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

[FLYBOYJ]

Perhaps S Schweik meant Salerno? The USS Savannah took a guided bomb that almost sank her, and HMS Warspite had X turret permanently disabled by another. Maybe that's what he's referring to.

That was against Italy not the Vichy French

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That was against Italy not the Vichy French

Right, but he couldn't remember where or what he posted about the losses, so I figured that the benefit of the doubt would be good to extend.

 

[pbehn]

Perhaps S Schweik meant Salerno? The USS Savannah took a guided bomb that almost sank her, and HMS Warspite had X turret permanently disabled by another. Maybe that's what he's referring to.

In such landings the defender has many advantages, so the attacker can expect to take hits. Losing use of one turret and almost losing a light cruiser come at the lighter end of light losses in the scheme of things.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In such landings the defender has many advantages, so the attacker can expect to take hits. Losing use of one turret and almost losing a light cruiser come at the lighter end of light losses in the scheme of things.

I get that. I was trying to explain why Schweik may have written what he did. I wasn't agreeing that the USN had taken a beating in the MTO; the beatings USN took really happened in the Solomons.

Of course, he's been tagged and will likely come along to lay it out further.

 

[Schweik]

They did take a beating, gave one out too and the French losses were heavy, but the USN lost a lot of planes. I posted all the losses on both sides from Shores in another thread on here. I'll see if I can find it hang on. I thought this was common knowledge or I would have earlier.

 

[Schweik]

As promised, here are the stats on the naval-air battles between Anglo-American and Vichy air forces in Nov 1942. This is from Mediterrenean Air War Vol III, starting on page 33, with comba stats starting on page 65. I'm only going to list the actual losses on each side, but I'll list the aircraft types which made claims. "Losses" means FTR, MiA, shot down, or crash-landed in target area.


Nov 7 1942
British Victories: Seafire IIc, Albacore I, and Sea Hurricane IIb and IIc, and Wildcat IV made claims.
British Losess: 4 x Albacores, 2 x Hurricane IIb, 3 x Sea Hurricane, 2 x Seafire IIc shot down, + multiple damaged
US Victories: Spitfire V made claims
US Losses: 1 x Spitfire Vb, 9 x C-47 shot down (some of the C-47s crash landed)
French Claims: D.520 made claims
French Losses: 8 x D.520 shot down, 1 x Boston shot down

Nov 8 1942
British Victories: No British aircraft made claims
British Losses: 4 x Hudson II and V (2 apparently shot down by USN Wildcats friendly fire)
US Victories: F4F-4 and SBD-3 made claims
US Losses: 13 x F4F-4, 3 x SBD, (three of the F4F lost actually landed at "Mazagan" and the crew were captured, one turned over during landing)
US Mishaps: 2 x F4F ran out of gas and ditched, 1 x SBD accident, 3 x TBF accidents (all during takeoff)
French Claims: French Hawk75A and D.520 (mainly Hawk 75) made claims
French Losses: 8 x Hawk 75A, 1 x D.520 4 x Martin 167, 1 x Potez 63.11, 5 x D.520 "damaged but pilot safe"
French Mishaps: 1 x Hawk 75, 1 x D.520 lost in accidents

Nov 9 1942
British Victories: No British aircraft made claims
British Losses: 1 x Spitfire PR, 1 x Hudson
US Victories: F4F-4 made claims (7 claims)
US Losses: 3 x F4F-4, 2 x L-4 (one by friendly fire)
US Mishaps: 2 x F4F-4 lost in accidents
French Claims: Gawk 75 made one claim
French Losses: 3 x Hawk 75, 1 x Db-7

Nov 10 1942
British: No claims or losses
US Claims: One claim by an F4F one by a SBD-3 (of a DB-7)
US Losses: 4 x TBF, 6 x Spitfire VB
US Mishaps: 1 x Spitfire, 1 x P-40F crashed on landing

French Claims: No claims
French Losses: 2 x D.520, 1 x Potez 63 (all to flak)

All in all, Shores summarizes the losses on page 88 as:

25 French aircraft shot down + 13 damaged
46 US aircraft "lost to all causes" (25 x F4F-4, 9 x SBD-3, 10 x TBF-1, 1 X OS2U-3, 1 x SOC-1)
My breakdown of the USN planes actually shot down by the French is 16 x F4F, 3 x SBD, 4 x TBF, 1 x L4, 9 x C-47, for 33 lost


On top of that you can add 7 x British fighters and 9 bombers, plus 2 more bombers lost to friendly fire
and 7 x USAAF Spitfires shot down (mostly by flak it seems)

So that's another 23.

Total therefore is 25 French vs. 56 Anglo-American.

