Were Mosquito bombers underutilised in WW2?

Further evidence of a circular, non-sequita argument to support a faulty position. There is no data on bombing accuracy, because reliable data for any aircraft for any nationality does not exist that is all encompassing or comprehensive. Anything of that nature, of any nationality should be treated very carefuly, because the variables relating to bombing accuracy are simply too many and too great

The evidence that thje mosquito was an inherently more accurate bombing platform, necessarily has to take the form of surrogate measurement. There are so many variable, to the bombing accuracy issue, not just for Mosquitoes but for all aircraft that make such comparisons very difficult and not particularly useful. The best that you can hope for is to look at the general record, and the way the aircraft were used. Mosquitoes were precision bomber of the RAF, and by all accounts they were excellenet at it. Lancasters could also undertake this mission, unquestionably (as could the Ju88, provided the crews were competent and the mission not too difficult), but neither of these other aircraft ever undertook missions requiring the precision levels that the mosquito undertook that I know of, to the extent and sustained levels that Mosquitoes were asked to do.

As far as hard evidence is concerned, I recommend to you the report by Gp Captain Bennett to Harris supporting the adoption of the Mosquito as the principal type. He outlines that the Mosquito was at least twice as accurate as the Lanc especially at low level, cost less than a quarter per unit. had 25% of the manpower, and a loss rate of less than 1/3 that of the larger bomber. There were very sound reasons, other than the types high speed as to why it was the principal pathfinder aircraft in BC from September 1942 onward. Its a great pity that the RAF failed to listen to Bennet until after the war.

I would also recommend the official BC website, wherein it gives figures on the tonnages needed to knock out a V1 site by each type employed. "An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons". (Lancasters needed over 140 tons to knock out each site) "The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons"!

parsifal said:

As far as hard evidence is concerned, I recommend to you the report by Gp Captain Bennett to Harris supporting the adoption of the Mosquito as the principal type. He outlines that the Mosquito was at least twice as accurate as the Lanc especially at low level, cost less than a quarter per unit. had 25% of the manpower, and a loss rate of less than 1/3 that of the larger bomber. There were very sound reasons, other than the types high speed as to why it was the principal pathfinder aircraft in BC from September 1942 onward. Its a great pity that the RAF failed to listen to Bennet until after the war.

Click to expand...

I would very much like to see that report. Any idea where I could find a copy?

Please note also that FB Mosquitos were used on a lot of precision raids later in the war (bomber Mosquitos being assigned to nigh duties) and they didn't use the SABS or MkXIV bomb sights. Don't think they used bomb sights at all.

Nonsense.

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within 30 meters of target.
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
Spring 1944 P-47. Medium flak. 50% within 300 feet of target.
SBD. 75% within a 250 foot circle.

I find it difficult to believe the RAF didn't tabulate bombing accuracy from training exercises and operational missions like Germany and the USA did. Where is that data for the Mosquito and Lancaster bomber?

None of those numbers are at all comparable, and remain meanigless, as i originally said. what is "an average pilot? What were the wweather conditions for each test? Were the tests undertaken under combat conditions, or in controlled test conditions. what were the altitudes of the various bombing runs. What were the visibility conditions. There are endless other variables not included.

If there are test results for the lanc and the mosquito, I am not aware oif them. I am aware however that the Mosquito became the principal precision type of the RAF, whilst the Lanc didnt. i am aware that the Mosquito chalked some very impressive operational results, in excess of the results of all other types. so, whilst we probably dont have the actual reports you are looking fopr, we do have knowledge from the operational employment and results achieved, that ther Mosquito was the most accurate bomber of all the types employed by the RAF (BC that is). That shouldnt even be in debate....Mosquitoes were the main type of the PF force, whose primary objectives was to mark the target accurately. They did this without equal, from any nationality at any time in the war. Theres your proof of the accuracy of the type. its there, unnless you want o argue that night is day and the mosquito Pathfinders were not able to mark targets and aiming points accurately

davebender said:

Nonsense.

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within 30 meters of target.
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
Spring 1944 P-47. Medium flak. 50% within 300 feet of target.
SBD. 75% within a 250 foot circle.

I find it difficult to believe the RAF didn't tabulate bombing accuracy from training exercises and operational missions like Germany and the USA did. Where is that data for the Mosquito and Lancaster bomber?

Click to expand...

Clearly they did, as they had the Butt review (1942?) to look at the effectiveness of the night bombing campaign.

wuzak said:

I would very much like to see that report. Any idea where I could find a copy?

Click to expand...

tertiary source only Im afraid. But this is a start...

De Havilland Mosquito

wuzak said:

Clearly they did, as they had the Butt review (1942?) to look at the effectiveness of the night bombing campaign.

