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

[Schweik]

I do understand what you are trying to get across, Schweik, it's just that I don't agree that building Mosquitoes instead of B-17s is the best way of doing it. There is no guarantee that the reasons you state the Mosquito was better than the B-17 actually could produce equal results. If that isn't the case, then why get rid of the B-17?

For the maybe 20th time, I didn't say get rid of, but I would say 'build far fewer' B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, and Hallifaxes.

Not every mission profile can be flown at high speed and low altitude. Sure, build more Mosquitoes, but don't replace your heavy bombers with them. Give those Mosquitoes to Commands that need them. If you want better heavy bombers that are more accurate and to avoid collateral damage, change the design of heavy bomber. Get rid of gun turrets, give them more powerful engines to carry greater loads across greater distances at greater speeds, and have some really big bombers to carry those really big bombs that you often might need for difficult to destroy targets like bunkers and viaducts and give them accurate navigation and bombing aids etc.

Wait...

I don't think level bombing at high altitude was a good idea. I don't think area bombing was a good idea. They thought it was possible pre-war, but postwar analysis tells us that they really weren't accurate bombing that way, even with the Norden bomb sight, even with radar. Prior to precision munitions, the most accurate bombing was dive bombing, second most accurate was 'shallow angle' dive bombing like done by fighter bombers (and mosquitos) or very low altitude skip or mast-top bombing like done by the 5th AF in the Pacific (and by other units using the same planes, in the Med to some extent).

The Mosquito could survive a sortie to fly down and bomb accurately and then fly away again, in spite of enemy defenses. Like at Aarhus.

You keep bringing up things I didn't say, and then slapping those dusty straw men down, over and over. But you aren't actually refuting what I said.

 

[wuzak]

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.

Other than high altitude bombing in formation, what mission profiles did the B-17 perform?

I know they did a few low level tactical missions in support of ground forces in Normandy, bombing German positions, and US positions as it turned out (the USAAF warned to army about creep back).

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 discussion about whether the Mosquito could do the job of the B-17 is about the day side of the strategic bombing campaign.

A lot of other operations were tactical missions and/or diversionary.

On the Regensburg/Schweinfurt raid there were diversionary raids by USAAF B-26s against airfields in France and The Netherlands, and RAF Mitchells against railroad marshalling yards.

These would not be affected by using Mosquitoes as strategic bombers. And would need to continue.

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?

You could use the Mosquito for low, medium and high altitude missions. Obviously the higher you go the worse the accuracy becomes.

The Lancasters that sank the Tirpitz were still Bomber Command heavy bombers carrying out a strategic mission profile, for example.

Wouldn't the attack on the Tirpitz be defined as tactical?

Yes to building more Mosquitoes, no to building them in place of building B-17s.

I thought it was agreed that the Mosquito could not totally replace the B-17. Not because of bomb loads, but because of range.

 

[wuzak]

As an aside, I cam across this mission report:

12 x 1,000lb. Is that a mistake?

My understanding is the maximum was 8 x 1,000lb inside the bomb bay. Could they have been using the external racks to carry 2 x 1,000lb under each wing?

 

[SaparotRob]

The thread asks what if America built Mosquitos instead of B-17s. For whatever reason, there's Mossies instead of Fortresses. What would be different? Since there aren't B-17s, would Mosquitos have succeeded? Since the 299 went nowhere, does the US need a heavy bomber? Did the US continue with heavy bomber development if the Mosquito succeeded brilliantly/failed miserably? That's how I read the thread. It didn't ask, good idea/bad idea?
(Bad idea)

 

[nuuumannn]

I didn't say get rid of, but I would say 'build far fewer' B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, and Hallifaxes.

Again, see above, what if you need more of them to achieve a given result?

You keep bringing up things I didn't say, and then slapping them dusty straw men down, over and over. But you aren't actually refuting what I said.

No, I am disagreeing with you. It's simple. You are still using your heavy bombers to fly heavy bomber mission profiles, with their incumbent lack of accuracy, high civilian casualty rates, large crew numbers...

I don't agree that the Mosquito could compensate for the lack of heavy bombers because, you obviously want to keep the heavy bombers around, so that means you still need them to do what they were designed to do.

Yes, Mosquitoes can fly low level raids at high speed, but reducing the number of heavy bombers to get Mosquitoes to fly those ops at low altitude won't necessarily achieve what you are saying it will in terms of collateral damage, death toll of civilians etc, especially if you still have heavy bombers in use. You aren't really dealing with the issue by substituting Mosquitoes for 'some' heavy bombers because you still have heavy bombers doing exactly what it is you want to avoid them doing.

Which then begs the question I asked before, how many inadvertent civilian deaths is 'acceptable'?

And again, the issue then becomes what are you trying to achieve overall, and can a bigger number of Mosquitoes and a smaller number of four-engined heavies do it?

 

[wuzak]

Not every mission profile can be flown at high speed and low altitude.

Apart from missions using deep penetration bombs, what missions could not be flown at lower altitudes?