All in all I'd say the French gave a good accounting of themselves, despite being heavily outnumbered and probably at least somewhat ambivalent, and flying 1940 vintage aircraft many of which lacked self-sealing tanks etc.. They were obviously well trained pilots.

To the original point, the loss of 19 US bombers, including 9 x SBD in 4 days of moderately intense fighting against year 1940 / Battle of France vintage aircraft isn't all that great IMO and doesn't bode well for fighting against Bf 109F and G and Fw 190 as opposed to Hawk 75s and D.520s. Also German AAA is much more effective and dangerous, can we agree on that?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As promised, here are the stats on the naval-air battles between Anglo-American and Vichy air forces in Nov 1942. This is from Mediterrenean Air War Vol III, starting on page 33, with comba stats starting on page 65. I'm only going to list the actual losses on each side, but I'll list the aircraft types which made claims. "Losses" means FTR, MiA, shot down, or crash-landed in target area.


Nov 7 1942
British Victories: Seafire IIc, Albacore I, and Sea Hurricane IIb and IIc, and Wildcat IV made claims.
British Losess: 4 x Albacores, 2 x Hurricane IIb, 3 x Sea Hurricane, 2 x Seafire IIc shot down, + multiple damaged
US Victories: Spitfire V made claims
US Losses: 1 x Spitfire Vb, 9 x C-47 shot down (some of the C-47s crash landed)
French Claims: D.520 made claims
French Losses: 8 x D.520 shot down, 1 x Boston shot down

Nov 8 1942
British Victories: No British aircraft made claims
British Losses: 4 x Hudson II and V (2 apparently shot down by USN Wildcats friendly fire)
US Victories: F4F-4 and SBD-3 made claims
US Losses: 13 x F4F-4, 3 x SBD, (three of the F4F lost actually landed at "Mazagan" and the crew were captured, one turned over during landing)
US Mishaps: 2 x F4F ran out of gas and ditched, 1 x SBD accident, 3 x TBF accidents (all during takeoff)
French Claims: French Hawk75A and D.520 (mainly Hawk 75) made claims
French Losses: 8 x Hawk 75A, 1 x D.520 4 x Martin 167, 1 x Potez 63.11, 5 x D.520 "damaged but pilot safe"
French Mishaps: 1 x Hawk 75, 1 x D.520 lost in accidents

Nov 9 1942
British Victories: No British aircraft made claims
British Losses: 1 x Spitfire PR, 1 x Hudson
US Victories: F4F-4 made claims (7 claims)
US Losses: 3 x F4F-4, 2 x L-4 (one by friendly fire)
US Mishaps: 2 x F4F-4 lost in accidents
French Claims: Gawk 75 made one claim
French Losses: 3 x Hawk 75, 1 x Db-7

Nov 10 1942
British: No claims or losses
US Claims: One claim by an F4F one by a SBD-3 (of a DB-7)
US Losses: 4 x TBF, 6 x Spitfire VB
US Mishaps: 1 x Spitfire, 1 x P-40F crashed on landing

French Claims: No claims
French Losses: 2 x D.520, 1 x Potez 63 (all to flak)

All in all, Shores summarizes the losses on page 88 as:

25 French aircraft shot down + 13 damaged
46 US aircraft "lost to all causes" (25 x F4F-4, 9 x SBD-3, 10 x TBF-1, 1 X OS2U-3, 1 x SOC-1)
My breakdown of the USN planes actually shot down by the French is 16 x F4F, 3 x SBD, 4 x TBF, 1 x L4, 9 x C-47, for 33 lost


On top of that you can add 7 x British fighters and 9 bombers, plus 2 more bombers lost to friendly fire
and 7 x USAAF Spitfires shot down (mostly by flak it seems)

So that's another 23.

Total therefore is 25 French vs. 56 Anglo-American.

All in all I'd say the French gave a good accounting of themselves, despite being heavily outnumbered and probably at least somewhat ambivalent, and flying 1940 vintage aircraft many of which lacked self-sealing tanks etc.. They were obviously well trained pilots.

To the original point, the loss of 19 US bombers, including 9 x SBD in 4 days of moderately intense fighting against year 1940 / Battle of France vintage aircraft isn't all that great IMO and doesn't bode well for fighting against Bf 109F and G and Fw 190 as opposed to Hawk 75s and D.520s. Also German AAA is much more effective and dangerous, can we agree on that?

Great information as this captures the entire Operation Torch campaign. I think you'll find that many of the navy aircraft lost (all causes) were due to them not finding their way back to their carriers (USS Ranger as the main player). One of the pilots who had to ditch was Tom Blackburn from VF-17 fame. I think the real combat performance can be gauged if we knew exactly how many aircraft were lost in combat rather than "other causes." At that point we can see if the USN "took a beating."

