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

[WARSPITER]

Just thinking that Mossies instead of B-17's would require a different strategy. B-17's flying in box ? formation with escorts was saying 'come and have a go,
we dare you', but this would not be the case with the Mosquito.

First the Mossie would have to give up it's real advantage in speed to fly like that and second, if it didn't how much more fuel would the escorts go through keeping up ?
More, less, or the same ?

Third, the main effects of the bombing campaign were cumulative with small raids to draw away assets (Mosquito) as well as large day and night raids to tie up
aircraft and guns on a large scale. I am sure the effects of the bomber offensive have been debated before on this forum but I can't see how a better system could
have been used with what was available, or in this case what else could have been made available.

 

[Andy]

I don't agree with that. I belive most of the attrition achieved by the 8th AF was due to the fighter escorts. The fighter escorts would have been used anyway. The Germans certainly would have made a big effort to catch and shoot down mosquitoes if they had been used more (and especially more during the day), and that would have started a different kind of arms race than what we already had. Instead of Ju-88s and Me 110s and 410s with all kinds of extra guns, and upgunned Fw 190s etc, you would probably have seen stripped down and faster Bf 109s and Fw 190s. Maybe we might have even got something like a Fw 190D a bit earlier. Casualties and losses of Mossies would have gone up (even if it never reached the awful levels of the heavy bomber campaign), and therefore the need for escorts would still be there, and therefore (most of) the attrition would still have happened.

Now there is no doubt that the heavy bombers, especially the heavy daytime bombers, did take out a lot of Axis aircraft themselves. And I don't know the exact figures - sometimes it's hard to be sure whether the escort got a given German fighter or the defensive gunners got them. But ultimately I believe the escorts, particularly the P-51s, are what really did the damage.

Yes, it was the fighters, but the bombers brought the fighters up that is what I met. You're right, they would've stripped down the planes they had and made better fighters that could've taken on the P-51s on better terms. The bombers themselves caused the attrition, directly or indirectly. They were the bait. The Mosquitos would've shown up one way or the other as a failure for what we were using them as, and then we would've had to scramble to substitute something else. In the mean time, the German pilots would not have died at the rate they were dying at, and it would've freed a lot more planes for the Eastern front. The bombers certainly weren't going to be shooting down any fighters or killing any pilots. The Luftwaffe was saving the army from a worse beating in the East. More planes with experienced pilots wouldn't have helped the Russians. Creating better and faster fighters might have increased the loss rate to an unacceptable level for the Americans. The B-17s with all their guns all most reached that point. The British reached that point, and they had the Mosquito. That might have tipped the decision to bomb at night instead. Look at the German loss for the American backyard missions when there wasn't any escorts to cover the bombers.

 

[MiTasol]

So I am going to throw a spanner in here.

What if the USAAF used the Mosquitoes in Europe the way General Kenney used the USAAF in the Pacific. His prime targets were airfields and the aircraft on them. By minimizing the ability of the Japanese to attack allies and defend their own forces by air he cut allied losses massively.

An aircraft destroyed on the ground is still an aircraft destroyed and the risk to the attacking aircrew is much lower with the Mosquito due to its much smaller radar signature. Its speed make its actual target a guess until almost the last minute

A raid of 100 Mosquitoes going to five or six airfields simultaneously at high speed, low altitude and flying an indirect course destroying aircraft and fuel dumps etc, would have meant the next raid by all other aircraft over that area would have faced less airborne opposition. Repeat that on a different area next day etc etc at random with no discernible pattern and the Germans ability to send fighters into the air would have been considerably reduced. Chuck in the odd two raids on the same targets to keep them guessing.

You can't do that with a B-17 because the B-17 cannot specifically target individual aircraft and revetments like the Mossie could have in this scenario.

 

[wuzak]

Creating better and faster fighters might have increased the loss rate to an unacceptable level for the Americans. The B-17s with all their guns all most reached that point. The British reached that point, and they had the Mosquito.

The British reached that point before the Mosquito was available.

That might have tipped the decision to bomb at night instead. Look at the German loss for the American backyard missions when there wasn't any escorts to cover the bombers.

The USAAF very nearly did go to nigh bombing.

The raids weren't truly unescorted, just not escorted for the full journey.

 

[WARSPITER]

So I am going to throw a spanner in here.

What if the USAAF used the Mosquitoes in Europe the way General Kenney used the USAAF in the Pacific. His prime targets were airfields and the aircraft on them. By minimizing the ability of the Japanese to attack allies and defend their own forces by air he cut allied losses massively.

