P-38 or Mosquito? (1 Viewer)

An aside I admit but I did read a book on the Mosquito where it went into the operation of the Mosquito in airforces other than the RAF. It was quite impressive for instance it detailed the only Mosuito used by the Russians and what happened to it. When commenting on the use by the USAAF I was suprised to read that officially the USAAF considered the Mosquito bomber to be unsuitable for operations at night in Europe. It stuck in my mind as it was so unexpected.
Assuming this was true I wonder if the use of the nightfighter by the USAAF could have been impacted by this decision. Just a thought

nuuumannn said:

Adler, it's just ocurred to me how I might have caused you to think I was disrespecting you. Was it this?



If so, that was actually a subtle dig at another thread posted elsewhere by another forum member, not intended at you in your role as moderator. Again, I apologise if you have been offended.

Click to expand...

Yeap that was it, and apology is accepted as well.

Back to the thread and topic and hand, I am not arguing that the P-38 is a better aircraft. The Mossie certainly was a more versatile aircraft by design. I am just arguing that that it could match the Mossie role for role. Not that it could do any of those roles better. I also agree with you that the Mossie and P-38 are kind of hard to compare and in my opinion, should not really be compared.

Hi Adler, glad we got that sorted.

I don't think the Mosquito, as good as it was had such superior qualities that it would constitute replacement of the P-38.

Click to expand...

Arnold certainly seemed to think so regarding the F-5's range at least. He wasn't the only one, Col Elliot Roosevelt, commander of the 3rd Photo Recon Group evaluated a B.IV in England prior to Operation Torch and in comparison with the P-38 F-4 variant proved able to out perform it and have a greater range. Interesting to note Portal's response stating that the F-5 was as good as the Spitfire at Photo recon, although there's no doubting that it probably was, Portal's interest lay squarely with the fact that if the USAAF received Mossies, then that would mean fewer for the British.

Aside from US Navy interest in the type as a night fighter, in April 1943 the USAAF requested a total of 235 Mosquitos for use by the 13th Photo Squadron in the 8th AF, the 5th and 12 Photo Squadrons of the 12th AF and also the 22nd and 23rd Photo Squadrons at Colorado Springs as well as the 27th and a training squadron. Each needed to be 13 aircraft with three reserves and others for attrition. The result was the Arnold-Courtenay Agreement, which saw 120 Mosquitos going to the USAAF at that time. These were initially unpopular with US crews. The majority of these werte Canadian built examples, B.XXs, designated F-8s in USAAF service, although British built FB.VIs were offered also, but were turned down for more PR variants, mainly PR.IXs. At the end of November 1943 the USAAF was offered 102 PR.XVIs; of these 14 were delivered to the 8th before D-Day and the rest were sent to the Mediterranean Theatre. By March 1944, PR.XVIs were delivered to the 802nd Recon Group based at Watton, which carried out photo sorties over D-Day using the Mossies and also the German mainland.

Further info on the US P-61 squadrons in the Med and the supply of Mossies there;

"On 4 July 1944 the British Government informed the Americans that they still could not supply Mosquitos to their Meditteranean based US night fighter squadrons. General Spaatz responded by requesting help with re-equipping just two British based P-61 squadrons. It was pointed out to him that ifMosquito production permitted it, his Meditteranean squadrons would already have received Mosquitos to relieve pressure on Beaufighter availability [which the USAAF also requested as night fighters] because these aircraft were requested for British and Allied squadrons. Not until the closing weeks of 1944 did the position ease sufficiently for an agreement to be made concerning the issue of 40 Mosquito night fighters to the USAAF in Italy. No 416 Squadron, Pisa based )) during December received 12 Mosquito NF.XIX and four Mk.30s..."

A total of 160 night fighter Mosquitos were operated by the USAAF.

As for USAAF in the PTO and Mosquitos, in response to Arnold's request mentioned earlier, the British stated that the 40 F-8s supplied by the Canadians should be used - evidently they were not as these saw next to no wartime service.

nuuumannn said:

Hi Adler, glad we got that sorted.

