What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

[drgondog]

The biggest barrier to my acceptance of the utilization of the Mosquito as a primary replacement to B-17/24 and Lancaster in the prosecution of POINTBLANK and ARGUMENT is conceptualizing the 'how is it a.) a better bombardment vehicle, and b.) How best to capitalize on its presumed better efficiencies'? Recall that the Combined Bomber Offensive called for joint attacks from 8th and 15th and RAF on the same targets. Would the Mosquito force be composed for strategic target attacks by bombing day or night?

Low level surprise tactics deep into Germany during daylight seems to be a non-starter. Given precision navigation as a necessary assumption to find targets, what is the survivability probability of either individual aircraft or a force large enough to deliver crippling blows to such distant plants as Ball Bearing or aircraft engine factories in east Germany or Poland/Czechoslovakia.

What are the logistics and planning considerations to launch such forces? Other than range how would the Mosquito be significantly better than say a P-47 or P-38 carrying 2x1000 pounders? Given that speed was the only major survival attribute if in close presence to Bf 109s and Fw 190s, what tactics should be used to direct and focus enough Mosquitos to destroy a major target?

What about high level daylight strategic attacks to reduce AAA threat but remain exposed to radar intercept and warning? Mosquito bombsights were better than Norden/Sperry sights how? Was a serious study ever performed to assess Bomb CEP based on any bombsight equipped Mosquito for medium to high altitudes? Say in comparison to Lancaster or B-17/24? Or B-26, A-26 or B-25?


What was the target radius as a function of cruise speed, fuel load out, and altitude - with a 2000 pound or 2x1000 pound bombs. How does it compare to B-17 5000 pound or B-24 6000 pound payload strike at Brux or Posnan?

Last but most certainly not least, what was a.) the airframe inventory of mission suitable Mosquitos in July 1943 when the combined Bomber Offensive began, b.) the trained aircrew inventory to execute the selected attack profile, c.) what was the manufacturing capacity to replace losses, and d.) which mission priorities tasked for Mosquitos would suffer as a result of diverting other model production capacity to the 'strategic' Mossie.

Shorter question than above. Was there ever critical mass of the proposed Mosquito type to prosecute a strategic bombing campaign in partnership to USSTAF, assuming that it Was mission capable?

 

[Donald Johnson]

The biggest barrier to my acceptance of the utilization of the Mosquito as a primary replacement to B-17/24 and Lancaster in the prosecution of POINTBLANK and ARGUMENT is conceptualizing the 'how is it a.) a better bombardment vehicle, and b.) How best to capitalize on its presumed better efficiencies'? Recall that the Combined Bomber Offensive called for joint attacks from 8th and 15th and RAF on the same targets. Would the Mosquito force be composed for strategic target attacks by bombing day or night?

Low level surprise tactics deep into Germany during daylight seems to be a non-starter. Given precision navigation as a necessary assumption to find targets, what is the survivability probability of either individual aircraft or a force large enough to deliver crippling blows to such distant plants as Ball Bearing or aircraft engine factories in east Germany or Poland/Czechoslovakia.

What are the logistics and planning considerations to launch such forces? Other than range how would the Mosquito be significantly better than say a P-47 or P-38 carrying 2x1000 pounders? Given that speed was the only major survival attribute if in close presence to Bf 109s and Fw 190s, what tactics should be used to direct and focus enough Mosquitos to destroy a major target?

What about high level daylight strategic attacks to reduce AAA threat but remain exposed to radar intercept and warning? Mosquito bombsights were better than Norden/Sperry sights how? Was a serious study ever performed to assess Bomb CEP based on any bombsight equipped Mosquito for medium to high altitudes? Say in comparison to Lancaster or B-17/24?

What was the target radius as a function of cruise speed, fuel load out, and altitude - with a 2000 pound or 2x1000 pound bombs. How does it compare to B-17 5000 pound or B-24 6000 pound payload strike at Brux or Posnan?

Last but most certainly not least, what was a.) the airframe inventory of mission suitable Mosquitos in July 1943 when the combined Bomber Offensive began, b.) the trained aircrew inventory to execute the selected attack profile, c.) what was the manufacturing capacity to replace losses, and d.) which mission priorities tasked for Mosquitos would suffer as a result of diverting other model production capacity to the 'strategic' Mossie.

Shorter question than above. Was there ever critical mass of the proposed Mosquito type to prosecute a strategic bombing campaign in partnership to USSTAF, assuming that it Was mission capable?

This is exactly where I want to go with this: pose the question without necessarily saying that there is a right answer. Initial questions have to be broad in scope allowing the student to drill down according to interest. Those that like numbers can go there. Those who find military philosophy interesting can work toward posing the questions that still matter. Others may find the individual stories more intriguing, from the flamboyant maverick Vince Chipman to the "by the book" Ernest Marshall. Plenty of unexplored primary source material available for both.

Studying war is out of vogue now as the SJW strive to determine PC content. Growing up, I found it disappointing that none of my female teachers asked about or encouraged me to follow my interests in planes. I can only surmise that they felt it glorified war.

 

[special ed]

Fortunately, when I was in school, most of my male teachers were veterans, the older female teachers had family veterans, the younger females were offspring of veterans. I do remember correcting my high school physics teacher when he was teaching aerodynamics. He said aircraft took off with the wind behind them to give added speed. After my dissertation of airflow over the wing, he changed his view point to "into the wind".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Others may find the individual stories more intriguing, from the flamboyant maverick Vince Chipman to the "by the book" Ernest Marshall. Plenty of unexplored primary source material available for both.

Individual stories are fine and worthwhile as you're getting a snapshot in time from an individual who was there and their specific experience, but with that we must also accept that this is one individual who may pose their own personal belief and sometimes bias based on their own experience. Example, you may meet one combat veteran who was shot out of the sky on his first mission and carry the opinion that the strategic bombing campaign was a failure, but yet talk to another individual who completed 25 missions and would have you believe his squadron singlehandedly won the air war over Germany. I've spoken to both and respect each of their perspectives based on their actual experiences.

Studying war is out of vogue now as the SJW strive to determine PC content. Growing up, I found it disappointing that none of my female teachers asked about or encouraged me to follow my interests in planes. I can only surmise that they felt it glorified war.

Attending elementary and middle school during the Vietnam War era, I found this to exist with the younger liberal teachers fresh out of college but of course older teachers, especially male WW2 veterans were the complete opposite and a few of them inspired me and my interest in aviation.

 

[special ed]

If I may give a personal observation of the generational differences along with social changes. I went to the theater to see the original "Pearl Harbor" when it came out. Remember, no CGI, actual people and aircraft. When the movie was over and walking out, I noticed almost no talking and a thoughtful mood. About two decades later, it again was shown at a theater. This time, a much younger crowd whooped and yelled during the movie. Even cheering when explosions blew sailors off the ship and when the sailors were strafed raising the US flag. After, while walking out, it was clear this generation had been raised on video games with no reality of history.

 

[pbehn]

This is exactly where I want to go with this: pose the question without necessarily saying that there is a right answer. Initial questions have to be broad in scope allowing the student to drill down according to interest. Those that like numbers can go there. Those who find military philosophy interesting can work toward posing the questions that still matter. Others may find the individual stories more intriguing, from the flamboyant maverick Vince Chipman to the "by the book" Ernest Marshall. Plenty of unexplored primary source material available for both.

Studying war is out of vogue now as the SJW strive to determine PC content. Growing up, I found it disappointing that none of my female teachers asked about or encouraged me to follow my interests in planes. I can only surmise that they felt it glorified war.

You could also turn the discussion on its head and ask why, prior to the first prototype being ordered should anyone in UK and USA order the Mosquito as a bomber? The historical documents provided by Calum were, at the time historical, based on what the Mosquito had proved itself to be, and talking about production of Mosquitos at the end of 1944, by which time the path of the war was clear only the final border between the east and west allies was to be decided.

 

[special ed]

In post 225 I meant "Tora Tora Tora" but had a brain fart.

 

[SaparotRob]

In post 225 I meant "Tora Tora Tora" but had a brain fart.

We know what you meant. I had the same brain fart while reading it!

 

[ClayO]

The debate over collateral casualties is controversial, but the deliberate targeting of civilian targets is less so. Slaughterhouse Five crystallizes this point with the bombing of Dresden and Catch-22 does a great job of ridiculing military thought. Bringing together such readings with factual historical accounts does more to develop such discussions than any current textbook (Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs, and Steel" comes close).

