wuzak
Captain
I forgot to add "at high altitude".
High altitude was used for defensive purposes. To keep away from flak as much as possible.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
BINGO!!! And I think that point keeps getting glazed over here.
I forgot to add "at high altitude".
High altitude was used for defensive purposes. To keep away from flak as much as possible.
I think Schweik and Nuuumannn are both trying to raise valid points that the other is missing.
If you are bombing say an oil refinery tonnage of bombs on target is definitely a prime consideration. The problem with a 1000 bomber raid using a lead bombardier is that the area plastered is massive and if that lead bombardier is a small distance off in his calculations then few if any bombs reach the target and any nearby towns get obliterated instead. Precision strikes always have lower civilian casualties. And yes Operation Carthage killed more civilians that military but that does not mean that every precision strike will do so.
The Mosquito would not be used as, nor considered a, heavy bomber. It could, however, be a strategic bomber.
In a way the Mosquito was a very important strategic bomber - in its role as a pathfinder it was used to identify and mark strategic targets for other bombers. And there were many attacks on strategic targets by Mosquitoes at night, from early 1944.
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.
That depends on your definition of 'Strategic bombing' per above.
And I've explained to you but you ignored it - what I am actually pointing out is that the notion that "volume of bombs on target" is an erroneous one. Most of the bombs dropped at night or from high altitude were not hitting the targets.
The Mosquito would not be used as, nor considered a, heavy bomber. It could, however, be a strategic bomber.
What is the statistic for volume of bombs on target vs volume of bombs dropped? It was not good.
The definition is not up for debate, you want the Mosquito to replace the B-17, its role was strategic bombing. Let's not cloud the issue.
The value of bombs on the target can be no more guaranteed by the Mosquito than the B-17; your presumption that the Mosquito offered better accuracy as a level bomber is the fallacy here.
I don't think the data bears that outIn terms of the mid 40s definition of accuracy, the most accurate raids were those where sophisticated nav and bombing aids equipping the bombers.
This is another straw man, because I didn't say that civilian casualties were unacceptable. I said the goal of attacking the civilians because you can't hit the factories was a mistake, and fewer civilian casualties is a benign side-benefit of more accurate bombing.My point is that using the Mosquito is not going to guarantee any greater degree of accuracy, nor less collateral damage, nor a lower loss of civilians. I mean, if you are worried about this, don't do bombing. Sure, hypothetically the Mosquito might be able to kill less civilians, but can you guarantee that if you are using the Mosquito to replace the B-17 in your overall aim in achieving victory? Not only that, but how many is too many dead civilians? How few is an acceptable number? Just because 50 are killed instead of 100 using Mosquitoes, is that any better?
The bottom line is that using Mosquitoes is not going to save civilian lives any more than using any other type of bomber in the 1940s, and it will take longer and involve more aeroplanes to do the same job of destroying vital military targets.
B-17s were not used in a vacuum, they were backed up by B-24s and the RAF night bombers, as well as medium bombers, such at Bostons, Mitchells, Marauders etc, so it was a combination of effort and substituting B-17s for Mosquitoes is certainly not going to produce any real measurable difference in results unless you get rid of every medium or heavy/tactical or strategic bomber.
IncorrectThanks for stating the obvious, I might have come to that conclusion some time earlier, but if you are going to replace your B-17s with Mosquitoes, you are wanting the Mosquito to be what the B-17 was, correct?
I don't want a heavy bomber, I want a fast, accurate bomber. In other words, a Mosquito. Or rather, to be more precise, I want much fewer heavy bombers and more Mosquitos. Strategic bombing <> heavy high altitude area bombingSo, what was the B-17? A heavy bomber that does the job of a heavy bomber, strategic or otherwise. This is what the thread is contesting. If you want a heavy bomber, don't replace the one you already have with a Mosquito.
Aaand the point is that it makes some difference between a B-17 and a Mosquito when they are destroying the same target in the strategic bombing role since the B-17 can carry more bombs than a Mosquito, regardless of tonnage required over the target. A factory cannot be destroyed by a low level sweep by FB.VIs like Operation Carthage, and this is where the Mosquito's famed "precision attacks" comes from, not attempting to blast a factory out of existence. To do that, you ideally need big bombers with lots of bombs. This also helps with the fact that you need lots of bombers with lots of bombs because if you are demonstrating poor overall accuracy, the odds of a hit are increased with more bombs dropped by more bombers.