Further info on the US P-61 squadrons in the Med and the supply of Mossies there;

"On 4 July 1944 the British Government informed the Americans that they still could not supply Mosquitos to their Meditteranean based US night fighter squadrons. General Spaatz responded by requesting help with re-equipping just two British based P-61 squadrons. It was pointed out to him that if Mosquito production permitted it, his Meditteranean squadrons would already have received Mosquitos to relieve pressure on Beaufighter availability [which the USAAF also requested as night fighters] because these aircraft were requested for British and Allied squadrons. Not until the closing weeks of 1944 did the position ease sufficiently for an agreement to be made concerning the issue of 40 Mosquito night fighters to the USAAF in Italy. No 416 Squadron, Pisa based )) during December received 12 Mosquito NF.XIX and four Mk.30s..."

A total of 160 night fighter Mosquitos were operated by the USAAF.

As for USAAF in the PTO and Mosquitos, in response to Arnold's request mentioned earlier, the British stated that the 40 F-8s supplied by the Canadians should be used - evidently they were not as these saw next to no wartime service.

Click to expand...

The Mosquitos arrived with the USAAF in the MTO too late to see any success. 416 managed one shoot down with a Mosquito, a Ju-188 over Italy. That's it for USAAF kills with the Mossie.

160 is a very large amount of aircraft to be supplied for just a single victory.

On the other hand, the did score 111 kills with the P-61 and 35 with the Beaufighter.


More on the Mosquito vs P-61 night fighter controversey:

"AAF Col. Phineas K. Morrill laid the groundwork for a major controversy in September 1943, when he requested that all of the night fighter squadrons trained by his 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group be equipped with twin-engine British Mosquitoes rather than American P–70s or P–61s. The proposal received little attention until June 1944, when Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Deputy Commander in Chief of Allied Expeditionary Air Force in Europe, added his weight to Morrill's request. Considering that "neither the P–61 nor the P–70 type aircraft are suitable night fighters . . . and that little success can be expected," Vandenberg wanted US night fighter squadrons to switch to British-provided Mosquitoes.

To resolve the controversy, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Spaatz, Commander of United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, ordered a July 5, 1944, flyoff at Hurn, England, pitting the P–61 directly against Vandenberg's choice, the British Mosquito. Lt. Col. Winston W. Kratz, director of night fighter training in the United States, bet $500 that the Mosquito could outperform the Widow. According to the 422d NFS historian, the competing P–61, "tweaked" to get maximum performance, proved faster at all altitudes, "outturned the Mossie at every altitude and by a big margin and far surpassed the Mossie in rate of climb." All in all, the historian noted, "a most enjoyable afternoon—Kratz paid off." The official report concluded that the "P–61 can out-climb the Mosquito due to the ability of the P–61 to operate indefinitely at military power without overheating," critical to closing on a bogey."

From 'Conquering the Night - Army Air Forces Night Fighters at War' by Stephen L. McFarland

Link for those interested: HyperWar: Conquering the Night--Army Air Forces Night Fighters at War

Thanks for posting the stuff, Jabberwocky.

Now, I'm not trying to bash anybody's wartime achievement, but how much was it a fair contest? One aircraft, specially tweaked, and operated against the manual, beating the randomly picked 'adversary'? We do not know what sub-type was the Mosquito in the contest, either. This sentence has plenty of bearing on the comparison, from same web site:

Despite this impressive performance, the Black Widow lacked the speed advantage necessary to intercept some high-flying enemy bombers

Click to expand...

Not the case for Mosquito.

Its an interesting read but there are a couple of quotes in there that I find interesting:-

before converting to Beaufighters and giving up the P–70s in which they had trained in the States. The P–70 proved too slow in climbing to operational altitudes (45 minutes to 22,000 feet) and performed poorly at high altitudes.

Only two days after arriving on the scene, British Beaufighters made their nighttime presence felt, downing eleven out of thirteen attacking Luftwaffe bombers. In part, British success could be attributed to the advanced microwave Mark VIII airborne radar, which did not suffer from the range limitations of the Mark IV/SCR–540 airborne radars that equipped US Beaufighters.

Personally this and other books I have read would indicate that the most important feature of a nightfighter is its radar and climb. Bombers normally cruise at around 180-220 mph and even a Beaufighter could catch the target. Headline speed be it 350, 380 or 400mph whatever, is only really of use if you are after another fighter/fast bomber who has seen you and is trying to run.

It has to be said that shooting down 11 out of 13 is a pretty impressive performance whatever you are flying

I have a slightly different take on the whole thing (though I must say I gave up on reading every post after say the twenty page mark)

I believe the p38 was one of the most expensive fighters produced in ww2, the Mosquitos cost was around two thirds the price of the p38 and didn't use as much strategic materials in her construction and largely used a skill set in the population that was under utilised . It would also have lent itself to decentralising its construction due to lower energy requirements of wood vs energy hungry aluminium .
The better performance in the ETO is the same argument on the Allisons already known poorer performance at high altitude, which is probably why we see less of the use of the p51 in the PTO. Major Bong of course was PTO.
Adolf Galland was unimpressed by the p38 and compared it to the bf110 for shortcomings - low blow .
Reading a list of US aces the p38 features well PTO but less so in the ETO.
I wonder if it would have been possible to make a theatre specific p38 by re powering them with merlins?
Interestingly the mosquito only weighs a couple of hundred kilos more but carried less. I would imagine though that the p38 having only external stores would have suffered more performance loss on the outward leg of the mission than principally internal storage of the mozzie

Nig said:

Interestingly the mosquito only weighs a couple of hundred kilos more but carried less. I would imagine though that the p38 having only external stores would have suffered more performance loss on the outward leg of the mission than principally internal storage of the mozzie

Click to expand...

Stores in/stores out performance difference was between about 5 and 11 mph, depending on the altitude and sub-type of Mosquito.

An early B Mk IV at 20,000 lbs (full fuel, 2000 lb internal bombload) could do about 365 mph at 12,000 ft. With bombs gone and half fuel burned off, weight drops to about 16,500 lbs and it could do about 370 mph. A later B Mk IV would do 380-385 mph, thanks to the addition of multi-ejector exhausts.

A B Mk XVI at 23,000 lbs (ful internal fuel, full 100 gal external tanks and 4,000 lb bombload) could do about 397 mph at 26,000 ft. Bombs gone and half fuel (rougly 17,500 lbs), it could do about 408 mph.

I'm not sure of the performance penalty that the 2 x 2,000 lb load would mean for the P-38, but my guess is that it would be significantly greater than the 10-11 mph for a Mosquito.

Jabberwocky said:

Stores in/stores out performance difference was between about 5 and 11 mph, depending on the altitude and sub-type of Mosquito.

An early B Mk IV at 20,000 lbs (full fuel, 2000 lb internal bombload) could do about 365 mph at 12,000 ft. With bombs gone and half fuel burned off, weight drops to about 16,500 lbs and it could do about 370 mph. A later B Mk IV would do 380-385 mph, thanks to the addition of multi-ejector exhausts.

A B Mk XVI at 23,000 lbs (ful internal fuel, full 100 gal external tanks and 4,000 lb bombload) could do about 397 mph at 26,000 ft. Bombs gone and half fuel (rougly 17,500 lbs), it could do about 408 mph.

I'm not sure of the performance penalty that the 2 x 2,000 lb load would mean for the P-38, but my guess is that it would be significantly greater than the 10-11 mph for a Mosquito.

Click to expand...

There was a chart posted on here a while back, which shows a B.XVI with Merlin 76/77s could do 415mph unladen, earlier XVIs with Merlin 72/73s 408mph. The chart also shows a maximum bomb load of 5000lb for a B.XVI (1 x 4000lb + 2 x 500lb on the wing racks) with a range at most economical cruise speed of 1370 miles.

The performance numbers were given for mean weight - 19,100lb.

While both are two engined aircraft, they are very different aircraft, one was built as a long range fighter, while the other was built as a light bomber/multi-role aircraft.
In the day fighter role the P-38 is clearly superior, in the hands of a good pilot it could hold it's own against most Axis fighters, while in the night-fighter, bomber and recce roles the Mosquito has the advantage due to its high speed, two man crew, and load carrying abilities.

