1
Haltern	11/5/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Munster	11/5/1943	M/Y	Vis	106	3
Duren	11/7/1943	I/A	OBOE	38	0
Renderath	11/7/1943	T/O	Vis	20	0
Wesel	11/7/1943	I/A	OBOE	54	0
Munster	11/11/1943	M/Y	H2X	59	4
Rees	11/11/1943	I/A	Oboe (N)	1	0
Emmerich	11/12/1943	I/A	OBOE (N)	1	0
Bremen	11/13/1943	P/A	H2X	117	16
Flensberg	11/13/1943	I/A	Vis	6	0
Heligoland	11/13/1943	T/O	Vis	8	0
Kiel	11/13/1943	I/A	H2X	1	0
Misc., Ge	11/13/1943	T/O	Vis	11	0
Misc., Ge 11/19/1943 T/O Vis 113 0
Bremen	11/26/1943	P/A	H2X	422	25
Misc., Ge	11/26/1943	T/O	Vis	16	0
Vegesack	11/26/1943	I/A	Vis	2	0
Bremen	11/29/1943	P/A	H2X	137	13
Emmerich	11/29/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Emmerich	11/29/1943	I/A	Vis (N)	1	0
Misc., Ge	11/29/1943	T/O	Vis	15	0
Oldenburg	11/29/1943	I/A	H2X	1	1
Solingen	11/30/1943	I/A	H2S	79	3
Wermelskirchen	11/30/1943	T/O	Vis 1 0
Misc., Ge	12/1/1943	T/O	Vis	2	0
Rossbach	12/1/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Siegburg	12/1/1943	I/A	Vis	17	1
Solingen	12/1/1943	I/A	H2X	261	23
Germany	12/2/1943	Leaflets	Vis (NL)	4	0
Huls	12/2/1943	I/A	Oboe (N)	1	0
Emden	12/11/1943	I/A	Vis	523	17
Bremen	12/13/1943	P/A	H2X	175	0
Hamburg	12/13/1943	P/A	H2X	116	2
Kiel/Krupp	12/13/1943	UB/Yards	H2X	353	3
Misc., Ge	12/13/1943	T/O	Vis	5	0
Neumunster	12/13/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Bremen	12/16/1943	P/A	H2X	528	10
Germany	12/16/1943	Leaflets	Vis (NL)	4	0
Heligoland	12/16/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Misc., Ge	12/16/1943	T/O	Vis 5 0
Wessermunde	12/16/1943	P/A	Vis	1	0
Bremen	12/20/1943	P/A	Vis	465	27
Misc., Ge	12/20/1943	T/O	Vis	6	0
Oldenburg	12/20/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Cologne	12/22/1943	I/A	OBOE (N)	1	0
Cologne	12/22/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Misc., Ge	12/22/1943	T/O	Vis 22 0
Munster	12/22/1943	M/Y	H2X	197	5
Osnabruck	12/22/1943 M/Y	H2X	218	17
Rheine	12/22/1943	I/A	Vis	1	0
Misc., Ge	12/27/1943	T/O	Oboe (N)	1	0
Dusseldorf	12/29/1943	I/A	OBOE (N)	1	0
Germany	12/29/1943	Leaflets	Vis (NL)	6	0
Ludwigshafen/I. G. Farben	12/30/1943	O/Sy	H2X	653	23
Misc., Ge	12/30/1943	T/O	Vis	1	0
Saarbrucken	12/30/1943	I/A	H2X	4	0


----------



## Milosh (Jul 20, 2011)

303rd Bomb Group (H) - Molesworth, England

Lists all the mission flown by the 303 BG.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2011)

I agree. However we are talking about the American 8th Air Force, not RAF Bomber Command. 

The USA had two good medium bombers (B25, B26) and two good light bombers (A20, A26). If 8th Air Force switches to medium or light bombers those are the aircraft the Mosquito will be compared to in the flight competition.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 20, 2011)

The A-26 didn't fly its first mission in the ETO til 6 September 1944.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2011)

The Mosquito could not be used for that level of bombardment simply because by allowing it to become a formation bomber it loses all of its advantages and would be destroyed in droves. The U.S. method of operating medium and light bombers still would not suit the Mosquito, it was a hit and run raider and for the amount of explosive required to be delivered on target they would require many Mosquitos that would be put at great risk. The bomb loads and capability is irrelevant; if you bomb in formation they're flying slow and vulnerable, if you scatter them to appear over the target at certain times then after the first few the Germans are waiting. For the way the U.S. operated the B-25s and B-26s the Mosquito was still not viable for pretty much the same reasons.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 20, 2011)

davebender said:


> I agree. However we are talking about the American 8th Air Force, not RAF Bomber Command.
> 
> The USA had two good medium bombers (B25, B26) and two good light bombers (A20, A26). If 8th Air Force switches to medium or light bombers those are the aircraft the Mosquito will be compared to in the flight competition.



The USAAF was loathe to put B-26s over Germany. ETO Marauder losses were very low, in fact their loss rates were the lowest of any US bomber aircraft. However, their initial forays into heavily defended European airspace were disastrous - on one mission to the Netherlands in 1943, the entire bomber force was lost. As a result, the were switched to operations over France, with heavy escort. 

In the Med, B-26 loss rates were much worse than B-25 loss rates. 

The 8th didn't use B-25s - it didn't fit their mission profiles.

The A-20/B-25/B-26 give you the worst of both worlds. They dont have the same amount of defensive firepower as the B-24/B-17 - nor do they operate at the same high altitudes. Likewise, they don't have the speed of the Mosquito.


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2011)

indeed German fighter pilots had a healthy respect for the "stinger" on the end that single .50cal when and as said not often seen B-26's in the air over Europe. the B-26 had been used on night duties but also suffered to single/twin engine LW attacks

Remember the diabolical day of 23 December 1944 when the Sturmgruppe of JG 3 attacked the rear of two B-26 groups and tore them to shreds ..........


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 20, 2011)

Did the US light medium bombers lack turbochargers?


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2011)

Alternate history is about what could have happened if decisions and resource allocations were different. The massive new Willow Run bomber plant will be producing 500 aircraft per month by the end of 1943. In this scenerio it might be producing light or medium bombers ILO B-24s. Perhaps even an American version of the British Mosquito light bomber. 

It all depends on which aircraft wins the U.S. Army Air Force competition.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2011)

plan_D said:


> The Mosquito could not be used for that level of bombardment simply because by allowing it to become a formation bomber it loses all of its advantages and would be destroyed in droves. The U.S. method of operating medium and light bombers still would not suit the Mosquito, it was a hit and run raider and for the amount of explosive required to be delivered on target they would require many Mosquitos that would be put at great risk. The bomb loads and capability is irrelevant; if you bomb in formation they're flying slow and vulnerable, if you scatter them to appear over the target at certain times then after the first few the Germans are waiting. For the way the U.S. operated the B-25s and B-26s the Mosquito was still not viable for pretty much the same reasons.


 
There is no way that anyone would consider using the Mosquito in the exact same way as a B-17. Or a B-25/B-26 for that matter. The whole point of those formations was to maximise the effect of the defensive armament - which the Mosquito, of course, lacked.

The same formations that gave the extra defence also precluded the method of gaining the best accuracy. To get the best accuracy each bomber had to bomb individually, which meant a long, straight and steady flight to the target - one by one. The 8th AF had that tactic early on in their shallow penetrations into France, but they dropped it because it was too costly. Not from fighters, but from flak. Instead, LeMay came up with the system of using a master bomber who would use the Norden bomb sight to aim his bombs, after which the rest of the formation would bomb on his cue. Thus the accuracy was very dependent on the size of the formation - which in the case of the 8th AF could be miles long and wide.

Bombs on target is the key point. In the first Schweinfurt mission some 250 or so B-17s made it to the target and dropped their bombs - about 5000lb each. There were only 80 bomb hits on the actual target. I'm sure you wouldn't need 250 Mosquitoes to get 80 hits on target.

Waiting? The Germans could see the B-17s forming up over England, which could take hours, on radar. On the Schweinfurt mission, for example, the Luftwaffe was waiting on the bombers' way into the target. They had twin engined bombers flying above the formation, and bombed the bombers! When they had used their fuel and ammo they went back to base, rearmed, refueled, probably had a pie and then went for a piss, got back in and were waiting for the B-17s on their way back to England.

The key to using the Mosquitoes is, I believe, to time the attacks so that the defenders are on the ground refuelling, to get them out of position, or to force them to split their resources - ie instead of sending up all available fighters for one wave, they would hold back some for the next wave.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Did the US light medium bombers lack turbochargers?


 
No, none of them were.

The B-25 had the R-2600, which I believe rarely, if ever, was used with turbochargers. And I think it had a single stage two speed supercharger.

The A-20 also used R-2600s, and apparently some early ones were fitted with turbos. But most stuck with the two speed single stage supercharger.

The B-26 was fitted with R-2800s with a single stage two speed supercharger. 

