P-38 or Mosquito?

[Peter Gunn]

Wish I could give you bacon along with the winner medal. Screw it, bacon is worth more here...

Have some bacon.

MMMMM... BACON!!!

 

[wuzak]

My personal belief is that the Mosquito was World War II's best aircraft in nearly every mission it was built for. (The major exception was as a fast, unarmed day bomber, where the loss rate was high enough to cause a switch to night missions after only eleven months.)

The number of aircraft involved in those early missions was small, often as little as 3 or 6 aircraft, so the loss of a single plane gives a high mission loss rate.

1 out of 6 is a loss rate of 16.7%, which is high. It does not follow, however, that the same mission involving 60 aircraft will lead to the loss of 10.

In mid 1943 the USAAF lost ~60 out of 300 in the Schweinfurt/Regensberg mission- a disastrous loss rate. But when the USAAF sent 1000 bombers over Germany in early 1944 the number lost was also ~60.

 

[buffnut453]

so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
do you
A toss that poster down the well.
B tell that poster they are wrong.
C misrepresent what that poster has written to further entangle the issue.
D make representations about that posters education lineage and or activities?
E correct the post
F Correct the post with supporting link/documents etc.
G Correct the post with supporting Link/ documents AND then follow the link and contact the original informant to correct them with your supporting documentation?

In short do you play the ball or the man?

We will discuss, often at length, the rights or wrongs of the information. It only gets sticky when someone refuses to accept well-sourced criticism of their info. It's typically the originator of bad information who starts making things personal.

We're all here to learn. I know a little about a few things. I am a published author with a MA in the History of Warfare from King's College London. I've also spent several weeks-worth of time sourcing contemporaneous information for my research. Many on the forum know a LOT more than me and I always learn from other posters.

Bottom line...this isn't a battle over who is right or wrong. It's about sharing knowledge and information so we can all learn. However, posters must be willing to learn in the first place. If they aren't, they won't last long here.

 

[GrauGeist]

so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
do you
A toss that poster down the well.
B tell that poster they are wrong.
C misrepresent what that poster has written to further entangle the issue.
D make representations about that posters education lineage and or activities?
E correct the post
F Correct the post with supporting link/documents etc.
G Correct the post with supporting Link/ documents AND then follow the link and contact the original informant to correct them with your supporting documentation?

In short do you play the ball or the man?

It has been exaustively explained and in great detail.

But let's simplify it a little, ok?

When making a statement, does one use a newspaper article as a source or does one use an official government document as a source?

In this case, you have used a newspaper article that makes a statement and the author did not make any citations to their claim.
The error was pointed out and explained as the author either mistaking the RLM's 1944 points directive as the basis of victory awards OR the author knew about the true award convention but used the points system as a basis for their statement, because it sensationalizes the Mosquito's legacy.
Knowing how the media operates, I suspect the latter.

Now, if you TRULY wish to learn, then go to the source:
Directive 55270/41, issued in 1939 by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, titled "Annerkennung von Abschüssen, Zerstörungen und Schiffsvernichtung" (Confirmation of aerial victories, destruction and sinking of ships).
This document outlined what constituted a victory and the proceedure for verification plus the submission of the claim. This document remained in effect from 1939 through 1945.

The point system introduced in 1944 was a bit more complex and it was only valid for the Western Front and only applied to aircraft that were airborn.

I truly hope this helps clear up any confusion but my sources are the actual Luftwaffe documents (as I mentioned above).

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that when you start off with

"Well this is my first post. somehow i ended up reading a thread that had a bit of a debate over the RAF .303 and the american .50, accuracy and power etc. its seems that all the posters are quite misinformed. so i joined and now can not locate that thread so here goes. "

and then post a bunch of stuff that is either nonsense or flat out wrong you are going to get a lot of people's backs up.

I am not a published author nor get any money as an Historian. I am a long time competitive target shooter and my father had a number of books about guns on a technical level (Hatcher's Notebook and several books by Melvin Johnson, inventor of the Johnson semi-automatic rifle and Johnson Light machine gun among them) that date to the 40s. These books are on a shelf 6 feet away as I write this. There are several modern books by Anthony Williams and Maxim Popenker that cover the subject of aircraft guns and each man has a rather impressive website on firearms/machine guns/auto cannon.

While there are some minor discrepancies between some of the old books and the new ones some of the old books were published while the war was in it's early years and so some information may not have been available for publication. However information on the prewar ammo was printed and in detail. trajectory charts, penetration charts, weights of components of the cartridges and so on.

I would not presume to lecture anyone on language or even the proper way of writing (members here have put up with my mistakes for many years with great forbearance) but Firearms and engines are of great interest to me and I have made an effort to educate myself and am quite willing to give references to books that help form my opinions or I get what I think are the facts from. No one source is perfect and mistakes can be found in many books/sources. Some are typos and can be figured out quickly. But when figuring it out it helps to use logic and not just consensus. 8 sources say one thing and only 4 say something else so the eight must be right? What happens when 3 of the eight are by the same author and 3 moe just quote him?