You're refuting historical perspectives using modern sources, but it's difficult to comprehend the point of view of an earlier time. The official strategy of both sides in the European war was to stop the enemy's production by "unhousing" the factory workers. The fact that the workers themselves may have been incinerated in the process was viewed as a secondary concern. Public acceptance was gained by propaganda that dehumanized the foreigner.

A change in weapons wouldn't have necessarily changed the strategy; a more accurate weapon could still have been used to to bomb civilians more accurately.

 

[wuzak]

The biggest barrier to my acceptance of the utilization of the Mosquito as a primary replacement to B-17/24 and Lancaster in the prosecution of POINTBLANK and ARGUMENT is conceptualizing the 'how is it a.) a better bombardment vehicle, and b.) How best to capitalize on its presumed better efficiencies'? Recall that the Combined Bomber Offensive called for joint attacks from 8th and 15th and RAF on the same targets. Would the Mosquito force be composed for strategic target attacks by bombing day or night?

It depends on what you mean by "better bombardment vehicle".

On the one hand the B-17 and B-24 used a bomb on the leader system, with the aircraft remaining in formation. This leads to a wide dispersal of bombs, most of which will not hit the target in question.

On the other hand, the Mosquito achieved its best accuracy in day bombing by individually aiming at low level.

At night they were used to mark targets using electronic aids, such as Gee-H and Oboe. Systems that could equally be used in daylight.

Low level surprise tactics deep into Germany during daylight seems to be a non-starter. Given precision navigation as a necessary assumption to find targets, what is the survivability probability of either individual aircraft or a force large enough to deliver crippling blows to such distant plants as Ball Bearing or aircraft engine factories in east Germany or Poland/Czechoslovakia.

A B.IV would just about be able to carry off a low level attack against Schweinfurt, for example. I think with drop tanks it would be more comfortable.

Low level attacks have the advantage of being under the radar.

But the entire mission does not have to be undertaken at low level. Cruise in at altitude, extending the possible range of the attack, then perform a shallow dive into the target area to drop bombs at low level.

Another advantage for Mosquitoes at low level is that their performance is a match or better than that of the Luftwaffe's fighters near sea level. And it removes one of the Mosquito's biggest blind spots - behind and below.

Very long range targets would require the later Mk.XVI with the largest drop tanks available - I'm not sure if that was 50, 75 or 100 UKG. 50 UKG drop tanks were definitely used.

What are the logistics and planning considerations to launch such forces? Other than range how would the Mosquito be significantly better than say a P-47 or P-38 carrying 2x1000 pounders? Given that speed was the only major survival attribute if in close presence to Bf 109s and Fw 190s, what tactics should be used to direct and focus enough Mosquitos to destroy a major target?

Unfortunately the Mosquito was not equipped to carry 2 x 1,000lb bombs until late in the war.

Tests were done with an early Mosquito fitted with a single 1,000lb GP bomb and two 500lb MC bombs. The single 1,000lb GP (British) bomb had roughly the same explosive filling as a single 500lb MC.

The 1,000lb MC was larger in diameter than the 1,000lb GP bomb, and probably could not be used in the same way.

When the bulged bomb bay was employed, in early 1944, a single 1,000lb MC bomb could be fitted on the rack used for the 4,000lb HC or MC bombs. Though it was usually a 1,000lb Target Indicator carried, which was the same size and shape as the 1,000lb MC.

627 squadron, IIRC, adapted a twin carrier which allowed two 1,000lb TIs to be carried.

That said, the advantage of the Mosquito over a P-47 or P-38 carrying 2,000lbs of bombs was range and speed.

What about high level daylight strategic attacks to reduce AAA threat but remain exposed to radar intercept and warning? Mosquito bombsights were better than Norden/Sperry sights how? Was a serious study ever performed to assess Bomb CEP based on any bombsight equipped Mosquito for medium to high altitudes? Say in comparison to Lancaster or B-17/24? Or B-26, A-26 or B-25?

The Mosquito bomb sight was common with most of Bomber Command - CSBS in the early war, and the Mk.XIV in the second half of the war.

The Mk.XIV was built in the US as the Sperry T1.

There were studies into the use of the CSBS and Norden, and comparisons with visual aiming at low level by the pilot.

The Mosquito did not work well with the Norden, as it was not as stable as that sight required. Using the Norden would be a death sentence for Mosquitoes, as the requirement for straight, level flight on the lead up to target was far greater than the Mk.XIV required.

What was the target radius as a function of cruise speed, fuel load out, and altitude - with a 2000 pound or 2x1000 pound bombs. How does it compare to B-17 5000 pound or B-24 6000 pound payload strike at Brux or Posnan?

The RAF did not have a modern 2,000lb general purpose bomb. The 1,900lb GP bomb was an older design with a charge to weight ratio of around 30%.

Instead, the Mosquito would use a 4,000lb HC or 4,000lb MC bomb.

High Capacity bombs had charge to weight ratio of ~75%, Medium Capacity bombs in the range of 50-60%, similar to US GP bombs.

Range is not as great as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster.

A B.XVI with 1 x 4,000lb and 2 x 500lb bombs and internal fuel only had a maximum range of 1,370 miles at most economical cruise, 870 miles at max weak mixture.

A B.XVI with 4 x 500lb internal, fuel internal fuel and 2 x 50UKG drop tanks had a maximum range of 1,795 miles.

Last but most certainly not least, what was a.) the airframe inventory of mission suitable Mosquitos in July 1943 when the combined Bomber Offensive began, b.) the trained aircrew inventory to execute the selected attack profile, c.) what was the manufacturing capacity to replace losses, and d.) which mission priorities tasked for Mosquitos would suffer as a result of diverting other model production capacity to the 'strategic' Mossie.

Shorter question than above. Was there ever critical mass of the proposed Mosquito type to prosecute a strategic bombing campaign in partnership to USSTAF, assuming that it Was mission capable?

The problem with this idea was always the production mix. Bombers were a lower priority than the PR, FB and NF versions, so there weren't enough bombers in July 1943.

I'd suggest that FB version could be reduced in priority in favour of the B version.

 

[ThomasP]

re range of the Mosquito

__________Mk IV_______Mk IV_______Mk IV_______Mk XVI
__________Standard____Guppy______Guppy______ Guppy
Bombs
Internal___4x500_______1x4000_____ 1x4000_____ 4x500
External__ none________none_______ 2x500_______none

Fuel
Internal___536-50______500-51______500-47______536-49
External__ none________none_______ 100(2x50)___ 100(2x50)

Range____1620@265___1450@265___1370@265___1795@250
_________ 1360@320___1000@320____ 850@320___1165@350

Merlin____ XX__________23__________25__________70 series

All ranges are air miles at 15,000 ft cruise altitude, with no reserve.


re bomb load

There was a 2000 lb 'Cookie' type bomb produced and used from 1940 to the end of the war. Obviously it would be better to use the 4000 lb 'cookie' if you want maximum blast effect, but the 2000 lb 'cookie' would allow greater flexibility and possibly carriage of other types at the same time (ie 1x2000 lb + ?xIncendiary, etc). Also it might offer a useful increase in range? I have read that the Mosquito (Standard and Guppy) sometimes carried mixed loads of Incendiaries and HE but I do not know the specifics.

 

[GrauGeist]

the bombing of Dresden

Thought I would touch on this, as it makes a fantastic point about how the retelling of propaganda continues to permeate history through the ages.
Prior to the Allied bombing of Dresden, no one cared much about it. It was no more medieval or cultural than Cologne or other older German cities. However, the morning after the first bombing raid, Goebbels (minister of bullshit) issued a press release stating that Dresden was nothing more than an unarmed cultural center and the "hundreds of thousands" of casualties were criminal.
This has been parroted through countless books, websites and other media to this day.
In actuality, Dresden was a crossroads of several highways and railroads. At the time of the bombing, Dresden was packed with refugees plus elements of Wehrmact and SS units retreating from the Red Army's advance.
Additionally, Dresden was a command and control center for the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. There were headquarters in the city for the afore-mentioned as well as regional government offices and a headquarters (and prison) for the Gestapo.
There was a large railyard in the city and on the outskirts were two Luftwaffe fighter fields, a flight school, a material command airfield and an airfield used by bomber groups.
In the end, after years of official reviews and inquests, the official death toll was 86,000, many of which were refugees plus Wehrmacht/SS soldiers caught in the open.

In contrast, the fire bombing of Tokyo killed well over 120 thousand and displaced almost 1.5 million civilians. The casualties of Tokyo well exceed the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

So in the end, this points to the need to be careful about what you see/read on the internet, because often times, things are not what they seem.

 

[wuzak]

re bomb load

There was a 2000 lb 'Cookie' type bomb produced and used from 1940 to the end of the war. Obviously it would be better to use the 4000 lb 'cookie' if you want maximum blast effect, but the 2000 lb 'cookie' would allow greater flexibility and possibly carriage of other types at the same time (ie 1x2000 lb + ?xIncendiary, etc). Also it might offer a useful increase in range? I have read that the Mosquito (Standard and Guppy) sometimes carried mixed loads of Incendiaries and HE but I do not know the specifics.

The 2,000lb HC bomb was too long for the Mosquito bomb bay. The tail was cut by 20 inches for later versions, but it was still longer than the 4,000lb HC bomb.

It was also too large a diameter for use before the bulged bomb bay. There would not be any room for additional stores internally.

Small bomb carriers could be carried in place of one or two of the 500lb bombs in the bomb bay, or could be carried on wing racks where the universal wing was fitted. These could be loaded with small incendiaries.

There were also incendiary bombs, not sure what sizes.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey wuzak,

Good catch, I did not notice the gross extra length of the 2000 lb HC (131-162") vs the 4000 lb HC (110").


re if you need to demolish cities

I remember reading that 1x 4000 lb HC would devastate the average city block (whatever that means). There were also after-war forensic reports of the people that had taken refuge in otherwise bomb proof shelters, being found dead anyway. It was determined that they had died from the concussion effect of 4000 lb HC bombs.

I do not know if this would be realistic, but it seems that if a group of Mosquitoes attacked a city one day, they could simply return the again the same day, or 1 or 2 or 3 (etc) days later, and aim for the blocks they did not get the first time. This assumes relatively low level bomb runs for good accuracy and good enough visibility, day or night.

I am not saying whether that the Mosquito could replace the 4-engine heavies (regardless of timeline), just adding fuel to the debate.

 

[Koopernic]

I can crystalize the debate and ridicule any piece, book or article written criticising the Dresden raid. They all mention the beauty and history of the place, and when they do they lose the plot and the argument. While the good people of Dresden were living and producing munitions in its historic and elegant surroundings people were being killed on forced marches and by starvation in Bergen Belsen, I have been to both. London is a far more historic city than Dresden and the Nazis developed 3 V weapons to attack it in addition to the bombing that started in 1940 and ended when end was forced on the people doing it. You are not being objective at all, you are choosing factoids that support your argument and ignoring all others, your aim is for people you interact with to discover your own pre determined "truth".

Edit: The last V1 launched at London was almost exactly one month before the Dresden raid. January 1945.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting point. The entire "Vergeltungs" or "Reprisal weapon" V1 ie Fiesler Fi 103 and V2 ie EMW A4 were specifically named and prematurely deployed as a reprisal to RAF Area Bombardment. Had there no been an RAF Area Bombardment Campaign then there would likely never have been a V1/V2 campaign as the Germans would not provoke indiscriminate city bombing against themselves. Certainly at the begining of the war this sense of being mutually vulnerable inhibited an expansion of city bombing.

THE REST OF THIS POST WAS EDITED AS IT VIOLATES OUR "POLITICS POLICY."

 

[tomo pauk]

One of us will get banned from this site.

 

[pbehn]

One of us will get banned from this site.

I agree.

 

[Koopernic]

Meant to comment on this way earlier, got distracted with all the other "noise." Great documents! A question - with regards to your statement "In my view just about all British heavies were pathetically armed death-traps which cost tens of thousands of airmen their lives. I don't think (Britain) needed them, really, I dont." Was it your opinion that the RAF bombing campaign "could have" been done with just the Mosquito or was it matter or better arming the 4 engine bomber? Again, thanks for posting this.

Excuse me jumping in with my 2 bobs worth.

I note that after the war the British never built an armed bomber again. English Electric Canberra, Vickers Valiant, Handley Page Victor and Avro Vulcan. All unarmed. Fast, high flying loaded with electronic warfare aids in preference to armament. The US persisted with tail guns on B-47, B-52, B-58 Hustler but they didn't slow the aircraft much.