But going back to the performance of the SBD - I think you'll find out of the 9 lost, 4 were in actual combat from what I can see.

 

[Schweik]

Great information as this captures the entire Operation Torch campaign. I think you'll find that many of the navy aircraft lost (all causes) were due to them not finding their way back to their carriers (USS Ranger as the main player). One of the pilot who had to ditch was Tom Blackburn from VF-17 fame. I think the real combat performance can be gauged if we knew exactly how many aircraft were lost in combat rather than "other causes." At that point we can see if the USN "took a beating."

My breakdown of the US planes actually shot down by the French is 16 x F4F, 3 x SBD, 4 x TBF, 1 x L4, 9 x C-47, for 33 lost. If you subtract the army C-47s it comes down to 24 lost.
There was also another 6 US Spitfires lost but I don't remember if those were combat losses. I think several of the other 6 SBDs lost were to flak.
I believe the British lost about 11 planes in combat.
Compared to this the French lost 25, mostly fighters

There were also a lot of other operational losses. I am also not certain how of the US losses were to flak and how many to French fighters but those 24 were listed as being shot down or crash landing etc. after battle damage

So it wasn't necessarily a super one sided beat down but I would say the air-arm of that navy task force was heavily damaged, if not to say 'reduced' from the four days of fighting, with most of the losses on just 2 days. "Took a beating" is a subjective term but the context was if the SBD was really up to snuff for Europe / MTO.

It is also worth noting that almost all of the American aircrew survived, whereas that was not the case with most of the lost French planes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

According to this site with references, Air Group 4 (the Ranger, the USS Santee, USS Suwanee, USS Sangamon and USS Chenango) -

"When hostilities commenced on 8 November 1942, the Ranger Air Group numbered 72 operable planes (1 CRAG, 17 VS-41, 26 VF-9, and 28 FV-41). By the end of TORCH, Captain Durgin reported 16 of these 72 were 'lost or damaged beyond economical repair. During the battle, 43 had been hit by either enemy anti-aircraft or fighter gunfire.'"

The Ranger Air Group Over Casablanca - Air Group 4

Air Group 4 During World War II - Casablanca to Tokyo

www.airgroup4.com

And...

By the time an armistice was reached with the French authorities on 11 November - an appropriate date since it was also the date that an armistice ending WWI went into effect 24 years earlier - American Wildcat pilots had claimed 22 French aircraft, for the loss of 5 F4Fs in aerial combat (the claim included one or two misidentified British aircraft, and the French actually admitted to losing 25 aircraft). Fourteen Wildcats had been lost to operational causes. In total, 23% of all F4Fs in the American carrier force had been lost, a significant attrition rate. Capt C. T. Durgin, Ranger's CO, visited Cazes on 12 November. After meeting with the pilots from his air wing who had been captured, he remarked on the stout defense by the French: 'If this battle had continued at the pace of the first day, I would have had to return to the US for replacements.'

 

[Schweik]

Right well, there seems to be some discrepancy with Shores - I quoted what the pages were, if you want I can take photos and upload the scans but I think many other people here have those same books and can check for themselves. Shores says 25 F4Fs "lost to all causes", and in the details I counted 16 shot down. Now some that the French would claim in "aerial combat" the Americans may have claimed were lost to flak or something. That kind of thing isn't unusual.

All we can say for sure is what the losses were. And of that original contingent of 72, Shores says 46 US aircraft were "lost to all causes" (25 x F4F-4, 9 x SBD-3, 10 x TBF-1, 1 X OS2U-3, 1 x SOC-1). This is on page 88. Not 16.

There were also some F4Fs which after being battle damaged, crash landed on the beach and were captured by the French, but were probably later recovered by the Americans. I am not sure how they counted those.

There were also the British fighting, mainly on the 7th, on which day the French lost 8 fighters (and the British lost 7 fighters and 4 Albacores)

USN fighters also apparently shot down 2 x RN Hudsons and 1 x L4.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So it wasn't necessarily a super one sided beat down but I would say the air-arm of that navy task force was heavily damaged, if not to say 'reduced' from the four days of fighting, with most of the losses on just 2 days. "Took a beating" is a subjective term but the context was if the SBD was really up to snuff for Europe / MTO.

It is also worth noting that almost all of the American aircrew survived, whereas that was not the case with most of the lost French planes.

10 airman from Air Group 4 were lost.

With that said, if only 4 SBDs were lost in combat, I'd say it did perform well in lieu of the opposition it faced -

Now, over Italy or say over German occupied territory? I'd beckon differently.

 

[Schweik]

10 airman from Air Group 4 were lost.

With that said, if only 4 SBDs were lost in combat, I'd say it did performed well in lieu of the opposition it faced -

Per Shores, 9 were lost "to all causes" in the operation, I counted 3 shot down by Vichy fighters.

