Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
The 262 didnt enter squadron service until mid 1944This 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
Hmmm.This thread is the best.
Thank you, Thumpalumpacus,I think his point was that if the bomber threat was unusually fast, the 262's development may have been prioritized earlier.
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.
That is for sure - looking at crew numbers a B-17 carries ten and includes two pilots.The argument is not as simple as that.
I would agree with that but the Mosquito bombing at low altitude is far more accurate than the B-17 can ever be.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.
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 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.
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 enough crew are available, it would be possible to run a couple of missions in a day with each Mosquito.
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.
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.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'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.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.