The A-26 was also fitted with R-2800s with a single stage two speed supercharger.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2011)

Erich said:


> indeed German fighter pilots had a healthy respect for the "stinger" on the end that single .50cal when and as said not often seen B-26's in the air over Europe. the B-26 had been used on night duties but also suffered to single/twin engine LW attacks
> 
> Remember the diabolical day of 23 December 1944 when the Sturmgruppe of JG 3 attacked the rear of two B-26 groups and tore them to shreds ..........


 
I have sometimes wondered about that day. I know its something that we will never know but the tactics of the RAF and USAAF when attacked were very different. The USAAF tended to stick together and slug it out, the RAF 2TAF with their B25 and Boston the rule was for the aircraft being targeted to evade. Combat trials showed that a corkscrewing bomber made for a very difficult target which in turn bought precious time for the escort to arrive.

Clearly both have their advantages and disadvantages and its quite possible they would cancel each other out, but with the heavily loaded Sturmgruppe aircraft, evading may have been the better option. 

Any thoughts would be welcome


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> Alternate history is about what could have happened if decisions and resource allocations were different. The massive new Willow Run bomber plant will be producing 500 aircraft per month by the end of 1943. In this scenerio it might be producing light or medium bombers ILO B-24s. Perhaps even an American version of the British Mosquito light bomber.
> 
> It all depends on which aircraft wins the U.S. Army Air Force competition.



Which AAF competition? The B-24 contract was given to Consolidated without a fly-off. Consolidated though it could build a better bomber than the B-17, and the AAF agreed. Both North American and Martin were awarded aircraft contracts following the B-26 vs B-25 fly-off.

You'd need a RADICALLY different timeline if you want to get the A-26 into production earlier. 

Design of the A-26 doesn't start until Jan 1941 - when the AAF proposed a better light bomber than the A-20 be developed - the prototype flying in July 1942 and the first service aircraft rolling off the line in Sep 1943. The 500th production example is not completed until Nov 1944.

That's 3 3/4 years from design to the 500th production aircraft - about the same time as it took for the B-24.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2011)

> You'd need a RADICALLY different timeline if you want to get the A-26 into production earlier.


I agree.

The B-24 originated from a 1938 U.S. Army Air Corps request for Consolidated to produce B-17s. This was modified during 1939 to allow Consolidated to produce their own heavy bomber design. Meanwhile Ford began construction of the Willow Run aircraft plant during 1941. Willow Run first production was during October 1942.

In this scenerio I think the point of departure would be no later then 1940, before construction of the Willow Run bomber plant begins. Mosquito prototype first flight was during November 1940. Barely in time to participate in the U.S. Army Air Corps flight competition. Frankly I don't think the original Mosquito prototype stands much of a chance compared to the A-20 light bomber which was already in production.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> Frankly I don't think the original Mosquito prototype stands much of a chance compared to the A-20 light bomber which was already in production.



In what way?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 21, 2011)

Didnt the US military stipulate the defensive armament on their bombers before any flight competition? Was the concept of an unarmed bomber ever considered in the USA?


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2011)

> Was the concept of an unarmed bomber ever considered in the USA?


If the U.S. Army Air Corps is considering the Mosquito then the answer is yes for this alternate history.

Like most new aircraft designs, Mosquito prototypes had significant problems which required at least a year to fix. Meanwhile A-20s were already in production and in combat (with the French Air Force). So I cannot imagine the Mosquito being produced ILO the A-20. 

Most likely the Mosquito light bomber would be considered ILO the late war A-26. If selected for production the U.S. built Mosquito might be powered by Allison V-1710s as that engine performed well at low altitude (i.e. where light bombers operate).


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> If the U.S. Army Air Corps is considering the Mosquito then the answer is yes for this alternate history.
> 
> Like most new aircraft designs, Mosquito prototypes had significant problems which required at least a year to fix. Meanwhile A-20s were already in production and in combat (with the French Air Force). So I cannot imagine the Mosquito being produced ILO the A-20.
> 
> Most likely the Mosquito light bomber would be considered ILO the late war A-26. If selected for production the U.S. built Mosquito might be powered by Allison V-1710s as that engine performed well at low altitude (i.e. where light bombers operate).



Ah, but in this alternate history perhaps light medium bombers wouldn't be limited to low/lower altitudes.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2011)

P-38's were used to bomb Ploesti.
Were they ever used elsewhere in such a role?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> Like most new aircraft designs, Mosquito prototypes had significant problems which required at least a year to fix. Meanwhile A-20s were already in production and in combat (with the French Air Force). So I cannot imagine the Mosquito being produced ILO the A-20.



Did they? The second prototype, W4051, went into active service as a PR aircraft. W4051's fuselage was used to replace W4050's damaged fuselage. W4051 subsequently used a _production_ fuselage, and first flew in June 1941, 7 months after the prototype first flew. W4051 flew operationally in September 1941.

The bomber version flew operationally in May 1942 - the delay probably because the first batch of Mosquitoes ordered were PRIs.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> P-38's were used to bomb Ploesti.
> Were they ever used elsewhere in such a role?



I believe so. Though I couldn't tell you where.

There was evena version of teh P-38 with a bomb aimer's position.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2011)

Initial plans for the Mosquito were for a bomb load of four 250lb bombs (same as as Battle or Blenheim) which probably would not have interested the USAAC planners at all. 

Please compare the abilities of a Mosquito *as it existed in 1940-41* to the abilities of an A-20 *as it existed in 1940-41* to understand decisions. Comparing the abilities of a plane that existed in 1943-44 and asking why didn't they *"just"* start building them 2-3 years earlier doesn't really get us anywhere.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe this will work to provide a plausible background.

July 26, 1941.
President FDR orders a massive American military expansion in the Philippines. A big stick to back up diplomatic efforts vs Japan. Centerpiece of the expansion are four B-17 heavy bombardment groups plus Submarine Squadron 20 equipped with 29 modern long range submarines.

19th (H) Bombardment Group was in the Philippines during December 1941. 7th (H) Bombardment Group was enroute aboard Convoy 4002. The other two heavy bomber groups would have to wait until additional B-17Es were produced. A total of 35 B-17s were in the Philippines to counter the December 1941 Japanese invasions. Propaganda bulletins aside, they failed miserably at sinking IJA troop transports.

*Point of Departure.*
The U.S.A.A.F. still plans to send four B-17 heavy bomber groups to the Philippines. However since there aren’t enough B-17s available during 1941 one of the groups will initially be equipped with A-20s. This group will convert to B-17s during 1942 and their A-20s will be handed over to the Philippine Army Air Corps.

December 8, 1941 (Philippine time).
The U.S. has plenty of A-20s during 1941. 7th (Light) Bombardment Group and their A-20s depart San Francisco during September 1941, arriving in Manila during October 1941. They have ample time to become combat ready and visit a few local strip clubs before the Japanese attack. 

Like the B-17s, about half of the A-20s will survive long enough for employment against Japanese troop transports. Unlike high altitude B-17s, low altitude A-20s prove somewhat effective. Not enough to change results for the overall battle. However the U.S.A.A.F. have a chance to compare B-17s vs A-20s operating under identical combat conditions. 

January 1942.
Combat results from the Philippines cause a reevaluation among U.S.A.A.F. generals. B-17 and B-24 heavy bomber programs will continue. However a complementary light bomber program will be initiated to conduct strategic bombing from low level. They like the A-20 but it lacks range. So the search is on for a long range light bomber. The Mosquito will compete against the B-25, B-26, A-26 prototype and anyone else who wants to enter the competition.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2011)

If the R-2600 was powering the A-20 in this timeline, what about a R-2600 powered fighter?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2011)

I am not sure about your time line but by Jan 1942 there are 184 B-25s already delivered and several thousand more are already contracted for. A new factory is being set up in Kansas City for B-25 Production and in fact the first production B-25s from this factroy roll out the door in Feb 1942. 
The B-26 is also already in production and has hundreds of planes contracted for.

Both planes go back to a design specification issued in March of 1939. 

Any competition done in Jan of 1942 is going to result in aircraft that won't be available until 1944-45. 

While they were both canceled the NA XB-28 and Martin XB-33 were intended to be replacements for the existing B-25/B-26 and both were started well before Jan of 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> If the R-2600 was powering the A-20 in this timeline, what about a R-2600 powered fighter?



Haven't we been over that one enough 

Good bomber engine, lousy fighter engine. Power to drag ratio at altitude (over 11,00-14,000ft) means it won't outperform an Allison powered airplane.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't think it was all about bombs on target otherwise the use of light/medium bombers would have been far greater than their use, in fact the heavy bomber would have taken a back-seat to any aerial bombardment of Europe. Of course, I agree with the first part of your post, there's no denying that I Mosquito could operate under the same conditions as the American bomber formations (and this was a key point of mine). Alternatively I did state that the Mosquito could not have operated in the method of the British night-bombers who were arriving over target individually simply because in the day, yes, the Germans would be waiting. You are correct, the Luftwaffe had advance warning of the U.S. bomber streams forming up over Great Britain but those formations were not easy targets - especially when escorted. A gaggle of Mosquitos arriving every now and then would be easy pickings, as most likely the escort task would be too difficult to co-ordinate and lead to many errors and unprotected bombers. 

