Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If they did get some good multi engine time under their belt (be it a B-17) that should work but I think there should be an easy transition aircraft (Anson?) flown before jumping to a Mosquito.They could always do training in the Mosquito T.III.
If they did get some good multi engine time under their belt (be it a B-17) that should work but I think there should be an easy transition aircraft (Anson?) flown before jumping to a Mosquito.
Yes and then move to operational combat aircraftYes, you are right. The T.III would be conversion training (is that the correct term?).
The Brits, Aussies and Canadians had bucket loads of Ansons and Oxfords for basic twin training, and other purposes.If they did get some good multi engine time under their belt (be it a B-17) that should work but I think there should be an easy transition aircraft (Anson?) flown before jumping to a Mosquito.
I recently discovered that the US got 50 Ansons in reverse lend lease. AT-20The Brits, Aussies and Canadians had bucket loads of Ansons and Oxfords for basic twin training, and other purposes.
There were "Operational training Units" as well as "Conversion Units" specifically involved with the training of Mosquito pilots and the navigators/set operators. I suspect that such training would vary depending on whether these airmen were assigned night fighter duties or Bombing related duties.If they did get some good multi engine time under their belt (be it a B-17) that should work but I think there should be an easy transition aircraft (Anson?) flown before jumping to a Mosquito.
could they perform the raids and have more of an impact on German industry and C3I etc. than the four engined heavies, and could they do it with fewer casualties. I think there is considerable evidence that they could.
Could production of more Mosquitos fewer heavy bombers have been organized? I believe yes but this is still in contention. It breaks down into separate arguments about technology transfer, production of airframes, and production of engines.
Yes. This is one of the better responses I've seen on this thread. Seriously. Lets move on.No, I believe you're incorrect in this….
No, I believe you're incorrect in this. Mosquitoes couldn't do the job any better than the heavies because the aim was volume of bombs on target and the Mosquito could not produce the same volume for a given number of aircraft. It's strengths were not an advantage in the strategic bombing role and it was no more accurate as a strategic bomber than existing bombers except in a low level role, which would have been hazardous over the factories and what not that the heavies were targetting.
It's been explained to you before but you seem to be avoiding it, the secret to the Mossie's success was its speed and versatility in roles outside of being a strategic bomber, not because it was a strategic bomber, where in operations, its advantages are to much of a degree nullified by the operational needs of the bomber stream.
No, it couldn't and again, the Mosquito as a heavy bomber offered little advantage and a few diadvantages over existing types. The Mosquito is not going to kill less people in the strategic bombing role compared to other types.
Again, I disagree. The number of civilian casualties inflicted during precision raids can be far less than those caused by 'area bombing' of a city.If your aim in using the Mosquito is to prevent needless deaths, the only answer is to not do bombing. That's it. No Mossie, No B-17, No Lancaster. No strategic bombing raids. Having more Mosquitoes is not going to change anything, except it's going to take a greater number of aircraft to achieve a given goal of destruction of infrastructure, which is why heavies continued in production despite any advantage Mosquitoes might have offered as strategic bombers.
Operation Carthage was a low level "precision raid".The number of civilian casualties inflicted during precision raids can be far less than those caused by 'area bombing' of a city.
Operation Carthage was a low level "precision raid".
With a force of only 20 Mosquitoes, they managed to kill 55 German soldiers, 47 Gestapo employees (Danish nationals) and 155 civilians, which included 86 school children.
So please explain how precision bombing by Mosquitoes would have reduced colatoral damage.
Operation Carthage was a low level "precision raid".
With a force of only 20 Mosquitoes, they managed to kill 55 German soldiers, 47 Gestapo employees (Danish nationals) and 155 civilians, which included 86 school children.
So please explain how precision bombing by Mosquitoes would have reduced colatoral damage.
I don't think that is a really fair comparison, for a number of obvious reasons - That specific raid was considered one of the biggest blunders out of all of those Mossie raids, in terms of civilian casualties, and it was partly because targets like Gestapo HQ were typically located right in the middle of the most densely populated parts of town. Factories (if you can find them or hit them) are typically in industrial parts of town.
And yes Operation Carthage killed more civilians that military but that does not mean that every precision strike will do so.
No, it couldn't and again, the Mosquito as a heavy bomber offered little advantage and a few diadvantages over existing types. The Mosquito is not going to kill less people in the strategic bombing role compared to other types. If your aim in using the Mosquito is to prevent needless deaths, the only answer is to not do bombing. That's it. No Mossie, No B-17, No Lancaster. No strategic bombing raids. Having more Mosquitoes is not going to change anything, except it's going to take a greater number of aircraft to achieve a given goal of destruction of infrastructure, which is why heavies continued in production despite any advantage Mosquitoes might have offered as strategic bombers.
I've heard this mentioned by several people, I think it's a matter of the unit the individual may be assigned to after their RAF or RCAF tour, I hate to say it but perhaps a bit of jealously was there as well. At the same time you had folks like Gentile and Blakeslee who legends before entering AAF service.Those Americans on this forum might be interested to,learn that there numerous American airmen who served with RCAF and RAF units during the war. Many, at some point we're either "claimed" by the USAAF or transferred over to the USAAF in part to get a substantial pay raise. They continued to serve with RCAF and RAF units until they completed their required service and then later transferred to US units. One particular individual, whose identity I will keep to myself for now, confided with me that he was very unhappy with his time with the USAAF as his service with the RCAF units were not recognized in any way, either by his comrades or by his country after the war. Sadly he died before I could explore this with him in more detail.
BINGO!!! And I think that point keeps getting glazed over here.Strategic bomber does not necessarily require a "heavy bomber".
Heavy bombers were required because of technical limitations in hitting targets, which meant that a lot of bombs had to be dropped.
No, I believe you're incorrect in this. Mosquitoes couldn't do the job any better than the heavies because the aim was volume of bombs on target and the Mosquito could not produce the same volume for a given number of aircraft. It's strengths were not an advantage in the strategic bombing role and it was no more accurate as a strategic bomber than existing bombers except in a low level role, which would have been hazardous over the factories and what not that the heavies were targetting..
It's been explained to you before but you seem to be avoiding it, the secret to the Mossie's success was its speed and versatility in roles outside of being a strategic bomber, not because it was a strategic bomber, where in operations, its advantages are to much of a degree nullified by the operational needs of the bomber stream.