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

[pbehn]

Was the Me 262 a revolutionary change in aircraft design?

The engines clearly were and literally were, since they had one moving part that revolved.

 

[Schweik]

The theory of the Mosquito wasnt revolutionary, the Blenheim was also a "fast bomber", the practice of it was. It was designed to be fast and that wasnt just not having defensive armament. In cooling drag, wing profile and surface finish clean lines it was on par with the P-51. If it was designed to an RAF spec it would have a three man crew because conventional wisdom said you needed a three man crew. The guy in the plane next to the pilot needed many skills and maybe more training than the pilot himself and the RAF had to develop smaller equipment and various aids to the two crew who were performing the duties of 5/6 in a Lancaster

It's an interesting point that the Mosquito was a private venture initially, leaving the government purchasing spec out of the equation at least initially.

The Mustang kind of was too. The British asked for P-40s and NA asked if they could try to make something better. Then later the merger of the Merlin 60 series with the Mustang happened without an official bidding process, at least from what I understand. It was just some people in the thick of it who decided to give it a try.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes I agree, and if you use the USAAF's own calculation of a ~ 100 foot zone of destruction from a 500 lb bomb, and then double it just to be fair, that still leaves you with about 80% of the bombs dropped within a 1,000 ft CEP as being ineffective.

Against a sub pen - sure. Against a complex of wooden buildings - very arguable. Against a block of Japanese bamboo and paper buildings?

Again, you're opinion without hard facts!

 

[Schweik]

Against a sub pen - sure. Against a complex of wooden buildings - very arguable. Against a block of Japanese bamboo and paper buildings?

Again, you're opinion without hard facts!

You are going from the absolute hardest target, to the flmsiest. I think the median is against a brick or concrete factory building or a rail yard. There were (and still are) a lot of stone and concrete buildings in Germany.

Also that 90 foot 'death zone' from a 500 lb bomb isn't my number, it's from the USAAF, so take it up with them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You are going from the absolute hardest target, to the flmsiest. I think the median is against a brick or concrete factory building or a rail yard. There were (and still are) a lot of stone and concrete buildings in Germany.

Unless you can ascertain the effectiveness of a 500' bomb falling within 1000' of a specific target, your previous statement is an opinionated guess!

 

[drgondog]

Yes I agree, and if you use the USAAF's own calculation of a ~ 100 foot zone of destruction from a 500 lb bomb, and then double it just to be fair, that still leaves you with about 80% of the bombs dropped within a 1,000 ft CEP as being ineffective.

Logical statement but You only know that it was average concentration around (and on) the Aiming Point. Further, calculations of Bomb Damage outside 1000 feet of the AP to other targets not included as Primary are not included. (I.E better lucky than good), You robably can not find - absent spending your lfe at NARA) detailed individual stats on the target sample portfolio - either for target by target or macro compilation - to determine BDA. 8th AF planners using BDA reports. Intelligence sources and priority of target (given that assets available) made judgments on returning for second or third (or more) attacks on sae target.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Hamburg "fire storm" of July '43 was a result of weather conditions instead of intentional incendiary bombing - it had been unusually warm and dry, which promoted the fire's escalation.
As a result, the civilians weren't burnt, but suffocated as the fire spread from the initial area, drawing the oxygen out of the areas where they were sheltered.

As for Hamburg itself, it had Shipyards, U-Boat pens, Refineries, Rail stations/switchyards, Ammunition depots, Ordnance stockpiles, Supply dpots and so on.
It was a legitimate target.

It should also be noted, that out of the 96 raids that targeted Hamburg between 10 September 1939 and 14 April 1945, 33 of those missions were conducted by Mosquitos.

 

[Schweik]

Unless you can ascertain the effectiveness of a 500' bomb falling within 1000' of a specific target, your previous statement is an opinionated guess!

Ah, no. Thank you no. I did not "invent" that figure, it's from this article I previously linked:

Daylight Precision Bombing | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A basic belief of the Army Air Forces was severely tested in the skies over Germany and Japan.

www.airforcemag.com

This is a direct quote:

"The limited yield of the bombs added to the problem. A 500-pound bomb, standard for precision missions after 1943, had a lethal radius of only 60 to 90 feet. It dug a crater just two feet deep and nine feet wide. With bombing accuracy measured in hundreds of feet, it took a great many bombs to get the job done."

