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

[GrauGeist]

From what I've read, the Mosquito and the B-17 had comparable bomb loads for missions to Berlin.

Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius, so it had to fly direct routes which would be fine for the occasional raid, but if it became a regularity, it would have been predicted and interdicted eventually. More often, the Mosquito carried a load in the 3,000+ pound range for those deep missions.
We need to also keep in mind that for ling range missions, the B-17 carried about 4,000 pounds BUT (and here's the Mossie theory killer) for shorter range missions, the B-17 carried twice that and could carry over 17,000 pounds at max. (using both internal and external racks), something the Mosquito could not do.

So let's say we send 100 B-17s into France on a mission with a load of 8,000 pounds each - to do this with the Mosquito, we're going to need 200 Mossies at their max. loading, where the B-17 is hitting it's stride.
Or we send 100 Lancasters into Belgium on a raid, each loaded with 12,000 pounds of bombs - this would take 300 Mosquitos at their max. to accomplish the same task that the Lancs are doing without breaking a sweat.

And I find it funny that many folks argue that the U.S. deliberately did not use the Mosquito instead of the B-17/B-24 (for various reasons) but *IF* the Mossie was such an obvious solution to strategic bombing, I'm fairly sure the British would have jumped at the chance first...

 

[buffnut453]

Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius, so it had to fly direct routes which would be fine for the occasional raid, but if it became a regularity, it would have been predicted and interdicted eventually. More often, the Mosquito carried a load in the 3,000+ pound range for those deep missions.
We need to also keep in mind that for ling range missions, the B-17 carried about 4,000 pounds BUT (and here's the Mossie theory killer) for shorter range missions, the B-17 carried twice that and could carry over 17,000 pounds at max. (using both internal and external racks), something the Mosquito could not do.

So let's say we send 100 B-17s into France on a mission with a load of 8,000 pounds each - to do this with the Mosquito, we're going to need 200 Mossies at their max. loading, where the B-17 is hitting it's stride.
Or we send 100 Lancasters into Belgium on a raid, each loaded with 12,000 pounds of bombs - this would take 300 Mosquitos at their max. to accomplish the same task that the Lancs are doing without breaking a sweat.

And I find it funny that many folks argue that the U.S. deliberately did not use the Mosquito instead of the B-17/B-24 (for various reasons) but *IF* the Mossie was such an obvious solution to strategic bombing, I'm fairly sure the British would have jumped at the chance first...

You stated that the Mosquito had to reduce its bomb load for deep penetration missions like Berlin but the load, for that target, was comparable to, but probably slightly less than, a B-17. You're now moving the goalposts to consider shorter-range targets. However, it's not the weight of bombs carried that mattered. Rather it's the weight of bombs that actually hit the target. In that regard, I believe you could achieve similar degrees of damage with far fewer Mosquitoes than the numbers you identify by dint of being able to achieve greater accuracy (e.g. Amiens Prison, interrupting Goering's speech in Berlin, and many other precision targets that were attacked both by day and night by Mosquitos)...unless you're going to force the Mossie to operate just like a B-17 which would be crass in the extreme.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This was my post from the older thread on this subject several years ago;

"IMO if you used the Mosquito as a precision bomber (and say it carried a Mark XIV, Norton or Sperry type bomb sight), you've just placed yourself at speeds where you still could be easily intercepted or blasted out of the sky by flack until you delivered your bombs, and even then the chances of interception are great. I could agree with a pathfinder role (like was done with the P-38) but I think to use the Mosquito in a strategic role would have been disastrous and it would have squandered some of the best attributes of this aircraft."

IIRC the maximum speed at which the Mosquito can open it's bomb bay was a little over 300 mph. I don't think you're going to be very accurate dropping bombs with the optical bombsights of the day at those speeds.

 

[buffnut453]

This was my post from the older thread on this subject several years ago;

"IMO if you used the Mosquito as a precision bomber (and say it carried a Mark XIV, Norton or Sperry type bomb sight), you've just placed yourself at speeds where you still could be easily intercepted or blasted out of the sky by flack until you delivered your bombs, and even then the chances of interception are great. I could agree with a pathfinder role (like was done with the P-38) but I think to use the Mosquito in a strategic role would have been disastrous and it would have squandered some of the best attributes of this aircraft."

IIRC the maximum speed at which the Mosquito can open it's bomb bay was a little over 300 mph. I don't think you're going to be very accurate dropping bombs with the optical bombsights of the day at those speeds.

Accuracy will largely depend on the release altitude. Going in at low altitude will increase accuracy and likely reduce detection range for the defences. However, it also reduces range and imposes a limit on the number of aircraft you can get over the target in a given timeframe.

No free lunch in any of this.

 

[GrauGeist]

You stated that the Mosquito had to reduce its bomb load for deep penetration missions like Berlin

No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.

However, it's not the weight of bombs carried that mattered. Rather it's the weight of bombs that actually hit the target.

Now you know better than that.

The weight of the bomb load directly influenced range.

In that regard, I believe you could achieve similar degrees of damage with far fewer Mosquitoes than the numbers you identify by dint of being able to achieve greater accuracy (e.g. Amiens Prison, interrupting Goering's speech in Berlin, and many other precision targets that were attacked both by day and night by Mosquitos)...unless you're going to force the Mossie to operate just like a B-17 which would be crass in the extreme.

Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?

Big difference between Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing.

 

[wuzak]

This was my post from the older thread on this subject several years ago;

"IMO if you used the Mosquito as a precision bomber (and say it carried a Mark XIV, Norton or Sperry type bomb sight), you've just placed yourself at speeds where you still could be easily intercepted or blasted out of the sky by flack until you delivered your bombs, and even then the chances of interception are great. I could agree with a pathfinder role (like was done with the P-38) but I think to use the Mosquito in a strategic role would have been disastrous and it would have squandered some of the best attributes of this aircraft."

The different sights required different approaches. The Mk XIV did not need as long and straight a run up to target as did the Norden.

I believe we discussed in the past that the Mosquito was found to not have sufficient stability to use the Norden.

IIRC the maximum speed at which the Mosquito can open it's bomb bay was a little over 300 mph. I don't think you're going to be very accurate dropping bombs with the optical bombsights of the day at those speeds.

IIRC the ~300mph for opening the bomb bay was indicated air speed.

Certainly the older Course Setting Bomb Sight (CSBS) that the Mosquito was originally fitted with could not be used at Mosquito speeds without a few fudge factors applied.

I believe that they later used MK.IV bomb sights.

At low level they did not use sights in the nose, but rather a simple sight for the pilot.

 

[wuzak]

No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.

It is probable that the Mosquito could carry the 4,000lb bomb farther than it could 6 x 500lb bombs.

The reason is simple - a Mosquito carrying a 3,000lb bomb load is not carrying external fuel.

A Mk.IX or Mk.XVI could comfortably carry the 4,000lb bomb and an extra 100 UKG of fuel (2 x 50UKG).

For the Mk.IV the bomb load for a long mission was usually 2,000lb, since many did not have the universal wing that accepted extra bombs or drop tanks, and they were thought unsuitable to carry the 4,000lb bombs because of the CoG being too far aft.

Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?

A single hit from a 4,000lb HC bomb is likely to cause more damage to a factory than several 1,000lb bombs or 2 or 3 2,000lb bombs.

Of course the required accuracy for one bomb is difficult at high altitudes, or even medium altitudes.

At low altitudes the 4,000lb HC could not be used as it would break apart - but the 4,000lb MC bomb, which could also be carried by the Mosquito, was suitable for low level attacks. This would still do 4 or 5 times the damage of a 1,000lb GP (US)/MC bomb, or a couple of 2,000lb GP bombs.

 

[Donald Johnson]

You stated that the Mosquito had to reduce its bomb load for deep penetration missions like Berlin but the load, for that target, was comparable to, but probably slightly less than, a B-17. You're now moving the goalposts to consider shorter-range targets. However, it's not the weight of bombs carried that mattered. Rather it's the weight of bombs that actually hit the target. In that regard, I believe you could achieve similar degrees of damage with far fewer Mosquitoes than the numbers you identify by dint of being able to achieve greater accuracy (e.g. Amiens Prison, interrupting Goering's speech in Berlin, and many other precision targets that were attacked both by day and night by Mosquitos)...unless you're going to force the Mossie to operate just like a B-17 which would be crass in the extreme.

