Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just a quick side note about this: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.
Just a quick side note about this:
The SBD (and later, TBF/TBM) was the champ for that role in the PTO.
They had the range needed fir the task.
The A-36 ruled for land ops where the SBD (and again, the TBF/TBM) were impractical to be used (except in North Africa, courtesy of the USS Ranger of course).
In terms of production, making enough Mosquitoes to be used as a strategic bomber was not a problem. Making enough bomber type Mosquitoes was the problem, with the FB.VI being the most produced model.
About 360, if I remember correctly.
Couldn't FB type Mosquitos or say, MK IV types also do the job? Sincere question as I am admittedly not an expert on the Mossie
The Marines' combat debut (Midway) was due to not following USN training.The SBD worked extremely well in the hands of Navy pilots, as we know, but it seems to have proven vulnerable and not nearly as deadly accurate with Marine pilots, and had a fairly dismal record with Army pilots as the A-24 for example when used in New Guinea. I think it required a lot of training to reach it's full potential, and it was also pretty slow. I see the A-36 as potential rival in the role of land (island) based dive bomber, which could sink ships and also attack land targets, but would at least in theory be fast enough to pretty easily evade Ki-43s and A6Ms.
I think it could have had a niche for a while anyway.
Do you have a performance breakdown (or at least speed) of the different types?
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?
Wuzak, the focus of the alternative universe is the ability of the Mosquito (any version) could duplicate B-17 Strike radius with ear duplicate range - and useful payload combination. In my mind, one precision delivered 2000# GP might be worth several B-17s (or more depending on comparisons of bombing via Mickey through 10/10 cloud cover). If a squadron of Mossies could penetrate at low altitude to Ploesti or Brux specific targets (like Cat cracker, platformer, etc) with 2000 pound bombs, with acceptable losses - I am more interested in the discussion. That said, the next question is 'Why weren't the RAF substituting fewer Mossies for many more Lancasters on a routine basis for much shorter range targets like Misburg?FB type Mosquitoes were slower, as the flat windscreen was draggier,
The cannon installation also took up half the bomb bay area, so internal bomb bay was restricted to just 2 500lb bombs. Two more could be carried on underwing pylons.
The Mk.IV was a bomber type. It could do the job, but less margin than the B.IX and B.XVI. Its normal load was 4 x 500lb, it could carry the 4,000lb bombs, but was not the best. I do not think any B.IVs received the universal wing, which was introduced with the FB.VI, so would be unlikely to be able to carry wing bombs or drop tanks.
The B.IX and B.XVI could carry 5,000lb for shorter trips - 1 x 4,000lb + 2 x 500lb. Or it could carry 6 x 500lb. Or 1 x 4,000lb + 2 x 50UKG drop tanks. They had maximum speed and continuous cruising speed roughly 30-40mph faster than the B.IV.
But it depends on what "the job" was.
ThomasP. As noted in some of my posts on this subject, my primary question regarding Mosquito replacement of USAAF Daylight Mission in ETO is "What is the selected attack/mission profile of a Mosquito with say, only one 2000 pound bomb?" Further, if Daylight missions considered feasible, what were the feasible CEP for the Mosquito at attack altitudes much greater than SL? Bomb aiming capability for 400' CEP for say 15,000 feet above most Flak battery accurate slant ranges?re Mossi speeds
B Mk IV 360/380 mph at 9,000/14,000 ft, ROA with 4x 500 lb bombs ~700 miles
B Mk IV big belly mod, ROA with 4000 lb bomb ~600 miles
B Mk IX 386/408 mph at 13,000/26,000 ft, ROA with 4x 500 lb bombs & 2x 50 Impgal DT ~700 miles
B Mk IX big belly mod, 376/397 mph at 13,000/26,000 ft, ROA with 4000 lb & 2x 500 lb bombs ~500 miles
NOTE that most/max economical cruise for range was ~265/245 for the normal/big belly types and max economical cruise was ~320 mph, all at ~15,000 ft for both types
re accuracy from lower altitude
By 1939-40 the USAAF average CE using the Norden bombsight was 400 ft during training exercises, at 15,000 ft bombing altitude and in clear weather, flying straight line as long as needed to line up properly. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2% probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90% probability of destroying the target.