From what I've gleaned from this site, the RAF bombers lacked attention to escape systems, eg rear gunner had no parachute, hatches were too small, that their hydraulic power turrets were 7 times more likely to catch fire than electro hydraulic (which were sometimes available for some turrets)

The B-17D had a speed of 323mph. Worth considering that had it had the dorsal turret and ventral bathtub removed and with the latest GE 28,000 RPM turbos seen on the B17F/G might have had a speed of over 350mph at over 25,000ft It had a range of 3400 miles. I probably could even have carried a A26 Invader style armament which needent be remote controlled.

The doctrine that seemed to be missing was the long range escort fighter to escort the fast bomber and reduce the burden it faced.

The problem seems to have been no one specifying such a thing. Spitfires, Me 109, Hurricanes all could have had extensive fuel in the wings and even the P-40 could have had as much fuel in the wings as a P-39 it would have made Berlin if the wing had of been engineered for it from the start.

Large 2 engine fighters with wing loadings and power loadings equal to that of singles (P-61E springs to mind) are another solution.

In terms of accuracy, prior to the implementation of the Area Bombardment directive a scheme consisting of what was effectively orbiting Oboe stations was conceived to allow accurate bombing at a distance. The radar horizon of a 33,000ft orbiting beacon aircraft and a 25,000ft is 720km or 410 miles.

It wouldn't be that hard. A B-17 with a beacon would orbit at high altitude. It would act as a relay and receive interrogation pulses from the bomber and relay it to a ground station. The orbiting relay B-17 It would be tracked by a parabolic radar dish and a timing offset would be added in varying from about 0-20 microseconds of so to account for a 4 mile diameter orbit and other distortion. A failry simple calculation. The relay aircraft need no orbit the ground station but could do so up to 160km/100 miles away further extending range.

 

[pbehn]

I'm aware that USAAF also bombed the place. I've visited the magnificent Frauenkirche Dom cathedral, all white, light blue sky, gold and baroque and note that US Airmen raised funds for its restoration. I'm not sure how they felt about it at the time, probably an ugly job they'd rather not do but had to.
.

There you go, just as predicted, you cant discuss it without mentioning the magnificent Frauenkirche Dom cathedral, did you visit Bergen Belsen? Was there any magnificent Baroque architecture there? I see you deleted your "pity party" nonsense about Bergen Belsen not being a concentration camp. Since the population went from 7,500 to over 60,000 in 9 months with no expansion in anything to cope, nothing suits the word concentration camp better. The people were transported there to be starved to death simply so that the Red army wouldnt find them and feed them, where does that come in your discussion of the Geneva convention.

Since you like speculation, maybe if those airmen had been taken to Bergen Belsen they would want to do a better job next time.

 

[drgondog]

It depends on what you mean by "better bombardment vehicle".

On the one hand the B-17 and B-24 used a bomb on the leader system, with the aircraft remaining in formation. This leads to a wide dispersal of bombs, most of which will not hit the target in question.

On the other hand, the Mosquito achieved its best accuracy in day bombing by individually aiming at low level.

At night they were used to mark targets using electronic aids, such as Gee-H and Oboe. Systems that could equally be used in daylight.

There were studies into the use of the CSBS and Norden, and comparisons with visual aiming at low level by the pilot.

The Mosquito did not work well with the Norden, as it was not as stable as that sight required. Using the Norden would be a death sentence for Mosquitoes, as the requirement for straight, level flight on the lead up to target was far greater than the Mk.XIV required.

When 8th (and subsequently 15th AF) lead crew was introduced, the crews were assigned based on proven skills for bomb aiming and navigation. Additionally within a Group, the lead crews were assigned blocks of targets - different from other lead crews and tasked to familiarize themselves with landmark features leading the target, target details like location of critical target feature locations, such 'cat crackers' etc for refineries. Additionally, as skill levels increased through reduced attrition, some BG created squadron level lead crews which distributed focus within a group on those critical features. In clear weather, bombing results increasingly improved. Also, tasking a Bomb Wing composed of several bomb groups distributed the individual bomb aiming for 'follow me' drops also improved results.

I'm skeptical that radar, Gee-H and Oboe were capable of precision target feature attacks at night by Mosquitos but willing to be schooled. Until then, the important case for strategic bombing for Mosquito points to low level attacks in daylight, as singles or perhaps flights.


