Can you explain how a short lived cross channel campaign in 1944 can justify changing all USA planning in 1940 for a plane that is still on the drawing board? It is serendipity, just as the P-51B/C and D were, the ordering of the Mustang MkI into production had nothing to do with the later need for a long range escort fighter.Bias?
I've read through everything written here and while I acknowledge this craftsmen limitations, the upside of a 400-mph bomber with the best survivability rate of the war delivering relatively small loads but at pinpoint accuracy makes this discussion worth have. A similar number of Lancasters were produced, but did they do more to defeat Hitler?
>>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. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))<<
More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)
The authoritative finality of you and several posters on this thread that seeks to demolish an opposing view rather than to engage it bodes poorly for continued re-learning of history. How are we to engage today's youth to the point that they take another look at these issues if all of them have been resolved?
This is not a settled issue and the ramifications of bomber theory of that era and procurement principles still resonate in the Pentagon.
The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers