Mosquito better than B-17?????

[Gemhorse]

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

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

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

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

 

[wmaxt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Gemhorse]

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

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

 

[BountyHunter15]

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

 

[trackend]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[trackend]

Big head

 

[cheddar cheese]

Nah, I have lots of pictures 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

He didnt say it did...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yep...

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

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