The only ones I can think of involve the deep penetration bombs. And only the Lancaster in the ETO could carry them.

The main reason for the USAAF bombing from high altitude was defensive. Make it harder to intercept by fighters and harder to hit with flak. Not that either of those worked out too well.

Not every mission profile can be flown at high speed and low altitude. Sure, build more Mosquitoes, but don't replace your heavy bombers with them. Give those Mosquitoes to Commands that need them.

Wouldn't more B-17s and B-24s be handy to close the mid-Atlantic gap in the fight against U-Boats?

If you want better heavy bombers that are more accurate and to avoid collateral damage, change the design of heavy bomber. Get rid of gun turrets, give them more powerful engines to carry greater loads across greater distances at greater speeds, and have some really big bombers to carry those really big bombs that you often might need for difficult to destroy targets like bunkers and viaducts and give them accurate navigation and bombing aids etc.

In other words, a bigger, more capable Mosquito?

 

[nuuumannn]

Other than high altitude bombing in formation, what mission profiles did the B-17 perform?

I know they did a few low level tactical missions in support of ground forces in Normandy, bombing German positions, and US positions as it turned out (the USAAF warned to army about creep back).

You've just answered your own question. Perhaps the type of target determines whether or not a high altitude or low altitude mission profile is required.

The discussion about whether the Mosquito could do the job of the B-17 is about the day side of the strategic bombing campaign.

Yes, but can it produce the same results with less collateral damage, fewer civilian casualties and more accurately is the big question.

You could use the Mosquito for low, medium and high altitude missions. Obviously the higher you go the worse the accuracy becomes.

Yes, so why replace B-17s with Mosquitoes again if you can't put as many bombs on a given target with Mosquitoes compared to B-17s, because, that is the objective to using heavy bombers, isn't it?

Wouldn't the attack on the Tirpitz be defined as tactical?

Strategic is about a long term holistic aim, the destruction of infrastructure to prevent an enemy from deploying weaponry. The Tirpitz was the equivalent of a "Fleet-in-Being" and it provided a latent threat to Allied shipping. Destroying it was done with a strategic intent, to prevent future casualties to that shipping, as much as destroying it was a tactical imperative to aid the RN in defending those convoys.

I thought it was agreed that the Mosquito could not totally replace the B-17. Not because of bomb loads, but because of range.

Yep, again, mission profiles. As per what I've mentioned above.

 

[Schweik]

The thread asks what if America built Mosquitos instead of B-17s. For whatever reason, there's Mossies instead of Fortresses. What would be different? Since there aren't B-17s, would Mosquitos have succeeded? Since the 299 went nowhere, does the US need a heavy bomber? Did the US continue with heavy bomber development if the Mosquito succeeded brilliantly/failed miserably? That's how I read the thread. It didn't ask, good idea/bad idea?
(Bad idea)

Maybe in this scenario it's not that it went "nowhere", rather some of the right people just realized it shouldn't have been the main effort.

 

[Schweik]

Apart from missions using deep penetration bombs, what missions could not be flown at lower altitudes?

Exactly.

The only ones I can think of involve the deep penetration bombs. And only the Lancaster in the ETO could carry them.

And I think those missions would typically be rare. But like dam buster kind of stuff.

The main reason for the USAAF bombing from high altitude was defensive. Make it harder to intercept by fighters and harder to hit with flak. Not that either of those worked out too well.

Meanwhile Mosquito can fly in low or high, bomb low (as in the mission report posted earlier, dive bomb from 7,000 to 1,000 feet, then fly out at high speed.

Wouldn't more B-17s and B-24s be handy to close the mid-Atlantic gap in the fight against U-Boats?

That is basically what I was thinking. Both B-17 and B-24 made good coastal patrol planes. And there were occasionally missions like flattening Axis airbases in Tunisia. And some super hardened targets that needed the heavy bombs.

In other words, a bigger, more capable Mosquito?

I don't think a bigger Mosquito would have been more capable, because it wouldn't have been as fast or versatile and would have been a bigger target.

What that sounds like really is a B-29, and I don't think that is what was needed.

 

[nuuumannn]

The main reason for the USAAF bombing from high altitude was defensive. Make it harder to intercept by fighters and harder to hit with flak. Not that either of those worked out too well.

It depends on what you consider acceptable loss rates as to how well you consider your bombing operation to have gone. As you know, there were tolerances between acceptable and unacceptable.

The role of heavy bombers is to put lots of bombers carrying lots of bombs over a given target and to saturate the target. What height it's done at depends of course and as we all know accuracy diminishes with height, so that's why you need lots of bombers with lots of bombs, to compensate for predicted misses while providing defence against enemy anti-air assets. At low altitude accuracy improves, but so does the accuracy of enemy anti-air defences; even Mosquitoes are not immune to interception and flak at low altitude.

