What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress? (1 Viewer)

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

Shortround6 said:
The Mosquito idea uses a lot of the retrospectroscope.

As conceived and the first 10 bombers off the production line the plane carried four 250lb bombs, the same bomb load as the Fairey Battle and the Blenheim.

Every "what if" thread relies on retrosepctroscope. And yet unlike a Battle or a Blenheim, Mosquitoes could survive repeated missions and hit their targets fairly reliably.

Shortround6 said:
It was well into 1942 when they got four 500lb bombs into a Mosquito

Which to me is plenty, so long as they hit what they are aimed at.

Shortround6 said:
at which point the Americans had 2-3 plants building B-17s and either 5 plants building B-24s or a smaller number actually producing B-24s with the extra plants being built. Buick, Chevrolet, Studebaker and others were either starting to put out engines or were finishing up construction on plants that would build radial engines by the tens of thousands.
Cancelling all of this to build even a metal Mosquito would have delayed the US bombing offensive by over a year.

I think you are exaggerating the scenario in which it would have changed. It would have been a phase in of one thing and phase out of another. The Americans and British manufactured a lot of planes that they either did not end up using or used for something different than originally intended. Production of heavy bombers in 1942 was not so far along that it couldn't change course.

Shortround6 said:
Only two squadrons used Mosquitoes bombers in daylight missions in 1942 and until May of 1943. After that daylight raids were conducted by the fighter bomber version with two 500lb bombs inside and, depending on mission, two 500lbs under the wings.
Mosquito losses of the these first two squadrons were high. The two daylight bomber Mosquito Squadrons were switched to night pathfinders joining a 3rd Mosquito squadron.

Some raids had high casualties but they adjusted a variety of things. It was certainly clear in 1943 that the Mosquito had enormous merit as a bomber and even in 1942 it was doing better than all the other types in many respects.

Shortround6 said:
Improved Merlins, 100/130 fuel allowed the Mosquito to improve it's performance and a 1944 Mosquito could do a lot of things a 1942 Mosquito could not do. But by late 1943/early 1944 it was way, way too late to switch bombing tactics/strategy.

Really? What do you think they would have done if they had continued taking Schweinfurt scale losses.

Mosquitoes sucked at carrying incendiaries and the 4000lb cookie doesn't go operational until 1944.

I don't see incendiaries as particularly desirable. If your bomb aiming is accurate.

In the actual strategic bombing campaign the Germans were able to seed the paths taken by the heavy bombers with heavy AA guns. With faster wider ranging aircraft that don't have to stick together in massive formations to survive, there was a lot more ground to cover with whatever types of countermeasures you tried.

I do suspect the Germans would have made faster fighters, but that just would have gotten us into the escort-vs-interceptor battle which we do see as desirable as it helps eliminate the Luftwaffe.

Shortround6 · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
In this analogy I'd call the Mosquito the lever action rifle and the big heavies the old blunderbus.

Bad analogy.

A Civil war muzzle loading rifle (neither side used much in the way of muskets or blunderbusses) was effective out to 300yds or beyond. In mass, company or battalion volley they were effective at well over 500yds and forced new artillery tactics, and new artillery pieces. Smooth bore cannon were within range of infantry with shoulder arms instead of out of range.

Civil war lever action rifles used basically pistol power ammunition. Sort of the sub machine gun of their day. Effectiveness was around 200yds and under. A lot of fire power close up but trying to cross 3-400yds of open field was not going to go well against muzzle loading rifles in cover/concealment.

It was the rifled muzzle loader (from the Crimean war on) that forced major changes in battlefield tactics. Not the lever action rifle.

Deleted member 68059 · Nov 8, 2021

Shortround6 said:
The Mosquito idea uses a lot of the retrospectroscope.

As conceived and the first 10 bombers off the production line the plane carried four 250lb bombs, the same bomb load as the Fairey Battle and the Blenheim.
It was well into 1942 when they got four 500lb bombs into a Mosquito at which point the Americans had 2-3 plants building B-17s and either 5 plants building B-24s or a smaller number actually producing B-24s with the extra plants being built. Buick, Chevrolet, Studebaker and others were either starting to put out engines or were finishing up construction on plants that would build radial engines by the tens of thousands.
Cancelling all of this to build even a metal Mosquito would have delayed the US bombing offensive by over a year.
Only two squadrons used Mosquitoes bombers in daylight missions in 1942 and until May of 1943. After that daylight raids were conducted by the fighter bomber version with two 500lb bombs inside and, depending on mission, two 500lbs under the wings.
Mosquito losses of the these first two squadrons were high. The two daylight bomber Mosquito Squadrons were switched to night pathfinders joining a 3rd Mosquito squadron.

