Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Even with the use of a precision bomber like the Mossie, you didn't have the luxury to destroy "key components."
They did, but how big do you think factories and railyards are? read below...
And toward the end of the war that's exactly what many of the raids were doing. I think you fail to realize how much land an aircraft factory or an oil refinery makes up. .
Additionally you have to remember that sometimes targets were hit in waves to ensure total destruction of the target. The flight of bombers would be adjusted to ensure that bombs from all flights within the formation put their bombs on the target, or so that was the plan.
I'm well aware of 633 Sqn and their strike, and I think its an understatement to say that more than "key components" were destroyed.I think Amiens proved that precision strike could achieve desired objectives. Then there's that incredible attack by 633 Sqn on the heavy water plant in Norway!
And again, do you actually think you had to luxery to do that, especially during WW2??? When targets like Schweinfurt were hit, you think 8Th AF planners were concerned whether they were hitting the primary machine shops or material stores? The objective was to flatten everything and most of the time the "shot gun" effect was not very effective.Actually, I do realise. During my days in uniform, I spent some time as a targeteer undertaking target systems analysis. You don't need to obliterate a target to neutralise it - you just need to destroy the key components.
True - but it took time for other technologies to mature so you could build a bomber that not only carried a large bomb load but could do it effectively and safely. After WW2 big bombers were still being built with fairly large crews, but the mission changed for the crew. Instead you had crew members manning radar and ECMs in lieu of guns - in some respects you still had a large bomber that was self defending, but it was doing so in a whole different scale.Entirely agree - but you don't need formations of 4-engined aircraft with 10 men each onboard to achieve the same objective. It just took some time for the Allies to figure out that strategic effect could be delivered by something other than a big strategic bomber with a huge crew.
Ok - point taken - but show me where any WW2 aircraft was ever used to take out one piece of equipment...Joe I think I understand your point now....basically that the Mosquito could not carry the tonnage of bombs that the B-17 could....and that as a result of that could not undertake the "strategic bombing" mission, as you see it. If I am reading you right essentially you are saying that the B-17 was a true strategic bomber, and a Mossie was not.
However, I see a couple of flaws in that line of thinking. Firstly, your definition of what consitutes "strategic bombing", is far too narrow. You seem to equate strategic bombing as a concept with the mass destruction of cities enmasse, that is not the only definition of strategic bombing campaigns. If you have a factory, that has one piece of machinery needed to halt the entire program, you can either level the factory, with B-17s, or you can take out the piece of machinery, using a precision bombing attack, and in this I think the Mosquito was superior to the B-17. The point I am making is that the term "strategic bombing" is pretty wide....there was more than one way to bring German industry to its knees...
What you say is true but as stated, if you were going to deploy 1000 Mossies (I doubt you'd ever get that many up at once) to do the job of 400 B-17s, you're still going to deliver them the same way unless you have a thousand Mossies attacking a target at low level at all different directions, and I doubt that would produce the same results than if you showered a target from altitude. To do that with the Mossie, you're basically flying a high altitude pathfinder mission, with a bombadire in the lead plane. On the bombing run as such, you don't bomb at 350 knots at altitude, you're doing so at well under 200 knots. As I said earlier, you think Mossie drivers would want to sit in a large formation being pelted by flack for 40 seconds until the lead plane gives the order to release their bomb load?Secondly, I still dont get why a mass raid by Mosquitoes could not be used for mass destruction. The Mosquito could carry a single 4000 lb bomb or 4 x 500 lb bombsor even 2 x 1000 lb bombs....Dont know what the ordinance types for the B-17 are, but I doubt they are heavier than those I have just listed. A 4000 lb bomb is more than enough to destroy structures, you just have to drop enough of them. And to drop enough of them, you need numbers. If, instead of 400 B-17s attacking a target, each dropping 6000 lbs of bombs, (for a total drop of 2.4 million lbs) you had a Mosquito force of 1000 Mosquitoes, each dropping 4000 lbs, you are going to drop 4 million lbs in that comparison raid....this never was attempted in the war, so its all just theary, but to me I cannot see how 4 million lbs of explosive dropped by Mosquitoes would not do the same hob and more as 2.4 million lbs of explosive dropped by the B-17s......and the fleet costs are going to be similar I think.
And agree 100% about their accuracy, as far as my point - you didn't drop bombs at altitude and expect results if you were flying 350 knots.As for accuracy stats, no I dont have any, but I think it worth noting that the Mosquito was the weapon of choice for precision raids, where the neeed to hit targets precisely was a priority. And they were used as Pathfinders, night and day, in this regard i still dont see the point you are trying to make.
I'm well aware of 633 Sqn and their strike, and I think its an understatement to say that more than "key components" were destroyed.
And again, do you actually think you had to luxery to do that, especially during WW2??? When targets like Schweinfurt were hit, you think 8Th AF planners were concerned whether they were hitting the primary machine shops or material stores? The objective was to flatten everything and most of the time the "shot gun" effect was not very effective.
After WW2 big bombers were still being built with fairly large crews, but the mission changed for the crew. Instead you had crew members manning radar and ECMs in lieu of guns - in some respects you still had a large bomber that was self defending, but it was doing so in a whole different scale.
Look at bomber aircraft today - they are still "self defending" but they are defending themselves through speed, stealth and ECMs that are easily operated by a minimal crew.