It would be a nice idea to see the attacks coming in every time the enemy fighters were rearming and refuelling but it wouldn't work out that way, and when caught by the fighters Mosquitos were vulnerable. Operation Jericho is a good example of both sides of the coin; yes, the target was hit with absolute and fantastic precision but three Mosquitos were lost because they were the last there and the Luftwaffe had arrived. Now up the scale to the proposal here, we want 80 hits on Schweinfurt, that's still a considerable amount of Mosquitos ... each striking their target individually, depending on payload...what? 20, 30, 40 planes unescorted... arriving in formation is the only way they can ensure they arrive together, but that's suicide. So we attack in groups of three or four, the Germans scramble for the first group...they are missed, then the second group appears maybe we're lucky the fighters are down refueling but then again maybe the Germans aren't stupid and see that all these planes spotted are most likely heading for the same place so they're waiting. And unlike a bomber formation with escort, this lot can't fire back. 

Plus the fact, precision isn't always key, it's well recognised that sometimes laying waste to an area can have a very nice affect on the countryside... bring the enemy into the air and divert roughly 10,000 heavy AA guns to defend against high flying bombers. Strategic bombardment cannot be achieved by light/medium bombers, not in those days.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2011)

> Any competition done in Jan of 1942 is going to result in aircraft that won't be available until 1944-45.


Only if you start from scratch.

If I was running the U.S. Army Air Force my first thought would be to increase the range of the existing A-20. Perhaps they can stretch the fuselage a bit for additional fuel space like Germany did with the Ju-88H. If that won't work then look at ways to increase B-25 and B-26 low level speed. How much speed could you gain by eliminating all machinegun positions except the tail gun? The A-26 is probably the best long term solution. How soon could it enter service if the U.S.A.A.F. gave it the same priority as the B-29 heavy bomber?

I think the Mosquito is a very long shot for production reasons if nothing else. It's made of wood so you need an entirely new production facility. The A-26 could probably enter service in large numbers at least as fast as an American copy of the Mosquito.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2011)

You are not going to get much by playing with existing airframes. The A-20 is a fairly small airplane. It already has a high take-off and landing speed. Those R-2600 engines have more drag than the Merlins on the Mosquito and they suck more fuel. 

Getting rid of turrets and waist guns doesn't really buy much either. See the Avro Lancastrian as an example. An increase of 15-20mph perhaps? Mosquito was fast because of it's small fuselage, keeping a fat/empty fuselage and just getting rid of a few lumps and bumps is not going to turn a B-25/B-26 into a speedster. Lockheed Vegas had some success in the Pacific at low level where they could do around 300mph and out run some Japanese fighters but against the faster German planes they would have been in trouble.

The question is wither the "light/medium"bombers can carry the tonnage wanted. While Mosquito did wind up carrying a 4,000lb bomb load it did not do so on operations until late Feb of 1944. A bit late to base the Strategic bombing campaign on.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 21, 2011)

plan_D said:


> three Mosquitos were lost because they were the last there and the Luftwaffe had arrived.


 
That is incorrect. Only Pickard's Mosquito was lost to fighters, one other was shot down by flak. Another may have been shot up by fighters but able to return. It was another 487 Sqn machine, and they were the first there.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2011)

Then it probably comes down to Mosquito vs A-26. Either way the program won't bear fruit prior to 1944.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> Then it probably comes down to Mosquito vs A-26. Either way the program won't bear fruit prior to 1944.



The first Mosquito XX came off the line in Malton on June 1943. This was less than a year after the decision to build Mossies in Canada. Surely if the humongous Willowrun plant could be built in a year and the little plant in Malton could be producing Mossies in less than a year, I see no reason why American produced Mossies could not have been rolling out a factory doors in large numbers at about the same time. Note, the Canadian and American production was being discussed at the same time.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

mhuxt said:


> That is incorrect. Only Pickard's Mosquito was lost to fighters, one other was shot down by flak. Another may have been shot up by fighters but able to return. It was another 487 Sqn machine, and they were the first there.



And Pickard was only lost as he hung around to film the prisoners escaping. And, IIRC, he turned and fought the enemy fighter, instead of running for home.

The Jericho raid also had Typhoon escort fighters.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Initial plans for the Mosquito were for a bomb load of four 250lb bombs (same as as Battle or Blenheim) which probably would not have interested the USAAC planners at all.
> 
> Please compare the abilities of a Mosquito *as it existed in 1940-41* to the abilities of an A-20 *as it existed in 1940-41* to understand decisions. Comparing the abilities of a plane that existed in 1943-44 and asking why didn't they *"just"* start building them 2-3 years earlier doesn't really get us anywhere.



The 4 x 250lb bomb load was superseded by the 4 x 500lb load before any bomber Mosquitoes became operational. So, May 1942 you have a fast bomber with a 2000lb load.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 21, 2011)

wuzak said:


> And Pickard was only lost as he hung around to film the prisoners escaping.


 
No, the filming was undertaken by an FPU Mossie which returned unharmed. 

I've never read that he turned to fight the 190s, though there's a new book out which analyses the raid. IIRC the author believes Pickard was jumped before the raid got underway, must get myself a copy.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

mhuxt said:


> No, the filming was undertaken by an FPU Mossie which returned unharmed.
> 
> I've never read that he turned to fight the 190s, though there's a new book out which analyses the raid. IIRC the author believes Pickard was jumped before the raid got underway, must get myself a copy.



I am quite sure that he was shot down after the raid.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

> Pickard orbited the prison at 500 ft (150 m) watching prisoners escape. Having seen that the operation had been successful, he signalled No. 21 Squadron's Mosquitos to return home. As he turned for home, he was attacked by a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter from Jagdgeschwader 26. Its tail severed, Pickard's Mosquito crashed, killing Pickard and his navigator, Flight-Lieutenant Alan Broadley. In all, three Mosquitos and two Typhoons were lost in the raid; a total of three aircrew were killed and three were captured.



Operation Jericho - Wiki

I thought Pickard's navigator had a camera as well. But you are correct, it seems he didn't fight the Fw190s.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The question is wither the "light/medium"bombers can carry the tonnage wanted. While Mosquito did wind up carrying a 4,000lb bomb load it did not do so on operations until late Feb of 1944. A bit late to base the Strategic bombing campaign on.



Surely the question is "can the light/medium bombers inflict the required damage"?

btw, Mosquito could carry 3000lb from 1943 (4 x 500lb in bomb bay + 2 x 500lb on wing). 

However, with the 2000lb bomb load I would figure the Mosquito would need to be 2 - 3 times more accurate than the 8th AF B-17s. That is, would need 40-60% of their bombs to fall within 1000ft of the aiming point.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 21, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I am quite sure that he was shot down after the raid.



Yes, that certainly seems to be the general view. Mayer's claim is listed as having been at 12.05, whereas the 464 Sqn craft apparently went in a minute later. So there's not much in it, will look forward to reading what Ducellier has to say, apparently the book is due this September. 

There is a pdf excerpt of one section posted here:

http://www.redkitebooks.co.uk/pdfs/amienssamplechapter.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Surely the question is "can the light/medium bombers inflict the required damage"?
> 
> btw, Mosquito could carry 3000lb from 1943 (4 x 500lb in bomb bay + 2 x 500lb on wing).
> 
> However, with the 2000lb bomb load I would figure the Mosquito would need to be 2 - 3 times more accurate than the 8th AF B-17s. That is, would need 40-60% of their bombs to fall within 1000ft of the aiming point.



That may have been the question that should have been asked but until operational research could come up with answers gross tonnage was the easy way out. The other problem with trying to use Mosquitos (or A-20s or other small bombers) is that it became apparent that 500lbs were not always the bomb of choice. The ability of the smaller bombers to use 1000lb and 2000lb bombs were more limited and their ability to use Incendiaries was even more limited. The B-17 was often limited more by the volume of it's bomb bay rather than the weight it could lift and some of the smaller bombers were certainly no better. 
Under wing loads are going to have a bigger impact on speed and range than the same load carried internally.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2011)

*January 1944*. Production date for aircraft.
*4,000 lb internal bomb load*. Bonus points if this can be 4 x 1,000 lb bombs.
*500 miles.* Minimum combat radius with 4,000 lb bomb load. More is better.
*250 mph*. Minimum cruise speed with 4,000 lb bomb load and 500 mile combat radius. Faster is better as we want to minimize time over enemy airspace.
*10,000 feet*. Cruising altitude. The actual attack may be conducted from even lower. Perhaps in a shallow dive to increase speed.
Bonus points for cockpit armor and overall aircraft ruggedness. Ground fire is an occupational hazzard for light bombers.