The most important issue regarding this is that pinpointing targets rather than saturation bombing resulted in far few civilian casualties. Aircrew shot down over Germany were occasionally lynched because of the civilian carnage they inflicted.

(I recently read that 800 suffered this fate although Barry Marshall claims that is a wildly inflated number, that those documented to be killed thusly was far less than 100)

 

[Donald Johnson]

No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.


Now you know better than that.

The weight of the bomb load directly influenced range.


Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?

Big difference between Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing.

Strategic bombing is morally indefensible when it targets civilian population centers rather than military targets. It was well acknowledged that bombing London didn't "break" the resolve of the British people. Is there any evidence to suggest bombing Berlin did? It's my understanding that Mosquitoes were indeed sent over Berlin at night with the 4,000 pounder on a more or less regular basis to simply drop it somewhere, then run.

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Donald,

I recommend that you continue your research into Chipman's history - it will make a great story.

I don't think you're on the right track with your arguments about pinpoint bombing with Mosquitos. If you want extreme accuracy, you need to fly during the day - but history proved that the Mosquito failed in the daylight bombing mission. One of the reasons for that failure was intense, low-altitude German Flak, which you claim was ineffective. The US examined the Mosquito thoroughly in all its roles. They knew it had failed as a bomber, but they wanted it as a PR platform and (at times) as a nightfighter. They didn't need many of these, and elected to buy them from Britain and Canada rather than waste manufacturing time on a handful of aircraft.

It's going to be hard to justify your arguments about the morality of strategic bombing while writing a book about a man whose job was the support of strategic bombing missions.

Cheers,


Dana

 

[Shortround6]

From what I've read, the Mosquito and the B-17 had comparable bomb loads for missions to Berlin.

I think this is the greatest myths thread.
Forget about all the details of speed and accuracy, etc.

Even if the Mosquito carried 4000lb to Berlin on the majority of it's raids there (it didn't) the B-17s were carrying 5000lbs on a regular basis. This is for HE bombs. Either 5 1000lb bombs or ten 500lb bombs. The grain of truth to the myth comes in because the B-17s that were carrying incendiary loads were carrying just over 3000lb of incendiary bombs. The US often used a 165lb incendiary bomb and not the bundles of 4lb "sticks" the British used. The B-17s bomb bay/rack system limited the number of the 165lb incendiary bombs.

B-17s AVERAGED 4,000lb to Berlin depending on bomb type/load.

Late in the war the 303 bomb group records show that the B-17s were sometimes carrying 6000lbs to Berlin.
Better weather? shorter routes? carrying fewer crew and less .50cal ammo?
I don't know but it was done.

The start of the story was when a US general made a comment to a female war correspondent while watching planes either leave or return from a mission.

Not a briefing or from mission records.

 

[yulzari]

All this is doubtless very interesting and the USA had quite enough non aviation woodworking companies and skilled enough staff to sub contract Mosquito production but the balsa wood was simply not available in quantity for this extra production above and beyond UK production.

A USA 'Mosquito' would be a metal equivalent.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Accuracy will largely depend on the release altitude. Going in at low altitude will increase accuracy and likely reduce detection range for the defences. However, it also reduces range and imposes a limit on the number of aircraft you can get over the target in a given timeframe.

No free lunch in any of this.

Agree - my point about speed is wasting one of the best assets of the Mosquito while hovering high above a target while getting shot at from below or having marauding fighters pick off the rear portion of the formation.

 

[buffnut453]

No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.


Now you know better than that.

The weight of the bomb load directly influenced range.


Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?

Big difference between Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing.

You're entirely missing my point. Yes, bomb load directly impacts range when comparing individual aircraft. However, when comparing delivery of effects, it's the number of bombs on target that counts.