The objective was to destroy Germany's war-machinery which, to use the 633 Sqn analogy, could have been accomplished just as easily by preventing munitions leaving factories as it could by plastering acres and acres of industrial cities and sending thousands of bombs down to do nothing more than churn dirt. However, items (1) and (2) above both militated against such an approach. Undoubtedly, the strategic bombing campaign had a massive impact but I think the resources expended were disproportionate to the results achieved - German fighter production continued to increase despite the Allies' growing air superiority.
But a 633 Squadron analogy was not going to put a facility like Schweinfurt or Ploesti out of action.
The Mosquito concept was the wave of the future when eventually mated with radar ECMs and higher performing, higher load carrying airframes.
Agree - but you looking at a "would have, should have" that was more than likely not even given a thought till the war was well over. To try to take out a massive target like Ploesti for example at low level would have meant more aircraft being used during the raid with hopes that all goes according to plan with several hundred aircraft over the target at one time. Look what happened when the USAAF tried to bomb Ploesti at low altitude.I'm merely stating that greater use of more precise delivery means coupled with better target systems analysis (which Allied PR and imagery analysts certainly COULD do) might have achieved the same (or better) results as massed formations of heavy bombers carpeting the landscape.
No matter what you're stripping off the bomber to make it faster, during WW2 all precision bombing runs at altitude were done at speeds between 150 - 180 mph if my memory serves me correctly and the bomb run could last as long as 2 minutes. Over the target you would probably be more vulnerable to fighters in a Mosquito than you would be in a B-17 or any other heavy because you didn't have the defensive armament to shoot back. Even the B-29 with more advanced bombing systems coupled with the Norden commenced a bombing run at 210 mph according to my references.Some things to consider:
Stripping guns from the 4 engine bomber increases cruise speed. This reduces the time for interception by the fighters and reduces their intercept rate. It decreases AA accuracy and should reduce AA losses over the course of the mission and smaller crews mean fewer casualties. It might also allow for an increased bomb load. Against this is a probable decrease in bombing accuracy. Enemy fighter losses from defensive fire might be lowered, but this must be balanced against the increase in time that the fighter is exposed to the remaining guns, especially the tail gun. The bomber defensive box formation creates self limiting bomb accuracy, since by definition the bomb pattern will be same size as the formation.
You're still looking at 2000 pounds per aircraft less when compared to a B-17A Mosquito based strategic bombing would greatly reduce the time for possible interception, reducing losses from fighters. The Mosquito cruising speed is better matched to that of potential fighter escorts so they could still escort missions. The Mosquito's speed reduces flak effectiveness as does it's much smaller radar cross section. Higher speeds will reduce bombing accuracy but tighter formations may be able to offset this. The Mosquito may also be able to fly several sorties per day against the same target to increase its effective bomb load.
Overall I suspect that a large scale escorted daylight Mosquito bombing campaign would have been more cost effective and and just as costly to the Luftwaffe as the historical campaign.
Overall I suspect that a large scale escorted daylight Mosquito bombing campaign would have been more cost effective and and just as costly to the Luftwaffe as the historical campaign.
Poor comparison.But the Mosquito took less bombs to destroy a V-1 site, Dave.
Mosquito - 39.8t
B-17 - 165.4t
B-25 - 182t
B-26 - 219t
my goodness I don't think they were thatt accurate in Vietnam, in WW2 I believe the CEP was in the hundreds of metresBut the Mosquito took less bombs to destroy a V-1 site, Dave.
Mosquito - 39.8t
B-17 - 165.4t
B-25 - 182t
B-26 - 219t
Some things to consider:
Stripping guns from the 4 engine bomber increases cruise speed. This reduces the time for interception by the fighters and reduces their intercept rate. It decreases AA accuracy and should reduce AA losses over the course of the mission and smaller crews mean fewer casualties. It might also allow for an increased bomb load. Against this is a probable decrease in bombing accuracy. Enemy fighter losses from defensive fire might be lowered, but this must be balanced against the increase in time that the fighter is exposed to the remaining guns, especially the tail gun. The bomber defensive box formation creates self limiting bomb accuracy, since by definition the bomb pattern will be same size as the formation.
Stripping guns and gunners on a B-17 might give you a couple of kts cruise speed, but longer range and c/oreiling and bomb load
A Mosquito based strategic bombing would greatly reduce the time for possible interception, reducing losses from fighters. The Mosquito cruising speed is better matched to that of potential fighter escorts so they could still escort missions. The Mosquito's speed reduces flak effectiveness as does it's much smaller radar cross section. Higher speeds will reduce bombing accuracy but tighter formations may be able to offset this. The Mosquito may also be able to fly several sorties per day against the same target to increase its effective bomb load.
The ultimate targets of Strategic interest (and effectiveness) were targets like Merseburg, Misburg, Leipzig, Brux, Posnan and Ploesti - a LOOOOOOONG way from Jolly 'Ol. The key question is whether One Mossie is as good as or better than a B-17 as a bomb platform at high to medium altitudes... and whether a Mossie can go to Brux or Posnan (1500 mile trip)
BTW if the Mossie is using H2S or H2X in any mode, the crafty squareheads figured out how to slave that signal to the ir fire control radars (and fusing) and 'cross section not relevant for daylight raids as German optics were excellent.
Overall I suspect that a large scale escorted daylight Mosquito bombing campaign would have been more cost effective and and just as costly to the Luftwaffe as the historical campaign.
my goodness I don't think they were thatt accurate in Vietnam, in WW2 I believe the CEP was in the hundreds of metres