parsifal
Colonel
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...
According to Jurgen Brauer from Augusta State University
What is strategic bombing? In the memorable language of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS),
... strategic bombing bears the same relationship to tactical bombing as does the cow to the pail of milk. To deny
immediate aid and comfort to the enemy, tactical considerations dictate upsetting the bucket. To ensure eventual
starvation, the strategic move is to kill the cow (USSBS, 1947, p. 5).
Less originally, consider the following two definitions:
Strategic bombing ... is aimed at the systematic destruction of those resources which will most weaken the enemy
by denying him the materials or weapons he needs to prosecute the war (USSBS, Jan. 1947, p. 2, pt. 2).
Strategic bombing is best defined as the use of air power to strike at the very foundation of an enemy's war effort
– the production of war material, the economy as a whole, or the morale of the civilian population – rather than
as a direct attack on the enemy's army or navy. A strategic air campaign almost always requires the defeat of the
enemy's air force, but not as an end in itself. While tactical air power uses aircraft to aid the advance of forces on
the ground or on the surface of the ocean, usually in cooperation with those forces, strategic air power usually
works in relative independence of armies and navies ... (Levine, 1992, p. 1).
In the hope that military efforts will be starved, strategic bombing, the first definition suggests, is
about bombing of non-military assets. One shoots at the economic cow that (re)fills the military's pail.
The focus on the ultimate objective – the opponent's ability to prosecute the war – is operationally
vague and is at any rate restricted to the physical inputs to war-making, neglecting human capital and
institutional aspects. The definition also lacks operational clarity. The second definition helps to
separate out strategic from tactical bombing and identifies three operational objectives: (a) the
opponent's actual arms production; (b) the enemy's potential to produce civilian and military goods;
and (c) the morale of the adversary's civilian population. The definition also suggests that strategic
bombing is to achieve certain war outcomes by itself, to avert the need for a land-based invasion of
the opponent's territory, the capture of its capital, and the deposing of its leaders.
I believe a mass deployment of fast light bombers like the Mosquito could achieve that stated definition, perhaps a luittle differently to a Heavy Bomber like the B-17, but still achieve the mission objective of economic dislocation on the enemy.....
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.
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.
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...
According to Jurgen Brauer from Augusta State University
What is strategic bombing? In the memorable language of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS),
... strategic bombing bears the same relationship to tactical bombing as does the cow to the pail of milk. To deny
immediate aid and comfort to the enemy, tactical considerations dictate upsetting the bucket. To ensure eventual
starvation, the strategic move is to kill the cow (USSBS, 1947, p. 5).
Less originally, consider the following two definitions:
Strategic bombing ... is aimed at the systematic destruction of those resources which will most weaken the enemy
by denying him the materials or weapons he needs to prosecute the war (USSBS, Jan. 1947, p. 2, pt. 2).
Strategic bombing is best defined as the use of air power to strike at the very foundation of an enemy's war effort
– the production of war material, the economy as a whole, or the morale of the civilian population – rather than
as a direct attack on the enemy's army or navy. A strategic air campaign almost always requires the defeat of the
enemy's air force, but not as an end in itself. While tactical air power uses aircraft to aid the advance of forces on
the ground or on the surface of the ocean, usually in cooperation with those forces, strategic air power usually
works in relative independence of armies and navies ... (Levine, 1992, p. 1).
In the hope that military efforts will be starved, strategic bombing, the first definition suggests, is
about bombing of non-military assets. One shoots at the economic cow that (re)fills the military's pail.
The focus on the ultimate objective – the opponent's ability to prosecute the war – is operationally
vague and is at any rate restricted to the physical inputs to war-making, neglecting human capital and
institutional aspects. The definition also lacks operational clarity. The second definition helps to
separate out strategic from tactical bombing and identifies three operational objectives: (a) the
opponent's actual arms production; (b) the enemy's potential to produce civilian and military goods;
and (c) the morale of the adversary's civilian population. The definition also suggests that strategic
bombing is to achieve certain war outcomes by itself, to avert the need for a land-based invasion of
the opponent's territory, the capture of its capital, and the deposing of its leaders.
I believe a mass deployment of fast light bombers like the Mosquito could achieve that stated definition, perhaps a luittle differently to a Heavy Bomber like the B-17, but still achieve the mission objective of economic dislocation on the enemy.....
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.
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.