8th Air Force use of Mosquitoes

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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%.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Milosh said:
I counted 289 claims on Tony Woods claim list.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 


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.
 


If low level bombing makes life easy for flak gunners, dive bombing makes it even easier.
 
If low level bombing makes life easy for flak gunners, dive bombing makes it even easier.
Click to expand...
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.
 
davebender said:
However I don't think the Mosquito was superior as a light bomber.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

11th Air Force
Replies
7
Views
802
GreenKnight121
D
8Th Air Force Fighter Groups
Replies
3
Views
1K
pbehn
P
C
Question about 8Th air force WW2
Replies
5
Views
1K
criannick
C
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
L
Copy of History of 8th Air Force Service Command
Replies
3
Views
822
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register