An aircraft destroyed on the ground is still an aircraft destroyed and the risk to the attacking aircrew is much lower with the Mosquito due to its much smaller radar signature. Its speed make its actual target a guess until almost the last minute

A raid of 100 Mosquitoes going to five or six airfields simultaneously at high speed, low altitude and flying an indirect course destroying aircraft and fuel dumps etc, would have meant the next raid by all other aircraft over that area would have faced less airborne opposition. Repeat that on a different area next day etc etc at random with no discernible pattern and the Germans ability to send fighters into the air would have been considerably reduced. Chuck in the odd two raids on the same targets to keep them guessing.

You can't do that with a B-17 because the B-17 cannot specifically target individual aircraft and revetments like the Mossie could have in this scenario.

Yes that was my point as that is what the Mosquito was used for during day raids. The B-17 was used as it was because it was suited to the job.
Horses for courses.

 

[pbehn]

So I am going to throw a spanner in here.

What if the USAAF used the Mosquitoes in Europe the way General Kenney used the USAAF in the Pacific. His prime targets were airfields and the aircraft on them. By minimizing the ability of the Japanese to attack allies and defend their own forces by air he cut allied losses massively.

An aircraft destroyed on the ground is still an aircraft destroyed and the risk to the attacking aircrew is much lower with the Mosquito due to its much smaller radar signature. Its speed make its actual target a guess until almost the last minute

A raid of 100 Mosquitoes going to five or six airfields simultaneously at high speed, low altitude and flying an indirect course destroying aircraft and fuel dumps etc, would have meant the next raid by all other aircraft over that area would have faced less airborne opposition. Repeat that on a different area next day etc etc at random with no discernible pattern and the Germans ability to send fighters into the air would have been considerably reduced. Chuck in the odd two raids on the same targets to keep them guessing.

You can't do that with a B-17 because the B-17 cannot specifically target individual aircraft and revetments like the Mossie could have in this scenario.

As I understand it that is what was done to a certain extent, just not with Mosquitos, although the Wiki article on Big Week mentions 15 RAF Mosquitos attacking airfields in the Netherlands on 25 Feb, it also mentions B-26 from the USAAF attacking airfields as well as other tactical targets.

P-47s started straffing airfields after handing over escort or turning back. Later they attacked airfields as dive bombers. If you look at the history of LW airfields in Netherlands and Belgium attacks by all sorts of aircraft from heavy bombers to fighter bombers are mentioned. Some may not be as part of a campaign against LW fighters but to hit airfields with bombers involved in Steinbock which was going on in early 1944. Tyhoons were used to hit ground targets and could reach most of Belgium and Netherlands, I presume airfields comes under that.

However attacking airfields involves losses, P-51 losses increased when they started attacking ground targets. The LW supposedly produced 24,000 S/E fighters in 1944, straffing aircraft on the ground doesnt guarantee you are shooting up operational planes, it is only pilots that decide the outcome.

 

[GrauGeist]

One thing to consider about the Pacific versus Europe ground attack doctrine:
The German's AA was fierce.

The Japanese, for some reason, never really developed an effective AA system.

 

[NevadaK]

This thread is the best.

It seems to me that the contributors to this thread who favor the Mosquito all cite the Mosquito's speed as making it invulnerable. In the world of what ifs, we shouldn't assume that the Luftwaffe would over arm its fighter force as it did to combat the fleets of heavy bombers, but would instead concentrate on the development of faster interceptors. One could easily imagine that aircraft such as the ME-262 and DO-335 that suffered from poorly managed development programs, would instead be identified early on as solutions to the Mosquito's speed advantage and rather than languish in development hell begin to enter service in 1943. With the speed advantage gone, the Mosquito's value as a daylight bomber significantly diminishes.

 

[pbehn]

This thread is the best.

It seems to me that the contributors to this thread who favor the Mosquito all cite the Mosquito's speed as making it invulnerable. In the world of what ifs, we shouldn't assume that the Luftwaffe would over arm its fighter force as it did to combat the fleets of heavy bombers, but would instead concentrate on the development of faster interceptors. One could easily imagine that aircraft such as the ME-262 and DO-335 that suffered from poorly managed development programs, would instead be identified early on as solutions to the Mosquito's speed advantage and rather than languish in development hell begin to enter service in 1943. With the speed advantage gone, the Mosquito's value as a daylight bomber significantly diminishes.

The 262 didnt enter squadron service until mid 1944

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The 262 didnt enter squadron service until mid 1944

I think his point was that if the bomber threat was unusually fast, the 262's development may have been prioritized earlier.

 

[JDCAVE]

This thread is the best.

Hmmm.

 

[NevadaK]

I think his point was that if the bomber threat was unusually fast, the 262's development may have been prioritized earlier.

Thank you, Thumpalumpacus,

That is exactly my point. As with all what ifs, there are a number of assumptions to be made. With both the ME-262 and DO-335, there are assumptions that development would have been prioritized and a clear mission identified very early on. While appearing later in the war, the DO-335 is probably the plane that could have most easily appeared earliest s the majority of development challenges were due to starting and stopping the project and mission changes. The ME-262 would require a greater resource effort to resolve engine issues in early development, but if it had been a priority development in 1942 it is conceivable that it could be entering service in mid to late 1943.

 

[33k in the air]

When talking about the Mosquito as a replacement for the B-17, are we talking about the normal Mosquito with 2,000 lb bomb load or the bulged bomb bay Mosquito that could carry the 4,000 lb HC bomb? (What was the degree of performance reduction caused by said bulged bomb bay? I presume it wasn't that much.)

The issue with replacing the four engine bombers with the Mosquito is the issue of striking power. The B-17 regularly hauled 5,000 to 6,000 lbs of bombs to most targets; that's 2.5 to 3 times that of the regular Mosquito, and 1.25 to 1.5 times more than the bulged bomb bay version. Which means to replace the striking power of 100 B-17s would require 125 to 150 Mosquitos with bulged bomb bays, or 250 to 300 normal bomb bay Mosquitos.

 

[wuzak]

When talking about the Mosquito as a replacement for the B-17, are we talking about the normal Mosquito with 2,000 lb bomb load or the bulged bomb bay Mosquito that could carry the 4,000 lb HC bomb? (What was the degree of performance reduction caused by said bulged bomb bay? I presume it wasn't that much.)

We are talking about both.

The bulged bomb bay only enters the equation from early 1944.

I'm not sure that I have ever seen what the performance difference was between the standard and bulged bomb bay Mosquitoes, and it is likely irrelevant because the bulk of those with the bulged bomb bay were Mk.IXs and Mk.XVIs, with only a few of the IV/XX so converted and used operationally.

The Mk IX and XVI had the more powerful Merlin 70-series engines, so the performance improved despite carrying a bigger load and having a bigger belly.

The issue with replacing the four engine bombers with the Mosquito is the issue of striking power. The B-17 regularly hauled 5,000 to 6,000 lbs of bombs to most targets; that's 2.5 to 3 times that of the regular Mosquito, and 1.25 to 1.5 times more than the bulged bomb bay version. Which means to replace the striking power of 100 B-17s would require 125 to 150 Mosquitos with bulged bomb bays, or 250 to 300 normal bomb bay Mosquitos.

The argument is not as simple as that.

1 on 1 the Mosquito doesn't have the striking power, in sheer weight of bombs. But with the bulged bomb bay they were able to use more destructive bombs - the 4,000lb High Capacity (the cookie) and Medium Capacity bombs. The B-17 could not carry these weapons internally with the standard bomb racks, and I am unsure as to whether the bomb racks could be replaced with a single point rack, as was done for the B-29 to carry the nuclear weapons. The British 4,000lb bombs wouldn't fit between the bulkheads, not sure about the US AN-M56 4,000lb Light Case bomb.

I also doubt that an individual Mosquito could bomb as accurately as a B-17 from altitude. The Mosquito is not as stable an aircraft.

And the 8th AF bombers were quite accurate in early missions by each aircraft bombing individually. However, this put the bomber formation under more danger, since it took some time for all to bomb. The formation bombing tactics were devised to minimize time over target and provide better mutual defensive fire. The downside is that the bombing became less accurate, as it was spread over the width and length of the formation.

The question then becomes whether Mosquitoes bombing individually can get more bombs on target than a formation of B-17s. The second question is whether a smaller number of bigger bombs on target will do more or less damage than a larger number of small bombs.

The Mosquito would also have more options in bombing altitude. They could improve accuracy by bombing at lower levels, down to ground level, if need be. Closer targets can be reached by flying at near ground level the whole trip, possibly avoiding or delaying detection by radar.

