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

[ThomasP]

re: B-17F&G bomb load

4x 2000 lb GP bombs: 2 in the bomb bay and 1 under each wing
8x 1000 lb or 1100 lb GP bombs: 6 in the bomb bay and 1 under each wing
8x 1600 lb AP all fit in the bomb bay due to the smaller diameter

The B-17 could also carry 2x 4000 lb bombs, 1 under each wing [edit: This means a total of 2x 4000 lb bombs, and only under the wings.]

source: B-17F&G Pilots Manual and post-war B-17G SAC

Not a big deal, but I wonder how much the operational radius would have been decreased with the underwing bombs. I have never been able to find any good numbers on this.

Unless you are attacking an armoured, or hardened/reinforces concrete target, I think the 8x 1600 lb AP are superfluous to the current discussion? (The individual HE content for the 1600 lb AP was about the same as for a 500 lb GP bomb.)

 

[wuzak]

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.

Only 10 of those were Mosquitoes, only 1 of which was lost.

There were 9 Venturas and 4 Bostons lost in the raid, as well as a B-17, a B-24 and a Spitfire involved in a diversionary raid.

The raid was considered a success due to the damage to the factory.


Compare that to the losses in the Schweinfurt-Regensburg and 2nd Schweinfurt missions.

In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, 376 B-17s were sent, 60 lost ~16% loss rate. At least as many heavily damaged, many beyond economic repair. They were also escorted, at least part way, by Spitfires and P-47s, some of which were also lost.

230 of the B-17s went to Schweinfurt, 36 were lost. They achieved 80 hits with 1,000lb bombs, which was considered a very accurate and successful raid. That is from approximately 800-1,200 bombs being carried by the force.

In the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid, 291 B-17s were sent, 77 were lost, 121 damaged, as well as 3 or 4 P-47s.

USAAF bomber loss percentages went down in early 1944 not because they had fewer aircraft shot down, but because they sent 1,000+ bombers at a time instead of 300 or 400.

 

[wuzak]

Th unarmed Mosquito day bomber was a failure. Bomber Command reported to the AAF that the type was being pulled out of service after only 11 months of operations - the aircraft and crews were shifted to night missions.

I don't know that it could ever really be called a failure.

Daylight missions consisted of small numbers of aircraft being used at a time, with tactics being evolved over time.

The small number of bomber Mosquitoes available meant that there were none to spare for daylight missions when they were moved to the nights, mainly to perform pathfinder missions.

 

[wuzak]

The Mosquito's "tree top" missions with "pinpoint accuracy" were done in small groups.
Their max. load of 4,000 pounds were done on certain occasions - and that load both shortened their range as well as compromised their speed.

Like they many consecutive nights in early 1944 where Mosquitoes attacked Berlin?

The Mk.IV wasn't really suited for the 4,000lb bombs, but the Mk.XVI handled it quite well.

You are not going to destroy a manufacturing site (ball bearing plant or aircraft factory) with a hand full of 4,000 pound specialized bombs.

There were 2 (maybe 3) 4,000lb bombs the Mosquito could carry.

The most common one used was the 4,000lb High Capacity "Cookie", a light case bomb with a high charge to weight ratio.

The other main one was the 4,000lb Medium Capacity bomb, a general purpose bomb with a charge to weight ratio of around 50%.

I believe there was a 4,000lb Incendiary Bomb as well, but that was much rarer.

You are more likely to destroy a manufacturing sit with a few larger bombs than ,many small bombs. In the case of manufacturing targets the USAAF used mainly 1,000lb and 500lb bombs, and 2,000lb bombs occasionally.

As pointed out by ThomasP, the maximum number of 2,000lb bombs a B-17 could carry was 2 (external loads were rare), so that would be the USAAF equivalent of a "handful".

For oil targets the USAAF ended up using smaller bombs, in an attempt to get hits on something vital by carpet bombing the area. A usual bomb to use by this stage was a 250lb on 300lb GP bomb. This enabled a lot of minor damage to be wrought, but major knockout blows.

When Mosquitoes were used against oil targets they used either a single 4,000lb HC bomb or 6 x 500lb MC bombs.

 

[wuzak]

As I just watched a YouTube vid touching on it, how about the Mosquito instead of the P-38?

The P-38 was a fighter, the Mosquito was not.

 

[wuzak]

First - you're talking about eliminating a target. The AAF was talking about eliminating an industry.

You need to eliminate targets to eliminate an industry. Usually quite a lot of targets.

Second - the 4,000-pound cookie was most often used at night, just to get Germany's attention. It did little good at eliminating a target, but it was great at making a lot of noise, keeping folks awake, and messing up things on the ground.

The 4,000lb HC bomb was most used at night because the RAF operated predominately at night.

Keeping folks awake did not need the use of big bombs. It needed flying over to activate the air raid alarms, with the occasional bomb dropped to ensure that the alarms were not ignored. Of course the amount of bombing the RAF were doing at night made the air raid alarms difficult to ignore.

Mosquitoes did embark on such raids where the only goal was to activate the air defences and get people out of their beds.

The 4,000lb HC bomb (the "Cookie") was far more effective than you give credit.

The maximum radius for total destruction was determined to be 126ft (38.4m) during testing by the Armament Research Department in 1943. The maximum radius for visible damage was 259ft (78.9m).

This compares to a maximum radius for visible damage of 70ft (21.3m) for a 1,000lb MC bomb (equivalent to US 1,000lb GP bomb) and 40ft (12.2m) for a 500lb MC bomb.

In other words, the 4,000lb HC bomb caused total damage inside a radius almost twice as large of the radius where a 1,000lb bomb causes visible damage.

 

[ThomasP]

re: effectiveness of 4000 lb 'cookie'

In the design directive issued by the the Air Staff was the following:

"Primarily for the attack of harbours, ships in shallow waters, canals and land targets such as oil plants."

Over 93,000x 4000 lb high capacity bombs were released between 1941 and 1945 and it was estimated that these bombs were 1.4 times more effective as the same weight of medium bombs at causing structural damage.

source: "4000lb High Capacity Bomb" website, from AVIA 46/285, AVIA 46/163

Also, what wuzak said.

 

[Shortround6]

The B-17 couldn't carry the 4000lb inside, ever.
The Mosquito didn't carry one operationally until 1944.
Which one do you pick for production in 1940?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Shortround6,

re: B-17 and an internal 4000 lb bomb

Sorry, I was not clear. I did not say anywhere that the B-17 could carry a 4000 lb bomb in the bomb bay. Possibly I should have just said "The B-17 could also carry 1x 4000 lb bomb under each wing." Added a note in my post above to clarify?

I agree that in the real timeline there was no practical way for the US to produce the Mosquito in any significant numbers during the early war (ie 1941-42). The primary reason the UK could do so as early as they did is that the de Havilland Aircraft Company was already building the DH.91 Albatross just pre-war, using the same type of wooden construction methods. The war interrupted the planned production schedule, but DH already had material moving in the pipeline.

 

[Shortround6]

I didn't mean to imply that you had suggested the B-17 could carry the 4,000lb internally.

We have number of threads like this one that compare the Mosquito to the B-17 as they existed in 1944 (or even late 1944) and using the 4,000lb cookie to show how stupid, backwards, entrenched, hidebound, (fit it your own favorite word) the US generals/planners were for not jumping all over the Mosquito in 1940/41 and abandoning the B-17/B-24 before Pearl Harbor. Slight exaggeration but only slight.
The US could have made use of the Mosquito in some roles (and did with some reverse lend lease) but as show in earlier posts the US for better or worse had committed huge resources to multiple (5 each ?) aircraft plants to build the two four engine bombers and a number of brand new, from the ground up, engine plants. All at the time the Mosquito was first flying, let alone used in combat. By the time the Mosquito bomber was first used over Cologne the first new engine plants had engines rolling out the door and a number of the aircraft planes were working on their first airframes. To throw much of this out and start over based on what the Mosquito could do in 1944 (not 1942 or earlier) seems to be rather flawed thinking.

 

[wuzak]

The B-17 couldn't carry the 4000lb inside, ever.
The Mosquito didn't carry one operationally until 1944.
Which one do you pick for production in 1940?

The Mosquito didn't wasn't ready for production in 1940. So the only option was the B-17.

 

[wuzak]

First 10 Mosquitos carried four 250lbs in the bomb bay. then the Bomber version was changed to carry four 500lbs.

The Mosquito was not changed, the bombs were.

The B.IV series i could carry for short tail 500lb bombs.

 

[ThomasP]

It is interesting to speculate just how fast the US (with its manpower and easy access to natural resources) could have geared up to produce the Mosquito.

We already had a steady Balsa wood trade. Since Balsa comes from South and Central America, access would be a lot easier than for the UK.

90% (or more) of the Spruce used in the plywood in the Mosquito was being harvested either in Canada or here in Minnesota. Again ease of access to materials plays a significant part in how quickly the production could begin.

There were many wooden boat manufacturers, large boat (ie yacht) to small boat (ie canoes), in the US already using similar techniques of solid wood and plywood construction. There were at least 4 here in Minnesota (including a Chrysler daughter company), and as Donald Johnson mentions upthread, other manufacturers elsewhere such as Chris Craft in Detroit. Adding in the plywood/Balsa/plywood techniques should not be too difficult?

If the plans were handed over at the end of 1941, and the production company(s) were given the needed manpower and resources, just how quickly could it have been done? Does anyone have any definitive information on how quickly DH of Canada went from "Hey, they want us to produce the Mosquito." to the first airframe coming off the production line, and if there were any out of the ordinary problems?

The Merlin XX engines for the initial production might not have been too much of a problem if the Mosquito was given priority over the P-40F/L. I know the first P-40Fs were ordered in 1941 but I do not know when they were delivered.

 

[Koopernic]

If the Luftwaffe doesn't need to attack B17 & Liberators anymore they reduce their armour, the Me 109 and Fw 190 go back to rifle caliber cowling guns and the outer wing guns of the Fw 190 are eliminated. Speed, climb rate and manouverabillity will go up quite significantly.

 

[pbehn]

There is obvious merit in having many different types. As Koopernic said, German fighters carried extra armour and heavier guns to attack US 4 engined bombers. A single cookie dropped on Berlin wasnt done for the damage caused but for the nuisance of making people go to air raid shelters, which had a measurable effect on output. Whenever there was a major raid by day or night there were other actions taking advantage of it by twin and single engined bombers and fighter bombers. Its very difficult to optimise a defence for all these threats.

 

[SaparotRob]

If the Luftwaffe doesn't need to attack B17 & Liberators anymore they reduce their armour, the Me 109 and Fw 190 go back to rifle caliber cowling guns and the outer wing guns of the Fw 190 are eliminated. Speed, climb rate and manouverabillity will go up quite significantly.

I have never thought about the other side of the "what-if". You bring up a good point. Switching to Mosquitoes from 4 engined bombers changes the opposition aircraft too.

 

[ClayO]

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.

On the other hand, the Schräge Musik system wouldn't have worked nearly as well with a lot of smaller, faster, more maneuverable, wooden targets as it did on streams of large metal bombers.

 

[pbehn]

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.

It is, in any case borne almost completely from hind sight. The Mosquito didnt have many friends in the British system prior to entering service.

 

[Dimlee]

One moustached man in Moscow dropped his pipe and perked up his ears.
"So, Yankees can build them but don't need them? Give those Mosquitos to us."

 

[Koopernic]

A google of "alternatives to balsa" does come up with a few suggestions and alternatives. The Germans developed some alternatives, which had their problems, but they shouldn't be judged harshly because the effect of bombing on German industry forced them to substitute. They did come up with a material called 'formholz' (formed wood) which was glue, sawdust and graphite that was used as the filler/spacer between two sheets of multiply but it can't have been as light as balsa. There was also TyBu or Ty-Bu which was a laminate of wood and Bakelite used as the spar on the He 162.

Then there is the possibility of an all metal Mosquito.

I don't see this as a problem at all for US industry. The three dimensional compound curves of the US metal mosquito would be stretch formed over wooden dies in the same way Martin made the B-26 Marauder and in the way the Spitfire wing was eventually made.

There was also a gentlemen by the name of Howard Hughes who developed Hughes H-4 Hercules (cruelly called the Spruce Goose though it was made of Birch) which I suspect didn't need balsa.

They used many thin layers of birch (not spruce) to create a new material, in fact a composite material called Duramold. Wikipedia explains about this material:

Duramold
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hughes H-4 Hercules, made of birch ply Duramold

Duramold is a composite material process developed by Virginius E. Clark. Birch plies are impregnated with phenolic resin, such as Haskelite and laminated together in a mold under heat (280 °F, 138 °C) and pressure for use as a lightweight structural material.[1] Similar to plywood, Duramold and other lightweight composite materials were considered critical during periods of material shortage in World War II, replacing scarce materials like aluminum alloys and steel.[2][3]

The material has some advantages over metal in strength, construction technique, and weight. A cylinder made of duramold is 80% stronger than a cylinder made of aluminum.[4] There are over 17 varieties of Duramold, using various quantities of birch or poplar wood, with as many as seven plies.[5] The Duramold process has also been used to make radomes for aircraft as well as missile bodies.[6]

The Fairchild Aircraft Corporation patented the process, designing and constructing the AT-21, (NX/NC19131) as the first aircraft made using the Duramold process.[7] Several aircraft used Duramold in parts of their structure but the largest aircraft manufactured with the process is the Hughes H-4 Hercules designed by Howard Hughes and Glenn Odekirk, which was almost completely built with Duramold in very large sections.[8] Hughes Aircraft had purchased rights to the process for this use.

The Duramold and Haskelite process was first developed in 1937, followed by Gene Vidal's Weldwood and later the Aeromold process produced by the Timm Aircraft Company. In the United Kingdom, the De Havilland Aircraft Company (founded by Geoffrey de Havilland, a cousin of Olivia de Havilland, the actress who dated Howard Hughes in 1938) used similar composite construction for aircraft including the DH.88 Comet, DH.91 Albatross, the Mosquito, and Vampire. The aeromold process differs in that it is baked at a low 100 °F at cutting and forming, and 180 °F for fusing together sections after the resins are added.[9]

In reality the US probably had a better material than balsa plywood sandwitch.