A B.IV would just about be able to carry off a low level attack against Schweinfurt, for example. I think with drop tanks it would be more comfortable.
Low level attacks have the advantage of being under the radar.
But the entire mission does not have to be undertaken at low level. Cruise in at altitude, extending the possible range of the attack, then perform a shallow dive into the target area to drop bombs at low level.
Another advantage for Mosquitoes at low level is that their performance is a match or better than that of the Luftwaffe's fighters near sea level. And it removes one of the Mosquito's biggest blind spots - behind and below.
Very long range targets would require the later Mk.XVI with the largest drop tanks available - I'm not sure if that was 50, 75 or 100 UKG. 50 UKG drop tanks were definitely used.

Assuming without argument that Schweinfurt represents maximum effective range with 2x500 pound bombs internally, and two external 100UKgal tanks, what does that translate to for TAS at low level for maximum range penetrations? The P-51B/D TAS was reduced 45mph TAS with 110gal externals at 5000 feet at Normal Power (46" @2700 RPM). For P-51D clean, at Normal Power, the TAS at 5000 feet was 323 mph, with 110's that reduces to 278mph during tank augmented Penetration. For 25000 feet TAS for max range was 281mph TAS.

That airspeed is well below Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190A-7 if engaged. For max range at 5,000 feet the RPM/MP must be further reduced - with TAS dropping to between 240mph (1900/37") and 187mph (1600/30") ---- Flight test Report June 1945 on P-51D-15-NA with improved low-drag bomb racks.


Unfortunately the Mosquito was not equipped to carry 2 x 1,000lb bombs until late in the war. Tests were done with an early Mosquito fitted with a single 1,000lb GP bomb and two 500lb MC bombs. The single 1,000lb GP (British) bomb had roughly the same explosive filling as a single 500lb MC. The 1,000lb MC was larger in diameter than the 1,000lb GP bomb, and probably could not be used in the same way.

When the bulged bomb bay was employed, in early 1944, a single 1,000lb MC bomb could be fitted on the rack used for the 4,000lb HC or MC bombs. Though it was usually a 1,000lb Target Indicator carried, which was the same size and shape as the 1,000lb MC.

The RAF did not have a modern 2,000lb general purpose bomb. The 1,900lb GP bomb was an older design with a charge to weight ratio of around 30%.
Instead, the Mosquito would use a 4,000lb HC or 4,000lb MC bomb. High Capacity bombs had charge to weight ratio of ~75%, Medium Capacity bombs in the range of 50-60%, similar to US GP bombs. Range is not as great as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. A B.XVI with 1 x 4,000lb and 2 x 500lb bombs and internal fuel only had a maximum range of 1,370 miles at most economical cruise, 870 miles at max weak mixture. A B.XVI with 4 x 500lb internal, fuel internal fuel and 2 x 50UKG drop tanks had a maximum range of 1,795 miles.

Wuzak, how does 'range' for B.XVI with either one 4,000lb HC or 4x500 internally and 2x110UKgal translate to Combat Radius, taking into account running at high boost for 20 minutes, and a 20 minute reserve for weather? IMO this question is one of the two critical questions related to comparing Mosquito as alternative to B-17/25 for Combined Bomber Offensive. As you pointed out, the numbers actually produced in 1943 severely binds the practical selection of Mosquito to replace Lancaster or B-17/24.



The problem with this idea was always the production mix. Bombers were a lower priority than the PR, FB and NF versions, so there weren't enough bombers in July 1943.I'd suggest that FB version could be reduced in priority in favour of the B version.

As usual - lucid and thoughtful, Wuzak. Some comments inserted above. You substantiated what I believed to be true and expanded on my questions.

The second critical question is 'escapability/vulnerability' of the Mosquito when required to spool up from max range cruise settings, accelerate and escape a stern chase. That question 'lead in' was introduced above by the Combat Radius considerations of 20 minutes of max power. As a practical matter, if attacked inbound, the Mossie must not only run faster - but also extend far enough for pursuit to lose sight and be able to turn back and evade re-engagement. Inbound engagement points to dropping externals, dropping bomb load and accelerated flight with full internal fuel load. What do yo believe that max speed of B.XVI is at 5000 feet for full internal (fuel) load?