Improved Merlins, 100/130 fuel allowed the Mosquito to improve it's performance and a 1944 Mosquito could do a lot of things a 1942 Mosquito could not do. But by late 1943/early 1944 it was way, way too late to switch bombing tactics/strategy.

Success of a daylight Mosquito campaign also depends on the Germans doing exactly what they did as far as their own aircraft development.
That is NOT dropping the compression ratio in their engines and using higher boost for more power and coming up with a successor to the Bf 109 or streamlining/stretching the 109 just a bit.
It also depends on the Germans NOT switching AA gun production to fewer 88mm and up guns to more 37-55mm AA guns (or even more 20mm guns)

Mosquitoes sucked at carrying incendiaries and the 4000lb cookie doesn't go operational until 1944.

The only serious technical error in this document is suggesting it is ideal for the pacific war, due to the glues used, this was untrue. Even the Mosquito was not good at everything, everwhere.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
See post 476 - I think SR's points closes the door on that!

SR tries to shut down every "What if" argument the exact same way, citing the production figures of the actual war. We already know what happened, that doesn't actually mean they couldn't have done anything different. There was nothing locked in about using the heavy bombers, that is just the way it shook out.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Bad analogy.

A Civil war muzzle loading rifle (neither side used much in the way of muskets or blunderbusses) was effective out to 300yds or beyond. In mass, company or battalion volley they were effective at well over 500yds and forced new artillery tactics, and new artillery pieces. Smooth bore cannon were within range of infantry with shoulder arms instead of out of range.

Civil war lever action rifles used basically pistol power ammunition. Sort of the sub machine gun of their day. Effectiveness was around 200yds and under. A lot of fire power close up but trying to cross 3-400yds of open field was not going to go well against muzzle loading rifles in cover/concealment.

It was the rifled muzzle loader (from the Crimean war on) that forced major changes in battlefield tactics. Not the lever action rifle.

Totally disagree, and you are stepping into very comfortable ground for me here, though we will veer off into non aircraft land.

The lever action rifle enabled revolutionary changes in cavalry warfare, among other things, and various units in the Civil War did take full advantage of this new technology. Muzzle loading weapons required massed volleys to be effective, but that was rapidly changing.

The actual effective range for most of the muzzle loading weapons used in the civil war, whether rifled or not (not all were) was often <50 meters.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
Actually not true - if you have a situation where you have to obliviate a large area and have total control of the airspace, then I can see a use of a heavy bomber(s) operating at higher altitudes. Also consider as the string of bombs leave the bomb bays of these aircraft, they can be guided to a precise target with pinpoint accuracy, something not available during WW2.

I'm suggesting that situation is pretty much over, unless we go to war with Nicaragua or something

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
Production of heavy bombers in 1942 was not so far along that it couldn't change course.

You're very wrong there - if we were lucky you were looking at at least 18 months between vetting the design, issuing a contract, building tooling, manufacturing long lead time items, flight testing, training and finally delivery. Aircraft production (especially during WW2) wasn't a light switch (especially on the Allied side).

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
I'm suggesting that situation is pretty much over, unless we go to war with Nicaragua or something

Well what I described was done in Afghanistan with success.

Shortround6 · Nov 8, 2021

The US was in talks to build R-1830s and R-1820s under license in plants managed by automotive companies (not actual automotive plants) in the fall of 1940. This was part of Roosevelts 50,000 plane air force.

What I dislike about many what if's is the idea that it takes only a short period of time to change production of large plants from one type of engine or airframe to another. It could take many months. A lot of factories took close to year from the first production aircraft to reach the 500th, after which they were cranking out several hundred a month. change airframes and you are back to a few dozen planes a month while tooling and expertise is built back up.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
You're very wrong there - if we were lucky you were looking at at least 18 months (if you're lucky) between vetting the design, issuing a contract, building tooling, manufacturing long lead time items, flight testing, training and finally delivery. Aircraft production (especially during WW2) wasn't a light switch (especially on the Allied side).

I'm well aware of that, but where there is a will (and an opportunity is recognized) there is often a way. Look how quickly they got the Merlin engined Mustang into production and ramped up.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
I'm well aware of that, but where there is a will (and an opportunity is recognized) there is often a way. Look how quickly they got the Merlin engined Mustang into production and ramped up.

It's one thing to produce a single engine fighter, it's another thing to introduce a twin engine bomber and change the face of your bomber force.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

Shortround6 said:
The US was in talks to build R-1830s and R-1820s under license in plants managed by automotive companies (not actual automotive plants) in the fall of 1940. This was part of Roosevelts 50,000 plane air force.

What I dislike about many what if's is the idea that it takes only a short period of time to change production of large plants from one type of engine or airframe to another. It could take many months. A lot of factories took close to year from the first production aircraft to reach the 500th, after which they were cranking out several hundred a month. change airframes and you are back to a few dozen planes a month while tooling and expertise is built back up.