Apparently this guy was the author, senior editor of "Air Force Magazine", a Lt. Colonel and veteran of 20 years in the Air Force, who served in Vietnam.

So please understand this. I don't know for sure if that is a good number, but I have a reasonable assumption that it was and no reason to assume otherwise.

That doesn't mean the number is right, if you have a better, more accurate number by all means post it, with your source. But don't accuse me of making it up or pulling it out of my ass.

 

[Schweik]

The Hamburg "fire storm" of July '43 was a result of weather conditions instead of intentional incendiary bombing - it had been unusually warm and dry, which promoted the fire's escalation.
As a result, the civilians weren't burnt, but suffocated as the fire spread from the initial area, drawing the oxygen out of the areas where they were sheltered.

As for Hamburg itself, it had Shipyards, U-Boat pens, Refineries, Rail stations/switchyards, Ammunition depots, Ordnance stockpiles, Supply dpots and so on.
It was a legitimate target.

It should also be noted, that out of the 96 raids that targeted Hamburg between 10 September 1939 and 14 April 1945, 33 of those missions were conducted by Mosquitos.

Some people were suffocated in their bomb shelters, but I think it's a safe bet that some were in fact burned.

The raid in 1943 associated with "Operation Gomorrah" was indeed done with incendiaries and their use was very carefully planned. From the wiki:

"Britain's experience of being bombed in the Blitz had contributed to the RAF's thinking on how to conduct a bombing campaign. It had become clear that incendiaries could inflict much more damage than high explosive bombs. Detailed study of this was carried out by the Research and Experiment unit, RE8, (set up in November 1941). The details of how German houses were constructed were examined and tests were carried out on models to determine how effective an incendiary attack would be. The precise ratio of high explosive bombs and incendiaries was calculated. The high explosive was to blow out windows and make fire fighting dangerous. High explosive bombs with delayed action fuses were included in the mix to further suppress any fire fighting effort. The quantity of incendiaries delivered had to be high enough to totally overwhelm any fire fighting capability, so that a conflagration could become established.[7]"​

I happen to know a bit about the history of Hamburg, and one of the ironies of that raid is that the people of that city were to some extent Anglophiles going back centuries. They traded closely with England, were somewhat unusual in that they allowed English merchants to settle in their town as far back as the 1400s, and when other towns in the Hanseatic league wanted to go to war with England and did do so, Hamburg refused to participate. Cologne also did this a few times. Hamburg was one of the first places in Germany where translations of Shakespeare were published. The same proximity to England which led to their affinity for the English also led to their undoing. ​

On the other hand, their former close ally in the Hanse Lübeck probably saved themselves when they used the last remnant of their autonomy to refuse to let Hitler speak there in 1932. ​Later in 1937 Hitler passed a special law​ which ended up meaning that Lübeck was basically blacklisted from government contracts under the Greater Hamburg Act, and all the 3rd Reich commercial activity you refer to was moved to Hamburg instead. Lübeck suffered economically during the war as a result but was never incinerated and remains a kind of fairy tale medieval town to this day. ​

Hamburg has of course been rebuilt and is a thriving port city again now. But not so much of the old architecture from that 1,200 year old city remains. ​

 

[Schweik]

Logical statement but You only know that it was average concentration around (and on) the Aiming Point. Further, calculations of Bomb Damage outside 1000 feet of the AP to other targets not included as Primary are not included. (I.E better lucky than good), You robably can not find - absent spending your lfe at NARA) detailed individual stats on the target sample portfolio - either for target by target or macro compilation - to determine BDA. 8th AF planners using BDA reports. Intelligence sources and priority of target (given that assets available) made judgments on returning for second or third (or more) attacks on sae target.

I grant you that, the most we can get to is a rough estimate for either aircraft and for either type of mission. But the same can be said for all kinds of things we discuss on this board. No reason not to look into it.

 

[pbehn]

View attachment 647716

Some people were suffocated in their bomb shelters, but I think it's a safe bet that some were in fact burned.

The raid in 1943 associated with "Operation Gomorrah" was indeed done with incendiaries and their use was very carefully planned. From the wiki:

"Britain's experience of being bombed in the Blitz had contributed to the RAF's thinking on how to conduct a bombing campaign. It had become clear that incendiaries could inflict much more damage than high explosive bombs. Detailed study of this was carried out by the Research and Experiment unit, RE8, (set up in November 1941). The details of how German houses were constructed were examined and tests were carried out on models to determine how effective an incendiary attack would be. The precise ratio of high explosive bombs and incendiaries was calculated. The high explosive was to blow out windows and make fire fighting dangerous. High explosive bombs with delayed action fuses were included in the mix to further suppress any fire fighting effort. The quantity of incendiaries delivered had to be high enough to totally overwhelm any fire fighting capability, so that a conflagration could become established.[7]"​

I happen to know a bit about the history of Hamburg, and one of the ironies of that raid is that the people of that city were to some extent Anglophiles going back centuries. They traded closely with England, were somewhat unusual in that they allowed English merchants to settle in their town as far back as the 1400s, and when other towns in the Hanseatic league wanted to go to war with England and did do so, Hamburg refused to participate. Cologne also did this a few times. Hamburg was one of the first places in Germany where translations of Shakespeare were published. The same proximity to England which led to their affinity for the English also led to their undoing. ​

On the other hand, their former close ally in the Hanse Lübeck probably saved themselves when they used the last remnant of their autonomy to refuse to let Hitler speak there in 1932. ​Later in 1937 Hitler passed a special law​ which ended up meaning that Lübeck was basically blacklisted from government contracts under the Greater Hamburg Act, and all the 3rd Reich commercial activity you refer to was moved to Hamburg instead. Lübeck suffered economically during the war as a result but was never incinerated and remains a kind of fairy tale medieval town to this day. ​

Hamburg has of course been rebuilt and is a thriving port city again now. But not so much of the old architecture from that 1,200 year old city remains. ​

I think sentiments changed when the Gothe bomber was used to bomb a state whose head was from the house of Saxe Coburg Gothe, and is now the house of Windsor. All this in an interesting diversion, England and Scotland were Norman French colonies, then they became rivals of France and then allies of France. Until unification present day Germany was a collection of principalities or city states.

 

[wuzak]

To accurately bomb at altitude using an optical precision bomb sight (if there was really such a thing) they needed to fly a lot slower. Once site I visited mentioned the maximum bomb run speed was 250 mph. I saw one page mention the Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb at 220 mph.

Certainly the CSBS that Mosquitoes were originally equipped with required fudge factors to compensate for the extra speed. But that was an older sight.

 

[wuzak]

Accuracy obviously improved enormously with precision munitions, although as I'm sure you know they were already experimenting with radio, radar, and wire guided munitions during WW2. There was an enormous variance in accuracy between high altitude level bombing, medium altitude level bombing, low altitude precision bombing, skip and mast-height bombing, and true dive bombing. The Mosquito fell roughly in the middle of that range in terms of accuracy (which is to say, vastly more accurate under normal circumstances than a B-17 let alone a Lancaster bombing at night).

Mosquito was only more accurate when bombing from lower levels. At the same speed and the same altitude the accuracy would be roughly the same, possibly worse due to less stability, and definitely less accurate when bombing at the same altitude but at faster speeds.

The Mosquito was tested with the Norden bomb sight and found to be not stable enough to be effective. The Norden bomb sight requiring a long steady run up to target was another thing against its use in the Mosquito.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Certainly the CSBS that Mosquitoes were originally equipped with required fudge factors to compensate for the extra speed. But that was an older sight.

That I don't know, but I do know you're not accurately going to drop free fall bombs with any remote accuracy if you're flying any faster from what I've read.

 

[Schweik]

I think sentiments changed when the Gothe bomber was used to bomb a state whose head was from the house of Saxe Coburg Gothe, and is now the house of Windsor. All this in an interesting diversion, England and Scotland were Norman French colonies, then they became rivals of France and then allies of France. Until unification present day Germany was a collection of principalities or city states.

Yes, the city states (Freie Städte) had quite a different character from the modern German Empire and later States, usually they were much more peaceful though some of them were occasionally quite aggressive when challenged. Lübeck and Gdansk (back then known mainly as Danzig) went to war with the Kingdom of England in the 1470s and defeated them at sea (this was one of the wars Hamburg opted out of). The Hanseatic League maintained a special district in London called the Steel Yard which was under German law. It was finally rescinded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but close trade relations continued with those same German city states supplying arms and sometimes mercenaries to England, and importing wool in return, for centuries. Some of the English soldiers who fought in the American Revolutionary War were actually Germans from Hesse and Lower Saxony.

Hamburg remained somewhat "Anglophile" at least until the German unification in the 1860s-70s. Of course we know in the 1960s after the war, the Beatles hung out there for a couple of years, playing in some of those same cellars people hid in during back in 43.

 

[Schweik]

Mosquito was only more accurate when bombing from lower levels. At the same speed and the same altitude the accuracy would be roughly the same, possibly worse due to less stability, and definitely less accurate when bombing at the same altitude but at faster speeds.

The Mosquito was tested with the Norden bomb sight and found to be not stable enough to be effective. The Norden bomb sight requiring a long steady run up to target was another thing against its use in the Mosquito.

My understanding and working assumption was that most of the Mosquito strikes were at low to medium altitude. Is that wrong?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah, no. Thank you no. I did not "invent" that figure, it's from this article I previously linked:

Daylight Precision Bombing | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A basic belief of the Army Air Forces was severely tested in the skies over Germany and Japan.

www.airforcemag.com

This is a direct quote:

"The limited yield of the bombs added to the problem. A 500-pound bomb, standard for precision missions after 1943, had a lethal radius of only 60 to 90 feet. It dug a crater just two feet deep and nine feet wide. With bombing accuracy measured in hundreds of feet, it took a great many bombs to get the job done."

Apparently this guy was the author, senior editor of "Air Force Magazine", a Lt. Colonel and veteran of 20 years in the Air Force, who served in Vietnam.

So please understand this. I don't know for sure if that is a good number, but I have a reasonable assumption that it was and no reason to assume otherwise.

All good, I would accept that but wouldn't want to test it.

That doesn't mean the number is right, if you have a better, more accurate number by all means post it, with your source. But don't accuse me of making it up or pulling it out of my ass.

Until you posted this that's exactly what you were doing!

 

[Schweik]

All good, I would accept that but wouldn't want to test it.

Until you posted this that's exactly what you were doing!

That is the second time I posted that link. The first time was also the first time I quoted that particular "radius of destruction". If you want to be so hard core with the accusations of laxity on my part, maybe you should double check first.

Incidentally however, I think you were right to question the number (to a point); it would depend not only on the type of target but the type of 500 lb bomb and probably a few other factors. I guess 100 feet was considered an average for that time.

From what I'm reading online the modern Mk 82 is supposed to have a "lethal area" of 80m x 30m which is considerably more than 90 ft. Presumably they use more effective explosives now and maybe pack more into the bomb.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mosquito was only more accurate when bombing from lower levels. At the same speed and the same altitude the accuracy would be roughly the same, possibly worse due to less stability, and definitely less accurate when bombing at the same altitude but at faster speeds.

The Mosquito was tested with the Norden bomb sight and found to be not stable enough to be effective. The Norden bomb sight requiring a long steady run up to target was another thing against its use in the Mosquito.

So any thought of using the Mosquito in large formations at higher altitudes in the same manner of the heavy bombers of the day (even when carrying a full bomb load) should not be remotely considered IMO.

 

[wuzak]

IMO - the question to be answered is how many Mosquitos would be required to destroy a Petroleum/Chemical facility (defined perhaps by reducing product delivery to 10% of capacity).

Mosquitoes did bomb oil facilities in WW2.

There were a couple of attacks against Homburg which were effective, using ~30 - 40 Mosquitoes each time, once with 4,000lb HC bombs and once with 6 x 500lb MC. Raids were conducted within a few days of each other. Not sure how much damage was cause. The facility was bombed again a month later, by Lancasters.

Related questions a.) For any given attack strategy, what are the CEPs expectations (documented testing/actual results for proposed attack strategy) for each attacking Mossie at 600 miles and b.) why do we believe that? c.) what is recommended attack plan - i.e. single Mossies in trail? Flight/Section sized force in formation? mass formation of Wing level strength? Daylight, Night? What missions are compromised by shifting Mossie inventory toward long range strategic attacks?

Actual Mosquito raids at night were conducted with Oboe/Gee-H, which reduced the effective radius further.

Day raids by bombers were typically 3-6 aircraft, due to their not being sufficient bomber Mosquitoes in that period.

The RAF optical bombsight was probably as good as the Speery - but? Mossie cruise speed makes single a/C attacks harder to defend than formation sized force but the loss rate should still be high.

The Sperry T.1 was the RAF's Mk.XIV bomb sight built under licence.