Can January 1944 versions of the A-26 and Mosquito meet or exceed these mission requirements?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> *January 1944*. Production date for aircraft.
> *4,000 lb internal bomb load*. Bonus points if this can be 4 x 1,000 lb bombs.



Both can carry a 4000lb bomb load. Not sure if A-26 can carry 4 x 1000lb, but Mosquito can't. Mossie may be able to carry 3 x 1000lb bombs. Mosquito can carry 1 x 4000lb HC or MC bomb, not sure if A-26 can.




davebender said:


> *January 1944*. Production date for aircraft.



Yes to Mosquito. BIX in production in early 1943 with two stage Merlins, PRXVI from late 1943, and BXVI from early 1944. Very possible to get BXVI in production earlier if PR, NF and FB don't have priority.

A-26 is in production later, but may have been possible sooner without delays and production requirements (ie not stopping production for the changeover).



davebender said:


> *500 miles.* Minimum combat radius with 4,000 lb bomb load. More is better.



Mossie (BXVI): 1500 miles range with 4000lb bomb. Not sure how that equates to combat radius.

A-26: 1400 miles. Doesn't say if that was with internal or full bomb load.




davebender said:


> *250 mph*. Minimum cruise speed with 4,000 lb bomb load and 500 mile combat radius. Faster is better as we want to minimize time over enemy airspace.



Not a problem for a Mossie. Think 330-350mph for a BXVI.

A-26 cruising speed is 284mph. Max speed is 355mph at 15,000ft, compared with Mossie BXVI max of 415mph at 28,000ft.



davebender said:


> *10,000 feet*. Cruising altitude. The actual attack may be conducted from even lower. Perhaps in a shallow dive to increase speed.



10,000ft is not a good number, I believe. Not high and not low altitude. Mosquitoes could cruise at over 25,000ft with the 4000lb bomb load. A-26 is shown as having a cieling of 22,000ft! But, if we want a higher altitude we can opt for a two stage R-2800, like those fitted to the F6F and F4U.

A-26 is faster at sea level, IIRC. So better for low level ops, though you can swap out your 1710hp 76/77 Merlins in your Mosquito BXVI for 2000hp Merlin 66s if low level ops is your goal.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> That may have been the question that should have been asked but until operational research could come up with answers gross tonnage was the easy way out. The other problem with trying to use Mosquitos (or A-20s or other small bombers) is that it became apparent that 500lbs were not always the bomb of choice. The ability of the smaller bombers to use 1000lb and 2000lb bombs were more limited and their ability to use Incendiaries was even more limited. The B-17 was often limited more by the volume of it's bomb bay rather than the weight it could lift and some of the smaller bombers were certainly no better.
> Under wing loads are going to have a bigger impact on speed and range than the same load carried internally.



As I said before, I think the early Mossies were capable of carry 2 x 1000lb MC bombs internally, but I can't confirm that. 2 x 1600lb SAP bombs shouldn't be a problem, though conversion to a British style tail (where the tail is round and no bigger in diameter than the body) may be needed.

A single 2000lb bomb could possibly be carried, but would probably require a slight bulge (obviosuly not as big as for the 4000lb bomb) in the bomb bay doors.

FWIW I don't think that a B-17 could carry a 4000lb bomb internally.

Incendiaries could be packed in the Mossie's bomb bay if it were carrying 2 x 100lb bombs - because ther would be plenty of space at the rear of the bomb compartment.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2011)

> Mossie (BXVI): 1500 miles range with 4000lb bomb. Not sure how that equates to combat radius.


Most sources I have read consider combat radius to be roughly one third of total range. That allows time to form up and provides some fuel to be burned in combat maneuvers at WEP.

Max speed matters only after you have dropped your bombs. Cruise speed with payload is more important for a bomber.




> 10,000ft is not a good number, I believe. Not high and not low altitude


It's all about accuracy vs survivability. Let's look at some estimates.

*B-17G bombing from high altitude.*
32% of bombs within a 610 meter circle.
Unacceptable for a light bomber. If you are going to carpet bomb an entire city then you want heavy bombers. 

*Ju-88A or Me-410A Dive Bomber.*
50% of bombs within a 50 meter circle.
State of the art for WWII era bombing accuracy. Unfortunately neither the Mosquito nor the A-26 can dive bomb.

*German level bomber. 3,000 meter altitude. Lotfe 7D stabilized bomb sight.*
50% of bombs within a 91 meter circle. I assume the Norden bomb sight can deliver similiar results. 
Good enough to hit a major factory complex. 3,000 meters / 10,000 feet will keep you above 3.7cm light flak. You've got enough altitude for evasive action vs enemy fighter aircraft. You've also got enough altitude to attack in a shallow dive to increase speed, thereby minimizing time over a heavily defended target.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2011)

wuzak said:


> As I said before, I think the early Mossies were capable of carry 2 x 1000lb MC bombs internally, but I can't confirm that. 2 x 1600lb SAP bombs shouldn't be a problem, though conversion to a British style tail (where the tail is round and no bigger in diameter than the body) may be needed.



I ask again, does anybody have a bomb rack chart or mission reports with such a load? 

1600lb AP bombs are semi useless to a Mosquito (and most other medium level bombers) While the weight looks impressive they need to be dropped from altitude in order to penetrate (they need the speed) leading to low accuracy and for unarmored targets (anything less than a heavy cruiser) they carry much less explosive than a 1000lb bomb. The 1600lb MK 1 Bomb (Navy) carried 209lbs of Ammonium nitrate. while a 1000lb sap bomb carried about 300lbs and a 1000lb GP bomb could carry about 500lb or more. The 1600lb bomb was 14in in diameter but a 1000lb GP bomb was 18.6in dia. 

A B-17 could carry a pair of 2000lb (23in dia?)internally but could not carry 4000lb bombs inside. The incendiaries should be on racks and not just stuffed in and held by the closed bay doors (while the British did use this method on early bombers it was going out of service in later years). It may only work with light incendiaries in any case. B-17s often used 65-100lb incendiaries or cluster incendiaries that had to be held on racks. 

Bomb loads also had to meet CG requirements and the Mosquito took awhile to get the 4000lb (30in dia?) cookie right or at least acceptable.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> Most sources I have read consider combat radius to be roughly one third of total range. That allows time to form up and provides some fuel to be burned in combat maneuvers at WEP.
> 
> Max speed matters only after you have dropped your bombs. Cruise speed with payload is more important for a bomber.
> 
> ...



Are those combat stats or stats from a test range?


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2011)

Bombing accuracy of B-17 and B-24 groups in WW2


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 22, 2011)

From the site above: "The "AIMING POINT" for R.A.F. bombers would be the entire city." 

That is, in a word, bullsh*t, and is another thread hijack.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2011)

This discussion is about American bombers (i.e. 8th Air Force). Are you saying the B-17 and B-24 data in the link is wrong?


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2011)

Unfortunately the following quotation from the “United States Strategic
Bombing Survey. Summary Report. Washington Sept 1945”
gives in retrospect a far different assessment of “precision
bombing” by the USAAF than has been generally publicised :

Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a
radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved
during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the
bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of
70% was reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts
for the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs
delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried
than hit German installations.

From this you can see that the 30% figure is well off. Some of the comments in the page you quote give concern. The Aiming point for the RAF wasn't the entire city, they were normally the markers laid down by the Pathfinders. 

The Link to the whole document is as follows NOTE Best viewed with screen realization 1024 x 768,


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> This discussion is about American bombers (i.e. 8th Air Force). Are you saying the B-17 and B-24 data in the link is wrong?


 
This discussion, as you can tell from its title, is about Mosquitos, specifically, their hypothetical use as the 8th Air Force's main bomber. 

If I wanted to say the data was wrong, I'd say something like, "that data is wrong."

As it happens, I've been looking for what I believe is the original report used in that site. It's here:

Report on bombing accuracy, Eighth Air Force, 1 September 1944 to 31 December 1944. :: World War II Operational Documents

I have other reports on 8th AF accuracy statistics, but as noted, that would be another thread hijack, away from "8th Air Force use of Mosquitoes."


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I ask again, does anybody have a bomb rack chart or mission reports with such a load?
> 
> 1600lb AP bombs are semi useless to a Mosquito (and most other medium level bombers) While the weight looks impressive they need to be dropped from altitude in order to penetrate (they need the speed) leading to low accuracy and for unarmored targets (anything less than a heavy cruiser) they carry much less explosive than a 1000lb bomb. The 1600lb MK 1 Bomb (Navy) carried 209lbs of Ammonium nitrate. while a 1000lb sap bomb carried about 300lbs and a 1000lb GP bomb could carry about 500lb or more. The 1600lb bomb was 14in in diameter but a 1000lb GP bomb was 18.6in dia.
> 
> ...



I don't think Mosquitoes used bombs other than the 250lb GP/MC, the 500lb GP/MC, the 4000lb HC or the 4000lb MC bombs operationally. But they were tested with other weapons. I am trying to find out what Mossies could carry.

The British 1000lb MC bomb was 17.75in in diameter and 52.5in long. The older 1000 GP was also 52.5in long, 16.15in in diameter. We know that the 4000lb HC "cookie" was 30in in diameter, and was not the full width of the bomb bay, and 110in long, and also not the full length of the bomb bay. If they couldn't carry two 1000lb MC/GP bombs side by side it is likely they could have carried them end for end. The British 500lb GP bomb was 12.9in in diameter and 70.6in long, or 55.6in long when shortened for use in the Mosquito. If they carried two 1000lb MC bombs end to end it would likely affect CoG very little (as it would be very similar to 4 x 500lb bombs).

The 1600lb AN-Mk1 SAP was one of the most used bombs by the 8th AF.

The US 2000lb GP AN-M66A1 bomb was 92.83in long and 31.6in across the fins.

B-17s could carry a maximum of 4 x 2000lb bombs, 6 x 1600lb SAP bombs or 6 x 1000lb bombs.

How the RAF carried incendiaries:







Lancaster bomb bay

The 4000lb "cookie" caused the centre of gravity to be too far back on the converted BIVs. The two stage Merlins were longer and heavier, which moved the CoG forward, and made carrying the cookie more acceptable.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2011)

The site where I have got data for British bombs in the past appears to be dead.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 23, 2011)

Sharp Bowyer's "Mosquito" lists the later 8 Group Oslo raid (not the early 2 Group spectacular in 1942) as having used Mossies with 2x500 and 1x1000 lbs. Wasn't a regular load though, as their table of bombs dropped in the Appendices says, IIRC, 14 of the 1,000-lbers were dropped in all of '44. The 1,000 lb Target Indicators were a regular load according to the same table, I don't have dimensions offhand.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

Found this, which gives the bomb load of a BIV as:



> Up to 2,000 lb max, all internal:
> 2 × 1,000 lb
> 1 × 1,000 lb + 2 × 500 or 2 × 250 lb
> 4 × 500 lb
> Specialy modified bombers could carry 1 × 4,000 lb "cookie " bomb



Though there are no sources listed.


----------



## Hop (Jul 23, 2011)

> The 1,000 lb Target Indicators were a regular load according to the same table, I don't have dimensions offhand.



Body length 53.6 inch, tail 20, total 73.6
Body diameter 17 
Tail width 17.4


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I don't think Mosquitoes used bombs other than the 250lb GP/MC, the 500lb GP/MC, the 4000lb HC or the 4000lb MC bombs operationally. But they were tested with other weapons. I am trying to find out what Mossies could carry.
> 
> The British 1000lb MC bomb was 17.75in in diameter and 52.5in long. The older 1000 GP was also 52.5in long, 16.15in in diameter. We know that the 4000lb HC "cookie" was 30in in diameter, and was not the full width of the bomb bay, and 110in long, and also not the full length of the bomb bay. If they couldn't carry two 1000lb MC/GP bombs side by side it is likely they could have carried them end for end. The British 500lb GP bomb was 12.9in in diameter and 70.6in long, or 55.6in long when shortened for use in the Mosquito. If they carried two 1000lb MC bombs end to end it would likely affect CoG very little (as it would be very similar to 4 x 500lb bombs).



The ability to carry the 1000lb bombs end for end may depend on the bomb rack set up. the room may be there. The Mosquito bomb bay may still not offer the flexibility of the B-17 bomb bay (and that had restrictions of it's own). 


wuzak said:


> The 1600lb AN-Mk1 SAP was one of the most used bombs by the 8th AF.



Do you have source for this? While the 303BG is not the 8th AF I have looked at over 60 missions ( out of over 300) and found no mention of 1600lb bombs. this bomb has very little use for attacking anything but big ships. It is usually listed as an "AP" bomb and not "SAP" and carries less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb. 




wuzak said:


> B-17s could carry a maximum of 4 x 2000lb bombs, 6 x 1600lb SAP bombs or 6 x 1000lb bombs.



Most B-17s could only carry four 2000lb bombs if they carried two of them externally. They could carry eight 1600lb of 1000lbs internally plus two externally but not very far. There is a B-17 manual on this site and page 53(?) shows the bomb rack chart for B-17Fs and Gs. Rack limits (barring typos or misprints) seem to limit the B-17 to loads of twenty four 100lb bombs, sixteen 300lb bombs, twelve 500lb bombs. Of course combinations could be carried but just because there is excess weight or volume available doesn't mean you can stick what ever you want in it. 


wuzak said:


> How the RAF carried incendiaries:
> 
> The 4000lb "cookie" caused the centre of gravity to be too far back on the converted BIVs. The two stage Merlins were longer and heavier, which moved the CoG forward, and made carrying the cookie more acceptable.



Those incendiaries are in bundles and attached to racks and/or release mechanisms are they not? I guess it depends on which incendiaries are used (some were much more "bomb like") and if the Mosquito's (or other light/medium bomber) bombay had the "flexibility of the Lancaster's. The "roof" of the Lancaster bay seems to have been a grid that various attachments could be hooked to or put through holes from above by crewmen with access from above. Other bombers may not have had the same access or adaptability.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2011)

Number of Bombs Dropped in Theaters vs Germany, By Type of Bomb: 1943 to Aug 1945

Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2011)

Thank you.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Number of Bombs Dropped in Theaters vs Germany, By Type of Bomb: 1943 to Aug 1945
> 
> Army Air Forces in World War II


 


Shortround6 said:


> Do you have source for this? While the 303BG is not the 8th AF I have looked at over 60 missions ( out of over 300) and found no mention of 1600lb bombs. this bomb has very little use for attacking anything but big ships. It is usually listed as an "AP" bomb and not "SAP" and carries less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb.



Evidently I was wrong....

Still, it shows the importance of the 500lb bombs compared to the 1000lb or 2000lb bombs in USAAF thinking.

The USAAF used the 500lb bombs 5.5 times they did the 1000lb bomb. And 63 times the 2000lb bomb. They used nearly twice the number of 250lb bombs that they did with the 1000lb bomb. Looking only at GP bombs.

The Mosquito could certainly drop 500lb and 250lb bombs.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The ability to carry the 1000lb bombs end for end may depend on the bomb rack set up. the room may be there. The Mosquito bomb bay may still not offer the flexibility of the B-17 bomb bay (and that had restrictions of it's own).



Well, the Mosquito certainly carried 4 x 500lb or 250lb bombs in 2 x 2 formation, and also a single 4000lb bomb. That would suggest the ability to change racks to suit the load.




Shortround6 said:


> Most B-17s could only carry four 2000lb bombs if they carried two of them externally. They could carry eight 1600lb of 1000lbs internally plus two externally but not very far. There is a B-17 manual on this site and page 53(?) shows the bomb rack chart for B-17Fs and Gs. Rack limits (barring typos or misprints) seem to limit the B-17 to loads of twenty four 100lb bombs, sixteen 300lb bombs, twelve 500lb bombs. Of course combinations could be carried but just because there is excess weight or volume available doesn't mean you can stick what ever you want in it.



I have read the maximum load for a B-17G as being 4 x 2000lb or 6 x 1000 or 1600lb bombs internally. But the sources for that have usually been web pages, so the accuracy would be questionable. I'll find that manual later and have a look.




Shortround6 said:


> Those incendiaries are in bundles and attached to racks and/or release mechanisms are they not? I guess it depends on which incendiaries are used (some were much more "bomb like") and if the Mosquito's (or other light/medium bomber) bombay had the "flexibility of the Lancaster's. The "roof" of the Lancaster bay seems to have been a grid that various attachments could be hooked to or put through holes from above by crewmen with access from above. Other bombers may not have had the same access or adaptability.



I did have a look at the de Havilland museum's B.35 Mosquito back in 2007, but didn't get any pictures in the bomb bay. I did inside W4050's bomb bay, but it was being stripped down, and what you could see inside the bay were the fuel cells, which sat above the bomb bay.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2011)

Do we have historical accuracy data for Mosquitoes bombing from 5,000 to 10,000 feet? 

Small, hand picked and specially trained units don't count. We need normal Mosquito light bomber units conducting normal (i.e. not pathfinder) missions.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 23, 2011)

davebender said:


> Do we have historical accuracy data for Mosquitoes bombing from 5,000 to 10,000 feet?


 
No, because they didn't bomb from those altitudes.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2011)

If true then why do people think the Mosquito was such a great light bomber?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

davebender said:


> If true then why do people think the Mosquito was such a great light bomber?



They either bombed from higher, in which case their accuracy would be no worse than other aircraft from that altitude, or from low level.

When bombing from low level they could achieve a high level of accuracy, almost 100% could be achieved.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The site where I have got data for British bombs in the past appears to be dead.
> 
> http://www.wwiiequipment.com/



Now it is working again.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The British 1000lb MC bomb was 17.75in in diameter and 52.5in long. The older 1000 GP was also 52.5in long, 16.15in in diameter. We know that the 4000lb HC "cookie" was 30in in diameter, and was not the full width of the bomb bay, and 110in long, and also not the full length of the bomb bay. If they couldn't carry two 1000lb MC/GP bombs side by side it is likely they could have carried them end for end.



