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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Schweik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well next time I'll double check since the rest of your numbers were the lowest "guestimate"
Schweik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!
Schweik said:
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.
Click to expand...
And don't forget incendiaries!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the record, I have been advocating their use in pretty much every other way but the above, ideally in a larger number of smaller raids. Not in the manner of the heavies.
 

I see it being small, loose formations. At closer targets they would fly at near ground level the whole journey. Longer raids would require flying in at altitude and diving down to a better bombing height.

A raid would require diversions as well.

When LR escorts become available, send them over to target fighter airfields at the same time that the raids are taking place.
 
Schweik said:
For the record, I have been advocating their use in pretty much every other way but the above, ideally in a larger number of smaller raids. Not in the manner of the heavies.
Click to expand...
And that's fine - I still say (as others on here) you're going need more aircraft or more raids to effectively knock out a large target area (drumroll) GIVEN THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY! And I'll stand by that statement even with the bombing inaccuracies documented in the post war years.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct.

A large formation of Mosquitoes would be a juicy target, and would have to fly slower than they otherwise would. A large formation defeats the best attributes of the Mosquito - speed and agility.

A question: do the Germans react to a large number of small raids with Mosquitoes with the same urgency as a small number of large raids by heavies?
 

That depends how effective they were. Assuming they were effective, the Germans definitely react, though perhaps not with the same urgent desperation that their wives and children are being bombed.
 
If you were to have a USA strategy of using a Mosquito type aircraft it couldnt have been the Mosquito that did it, it was designed, flew and got put into production way too late to be adopted as part of a strategy. The B-17 first flew in 1935, when any war was a distant prospect for the USA. Then things happened, Germany invaded Poland and there was a war in Europe, but how does that change any USA strategy? The BoB took place and the UK didnt surrender, the major part of the BoB was RADAR control of fighter interceptions, this changed the battlefield in the air, was this noticed by strategists in the USA? As I understand it USA strategy was based on the bomber getting through until 1942, then the bomber needed escorts into 1943 and then the strategy was the bomber was to be used as part of a strategy to wipe out the Luftwaffe.
 
At night they ignored them because they couldnt really do much about them.
 
I find the information in the article a bit lacking.

"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."

What is the definition of lethal radius?
Is it the radius at which blast pressure will kill a large percentage of unprotected people?
It the radius at which unprotected people have a large chance of being killed/incapacitated by fragments?
Is it the radius at which certain structures are likely to be damaged by the blast wave pressure?
This varies quite a bit from poured concrete walls to wood frame.

Likewise the crater description is just about worthless.
Crater in cobblestone street?
Crater in plowed field?
Crater in rolled sod?
Crater in beach sand?

after quick google search found this



caption says this is for clay soil (whatever that actually means)
It is from a paper on archeological research of landscapes in relation to WW II.
 
SaparotRob said:
I'm guessing U.S. industry would have trouble building wooden aircraft on the same scale as building metal aircraft.
Click to expand...
The U.S. would have had no trouble building a wooden Mosquito no more than it would have had any difficulties in manufacturing an all metal version.

Quite a few U.S. aircraft companies were making wooden aircraft for the war, mostly for trainer and liaison types.

The problem with an escalated building program for the Mosquito would be both wood stocks and engines.

The other issue, would be what to do with them?
In the Pacific where range was a necessity, the USAAF already had the A-20, B-25, A-26 and B-26 as well as the P-38 plus the USN had the PBY.
 
I know the U.S. was building wooden aircraft but was it the same scale as the metal ones? I remember some 12000 + B-17Gs built and more B-24s than all B-17s. Did the U.S. have similar production runs of wooden aircraft? I'm not a carpenter, aeronautical engineer or sheet metal worker but aren't LARGE scale production runs easier with metals? I have an image of American industry based on steel products. I'm familiar with wooden boats of the time, my Sea Scout "Ship" had a 36 foot landing craft built by Chris Craft. I wrote its serial number down but that is lost.
 
Last edited:
Well as far as (wooden) boat building, there was the Higgins boats which they cranked out in rather large numbers on short notice... they started building them in 1942 and built over 20,000 of them. Definitely not as sophisticated as building a Mosquito but it's a plausible analogy.
 

Yeah, I already pointed out that the figure is obviously very limited and the damage radius would depend on many factors. I'm not making any precise claim on how big a crater was anyway, but more the figure on what the radius of destruction was. Again, with the caveat that obviously 'destruction' means something different for many different types of structures.

Nevertheless, it's quite clear that if only 20% of the bombs are falling within 1,000 feet / 300 meters of their target, that is a fairly low ratio of bombs actually hitting the target. Maybe it's 2%, maybe it's 5%, maybe it's 7%. But it's low. And that means a lot of missions before the target is actually destroyed.

And I think the Mosquitos were doing quite a bit better than that.
 

Well we were talking in terms of (and the OP was seemingly about) the Mosquito as a replacement to conduct the main mission of the B-17, which was really daylight bombing in Europe. Not necessarily large formation high altitude daylight bombing mind you (lol).

In the Pacific, I'm not sure the Mossie is ideal because they did have some issues with them in the very high heat + humidity / rainfall environments. Also I don't think it had the range to compete with a B-29, and meanwhile many of the other existing bombers you listed were able to operate in the Pacific without too much trouble.

I do kind of like the A-36 for use in the Pacific (not just in China) but that is a separate discussion for another time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
"Jumo 222" and "DB 606/610" made in H16 form instead of being 24 cyl types - what gives?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Navalized P-36/-40 instead of the F2A/F4F/FM?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
What does the IJN look like if war delayed six months?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Shinpachi
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
7K
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register