Click to expand...

Yes agreed. I would even concede that accuracy of types had to have been tested at some stage. However the numbers quoted are not test results, because the test resulds are undertaken in completely different circumstances

But report was a report into Force efficiency, not type or specific accuracy

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within 30 meters of target.
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
Spring 1944 P-47. Medium flak. 50% within 300 feet of target.
SBD. 75% within a 250 foot circle.

Click to expand...

Why overstate the Ju-87 accuracy but understate the P-47 by including flak affected accuracy?
Why not include all the other relevant statistics from the dive bomber discussion - that you were a part of - in February?

Such as the post where you cited the Hyperwar data

Ju87B-1 (the model in service in 1939-1940), "was to prove effective in the hands of expert pilots, who, in dives of eighty degrees to within 2,300 feet from the ground, could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards. Even average pilots could achieve a twenty-five percent success rate in hitting their targets

Click to expand...

What's the definition of 'target' here? A 30-yard circle?
Also from the same thread

Chris Bellamy's 'The evolution of modern land warfare: theory and practice' says that a Ju-87 "in a dive could put 25% of their bombs in a 50 metre diameter circle". (Pg 85)

Click to expand...

And, then there is my next post:

Some more information, gleaned from another forum:

"A study on of fighter-bomber attacks on bridges over the Savio River in Italy during the spring of 1944 found a sharp drop-off in bombing accuracy directly correlated with the intensity of flak fire. With no flak, P-47s could put half of their bombs within 180 feet of their target and required 30 bombs to score one hit. With medium flak, accuracy dropped to 300 feet, requiring 84 bombs per hit; with heavy flak, it was 420 feet and 164 bombs."

from Air Power by Stephen Budiansky

Click to expand...

So, your table now looks like this:

Ju-87B. Average pilots. 25% within a 50 m circle.
Ju-88A. Test conditions. 50% within a 50 meter circle.
1943 B-17. 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of target.
P-47 CEP: 50% within 180 feet of target operating unopposed; 50% within 300 feet to medium flak opposition; 50% within 420 feet to heavy flak opposition
SBD: 75% within a 250 foot circle.

But, as always, there is more data to include.

From the same thread, we also had

Corsair: 68.2% within a 250 foot circle.

So, from FDR and the Holocaust by Berne W Newton, we have this paragraph on P 196

In November 1944, the 1st Operation Analysis Section of Fifteenth Air Force reported on the relationship between altitude and bombing accuracy based on Mediterranean theatre experience. The Fifteenth's calculations showed that under good conditions, the Circular Error Probable at 15,000 feet of B-17s was 500 feet and that for B-24s about 515 feet. Put another way, under absolutely optimal conditions, one-half of bombs dropped would have fallen at distances greater than 500 feet from the aiming point.

Click to expand...

Also there is foot note 60 from the same book, citing "A Study on the Bombing Accuracy of the USAAF Heavy and Medium Bombers in the ETO" dated 03-Nov-1945.

It found that the average CEP (ie 50% of bombs) on ten target complexes ranged between 825 and 1,175 feet.

It also states that the average CEP of USAAF strategic bombers in Europe diminished from 3,400 ft in Jnauary 1943 to a rough average of 1,100 feet in 1944-1945. In the 15th AF, approximately 30% of bombs fell within 1,000 ft of the aiming point during 1944-1945.

There is also a study entitled "Report No. 80 - Fighter/Bomber Accuracy, August 1944" - the report is "an attempt to evaluate the accuracy of bombing by fighter aircraft of the IX Tactical Air Command during Aug 1944"

There is also this from Paul Gillespie's 'Weapons of Choice":

Summing up the accuracy of his VIII Bomber Command's daylight bombing in the first year of the Combind Bomber Offensive, Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker noted that 10% of bombs fell dead on the aiming point, 25% within 250 yards, 40% within an area included in a circle with a radius of 500 yards and 90% within one mile

Click to expand...

Some other data, from Air Power at The Battlefront by Ian Gooderson:

ORS 2TAF studied Typhoon fighter bomber attacks and found that in 37 rocket attacks, 33 (89%) of attacks were within 150 yards of the target. In 11 bomb attacks 5 (45%) were within 150 yards.

ORS 2TAF also studied Typhoon F/B accuracy between Oct-1944 and Apr-1945 and found an average radial error of 158 yards, with 50% of bombs falling within 130 yards of the target.

From the same study, 17 railway line targets were examined, with a total of 320 bombs dropped by Typhoons and Spitfires. It was found that the average line error was 69 yards, with on 50% of bombs falling within fifty yards either side of the target.

The book also has details of RAF heavy bombing attacks in Normandy, where the average standard deviation pattern was 620 yards and was found to be of a similar order for USAAF attacks.