By 1939 the USN considered the Norden usable against stationary ship size targets from 10,000 ft maximum.
Basically, before the US entered the war and despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the US high command knew it could not precision bomb targets.
Wuzak, the focus of the alternative universe is the ability of the Mosquito (any version) could duplicate B-17 Strike radius with ear duplicate range - and useful payload combination.
In my mind, one precision delivered 2000# GP might be worth several B-17s (or more depending on comparisons of bombing via Mickey through 10/10 cloud cover).
If a squadron of Mossies could penetrate at low altitude to Ploesti or Brux specific targets (like Cat cracker, platformer, etc) with 2000 pound bombs, with acceptable losses - I am more interested in the discussion.
That said, the next question is 'Why weren't the RAF substituting fewer Mossies for many more Lancasters on a routine basis for much shorter range targets like Misburg?
Without doing the math, To me the 'job' was 100' CEP for 50% of the planned specific target(s) for 2x1000 pound bombs - with clear visibility at any altitude chosen to compare against large force B-17/B-24 attacks. Presumed that only low altitude bombing fits the spectrum of accuracy attainment for Mosquito. RAF demonstrated such capability. In 10/10 cloud cover the advantage of small force of Mosquitos over large forces of B-17s seem to favor the Mosquito unless the target is well defined contrast (harbor, lake, etc)
I just can't see any scenario of medium to high altitude, long range, daylight attacks in which the Mossie is a better choice. Begs the questions ' what were Mosquito bomb aiming advantages over AAF doctrine at long range, what were acceptable loss rates for basically unarmed Mosquitos in daylight operations deep into Germany or Rumania, and what were crew/aircraft replacement considerations?
Is the profile limited to low altitude strikes during daylight? What nav/bomb aiming combination required to hit the southeast corner of a building in a refinery complex (day or night) with CEP of even 400 feet at any altitude at 350mph? Are there RAF sources explaining that the Mosquito was being considered for high value precision targets at the ranges we are discussing for the Oil Campaign?
re Mossi speeds
B Mk IV 360/380 mph at 9,000/14,000 ft, ROA with 4x 500 lb bombs ~700 miles
B Mk IV big belly mod, ROA with 4000 lb bomb ~600 miles
B Mk IX 386/408 mph at 13,000/26,000 ft, ROA with 4x 500 lb bombs & 2x 50 Impgal DT ~700 miles
B Mk IX big belly mod, 376/397 mph at 13,000/26,000 ft, ROA with 4000 lb & 2x 500 lb bombs ~500 miles
NOTE that most economical cruise for range was ~265/245 for the normal/big belly types and max economical cruise was ~320 mph, all at ~15,000 ft for both types
re accuracy from lower altitude
By 1939-40 the USAAF average CE using the Norden bombsight was 400 ft during training exercises, at 15,000 ft bombing altitude and in clear weather, flying straight line as long as needed to line up properly. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2% probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90% probability of destroying the target.
By 1939 the USN considered the Norden usable against stationary ship size targets from 10,000 ft maximum.
Basically, before the US entered the war and despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the US high command knew it could not precision bomb targets.
While I think it's likely that the heavy defensive firepower* of US heavy bombers increased casualties, as those very guns increased the size of each bomber's aircrew, reduced its bomb load, and increased the number of sorties required, I don't think Mosquitoes (or a comparable US aircraft) would be able to inflect the sort of damage as a mass of B-17s (or B-24s) without adopting many of the same tactics, that is massive formations dropping bombs based on a signal from a lead bombardier. They'd also be suffering the same lost rate due to AAA, as they would be constrained to the same long straight and level path prior to bomb delivery. There may be lower losses on the flight to the target, as they may be able to cruise at higher speed**, and on the return flight, as their superior speed may result in lower losses, as the aircraft may be much less vulnerable out of formation than in.
--
* Of course, no number of 0.5 in machine guns at 20,000+ feet will be particularly effective against AAA.
** I suspect that WW2 era navigation technology would make it impractical to have a large number of aircraft cruise independently to a rendezvous point and form up into the mass formations so beloved of day bomber generals.