Also don't confuse the later follow up strike with a full strike.
View attachment 649689
Factory in the mid 1930s.
The British squadrons under fire (not all the times) at times over 50 miles away.
Now lets see how well it a Mosquito raid might have gone against Essen, over 60-70 miles further each way than the Phillips factory.
More AA, more FW 190s.
Best description ever. As good as: cockpit access difficult should be made impossible.
Strategic bombing doesn't mean high altitude level bombing or area bombing. You are conflating the two.
I think that low altitude bombing is inherently more accurate than high altitude bombing. I think that is a demonstrable fact. The difference between the Mosquito and the B-17 or Lancaster is that the Mosquito can fly in, low or high, including without escorts, then fly down to drop it's bombs accurately, and fly out again. It doesn't have to lumber by at 30,000 ft and it also doesn't necessarily have to bomb at night.
I said the goal of attacking the civilians because you can't hit the factories was a mistake, and fewer civilian casualties is a benign side-benefit of more accurate bombing.
I think the Mosquito was potentially much more accurate.
Incorrect
Or rather, to be more precise, I want much fewer heavy bombers and more Mosquitos.
I think low level bombing can do it, and is the only way to do it in many cases. Even very costly raids like Ploesti had to be done at low level in order to deal sufficient damage to the target.
Great saying. Was meant for a different thread, but anyhoo!
No, I'm not. As mentioned earlier, the thread wants a substitution of B-17s for Mosquitoes,
so that defines how you are going to use your Mosquitoes if you have them instead of B-17s, surely.
That's it, full stop.
I don't think there would be any discussion if it was about replacing B-17s with Mosquitos to do the job exactly the same way.
That's all you. That is your assumption. When I was in the military they warned us about making assumptions.
How is a Mosquito any more accurate than a Boston, or any other medium bomber?Imagine if instead of 10 Mosquitos and 70 Bostons + Venturas, you just had 80 Mosquitos.
No, I'm not. As mentioned earlier, the thread wants a substitution of B-17s for Mosquitoes, so that defines how you are going to use your Mosquitoes if you have them instead of B-17s, surely.
How is a Mosquito any more accurate than a Boston, or any other medium bomber?
If it were pushed any higher on it's current pedestal, it'll end up with black crosses...
It only defines using Mosquitoes against German industry, not what tactics and bombs they would use.
It only defines using Mosquitoes against German industry, not what tactics and bombs they would use.
Aaand the point is that it makes some difference between a B-17 and a Mosquito when they are destroying the same target in the strategic bombing role since the B-17 can carry more bombs than a Mosquito, regardless of tonnage required over the target. A factory cannot be destroyed by a low level sweep by FB.VIs like Operation Carthage, and this is where the Mosquito's famed "precision attacks" comes from, not attempting to blast a factory out of existence. To do that, you ideally need big bombers with lots of bombs. This also helps with the fact that you need lots of bombers with lots of bombs because if you are demonstrating poor overall accuracy, the odds of a hit are increased with more bombs dropped by more bombers.
No they don't. That's just you.Well, apply a bit of logic and the rest falls into place.
Again, I specifically said don't eliminate the heavy bombers. There is a lot of mileage between building 12,000 B-17s (and all the rest of the heavies) vs. none. I never said none.Again, as mentioned, different mission profiles called for different responses. The B-17 didn't operate in a vacuum and replacing it with Mosquitoes removes the total number of bombers that can carry out particular mission profiles. The strategic bombing campaign wasn't just US four-engined bombers by day from high altitude and RAF four-engined night bombers bombing civilians, there were different operations against different targets at different altitudes and for different reasons. The Lancasters that sank the Tirpitz were still Bomber Command heavy bombers carrying out a strategic mission profile, for example. As I asked earlier, what if you can't carry out your bombing raid at low altitude? What if your mission parameters require a different response to what the Mosquito can provide?
How is a Mosquito any more accurate than a Boston, or any other medium bomber?
If it were pushed any higher on it's current pedestal, it'll end up with black crosses...
I really don't grasp why this is so difficult to understand.