And if enough crew are available, it would be possible to run a couple of missions in a day with each Mosquito.

 

[MiTasol]

The argument is not as simple as that.

That is for sure - looking at crew numbers a B-17 carries ten and includes two pilots.
Mosquito two crew with one pilot. That means you can crew two mossies with 6 left overs from one B-17 crew. One of the B-17 crew would need to be retrained as a Navigator and that would be a problem unless they used the USAAF lead navigator idea to get them on target as then the radio operator can get them home (as often happened in real life)

I also doubt that an individual Mosquito could bomb as accurately as a B-17 from altitude. The Mosquito is not as stable an aircraft.

I would agree with that but the Mosquito bombing at low altitude is far more accurate than the B-17 can ever be.

The Mosquito would also have more options in bombing altitude. They could improve accuracy by bombing at lower levels, down to ground level, if need be. Closer targets can be reached by flying at near ground level the whole trip, possibly avoiding or delaying detection by radar.

Flying at altitude until near the target then dropping low gives the Mosquito a large edge. It has a far lower radar signature than a B-17 because the wood structure reflects very little radar signal which makes it harder to find and track.

The Germans had excellent AA and when used against high altitude aircraft the aircraft is in range for a looooong while.

Travelling like a bat out of hell at ground level the aircraft is in range for seconds at most and, in most cases, the AA will not be able to keep a bead on the aircraft.

And if enough crew are available, it would be possible to run a couple of missions in a day with each Mosquito.

See above - the unused B-17 copilot is repurposed as Mosquito pilot - yep I know experience level is going to be lower and that will lead to losses but....

And if they are attacking an airfield incendiary cluster bombs and fragmentation bombs will destroy aircraft and fuel dumps and hangars and accommodation/messes etc just as easily as HC bombs.
For the German pilots losing their (often few) comforts would not improve morale.

 

[nuuumannn]

The ME-262 would require a greater resource effort to resolve engine issues in early development, but if it had been a priority development in 1942 it is conceivable that it could be entering service in mid to late 1943.

While this sounds logical, I can't see the Me 262 entering service any sooner than it traditionally did; it was not fully ready for operational service in 1944 and production was rushed to get the type to the front line units. Not only that but Allied bombing created a bottleneck on components, particularly for the Jumo 004, which was the biggest source of problems the Me 262's debut faced. They were still messing around with the prototypes in 1944, with the first pre-production models flying in December 1943. I suspect that the only way that the Luftwaffe could have fielded a jet fighter sooner was if time and resources were poured into further developing the He 280, whose development preceded that of the '262.

 

[pbehn]

That is for sure - looking at crew numbers a B-17 carries ten and includes two pilots.
Mosquito two crew with one pilot. That means you can crew two mossies with 6 left overs from one B-17 crew. One of the B-17 crew would need to be retrained as a Navigator and that would be a problem unless they used the USAAF lead navigator idea to get them on target as then the radio operator can get them home (as often happened in real life)

I would question the philosophy of that. The other guy in a Mosquito needed as much training and skills as the pilot, he was the bomb aimer, radio operator, flight engineer and navigator, a Mosquito was a beast to fly like a fighter and what is being asked is fly missions where fighter pilot skills as well as top level bomber skills are required.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-17 had two external racks (one under each wing) that could accommodate up to a 4,000 pound bomb (per rack).

 

[SaparotRob]

RE: Post 874
The thread's premise is Mosquitos were built instead of B-17s. The bulged bomb bay would've been made a necessity earlier, unless wiser heads prevailed and asked if the B-24 plans were still available.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would question the philosophy of that. The other guy in a Mosquito needed as much training and skills as the pilot, he was the bomb aimer, radio operator, flight engineer and navigator, a Mosquito was a beast to fly like a fighter and what is being asked is fly missions where fighter pilot skills as well as top level bomber skills are required.

I'd question that, not to diminish the "non-pilot" position, a Mosquito pilot not only has to learn how to fly and master an aircraft, he then has to learn to fly a multi-engine aircraft and you're basically being introduced to a number of skills that a single engine pilot doesn't have to deal with, most profound single engine operation which probably killed more pilots than the enemy. I can see bomb aimer as a specialized skill (which I would think a Mosquito pilot would had a good understanding), but "flight engineer" (there isn't much flight to engineer on a twin configured like a Mosquito) navigator and radio operator are part of flight training, having someone along side of you does take the workload off.