For a typical USAAF B-17 BG, what percentage of bombs carried actually hit the DMPI? 20%? 15%? 10%? I'm sure the USSBS has some figures we could apply. Bearing in mind the amount of sky occupied by the box formations, the concept of the formation dropping when they see the lead plane release its bombs, and prevalent weather conditions over Germany, the actual number of bombs that removed a factory from the face of the earth was probably a small proportion of the total number carried.

If we can get that same quantity of destructive bombs onto the target using a faster, more accurate (and more survivable) platform, then you're still delivering strategic effects...you're just being more efficient about it. For comparison, let's say a B-17 carries 6,000lbs of bombs to a target. For a typical BG, that's 36x 6,000 = 216,000lbs of bombs carried. Now, let's assume 20% of those bombs actually hit the DMPI (I think that's a VERY generous number)...that gives us 43,200lbs of bombs actually doing the destruction. The remaining 80% are not hitting the target and hence not doing anything regarding the objective. If Mosquitos carrying 4,000lb of bombs attacked that target at low-level (which greatly increased the chances of the bombs hitting the target), you'd only need 12 airframes to deliver the same effect.

Even if we add 50% to the Mosquito force to account for losses and some bombs not hitting the target, you could still hit twice as many targets with 36 Mosquitos than was the case with 36 B-17s. That doubling of targets will, itself, cause the German defences more problems.

Now, I fully accept that the German defences wouldn't sit idly by and let the Mosquitos continue uninterrupted. I also fully accept that this is entirely hypothetical and that, given the build-up to WW2, there's no way the USAAF would ascribe to the tactics described above. However, the simple fact of the matter is that strategic bombing is about delivering strategic effects and that could be achieved differently than using large formations of B-17s (and B-24s) going over a target in formation.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Strategic bombing is morally indefensible when it targets civilian population centers rather than military targets.

It's only "morally indefensible" by today's standards and if you were on the losing side of the war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the simple fact of the matter is that strategic bombing is about delivering strategic effects and that could be achieved differently than using large formations of B-17s (and B-24s) going over a target in formation.

For the technology of the day - 100%

 

[Donald Johnson]

Hi Donald,

I recommend that you continue your research into Chipman's history - it will make a great story.

I don't think you're on the right track with your arguments about pinpoint bombing with Mosquitos. If you want extreme accuracy, you need to fly during the day - but history proved that the Mosquito failed in the daylight bombing mission. One of the reasons for that failure was intense, low-altitude German Flak, which you claim was ineffective. The US examined the Mosquito thoroughly in all its roles. They knew it had failed as a bomber, but they wanted it as a PR platform and (at times) as a nightfighter. They didn't need many of these, and elected to buy them from Britain and Canada rather than waste manufacturing time on a handful of aircraft.

It's going to be hard to justify your arguments about the morality of strategic bombing while writing a book about a man whose job was the support of strategic bombing missions.

Cheers,


Dana

Generating controversy is a selling point of any book. I only need to develop a plausible, not necessarily winning argument.

The intriguing part of this is that Chippy did hang with Elliott Roosevelt, an avowed Mosquito supporter. The American adoption of these appears to have been a wasted effort.

Imagining the heated discussions these two may have had, (perhaps in total agreement, but against others) has been hitherto unexplored. This is the guy who started the CIA, after all. I'm lacking confirmation, though, but I do have a string of highly amusing anecdotes.

 

[Crimea_River]

Generating controversy is a selling point of any book. I only need to develop a plausible, not necessarily winning argument......

Thanks for that. I won't be buying it.

 

[Donald Johnson]

Thanks for that. I won't be buying it.

You need not, but I thank you for your input.

My intent here is to present history in a palatable form to those far less informed than most on here. You have slammed the door on every point that I've made, yet as I read through the responses of others (this has been argued before), I see that it has not been resolved.

As a retired teacher, I do not think it is always productive to take an absolutist view of an historical point, rather to mention the multiplicity of factors that may have been involved. History should be presented in school, not preached. Valid points must be acknowledged, not destroyed summarily. By presenting history as a series of choices based on information then available, I hope to generate more interest than the current textbooks which too often present it as irrefutable facts, dry and propagandized.

 

[special ed]

Ah. Revisionist history. That will work.