Now, over Italy or say over German occupied territory? I'd beckon differently.

Agreed.

I would say though that the Navy SBDs seemed to be pretty accurate in their bombing, and that definitely improved the situation for the landing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Right well, there seems to be some discrepancy with Shores - I quoted what the pages were, if you want I can take photos and upload the scans but I think many other people here have those same books and can check for themselves. Shores says 25 F4Fs "lost to all causes", and in the details I counted 16 shot down. Now some that the French would claim in "aerial combat" the Americans may have claimed were lost to flak or something. That kind of thing isn't unusual.

No need to scan copies - I believe some of the combat losses and losses to other factors (getting lost/ running out of fuel) were co-mingled

All we can say for sure is what the losses were. And of that original contingent of 72, Shores says 46 US aircraft were "lost to all causes" (25 x F4F-4, 9 x SBD-3, 10 x TBF-1, 1 X OS2U-3, 1 x SOC-1). This is on page 88. Not 16.

Same as above - it's doesn't jive with what Air Group 4 reported.

There were also some F4Fs which after being battle damaged, crash landed on the beach and were captured by the French, but were probably later recovered by the Americans. I am not sure how they counted those.

Blackburn had to ditch and floated in the ocean for almost 3 days - I think the rest of his flight diverted and crash landed - there's 4 or 5 right there

There were also the British fighting, mainly on the 7th, on which day the French lost 8 fighters (and the British lost 7 fighters and 4 Albacores)

USN fighters also apparently shot down 2 x RN Hudsons and 1 x L4.

Saw that as well

 

[pbehn]

After meeting with the pilots from his air wing who had been captured, he remarked on the stout defense by the French: 'If this battle had continued at the pace of the first day, I would have had to return to the US for replacements.'

You can read many things into statements. A landing such as operation Torch, Avalanche or Overlord is decided in the first three or four days. There isnt a stalemate situation where he could return to the US for replacements. At the end of the first day many objectives had been achieved.

 

[Schweik]

Lets just say they certainly got it, but they got a bit of a bloody nose.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You can read many things into statements. A landing such as operation Torch, Avalanche or Overlord is decided in the first three or four days. There isnt a stalemate situation where he could return to the US for replacements. At the end of the first day many objectives had been achieved.

I think a bit of an exaggeration on Capt. Durgin's part but then again he was sitting offshore on the Ranger seeing one side of the battle and probably very concerned that a good portion of his aircraft weren't making it back to the carriers due to non-combat causes.

 

[pbehn]

I think a bit of an exaggeration on Capt. Durgin's part but then again he was sitting offshore on the Ranger seeing one side of the battle and probably very concerned that a good portion of his aircraft weren't making it back to the carriers due to non-combat causes.

Maybe not even an exaggeration it is probably completely true, but that is the nature of a landing operation like a battle in the Napoleonic era, you either win or you lose. Also maybe trying to convey how hard it was for his guys in that first 24 hrs.

 

[BobB]

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


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.


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.

A former B-17 pilot told me that he went through multi-engine school in AT-6's. Apparently, they didn't have enough twin engine trainers so they put guys through training in AT-6's and figure that they could learn on the job as co-pilots. It would be very interesting to see those guys learning on the job in Mosquitos.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A former B-17 pilot told me that he went through multi-engine school in AT-6's. Apparently, they didn't have enough twin engine trainers so they put guys through training in AT-6's and figure that they could learn on the job as co-pilots. It would be very interesting to see those guys learning on the job in Mosquitos.

Looking at that in hindsight is so wrong on many levels. Multi engine training at the primary level was just about non existent during the early stages of the war. As some of our multi-engine pilots on here can attest is the most dangerous thing you're going to learn while training on a twin is engine out procedures, especially during take off. Now jumping from an AT-6 into a B-17 as co-pilot trainee might be do-able but I think real engine out skills will be lost with a four engine aircraft unless you happen to have a double engine failure on the same wing during take off! Compound that with operating a high performance twin with a tail wheel, an accident waiting to happen IMO.

As mentioned on here several times, it took a P-38 driver a few hundred hours to get proficient where he was able to effectively operate in a combat environment. I don't know how the RAF trained it's Mosquito pilots but it would be interesting to compare training accident rates with the Mosquito and P-38 or any other high performance twin of the era.

 

[wuzak]

A former B-17 pilot told me that he went through multi-engine school in AT-6's. Apparently, they didn't have enough twin engine trainers so they put guys through training in AT-6's and figure that they could learn on the job as co-pilots. It would be very interesting to see those guys learning on the job in Mosquitos.

They could always do training in the Mosquito T.III.