Did the F5's originally use the same "economy" cruise settings as their fighter cousins?
If that is the case, the range of the F5's was significantly less prior to using the low RPM, higher MP cruise settings developed by Charles Lindburg. If I recall correctly, it was the summer of 1944 when Lindburg proved that his fuel-saving cruise settings caused no damage to the engines.
This might explain the comments about the F5's lacking sufficient range. It was late in the war when the range of the plane increased significantly.

From what I have read the problem with the F5's in the Northern European theater wasn't it's range, but it's high altitude performance difficulties in cold weather.

Redcoat, the P-38 was faster, the other stuff you mentioned was correct though.

I like both planes but I don't think the two are really comparable in the sense some folks are making. I agree that it would depend on the theater. Mosquitoes didn't fare so well in the Pacific area because the wood was subject to rot due to the high moister and heat. P-38's didn't have such a problem there.

Someone mentioned the war record of the P-61 in Europe being 111 kills. This is not true. Total P-61 victories, based off of HQ USAF, office of AF History, Champlin Fighter Museum, Orders of awards, Combat reports, and Squadron histories, were 127... not counting 9 V-1s. Of the 127 victories, 58 of those were in the ETO. The 416th NFS doesn't exist. The 9th AF had the 422nd and 425th NFS. The 12th AF had the 414th and 415th NFS and they were in the MTO. Everybody else was somewhere around the PTO.

The Competition between the P-61 and the Mossie happened four times from what I gathered. The competition that was sited was against the Mk 17 version of the Mossie and flown by Sqd Ldr Barnwell of the 125th Sqdrn. Lt. Doyle flew the Widow. It was reported that the Widow won. Second time was at Eglin Field Florida, Mossie won. Third time the widow was flown by Col. Kratz... outcome, the widow won. In the fourth competition, both planes were flown by test pilots. End result, the widow won. But before anyone declares the Widow a better plane, this note must be mentioned. The British needed the Mossie because it could fly all the way to Berlin and back. In the opinion of Col. Kratz, the British threw the competition because they needed the plane and if making the Americans think that the P-61 was better, thus taking away the U.S. orders for more Mossies, then that was okay. In the words of Col. Kratz, "The P-61 was not a superior night fighter. It was not a poor night fighter; it was a good night fighter. It did not have quite enough speed." Col. Kratz was the head of the AAF's night fighter program.

Just wanted to set the record straight. Source: Northrop P-61 Black Widow... The Complete History and Combat Record.

Night Fighter Nut said:

Mosquitoes didn't fare so well in the Pacific area because the wood was subject to rot due to the high moister and heat.

Click to expand...

Sorry but the comment about the Mossie's wood structure rotting is...well, utter rot. The first group of Mosquitos in the Far East suffered from delamination of the plywood structure due to the glue being adversely affected by the local weather conditions. The problem was rapidly identified and an alternative glue obtained. From that point on, the Mosquito operated successfully in the Far East, indeed the RAF's last operational Mosquito sortie was flown out of Seletar, Singapore (about as hot and humid as it gets) on 15 December 1955.

Great. thanks for the correction, my knowledge is scant on that point.

Does anyone have any info on the Nightfighter variant of the Mossie?

buffnut453 said:

Sorry but the comment about the Mossie's wood structure rotting is...well, utter rot. The first group of Mosquitos in the Far East suffered from delamination of the plywood structure due to the glue being adversely affected by the local weather conditions. The problem was rapidly identified and an alternative glue obtained. From that point on, the Mosquito operated successfully in the Far East, indeed the RAF's last operational Mosquito sortie was flown out of Seletar, Singapore (about as hot and humid as it gets) on 15 December 1955.

Click to expand...

Disagree my friend - it depended on if the aircraft were moved and what operating enviornment they wound up at. Israel and the Dominican Republic had their Mossies just about fall apart, this was discussed in some old threads here several years ago...

Wood structures will maintain better if they are consistanatly kept in an original enviornment. Move a wood aircraft from a moist damp enviornment where it's been operated for a period of time into a humid enviornment and see what happens.

*Hint* Squish squish lol

Procrastintor said:

Does anyone have any info on the Nightfighter variant of the Mossie?

Click to expand...

You might want to start from here.