Mosquito better than B-17?????
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
cheddar cheese
Major General
B-17 isnt Queen of Bombers, B-29 is 
Well the Lancaster was better than both in the real world
Well the Mossie was British, and The B-17 was American, and it would make more sense for the USAAF to use their bomber rather than the British. Besides, Mosquito's were very good at other roles besides bombing and were being used for other duties (nightfighting, recon etc), and nearly twice the amount of B-17's were built compared to the Mossie and were more readily available. I agree using the Mossie would have made more sense but it wasnt the practical thing to do.
Welcome to the site as well
Well the Lancaster was better than both in the real world Well the Mossie was British, and The B-17 was American, and it would make more sense for the USAAF to use their bomber rather than the British. Besides, Mosquito's were very good at other roles besides bombing and were being used for other duties (nightfighting, recon etc), and nearly twice the amount of B-17's were built compared to the Mossie and were more readily available. I agree using the Mossie would have made more sense but it wasnt the practical thing to do.
Welcome to the site as well
cheddar cheese
Major General
Soren, the Mossie could carry almost the same load as the B-17 normally carried the same distance, and much faster
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yep, B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster
Yes, in terms of maximum the B-17 could carry 17,600lbs, but not very far.
Yes, in terms of maximum the B-17 could carry 17,600lbs, but not very far.
cheddar cheese
Major General
No that would just be stupid 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
actually it wasn't uncommon for B-17s to carry a meer 2,000lbs to berlin, but the most common load was 6,000lbs...........
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
I don't think a B-17 could carry a cookie to Berlin TWICE in one night though, I can think of a plane that could cough*mossie*cough 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and the mossie was just as accurate by night than the B-17 was by day.........
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
and it wasn't made out of essential war materials, it was the wooden wonder
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
fewer crew lost if, in the unlikely event, one was shot down..........
- Thread starter
- #16
"Mossie could carry almost the same load as the B-17 normally carried the same distance, and much faster"
Ya, I too found that statement from some website regarding of Mossie's bomb load. But, it seems unbelievable. I meant, B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two.
Here is what I found from RAF History on Mosquito:
"An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons!"
So, from this view, does it means that Mosquitor was much superior and technological advanced to any other bomber in WWII? Since Mosquito already qualifies several components of modern bombers: fly with high speed, solo mission, long distance, and most importantly all, the precise bombing.
Ya, I too found that statement from some website regarding of Mossie's bomb load. But, it seems unbelievable. I meant, B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two.
Here is what I found from RAF History on Mosquito:
"An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons!"
So, from this view, does it means that Mosquitor was much superior and technological advanced to any other bomber in WWII? Since Mosquito already qualifies several components of modern bombers: fly with high speed, solo mission, long distance, and most importantly all, the precise bombing.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Other mosquito variants would be night escorts, shooting down and german nightfighters and providing tactical and weather reconnaisance
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but remember the mossie was much lighter so didn't need more engines..........
and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads...............
- Thread starter
- #19
"and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads......"
I agree. And it seems also that whereas B-17 suffered tremendously in air until the arrival of P-51, the Mosquito was capable of conducting solo operation without accompanying fighters to safeguard itself from enemies' planes.
(MM.......something tells me that B-17 wasnt a good plane after all....)
In comparison with Mosquite's bombing record, how effect was B-17's role in strategic bombing?
I agree. And it seems also that whereas B-17 suffered tremendously in air until the arrival of P-51, the Mosquito was capable of conducting solo operation without accompanying fighters to safeguard itself from enemies' planes.
(MM.......something tells me that B-17 wasnt a good plane after all....)
In comparison with Mosquite's bombing record, how effect was B-17's role in strategic bombing?
evangilder
"Shooter"
You are really comapring apples to oranges. Yes, the mosquito did fly solo missions against small targets, but large industrial targets required a large formation of aircraft with a large amount of bombs.
Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well.
The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.
Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well.
The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.