I know. Whenever we have these discussions it turns into a referrendum on "What ifs" in general. Some people argue that we couldn't have done anything differently basically because we didn't do anything differently. Others see perhaps more opportunity to change course than there really was. We can't be certain either way. But I think you are a little too quick to slam the door on some of these, and this one in particular. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and I think there is merit in thinking through some of these scenarios, with the caveat that it is difficult to turn an aircraft carrier.

Schweik · Nov 8, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
It's one thing to produce a single engine fighter, it's another thing to introduce a twin engine bomber and change the face of your bomber force.

Or how about... to switch everything over to jets as everyone did fairly rapidly after the war...

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
Or how about... to switch everything over to jets as everyone did fairly rapidly after the war...

Really? Rapidly??? How long did it take for the US to become a all-jet military???

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
I know. Whenever we have these discussions it turns into a referrendum on "What ifs" in general. Some people argue that we couldn't have done anything differently basically because we didn't do anything differently. Others see perhaps more opportunity to change course than there really was. We can't be certain either way. But I think you are a little too quick to slam the door on some of these, and this one in particular. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and I think there is merit in thinking through some of these scenarios, with the caveat that it is difficult to turn an aircraft carrier.

But there are some on this forum who have actually worked around some of these aircraft or have been in the business long enough to know where some of these "what ifs" are totally impractical if not impossible given what is known about the equipment of the era and how they were produced.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Snowygrouch said:
The discussion about defensive armament in the context of the Mosquito is somewhat irrelevant. Other than an Me262, or a very lucky already airboure single engine fighter,

True unless you're trying to use a Mosquito at high altitude with an optical bombsight where you would be throwing away the Mosquito's best asset - it's speed.

Deleted member 68059 · Nov 8, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
True unless you're trying to use a Mosquito at high altitude with an optical bombsight where you would be throwing away the Mosquito's best asset - it's speed.

Sorry that line is now deleted as it was posted in error replying to a totally different comment, I didnt notice that the single line of text remained - the error is mine.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 8, 2021

Snowygrouch said:
Sorry that line is now deleted as it was posted in error replying to a totally different comment, the error is mine.

No worries!

Shortround6 · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
Totally disagree, and you are stepping into very comfortable ground for me here, though we will veer off into non aircraft land.

The lever action rifle enabled revolutionary changes in cavalry warfare, among other things, and various units in the Civil War did take full advantage of this new technology. Muzzle loading weapons required massed volleys to be effective, but that was rapidly changing.

The actual effective range for most of the muzzle loading weapons used in the civil war, whether rifled or not (not all were) was often <50 meters.

Very few units got Henry rifles. Spencers were more common but Spencers were slower firing (working the lever did not cock the hammer)

The US on both sides must have been using a lot of defective muzzle loading rifles. British figured the Muzzle loading rifles were effective at 10 times that distance in Crimea.

The problem may be in what was considered "effective" range. Even volley fire by smooth bores was ineffective at about 100yds. However

rear sight of 1853 Enfield. Laid flat was the 100yd position, the first hump/bump is 200 yds the next is 300yds and the 4th was 400yds. Then the sight was raised to vertical and the sliding portion was set to the appropriate mark.

Effective range might be a range at which even single digit percentage of hits was obtained on a "formation target" lie a screen 6 feet high and 20 ft wide (head of a marching column.)
British were publishing manuals showing trajectories and danger spaces from about 1856 on.

Rifled muzzle loaders made Cavalry charges on open ground a lot more costly, it also made bayonet charges on foot a lot more costly but it took quite a while for some officers (even generals) to figure that out.

Shortround6 · Nov 8, 2021

Schweik said:
I know. Whenever we have these discussions it turns into a referrendum on "What ifs" in general. Some people argue that we couldn't have done anything differently basically because we didn't do anything differently. Others see perhaps more opportunity to change course than there really was. We can't be certain either way. But I think you are a little too quick to slam the door on some of these, and this one in particular. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and I think there is merit in thinking through some of these scenarios, with the caveat that it is difficult to turn an aircraft carrier.

Well, by late 1941/early 1942 you had a virtual aircraft carrier in US bomber production. It took over a year to build the first 500 B-24s. It took about 3 months to build the next 500.

In 1942 the US built just under 16,000 R-1820s, around 22,600 R-1830s, just under 15,000 Allisons, about 11,800 R-2800s and 7,250 V-1650s.
Over all production of aircraft engines would roughly double in 1943.

Yes you can change production. But in "many what ifs" people don't want to pay the cost.

What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress? (1 Viewer)

Banned

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads