What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?
- Thread starter Donald Johnson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Thumpalumpacus
Major
P-38 was ahead of the Mossie's time, similar performance, one less crew-member. Not as versatile, but still pretty damned handy. I'd keep the -38.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I agree with you, Tomo. That's the only twin engine I could think of.
They had two different design briefs, the P-38 had no peer when introduced as a long distance high altitude fighter. The Mosquito as a light bomber had few peers in its service life and having a two man crew and internal space meant it could do a lot more much more easily. Almost comically when de Havilland produced a top class single seat fighter (the Hornet) they were then asked to put another man in it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Mosquito excelled at running from enemy fighters due to it's speed - this is not how a long range fighter defends bombers.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
In the necessary time scale there was insufficient balsa wood.
For the other woods required it would have been a huge effort too. Not saying it couldnt be done, but it wouldnt be cheap.
Shortround6
Major General
Balsa was not being grown on plantations at the time. It had to be harvested from trees growing in the wild. Balsa tends to spread out, not grow in groves. 2-3 per hectare?
From Wiki
"Ecuador supplies 95% or more of commercial balsa. In recent years, about 60% of the balsa has been plantation-grown in densely packed patches of around 1000 trees per hectare (compared to about two to three per hectare in nature). The trees are harvested after six to 10 years of growth. "
Not every spruce tree is going to give you aircraft quality spruce, especially in the lengths desired.
From Wiki
"Ecuador supplies 95% or more of commercial balsa. In recent years, about 60% of the balsa has been plantation-grown in densely packed patches of around 1000 trees per hectare (compared to about two to three per hectare in nature). The trees are harvested after six to 10 years of growth. "
Not every spruce tree is going to give you aircraft quality spruce, especially in the lengths desired.
As per a previous discussion, Europe was stripped of Yew trees to make bows and a huge amount of oak forests destroyed to make sailing ships. The amount of wood actually used in an aircraft is an incredibly small percentage of the wood in a forest. To produce 5 times as many Mosquitos in the same time would require a massive and constantly expanding infrastructure of selection cutting and transport.
Shortround6
Major General
At least the ships bringing the Balsa trees from South America are harder for the U-boats to sink 
I think you have stumbled upon a cunning plan.At least the ships bringing the Balsa trees from South America are harder for the U-boats to sink
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The balsa issue is that the logs are too heavy to float when cut and need at least a year before they can be moved to a river and floated to the coast. After which they need to be transported by sea, milled, seasoned etc. All of which needs a lead time to establish find extra trees, loggers and the extraction, shipping etc. About two to three years before the wood gets to the market in suitable quantity over and above UK demand.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
The fact is, the USAAF strategic bombing campaign in the ETO was both an abject failure and a rousing success.
It was a failure in that the idea of destroying a country's industrial war-making ability by air attacks simply did not work. The idea started when a flood wiped out an American aircraft propeller factory and the USAAC decided that if you could destroy that factory from the air you could win the war, right there; didn't work against Germany.
It was a rousing success in that it destroyed the Luftwaffe. From 1 Jan 1944 to 1 Jan 1945 the Germans lost over 20,000 airplanes while they were being delivered to the operational units. That was because USAAF fighters were roaming all over Europe, shooting up everything, especially airplanes.
And in turn that was because the fighters were needed to escort the heavy bombers. And the Luftwaffe could not ignore those bombers; they did too much damage. Also it was a matter of honor. During the Battle of The Bulge the USAAF used an especially vicious tactic. When the weather cleared enough to enable the Allied fighter bombers to go to work, the correct thing for the Luftwaffe to do was to throw everything at those ground attack aircraft. But the USAAF would stage a heavy bomber daylight raid on a nearby German city. The Luftwaffe was already being criticized. "500 American bombers hit us yesterday! Where was the Luftwaffe?" Well, the Luftwaffe was there, heavily outnumbered and getting its arse shot off, but it did not look like that from the ground. So they had to defend the cities rather than help the ground troops.
The RAF Bomber Campaign to "dehouse" the German populace and cause an uprising in the country to overthrow the Nazis was an abject failure. No matter how bad they got hit the German civilians were far more afraid of the Nazis than they were the Allied heavy bombers. Bomber Harris was opposed to anything that took his bombers away from dehousing but after the war said, "The Americans were right. We should have used our bombers against the German oil supplies."
So, we needed to use lots of airplanes that could be intercepted so to force the Luftwaffe to come up and fight - and be destroyed. In WWII the USAAF suffered as many casualties, killed, wounded, and captured, as the entire USN and USMC put together. It was worth it.
It was a failure in that the idea of destroying a country's industrial war-making ability by air attacks simply did not work. The idea started when a flood wiped out an American aircraft propeller factory and the USAAC decided that if you could destroy that factory from the air you could win the war, right there; didn't work against Germany.
It was a rousing success in that it destroyed the Luftwaffe. From 1 Jan 1944 to 1 Jan 1945 the Germans lost over 20,000 airplanes while they were being delivered to the operational units. That was because USAAF fighters were roaming all over Europe, shooting up everything, especially airplanes.
And in turn that was because the fighters were needed to escort the heavy bombers. And the Luftwaffe could not ignore those bombers; they did too much damage. Also it was a matter of honor. During the Battle of The Bulge the USAAF used an especially vicious tactic. When the weather cleared enough to enable the Allied fighter bombers to go to work, the correct thing for the Luftwaffe to do was to throw everything at those ground attack aircraft. But the USAAF would stage a heavy bomber daylight raid on a nearby German city. The Luftwaffe was already being criticized. "500 American bombers hit us yesterday! Where was the Luftwaffe?" Well, the Luftwaffe was there, heavily outnumbered and getting its arse shot off, but it did not look like that from the ground. So they had to defend the cities rather than help the ground troops.
The RAF Bomber Campaign to "dehouse" the German populace and cause an uprising in the country to overthrow the Nazis was an abject failure. No matter how bad they got hit the German civilians were far more afraid of the Nazis than they were the Allied heavy bombers. Bomber Harris was opposed to anything that took his bombers away from dehousing but after the war said, "The Americans were right. We should have used our bombers against the German oil supplies."
So, we needed to use lots of airplanes that could be intercepted so to force the Luftwaffe to come up and fight - and be destroyed. In WWII the USAAF suffered as many casualties, killed, wounded, and captured, as the entire USN and USMC put together. It was worth it.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
The Bomber Mafia Bullies would have been absolutely bat-sh_t apoplectic at the mere suggestion of replacing their 4-engine lumbering war-winning beauties with a 2-engine plywood blah, blah, blah. Nothing could have convinced them of the efficacy or efficiency of such a move. Dead on arrival.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even before WWII, the USAAC wanted a heavy bomber with decent range.
The purpose was two-fold:
The vast distances in North America and her possessions saw the need for types with a measure of range.
Secondly, the defense of the West/east coast, where the bombers would intercept an enemy Navy before it could reach the shore. Of course, heavy bombers versus ships in WWII proved this theory was woefully optimistic.
The purpose was two-fold:
The vast distances in North America and her possessions saw the need for types with a measure of range.
Secondly, the defense of the West/east coast, where the bombers would intercept an enemy Navy before it could reach the shore. Of course, heavy bombers versus ships in WWII proved this theory was woefully optimistic.
But it was correct that such an idea was dead on arrival, because it wouldnt work. Look at the famous raids by Mosquitos, small numbers used and very high percentage losses frequently against targets that werent considered targets. The strategy of the bomber campaign progressed to eliminating the LW as an effective force in the air and on the ground prior to D-Day, that couldnt be done with a Mosquito or a B-25, B-26 either. Only a few pilots had the chance to make a precision attack, as soon as the first bombs fall things get hidden by smoke and dust. Industrial towns and targets were frequently covered by smoke and "haze" to start with. If the allies sent thousands of planes of any type over at tree top level the Germans would react, since the easiest way to navigate was to follow railways and canals that is where the guns would be placed, and so on and so forth.
Shortround6
Major General
A few dates to show why this idea wasn't used in WW II.
US places an order for the B-17E on August 30, 1940, and the first prototype took to the air on its maiden flight on September 5, 1941.
the last of 512 B-17E s was completed May 28, 1942. By this time Not only was Boeing-Seattle building them but the Vega division of Lockheed was tooling up as were Douglas-Santa Monica and Boeing-Kansas City was tooling as was Douglas-Long Beach. None of the last four actually built B-17Es but.
Boeing-Seattle built their first B-17F May 30th (?) 1942, Vega completed their first one on May 4th 1942.
3405 B-17Fs would be built before production changed over to the B-17G in July of 1943.
Now for the Mosquito,
first flight 25 November 1940, 3 months after the orders placed for the B-17E. However, (From Wiki)
"The Mosquito was only reinstated as a priority in July 1940, after de Havilland's general manager, L.C.L. Murray, promised Lord Beaverbrook 50 Mosquitos by December 1941........ In promising Beaverbrook such a number by the end of 1941, de Havilland was taking a gamble, because they were unlikely to be built in such a limited time. As it transpired, only 20 aircraft were built in 1941, but the other 30 were delivered by mid-March 1942."
So the last of 50 Mosquitos was delivered in Mid March and the last of 512 B-17Es was completed at the end of May, 6 weeks later.
Mosquito "In the aftermath of the Battle of Britain, the original order was changed to 20 bomber variants and 30 fighters."
this bounced around a lot and photo recon was thrown in.
Back to Wiki "On 21 June 1941 the Air Ministry ordered that the last 10 Mosquitos, ordered as photo-reconnaissance aircraft, should be converted to bombers. These 10 aircraft were part of the original 1 March 1940 production order and became the B Mk IV Series 1. W4052 was to be the prototype and flew for the first time on 8 September 1941."
So prototype Mosquito bomber flies 3 days after the prototype B-17E. However By Nov 30 1941 42 B-17Es had been delivered.
First 10 Mosquitos carried four 250lbs in the bomb bay. then the Bomber version was changed to carry four 500lbs.
Some of the max loads for a B-17E. Maximum bomb load was 26 100-pound bombs, or 16 300-pound bombs, or 12 500-pound bombs, or 8 1000-pound bombs, or 4 2000-pound bombs.
The Mosquitos first combat mission was at the end of May 2 days after the LAST B-17E was completed and thousands of B-17Fs were on order.
Now at what point does the US Bomber Mafia throw up their hands, rend their garments and say :"we was wrong, we was wrong, we should have built Mosquitos, woe is us, we was wrong".
Switching to Mosquitos, even if they could have been built in sufficient numbers might have set the US strategic bombing campaign back between one and two years.
The British low level raid on the Philips radio plant in Holland in Dec of 1942 certainly didn't point to any great success, 93 bombers dispatched, 84 reached the target, The target was heavily damaged but 14 bombers were lost, some due to collisions with trees and buildings. 53 of the returning bombers were damaged, 7 heavily. Some of the damage was due to bird strikes.
17% losses are unsustainable for a continuing campaign.
US places an order for the B-17E on August 30, 1940, and the first prototype took to the air on its maiden flight on September 5, 1941.
the last of 512 B-17E s was completed May 28, 1942. By this time Not only was Boeing-Seattle building them but the Vega division of Lockheed was tooling up as were Douglas-Santa Monica and Boeing-Kansas City was tooling as was Douglas-Long Beach. None of the last four actually built B-17Es but.
Boeing-Seattle built their first B-17F May 30th (?) 1942, Vega completed their first one on May 4th 1942.
3405 B-17Fs would be built before production changed over to the B-17G in July of 1943.
Now for the Mosquito,
first flight 25 November 1940, 3 months after the orders placed for the B-17E. However, (From Wiki)
"The Mosquito was only reinstated as a priority in July 1940, after de Havilland's general manager, L.C.L. Murray, promised Lord Beaverbrook 50 Mosquitos by December 1941........ In promising Beaverbrook such a number by the end of 1941, de Havilland was taking a gamble, because they were unlikely to be built in such a limited time. As it transpired, only 20 aircraft were built in 1941, but the other 30 were delivered by mid-March 1942."
So the last of 50 Mosquitos was delivered in Mid March and the last of 512 B-17Es was completed at the end of May, 6 weeks later.
Mosquito "In the aftermath of the Battle of Britain, the original order was changed to 20 bomber variants and 30 fighters."
this bounced around a lot and photo recon was thrown in.
Back to Wiki "On 21 June 1941 the Air Ministry ordered that the last 10 Mosquitos, ordered as photo-reconnaissance aircraft, should be converted to bombers. These 10 aircraft were part of the original 1 March 1940 production order and became the B Mk IV Series 1. W4052 was to be the prototype and flew for the first time on 8 September 1941."
So prototype Mosquito bomber flies 3 days after the prototype B-17E. However By Nov 30 1941 42 B-17Es had been delivered.
First 10 Mosquitos carried four 250lbs in the bomb bay. then the Bomber version was changed to carry four 500lbs.
Some of the max loads for a B-17E. Maximum bomb load was 26 100-pound bombs, or 16 300-pound bombs, or 12 500-pound bombs, or 8 1000-pound bombs, or 4 2000-pound bombs.
The Mosquitos first combat mission was at the end of May 2 days after the LAST B-17E was completed and thousands of B-17Fs were on order.
Now at what point does the US Bomber Mafia throw up their hands, rend their garments and say :"we was wrong, we was wrong, we should have built Mosquitos, woe is us, we was wrong".
Switching to Mosquitos, even if they could have been built in sufficient numbers might have set the US strategic bombing campaign back between one and two years.
The British low level raid on the Philips radio plant in Holland in Dec of 1942 certainly didn't point to any great success, 93 bombers dispatched, 84 reached the target, The target was heavily damaged but 14 bombers were lost, some due to collisions with trees and buildings. 53 of the returning bombers were damaged, 7 heavily. Some of the damage was due to bird strikes.
17% losses are unsustainable for a continuing campaign.
If that would have worked, the British would have done it themselves, building Mossies instead of Stirlings, Halifaxes and Lancasters. But, as noted above, the Mosquito wouldn't have been ready in time, and there would have been a lot of practical difficulties to building a wooden airplane in the numbers that would have been required.
You could make the point that it would have been better for the U.S. to build Mosquitoes instead of the P-61. Another non-starter, again due to the difficulties of mass production and the reluctance of the British to cooperate with that plan. That's been discussed enough in other threads that I don't need to go over it again here.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