My mistake, the length dimensions I quoted for the 1000lb bombs were for the body. The overall length of the GP bomb could be 86.5in or 71in and for the MC bomb 72.6in.

So the 1000lb bombs could not possibly be carried end to end in a Mosquito bomb bay.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> If true then why do people think the Mosquito was such a great light bomber?



Because it was. It could bomb at the lower altitudes and get hits. It could bomb at high altitude and while no better than many other bombers it was no worse. Some of the high altitude raids were propaganda raids, They didn't expect to hit much. It had more range than most other "light" bombers. It was faster and suffered lower losses. 

However it takes a might great "light" bomber to replace a "heavy" bomber on a one for one basis. 

Bombing at 5000ft only works if your enemy doesn't have light AA. It is on the edge of 20mm effective range. It is well with 37-40mm range. 10,000ft is just inside the effective range of most 37-40mm guns. Please note that 37-40mm AA guns were not common in 1939-41. The certainly existed but not in the numbers they would later in the war. Tactics that worked in 1940 would near suicide in 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

wuzak said:


> My mistake, the length dimensions I quoted for the 1000lb bombs were for the body. The overall length of the GP bomb could be 86.5in or 71in and for the MC bomb 72.6in.
> 
> So the 1000lb bombs could not possibly be carried end to end in a Mosquito bomb bay.



Thank you for the correction/information. Perhaps they could be carried side by side? it might depend on the release gear, and clearance going through the doors? 

Going back to the original question, the Mosquito fine a plane as it was, could not really replace B-17s on a one for one basis. The B-17 had a rather restricted bomb bay of it's own, both in length and in width with the central catwalk/beam. It could how ever carry 100lb, 250/300lb, 500lb, 600lb, 1000lb, 1600lb, and 2,000lb bombs inside. It could also carry a variety of incendiary bombs, many of the early ones were in normal looking bomb casings and mounted to standard racks and were not the clusters that came into use later. These incendiary bombs were lighter in weight than the GP bombs for their volume and reduced the bomb load due to volume/rack space considerations. 

To drop an equal "tonnage" of bombs to B-17s you need at least 2 Mosquitoes and more likely 2 1/2 Mosquitoes for many targets deep in Germany. 4000lb cookies excepted and from altitude the accuracy of the 4000lb cookie was worse than normal bombs.

It is quite possible that the Mosquitoes might have been able to deliver this tonnage with fewer losses but the loss rate was unknown when production decisions had to be made and while the Mosquito with it's two man crew certainly looks attractive compared to the crew of a B-17 aircrew are not interchangeable. You may not be able to turn gunners/radio operators into pilots and navigators. In US service many Navigators/bombardiers were actually men who washed out of flight school.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for the correction/information. Perhaps they could be carried side by side? it might depend on the release gear, and clearance going through the doors?



I think the side by side would be tight, but that reference earlier certainly says that Mosquitoes could carry two, and mhuxt quotes a load of 1 x 1000lb TI and 2 x 500lb MC bombs, the TI being the same size as the 1000lb MC bomb.




Shortround6 said:


> Going back to the original question, the Mosquito fine a plane as it was, could not really replace B-17s on a one for one basis. The B-17 had a rather restricted bomb bay of it's own, both in length and in width with the central catwalk/beam. It could how ever carry 100lb, 250/300lb, 500lb, 600lb, 1000lb, 1600lb, and 2,000lb bombs inside. It could also carry a variety of incendiary bombs, many of the early ones were in normal looking bomb casings and mounted to standard racks and were not the clusters that came into use later. These incendiary bombs were lighter in weight than the GP bombs for their volume and reduced the bomb load due to volume/rack space considerations.



The smaller bombs (< 250lb/300lb) were next to useless against industrial targets. But the 250lb and 500lb were the preferred bombs of the 8th AF, probably because having 10 or more bombs per bomber gives you a better chance at hitting something than just having one or two.

I don't know what arrangements the Mosquito had for attaching racks, and how many small bombs it could carry.

The B-17 could carry more types of bombs on a mission, there is little doubt. If a Mosquito had a 2000lb bomb it is likely that is all it could carry. Though it may have some space for incendiaries.

I don't know if B-17s mixed their loads much, other than to carry incendiaries along with their HE bombs.




Shortround6 said:


> To drop an equal "tonnage" of bombs to B-17s you need at least 2 Mosquitoes and more likely 2 1/2 Mosquitoes for many targets deep in Germany. 4000lb cookies excepted and from altitude the accuracy of the 4000lb cookie was worse than normal bombs.



It's not so much the tonnage that the Mosquito would have to compete with, but more the tonnage that could be delivered on target. It is true that the 4000lb HC bomb wasn't as accurate as normal bombs, but that wasn't such an issue for the duty it performed. An alternative to the 4000lb HC cookie was the 4000lb MC bomb - similar in design to the 500lb, except much larger, of course. It was originally designed because the cookie couldn't be used at low level because it would break apart. Mosquitoes did carry these from 1944, and used them accurately from about 30,000ft.

4000lb Medium Capcity Bomb



Shortround6 said:


> It is quite possible that the Mosquitoes might have been able to deliver this tonnage with fewer losses but the loss rate was unknown when production decisions had to be made and while the Mosquito with it's two man crew certainly looks attractive compared to the crew of a B-17 aircrew are not interchangeable. You may not be able to turn gunners/radio operators into pilots and navigators. In US service many Navigators/bombardiers were actually men who washed out of flight school.



It was probable that the planners never foresaw the need for bomber to release bombs en masse, rather than bombing individually - which was more accurate, but also more costly.

While what you say is correct about the gunners, navigators and bombadiers not necessarily being suitable for pilot training the B-17 did have two pilots. And a navigator and a bombadier - tasks which were combined for the Mosquito. So the gunners would be the only ones unlikely that could not be brought across.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

From the mission reports of the 303BG it seems that on occasion the B-17s used mixed loads but it may have been just as common to use one group or squadron with one type of bomb and another group or squadron with another type of bomb on the same target. this may be because the ballistics of the different bombs needed different release points. When bombing by squadron or group all planes should use the same bombs. It may be this mixed loading that gave rise to the B-17 could only carry 4000lb to Berlin claim. They could actually carry 5,000lb of GP bombs (either ten 500lb or five 1000lb) but only about 3,000lb of incendiaries. 

We still have the timing issue. The decision to equip with Mosquitoes would have had to have been made well before most of the capabilities of the Mosquito became known or were developed.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> From the mission reports of the 303BG it seems that on occasion the B-17s used mixed loads but it may have been just as common to use one group or squadron with one type of bomb and another group or squadron with another type of bomb on the same target. this may be because the ballistics of the different bombs needed different release points. When bombing by squadron or group all planes should use the same bombs. It may be this mixed loading that gave rise to the B-17 could only carry 4000lb to Berlin claim. They could actually carry 5,000lb of GP bombs (either ten 500lb or five 1000lb) but only about 3,000lb of incendiaries.
> 
> We still have the timing issue. The decision to equip with Mosquitoes would have had to have been made well before most of the capabilities of the Mosquito became known or were developed.



Mosquitoes were used on bombing missions before the 8th AF began operations. But the heavies in the USAAF and the 8th AF still believed in the self defending bomber not requiring escort - it would take another year after commencing operations before that was beaten into them.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

Just found an article in the tech forum which may shed light on the Mosquito bomb bay use.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/dehavilland-mosquito-11087.html

A quick scan doesn't seem to show any text on the matter, but a picture on page 2 and the side view at the bottom of the last page (page 8.) show that the bomb racks were attached to steel cross members that were mounted in the bomb bay - which no doubt helped give some flexibility.

The end view of the bombs seem to suggest that there was room for larger diameter bombs - so it may have been possible for 2 x 1000lb in teh bay.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

Here are the pics from that pdf


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2011)

You cannot bomb effectively without taking some risks. 10,000 feet is low enough for acceptable accuracy yet high enough to minimize the light flak danger. 

I don't think bombing from very low altitude (say 500 feet) will work for a large aircraft formation. The Luftwaffe had warning of most air raids from acoustic detection and EW intercepts even before the bombers showed up on radar. Forewarned 3.7cm flak would murder enemy aircraft at that altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2011)

I might be a little late on this but a while back we discussed the Mosquito performing a high altitude mission in the same capacity the B-17 and B-24 accomplished. Remember that if you're bombing with a precision optical bomb sight, you are commencing you're bomb run at speeds just above cruising and I think you're probably looking at about 250 mph maximum. I know somewhere on here we posted the Mosquito's bomb door operating speed and it wasn't as high as you would expect. 