Between June and August 1943 Desert Air Force medium bombers were found to have an average radial error of 330 yards. In June 1944 the mediums of the Mediterranean Allied Tactical Air Force had an overall probable radial error of 170 yards. The author points out that to ensure a 95% change of hitting a 6,00 sq ft bridge target, the Desert Air Force would need 2,400 bombs, the MATAF would need 600.

parsifal said:

tertiary source only Im afraid. But this is a start...

De Havilland Mosquito

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I've seen similar before, but it would be great to see the originals.

I stand corrected. very impressive JW. were there any comments or conclusions in that discussion relating to the mosquito? If im reading the dialogue, attacks by the mediums of the DAF were placing an SD (standard deviation or roughly 68%) of the bombs within 180 yards of the target compred to about 660 yards for the high level heavies. i think one could expect low level mosquitoes to be be at least equal to other mediums operating at mid to low altitude. since it was hard work for a heavy to operate in a flak rich environment at low level, but more or less a standard days work for a medium or light to do this, the argument that the mosquito was a more accurate platform becomes pretty conclusive.

We shouldn't need to rely on expectations. There's been plenty of time to tabulate bombing results for the Mosquito light bomber. Where is the historical data?

I don't have access to those records. Mhuxt might.

Do we count them as a whole, or specific mission profiles?

For instance, the low level day bombing raids had a higher degree of accuracy than the night bombers at high altitudes.

davebender said:

We shouldn't need to rely on expectations. There's been plenty of time to tabulate bombing results for the Mosquito light bomber. Where is the historical data?

Click to expand...

I dont know. But its a atrange way to mount a debate using a double negative, that mjuch i will give you. its typical of your style however, I would also say in passing.

i do know that the mosquito was at times expected (an achieved) hits on moving submerging U-Boats. thats a target area of less than 20 square metres, or in the terms you want to express, a target radius of about 5m. this was against a moving target, often with heavy flak defences firing back.

From November 1943, a total of 132 Mosquitoes were employed by Coastal Command on anti-shipping, of which I think 32 were directly employed on anti-uboat operation. from the Uboat.net site, the following data is provided

"From November 1943 on wards the Mosquito was also used to attack U-boats shortly after, or just before they entered a port. Warning of these opportunities was provided by code breakers. At that moment the U-boats travelled on the surface, and therefore were vulnerable to rockets or the 57mm shells of the FB.XVIII. For safety, the U-boats usually formed small convoys, with an escort of mine sweepers or so called Sperrbrecher ships, which had hulls reinforced with concrete as a protection against mines; both types bristled with anti-aircraft guns. For example, on 27 March 1944 six FB.VIs and two FB.XVIIIs attacked a convoy towards La Pallice, formed by U-960 with a escort of four M-class mine sweepers and two Sprerrbrecher vessels. Three mine sweepers suffered light damage, U-960 was badly damaged, two Mosquitos returned home with serious damage, and one crash-landed.

U-boats sunk by this aircraft

1944
U-976, U-821 +, U-998,
1945
U-804, U-843, U-1065, U-251 +, U-2359 +,

8 U-boats lost to Mosquito aircraft. + means that the Mosquito shared the credit for the sinking.

What isnt shown in these figures are the very large numbers of U-boats hit, but only damaged. This happened often, largely because the U-Boats were close to their home bases and could limp back to port damaged. I have sources at home that suggest these 30 or so aircraft emplyed in these operations damaged several hundred U-Boats in this way. No other type, allied or Axis could come even close to that level of efficiency.

In addition, the remainder of the Coastal Command nosquitoes, ihn conjunction with Beaufighters also used in the anti-shipping role, were responsible for the sinking or disabling of nearly 500000 tons of German controlled shipping. I am unsure how much italian shipping (oir shipping in the Med) they were responsible for.

Against land targets, I know of at least one occasion where Mosquito bombers were called upon (with no special trainng for the crews) to hit a target where the margin for error was less than 10m. The squadron pulled the mission off without a hitch.

In australia, Mosquitoes were legendary in the post war era for their accuracy. I was trained by guys that used them in the early parts of their careers. According to these old timers, there was no other aircraft of a similar vintage in any allied inventory that could come close to the Mosquito for accuracy. you know what, thats good enough for me, since these guys never gave me bad advice on anything that we looked at.

Mosquitoes were an exceptionally accurate delivery system for offensive ordinance, whatever that ordinance was.

Found two references to Mosquito bombing accuracy.

The first is from 'The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare' by Michael Russell Rip, James M. Hasik and gives the Mosquito a CEP of 137 m on a attack against a German night fighter control building at Florennes, using Oboe. Some more research on the subject found the drop height was 18,000 ft, carried out by B Mk VIs. No indication as to what type of bombs though.

The second is from the British Bombing Survey Unit which gives an average bombing error of "about 130 yards" for pathfinder Mosquitoes within Oboe range (roughly 250 miles). No mention of average drop heights though.

in fact U-boat.net gives a very innaccurate snapshot of the precision bombing capabilities of the Mosquito.



The following are some examples:

On the 29th November 1943, Flying officer Woodcock engaged a single U-Boat firing a total of eight 57mm rounds. The U-Boat reported two hits from cannon fire, and near misses from depth charges that were also dropped on it. It was heavily damged, remainng out of service for eight months.

on the 5th April 1944, the "Banf" wing of 37 a/c got 32 airborne in a devastating strike on German shipping. They were escorted by FB VIs of 333 Sqn. despite being intercepted by nearly 50 LW aircraft (17 of which were confirmed losses from OKL records), there were no combat losses to either the strike wing or the escort. The strike group sank all five merchantmen (estimated tonage was 25000 GRT) as well as all 5 escorts. There were a total of 15 bomb hits and numerous (20+) rocket hits, and an unknown number (but numerous) hits from the Molins guns on these targets. Accuracy was in excess of 50% on these targets, which were all underway at the time. i estimate bombing accuracy to be at least 50% within a target radius of less than 20m.

In that raid over 900 wehrmacht soldiers were killed incidentally as well as several hundred KM sailors. It was a major defeat for the Germans .

On the 9th April 1944, 34 aircraft of 248, 243 and 135 sqns hit 3 surfaced u-boats in the Kattegat, U1065 and U 806 were sunk almost immediately, with heavy loss of life, when hit by no less than 70 RPs (these figures are based on KM sources). One of the PR Mossies was lost when one of these U-boats blew up as it was being photographed.

The other u-boat , U-843 was lost a few minutes later by the efforts of just two mosquitoes piloted by FOs Rawlins and Randall, using a combination of rockets, bombs and 57mm cannon fire.

To cap all this off some of the formation returned with ordinance unexpended. I have read that for this strike ther were 4 or 5 PR attached, and 4 or 5 a/c with unused ordinance. that means that about 20 a/c destroyed 3 U-Boats, or about 6 a/c per sinking. thats unparralleled by anyone.

On the 2 May a mixed fighter/bomber force of 22 aircraft, led by SL Deck sank one U-Boat and damaged another 9this U-Boat never put to sea again). Again aircraft returned without ordinance expended, and as CAP was expected, at least half the force were configured as fighters. That means that about 5 aircraft per kill were needed. thats a better performance than we could do 30 years later usiing Grummans. And they were using unguided weapons whilst we were using guided hi-tech weaponary.

On the 19 December 1944, meiktala (not sure of the spelling...but its in burma) aerodrome was hit and knocked out. Flak was described as moderate to heavy For some reason, the target was the control tower and nothing else. Two aircraft attacked at night, using blind bombing techniques. Each aircraft carried just 2 x 500lb bombs. PR undertaken the next day showed the the target completely destroyed, and a very large hole where the building had been before the raid. Initially it was believed that there had been just one bomb hit, until it was realized that all four bombs had hit the same spot......the exact aiming point the target itself. For the record, using this cockamamy "bombing accuracy" rubbish , that equates to a 100% hit rate within 20m of the target (the standard crater size of a 500 lb bomb).

To lessen the chances of saying this is a fluke, the same results were achieved the day before and the day after when attacks on railway bridges at alor star and saye kinu were attacked and completely destroyed by a similar number of aircraft each time. There were no multiple craters....every bomb had hit into the same crater.

If these examples dont demonstrate just how accurate the mosquito was as a bomber i dont know what will convince people.

Any aircraft could navigate with Oboe including Lancaster bombers. This has nothing to do with Mosquito ability to put bombs on a target smaller then a city.

Jabberwocky said:

The first is from 'The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare' by Michael Russell Rip, James M. Hasik and gives the Mosquito a CEP of 137 m on a attack against a German night fighter control building at Florennes, using Oboe. Some more research on the subject found the drop height was 18,000 ft, carried out by B Mk VIs. No indication as to what type of bombs though.

Click to expand...

The bombs were probably taregt indicators.

What type of Mosquito was it? B.IV or B.XVI? No such thing as a B.VI.

davebender said:

Any aircraft could navigate with Oboe including Lancaster bombers. This has nothing to do with Mosquito ability to put bombs on a target smaller then a city.

Click to expand...

Lancasters couldn't fly as high as Mosquitos, so the range of Oboe was much more limited when using them.

That has no bearing if we are talking about precision bombing using unguided weapons. Bomb release will happen no higher then 10,000 feet, and probably a lot lower.