 

[Clean32]

We will discuss, often at length, the rights or wrongs of the information. It only gets sticky when someone refuses to accept well-sourced criticism of their info. It's typically the originator of bad information who starts making things personal.

We're all here to learn. I know a little about a few things. I am a published author with a MA in the History of Warfare from King's College London. I've also spent several weeks-worth of time sourcing contemporaneous information for my research. Many on the forum know a LOT more than me and I always learn from other posters.

Bottom line...this isn't a battle over who is right or wrong. It's about sharing knowledge and information so we can all learn. However, posters must be willing to learn in the first place. If they aren't, they won't last long here.

you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
its is and atack to state that i do not wish to learn, i did join a form to gather information and leads for my own work, and that has been successful thanks to one member.

But it makes me wonder, with such a inverted bunch of people with such correct knowledge, who is correcting publicly any incorrect perceptions, Like Miss #### orifice. or the P51 not having a true laminar wing. or are you just prepared to sit in forum and slaughter anyone who risks to stick there nose in?

 

[fubar57]

3...2...1..................

 

[wuzak]

you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
its is and atack to state that i do not wish to learn, i did join a form to gather information and leads for my own work, and that has been successful thanks to one member.

But it makes me wonder, with such a inverted bunch of people with such correct knowledge, who is correcting publicly any incorrect perceptions, Like Miss #### orifice. or the P51 not having a true laminar wing. or are you just prepared to sit in forum and slaughter anyone who risks to stick there nose in?

A reporter reporting on an upcoming documentary is not a great source, certainly not a primary source.

For one thing, it is not known what the quality of the documentary is. Many are riddled with inaccuracies.

And I believe others have told you where their information originated regarding points and victory wards.

And I would like to know where the idea that the Mosquito could care 4 tons of bombs.

 

[buffnut453]

you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
its is and atack to state that i do not wish to learn, i did join a form to gather information and leads for my own work, and that has been successful thanks to one member.

But it makes me wonder, with such a inverted bunch of people with such correct knowledge, who is correcting publicly any incorrect perceptions, Like Miss #### orifice. or the P51 not having a true laminar wing. or are you just prepared to sit in forum and slaughter anyone who risks to stick there nose in?

When people called out the incorrect statement, you could have responded with "Wow, that's interesting! Where can I learn more?". Instead, you launched on a questioning approach of "Who can I believe?"

You have been pointed to original sources by a couple of folks, as well as the source of the original myth. However, instead of exploring those cues you still revert to questioning which people you can believe. I can't help you if you're unwilling to look beyond journalist articles for your info.

 

[pbehn]

In any case a Mosquito was an aircraft, you cannot construct a system where an aircraft becomes two aircraft just because you shoot it down unless you believe in witchcraft or are possessed by a special madness.

 

[GrauGeist]

you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito

What you posted, was a news article (with no citations).

What I posted, was the official Luftwaffe directive number that you can easily research.

Which do you suppose would bear more weight in an academic community?

 

[GrauGeist]

By the way, here's a great article by the Daily Mail about the restored Hurricane Mk.I from Dunkirk that was restored - what's even better, is the article's title...
Hurricane jet takes to the skies after £2m restoration | Daily Mail Online

So now we're faced with a true dilemma: do we go by what the article says or do we go by historical fact?

If we go by the article, then there was aparently a Hawker Hurricane jet fighter over the skies of Britain in 1940 predating the Meteor's debut by 4 years.

If we go by historical data, then we know that the Hurricane was never a jet and that the author of the article made a mistake.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
its is and atack to state that i do not wish to learn, i did join a form to gather information and leads for my own work, and that has been successful thanks to one member.

But it makes me wonder, with such a inverted bunch of people with such correct knowledge, who is correcting publicly any incorrect perceptions, Like Miss #### orifice. or the P51 not having a true laminar wing. or are you just prepared to sit in forum and slaughter anyone who risks to stick there nose in?

What source information have you posted, and how does it have more weight than a Luftwaffe Directive?

 

[MiTasol]

but no one has posted any source information except me.

And what do you call all those screen shots from the Mosquito and P-38 manuals. Those documents are PRIME sources.

And what do you call GrauGeists posts where he typed out the complete section from the original German document. AGAIN a PRIME source.

Etc

Etc

Etc

You remind me of the old truism There are none so blind as those who will not see

 

[FLYBOYJ]

but no one has posted any source information except me.

And what do you call all those screen shots from the Mosquito and P-38 manuals. Those documents are PRIME sources.

And what do you call GrauGeists posts where he typed out the complete section from the original German document. AGAIN a PRIME source.

Etc

Etc

Etc

You remind me of the old truism There are none so blind as those who will not see

i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

There is for me no question whatsoever here, its the Mosquito, although its not that great a poll-choice as the two planes are not that closely matched in terms of purpose - so my choice here should not perhaps be regarded as a "total" dismissal of the Lightning either...