In the case with a Mosquito, it would have been the same sitting duck over target as any heavy, American or British were while bombing unescorted. The advantage "would have" been after the bomb run where the Mosquito "could have" used superior speed to depart the combat area.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2011)

Found it..

"bomb bay doors open 305 knots" = 340 mph - not bad providing you're able to accurately bomb at that speed at altitude depending on wind and other conditions.

Pilot's Notes - De Havilland Mosquito FB 6

Here's a Norden bombsight page that talks about some other bombs sights and setting speeds.

http://www.twinbeech.com/norden_bombsight.htm


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> You cannot bomb effectively without taking some risks. 10,000 feet is low enough for acceptable accuracy yet high enough to minimize the light flak danger.
> 
> I don't think bombing from very low altitude (say 500 feet) will work for a large aircraft formation. The Luftwaffe had warning of most air raids from acoustic detection and EW intercepts even before the bombers showed up on radar. Forewarned 3.7cm flak would murder enemy aircraft at that altitude.



The 8th AF typically bombed from higher altitudes - around the 20,000ft mark IIRC. Lancasters also typically bombed from around 20,00ft, but this was largely because it was close to their effective ceiling.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> You cannot bomb effectively without taking some risks. 10,000 feet is low enough for acceptable accuracy yet high enough to minimize the light flak danger.
> 
> I don't think bombing from very low altitude (say 500 feet) will work for a large aircraft formation. The Luftwaffe had warning of most air raids from acoustic detection and EW intercepts even before the bombers showed up on radar. Forewarned 3.7cm flak would murder enemy aircraft at that altitude.



What about 88s?

Also, when we say low altitude, I think Mosquitoes often approached the target at 50ft, maybe rising higher at the target. The certainly did in Operation Jericho (with FBVIs) and the attack on the Zeiss optical works in Holland.

Also, at low level I think teh danger would be from 20m guns, as the larger guns may find it difficult to track a low flying object at 300mph, unless it was flying almost directly towards its position.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I might be a little late on this but a while back we discussed the Mosquito performing a high altitude mission in the same capacity the B-17 and B-24 accomplished. Remember that if you're bombing with a precision optical bomb sight, you are commencing you're bomb run at speeds just above cruising and I think you're probably looking at about 250 mph maximum. I know somewhere on here we posted the Mosquito's bomb door operating speed and it wasn't as high as you would expect.
> 
> In the case with a Mosquito, it would have been the same sitting duck over target as any heavy, American or British were while bombing unescorted. The advantage "would have" been after the bomb run where the Mosquito "could have" used superior speed to depart the combat area.


 


FLYBOYJ said:


> Found it..
> 
> "bomb bay doors open 305 knots" = 340 mph - not bad providing you're able to accurately bomb at that speed at altitude depending on wind and other conditions.
> 
> ...


 
That is still 150-180mph faster than the 8th AF heavies would have been travelling on the bomb run.

The vulnerability is also dependent on the time required to fly straight and level. I believe for the Norden that this time was significant.

The bombers would also be very vulnerable if they just flew in at the same level, at the same speed and on the same heading one after the other, particularly if there were many of them. It would give the flak gunners time to adjust their settings (I believe the Germans only used time fuzes for much of the war).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

The Germans used time fuses for just about the entire war on the big guns. There was a move back to contact fuses late in the war after a mathematician advanced a theory that the time fuses were introducing a bigger error than they solved. A long time of flight, 20-30 seconds, with even a tolerance of a few 10ths of a percent would have shells exploding several hundred feet short or long. Whatever they were gaining in near misses laterally was being lost to the vertical error of the fuses. Combat trials were held with results that confirmed the theory but it was too late in the war to be implemented on a wide scale.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2011)

wuzak said:


> That is still *150-180mph *faster than the 8th AF heavies would have been travelling on the bomb run.
> 
> The vulnerability is also dependent on the time required to fly straight and level. I believe for the Norden that this time was significant.
> 
> The bombers would also be very vulnerable if they just flew in at the same level, at the same speed and on the same heading one after the other, particularly if there were many of them. It would give the flak gunners time to adjust their settings (I believe the Germans only used time fuzes for much of the war).



That was only under perfect conditions. More than likely Mosquitoes used in the same capacity would have been bombing at speeds slightly higher than heavies. Look at the bomb sights as well, many of them weren't giving you more than 230 mph.

Bottom line you weren't getting any extra "value added" despite where where the Mosquito could have carried the same bomb load, dropped their load and ran away. Going into the target they will have offered at least a higher airspeed but still would have been at the mercy of German fighters. I'd bet dollars to donuts this whole scenerio was discussed by British and American brass several times during the war.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was only under perfect conditions. More than likely Mosquitoes used in the same capacity would have been bombing at speeds slightly higher than heavies. Look at the bomb sights as well, many of them weren't giving you more than 230 mph.
> 
> Bottom line you weren't getting any extra "value added" despite where where the Mosquito could have carried the same bomb load, dropped their load and ran away. Going into the target they will have offered at least a higher airspeed but still would have been at the mercy of German fighters. I'd bet dollars to donuts this whole scenerio was discussed by British and American brass several times during the war.



Not sure that the USAAF ever considered the Mosquito for a bombing role, much less a strategic bombing role. The RAF did, and there was a report prepared in 1943 which came to the conclusion that the Mosquito could perform the bombing more efficiently than the Lancaster - taking into account bombs on target, loss rates, economics related to materials and personnel, etc. But RAF Bomber Bommand was run by a man who was intent on destroying cities - for which the Lancaster was far more suitable, being able to carry a much bigger bomb load.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

There is also the question of when did they know how effective some bombs really were. While even 500lb bombs were very good at blowing the roofs of factories they weren't so good at at actually wrecking the machinery in the factory. It turned out that many more bombs, or bigger bombs, or both were needed to truly knock a factory out of production for months, not just a few weeks or even days, than they originally estimated. Fires on the other had did knock factories out for extended periods. 

How many bomb hits on a given sized factory (and what types of bombs) were really needed to take it out for an extended period of time and how should those bombs be delivered?

We are back to timing, did they know in the spring of 1942 (the latest that such a decision could be made) what types of bombs or mix of bombs gave the results desired and what type of planes cold best deliver them or were they still working on pre or early war experience or perceptions? 
The fact that Mosquitoes could do pin point attacks at some point in 1944 with 4000lb bombs (of a type that may not have existed in 1942) doesn't really count.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Not sure that the USAAF ever considered the Mosquito for a bombing role, much less a strategic bombing role. The RAF did, and there was a report prepared in 1943 which came to the conclusion that the Mosquito could perform the bombing more efficiently than the Lancaster - taking into account bombs on target, loss rates, economics related to materials and personnel, etc. But* RAF Bomber Bommand was run by a man who was intent on destroying cities - for which the Lancaster was far more suitable, being able to carry a much bigger bomb load*.





Shortround6 said:


> There is also the question of when did they know how effective some bombs really were. While even 500lb bombs were very good at blowing the roofs of factories they weren't so good at at actually wrecking the machinery in the factory. It turned out that many more bombs, or bigger bombs, or both were needed to truly knock a factory out of production for months, not just a few weeks or even days, than they originally estimated. Fires on the other had did knock factories out for extended periods.
> 
> How many bomb hits on a given sized factory (and what types of bombs) were really needed to take it out for an extended period of time and how should those bombs be delivered?
> 
> ...



Points taken


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2011)

That depends on how you define "Low Level". 20mm weapons are most effective out to about 1,000 meters. Large bomber formations typically didn't attack from that low during WWII as it was suicidal.

*Ploesti August 1, 1943*
Operation Tidal Wave: Ploesti August 1, 1943
178 level bombers. Altitude of 200 feet.
54 aircraft lost. 30% loss rate.
Over 80% of the entire force suffered major damage. 1/6th of the bombers were in flyable condition after returning to base.

IMO 178 light bombers attacking the Krupp Gusstahlfabrik from an altitude of 200 feet are likely to have a similiar casualty rate. That might be worthwhile for a single attack on a high priority target but you cannot sustain a military campaign with casualty rates that high.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 25, 2011)

The USA was certainly aware of the mosquitos performance from the start. The wing span was increased before production started to allow it to carry larger loads that the bomb bay could hold.

from thefullwiki

Official trials began at Boscombe Down on 19 February which satisfied the de Havilland company. On 20 April 1941 it was demonstrated to Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production. The Mosquito made a series of flights including one rolling climb on one engine. Also present was General Henry H. Arnold and his aide, Major Elwood Quesada:

I do recall the first time I saw the Mosquito as being impressed by its performance, which we were aware of. We were impressed by the appearance of the airplane that looks fast usually is fast, and the Mosquito was, by the standards of the time, an extremely well streamlined airplane, and it was highly regarded, highly respected.[28]



The trials set up future production plans between Britain, Australia and Canada. The Americans did not pursue their interest. It was thought the P-38 Lightning could handle the same duties just as easily. Arnold felt the design was being overlooked, and urged the strategic personalities in the United States Army Air Force to learn from the design if they chose not to adopt it. The USAAF then requested one airframe to evaluate, but this was only a few days before the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and the USAAF entered the war without a fast dual purpose reconnaissance machine
....................

However even the RAF wernt sold from the start on it as a bomber most of the initial order was for recon and fighter bomber types.



davebender said:


> IMO 178 light bombers attacking the Krupp Gusstahlfabrik from an altitude of 200 feet are likely to have a similiar casualty rate. That might be worthwhile for a single attack on a high priority target but you cannot sustain a military campaign with casualty rates that high.


I agree dave, but if a lighter faster plane was used different tactics would be needed. A B17 could bomb reasonable accurately from altitude but a formation of boxes cant because they need to stay in formation. As others have said or implied I dont think the US military would have taken on the idea any time before the end of the war.


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2011)

Historical results from December 1941 suggest otherwise. 

Anchored IJA troop transports are about easiest possible military targets to find and hit. No heavy flak and minimal air cover. Why didn't B-17s operating from the Philippines and Java slaughter them?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 25, 2011)

davebender said:


> Historical results from December 1941 suggest otherwise.
> Anchored IJA troop transports are about easiest possible military targets to find and hit. No heavy flak and minimal air cover. Why didn't B-17s operating from the Philippines and Java slaughter them?



Well bombing accuracy improved throughout the war with experience and better sights.


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2011)

I am under the impression B-17 bombers were equipped with Norden bomb sights during 1941. Is that incorrect?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2011)

davebender said:


> That depends on how you define "Low Level". 20mm weapons are most effective out to about 1,000 meters. Large bomber formations typically didn't attack from that low during WWII as it was suicidal.
> 
> *Ploesti August 1, 1943*
> Operation Tidal Wave: Ploesti August 1, 1943
> ...



I doubt that a Mosquito attack would in formation.

The advantage Mosquitoes would have over B-24s is that they would be moving faster and they present a smaller target. That said, the B-24 was probably the only aircraft that the Allies had which could bomb Ploesti from the bases that they had in North Africa.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2011)

I seem to remember that the RAF didn't bomb in formation at night. Their formations were much looser than they 8th AF's, mainly because of the difficulty flying in such low proximity in the dark. They had some sort of system which allowed a lot of bombers to bomb individually in about an half hour.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2011)

davebender said:


> I am under the impression B-17 bombers were equipped with Norden bomb sights during 1941. Is that incorrect?



I do believe so. But whether the crews were fully up to speed in their use is another matter.


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2011)

Lack of training was one reason given for the lack of accuracy. The RAF flew at least one daylight mission with the B17C, the role of bomb aimer taken by one of the American manufacturers demonstrators. The result, not only did they miss the target, they missed the town.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2011)

Interesting article

The bombsight war: Norden vs. Sperry

http://thevaluesell.com/images/LSearle_bombsight.pdf


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2011)

The V1 cruise missile was smaller and faster then a Mosquito light bomber. Cruising altitude was 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Yet the V1 casualty rate was as bad as the B-24 casualty rate over Ploesti. 

Radar directed light flak was getting pretty effective by 1943. IMO 8th Air Force should stay above it. You will also avoid collisions with factory chimneys while flying through Ruhr Valley smog.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2011)

Yes and the V-1 flew straight and level.


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2011)

So will a Mosquito light bomber while over the target.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 26, 2011)

davebender said:


> The V1 cruise missile was smaller and faster then a Mosquito light bomber. Cruising altitude was 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Yet the V1 casualty rate was as bad as the B-24 casualty rate over Ploesti.
> 
> Radar directed light flak was getting pretty effective by 1943. IMO 8th Air Force should stay above it. You will also avoid collisions with factory chimneys while flying through Ruhr Valley smog.


 
Comparing a cruise missile tavelling at a predictable path, speed and altitude to a manned aircraft an an independent navigation to a target is reaching.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 26, 2011)

davebender said:


> the V1 casualty rate was as bad as the B-24 casualty rate over Ploesti.


 
The V-1 flew a predictable approach across narrow stretches of coastline, against standing patrols, proximity fuses and barrage balloons it couldn't avoid.

Hardly a worthwhile comparison to any allied bomber.

Edit - Or, what Jabberwocky said.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2011)

davebender said:


> Radar directed light flak was getting pretty effective by 1943. IMO 8th Air Force should stay above it. You will also avoid collisions with factory chimneys while flying through Ruhr Valley smog.



Were those radar directed light flak guns better at tracking aircraft at altitude? And wee they better when the aircraft was moving more slowly and was larger? Did it help to have targets in close formations?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 31, 2011)

wuzak said:


>


 


Shortround6 said:


> Those incendiaries are in bundles and attached to racks and/or release mechanisms are they not? I guess it depends on which incendiaries are used (some were much more "bomb like") and if the Mosquito's (or other light/medium bomber) bombay had the "flexibility of the Lancaster's. The "roof" of the Lancaster bay seems to have been a grid that various attachments could be hooked to or put through holes from above by crewmen with access from above. Other bombers may not have had the same access or adaptability.



I have discovered that the incendiaries shown ar the 4lb incendiaries, which were carried in small bomb containers. The SBCs would mount up to a standard bomb mounting (possibly the same way a bomb rack was mounted) but would not be released from the bomb bay, instead releasing the incendiaries and remaining in place. I haven't been able to find a dimension for the SBC used by the RAF.

Other incendiaries the RAF used:
IB30lb, which could be fitted in a SBC (x 8 ) or to a bomb carrier.
The 30lb Type J, which could be fitted in the 500lb cluster projectiles No4 Mk I. The cluster projectiles were 15in diameter x 69-75in long, including a tail of 25.75-31.75in long.
The 45lb Incendiary bomb, which would be carried in the SBC.
The 400lb IB, which was 17.6in in diameter x 60.8in long.
The 500lb IB, which was 13.1in in diameter x 66 in long.

Of these the 500lb IB was closest to the size of the standard GP/MC 500lb bombs, and could certainly have ben used in Mosquitoes. Not sure about the SBCs, but the cluster projectile may have been possible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2011)

Here is a description of a SBC:

Blenheim armament

While the Mosquito did carry incendiaries, they are not as dense as the larger bombs. Could the Mosquito have carried more than four of the SBC or carried four of the ones used by the Lancaster? 

Mosquitos did use the 500lb IB as well as a 2700lb IB (4000lb cookie casing filled with incendiary material).

But as originally sated, Incendiaries were not packed into nooks and crannies in the bomb bay around regular bombs. They can be carried instead of the regular bomb load or the racks may be split between regular bombs and incendiaries.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 31, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Here is a description of a SBC:
> 
> Blenheim armament
> 
> ...



I think from the looks of it it would be 2 x 500lb MC + 2 x SBC with incendiaries, or 3 and 1, or maybe 1 x 1000lb MC + 2 x SBC. I'd be quite confident that if the Blenheim could carry them so could the Mosquito. The description says that the SBC for the Lancaster was larger, so no clue if it could be fitted. If it could it would be only one or two.

Looking at the mission reports from the USAAF 303rd Bomb Group it would seem that they sometimes only carried incendiaries - usually if they were in the back of the formation. The lead groups in a bombing formation would have GP bombs, or GP + incendiaries. (303BG seemed to be lead quite a lot.)

But you are correct. Previously I thought the sticks of incendiaries could be placed in any space available, but now it is clear that they need to be in a SBC, which attaches to the same mount as a bomb rack would.


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 1, 2011)

Just thought I'd mention here that Mosquitos scored the best results with the least losses against the V-1 sites...

Also Elliott Roosevelt requested and obtained Mosquitos to do his recce work rather than use his P-38's...

Cheers


----------



## davebender (Aug 3, 2011)

IMO the Mosquito was an excellent long range recon aircraft. 

However the primary mission of 8th Air Force was the destruction of economic targets by bombing. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2012)

wuzak said:


> As I said before, I think the early Mossies were capable of carry 2 x 1000lb MC bombs internally, but I can't confirm that.


 


Shortround6 said:


> I ask again, does anybody have a bomb rack chart or mission reports with such a load?




I can now confirm that 2 x 1000lb bombs were carried operationally by Mosquitos. From AIR 27/2148

627 Squadron ORB, 31/12/1943, Target: Gestapo Headquarters, Oslo

KB416 4 x 500lb MC
DZ461 2 x 1000lb MC
DZ611 2 x 1000lb MC
DZ530 4 x 500lb MC
DZ606 2 x 1000lb GP
KB345 4 x 500lb MC
DZ633 2 x 1000lb GP
DZ643 2 x 1000lb MC
DZ641 2 x 1000lb MC
DZ637 4 x 500lb MC
KB122 4 x 500lb MC
KB362 4 x 500lb MC

On the 29th 627 Squadron did some mining in the Elbe River. 
Some of them specify bomb load as B.244, which I assume is a buoyancy bomb. Other refer to a P.640 or P.638. What are those?


----------