I would base this on the following points:

1) The lightning suffered as the wing mounted intercoolers couldnt be easily uprated and so performance suffered a lot when engine power got above that which had been originally envisaged. *source "Vees For Victory" by Dan Whitney

2) Having read most of the surviving Luftwaffe RLM conference meeting minuites, you`ll struggle to find much mention of the Lightning, conversely its full of diatribes against the mosquito, with Goring, and the rest going spare at the antics the aircraft was able to get up to with almost total immpunity. *source Erhard Milch microfilm (can provide page #`s and reel #`s if requested)

3) The British records of M.A.P. are full of genuine debate about if the entire 4-engine heavy fleet should be scrapped and replaced by Mosquitos, along with almost innumerable superlatives being poured upon it in the original wartime records *source AVIA-10-364 (below).

As far as I can see the Mosquito is one of VERY few planes where the modern day hype is actually really reproduced ON the original papers, even the British Govt. Spitfire records dont have anything like these sorts of levels of praise except for some quote isolated periods like the introduction of the IX or XIV. I suppose the only negatives I can see are that "glue & humidity blah..." or "could have done with more of them". Its a genine legend, and in my opinion a disgustingly undervalued plane - the only reason I wont say "better" than a Spitfire is because its not a comparable type. I`ve seen no other aircraft other than the P-51-B > that came in and utterly dominated from first to last in the same manner* source Erhard Milch microfilm "die Mustang ist anderer klasse". Never was the Mosquito outmoded in its entire operational career - other than except against the 262... which also applies to <insert name of any plane here> as well.

 

[Gemhorse]

There is a book written in 1988 by Alexander McKee called " The Mosquito Log " - He is the author of more than 20 books on aspects of military, naval & aeronautical history, among other things - He flew his first aircraft while still in his teens - I urge anyone who doubts the integrity of this man and this aircraft to read his book ( ISBN 0 285 62838 0 ) -

I haven't the time to 'action-replay' all I've written here in the past to the derision of the likes of CC and his mate 'Lancaster is Greatest or whatever' his handle was, they would crack jokes about 'Mosquito Borer-bomber' and so forth.... The fact is the Mosquito was/is unique in aviation history, first flew in 1940, continuously in use through to 1958, there were 43 different variants made, it was loved by all those that used it and hated by those that it was used against, the Germans even tried to do a copy of it but the glues didn't hold !

Let's be honest, comparison between these two aircraft is totally redundant - The P-38 was a superb aircraft in it's own right, for what it was designed for, and was also loved by all those that used it, we are so lucky today to have survivors to see at airshows - It was an entirely different design made from metal, tricycle u/c, etc and trying to make a contest between these two when the ONLY thing they had in common was they were both twin-engined and in the same War ....

I have always loved the Mosquito since I was a young lad making up 30 odd model kitsets before my father gathered them up when I turned 16 and gave them to my cousins - "When you become a man you put away the toys and go to work-" - I kept my interest in aviation and read books on it instead, and I joined the Army at 19 in 1971 & served 4 years, which I enjoyed - So I understand things 'military' and know my way around a few things - Men should embrace the Laws of War, then maybe we wouldn't have so many, but always be prepared ~

Hope this clears the mists of trying to fit square pegs in round holes ~

 

[Shortround6]

2) Having read most of the surviving Luftwaffe RLM conference meeting minuites, you`ll struggle to find much mention of the Lightning, conversely its full of diatribes against the mosquito, with Goring, and the rest going spare at the antics the aircraft was able to get up to with almost total immpunity

Well, for all of 1942 and about 10-11 months of 1943 the P-38 was operating on the fringes of the German "empire" while the Mosquito was operating right over the heads of Goring and the rest. The plane that bombed you last night or last week is going to get more attention than the plane that was giving a moderate amount of trouble hundreds of KM away in Tunisia or Sicily. The P-38 didn't show up in large numbers in NW Europe until the late winter and spring of 1944. One or two groups just starting operations in Dec of 1943 is hardly going to be that noteworthy to the German High command.

This is meant as no disrespect to the Mosquito or it's crews. It (and the crews) certainly earned the attention the Germans gave it when considering how to defend against it.

I would note that the page in photo does contain a bit of wishful thinking and uses the same skewed logic/accounting that the Mosquito vs B-17 arguments use in regards to the bomb load. The reason for the somewhat low average bomb loads of the Lancaster and B-17s was the high proportion of incendiaries carried on many raids. The incendiary loads were usually volume limited (ran out of space in the bomb bay) rather the weight limited. Mosquitos trying to carry incendiaries would have seen their "bomb load weight" plummet.

The Mosquito did do amazing things but some of the fringe roles (under 30 planes with 6pdr guns? the bouncing anti-ship bomb) seem to occupy a bit too much space in that evaluation.

 

[swampyankee]

Usually Almost always, I dislike these "which was the best" discussions, mostly as "best" is never well-defined. The P-38 and Mosquito were two aircraft designed for radically different roles and largely operated in completely different ways.

I'm waiting for somebody to ask which was the better aircraft: the DC-3 or the P-47.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-47 was a single engine plane,

Which was better, the P-38 or the C-46