What I'm stating is that there is no guarantee that if Mosquitoes were used in the same way as heavy bombers were that they'd be any more accurate and there'd need to be more of them to deliver an equivalent load to an equivalent number of bombers, and conversely that if they were used differently, i.e. doing the same mission profile at low altitude and high speed that they could achieve the same results, when that means you need to fly more operations, increasing the probability of greater loss rates to enemy air defences to guarantee a given number of bombs over the target area.

Wouldn't more B-17s and B-24s be handy to close the mid-Atlantic gap in the fight against U-Boats?

Then build them for that purpose. It does depend on what you consider a greater threat to your survival as to how you deploy your assets.

In other words, a bigger, more capable Mosquito?

Possibly... They tried that and found that the performance advance a bigger Mosquito offered was minimal compared to Mosquitoes with two-speed, two-stage engines.

This again then raises the questions I put forward earlier, by the time a new type is put into production, will it still be relevant, especially with the jet engine being employed in operational combat aircraft from 1943/1944? Teddy Petter was working on his A1 bomber while he was still with Westland at that time, which translated to the Canberra post-war.

 

[Schweik]

Here is another way to look at it. The Mosquito is much more versatile than four-engined heavies.

They can come in a less predictable route, which means it's harder to concentrate flak guns and interceptors along those routes.

They can attack almost any target or any kind of target. They can fly the whole way low or fly in high and drop down low for their strike and fly out again (either low or high). They can fly day time or at night (and night time mosquito bomber or intruder raids could be escorted by mosquito night fighters). They could fly out in the middle of the night, strike in the daylight at dawn, and then fly out.

All this flexibility means to me that it's harder for the Germans to adapt.

And if strikes are more accurate, there can be fewer of them.

Given the near 50% casualty rate for bomber command, and the very high rate of casualties for un-escorted USAAF raids (and fairly high loss rate even when escorted), the bar is pretty low. I think the Mosquito could do better.

And at some point, daylight Mosquito raids would have been escorted by Mustangs.

The wildcard is how would the Germans have adjusted, and we know they would have done. It would have changed the whole course of the Air War. And it could have gone badly, if the Anglo-Americans started shifting production to more Mosquitos (and similar planes), it could be a gamble that didn't pay off. But I suspect it would have gone better than what we had, on several different levels. The B-17, as Wuzak noted, is almost a one trick pony. It can do maritime recon etc., but as a Strategic bomber, it only has one option - high and slow. If you have thousands more fast strike aircraft, they can do a lot of different kinds of things.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Mosquito is much more versatile than four-engined heavies.

The Mosquito airframe was much more versatile than four-engined heavies. The Mosquito bomber was not. It could not carry as large a load over as great a distance.

They come in a less predictable route, which means it's harder to concentrate flak guns and interceptors along those routes.

They can attack almost any target or any kind of target. They can fly the whole way low or fly in high and drop down low for their strike and fly out again (either low or high). They can fly day time or at night (and night time mosquito bomber or intruder raids could be escorted by mosquito night fighters)

All this flexibility means to me that it's harder for the Germans to adapt.

And if strikes are more accurate, there can be fewer of them.

This is all hypothetical, of course. Mosquitoes could be and were tracked by enemy radar. Let's remember that they weren't invulnerable to interception or flak. They can't attack any kind of target. A Mosquito's bomb bay wasn't big enough to carry all types of bombs the Allies fielded.

The Germans had jet interceptors sooner than everyone else. The Germans certainly thought ahead well enough and their response to future threats was not slow.

Again, there's no guarantee that Mosquito air strikes in the fashion you're describing, given these things above would have been more accurate.

 

[Schweik]

They definitely would be more accurate. We don't know if they would be sustainable due to casualties etc. But it seems very likely there would be fewer than what we actually had with the heavy bombers.

Whatever arms race took place would likely have also spurred faster production of jets by the allies as well.

 

[nuuumannn]

They definitely would be more accurate.

How can you guarantee that? Again, even during precision raids like Carthage Mosquitoes missed the targets. School kids were killed during Carthage.

 

[nuuumannn]

But it seems very likely there would be fewer than what we actually had with the heavy bombers.

Again, hypothetical. There's no guarantee of that and it does depend on the enemy's response, which can be predicted to a degree depending on the target.

I think Dave's right, you've got it in your head, Schweik, that the Mosquito was invulnerable to interception and totally accurate, which simply was not the case.

 

[GrauGeist]

As much as it may disappoint some, the Germans weren't all that stupid (except for letting an idiotic Austrian take charge AND starting a big-ass war, but I digress) and would have quickly adapted to the "low level, precision" tactics.
To counter the A-36 in Italy, they strung cables across valleys.

Their AA system evolved into killing zones in response to the day/night bombing and it's a bit naive to assume they wouldn't adapt to this new Mosquito tactic.
Later in the war, they used Me262s as interceptors to Mosquitos - that is a direct adaptation.

The Mosquito was an amazing machine, but it is not infallible and would not be able to deliver the crippling blows that the Allied heavy bombers managed.

WWII was the last "total war" in human history, we cannot try and claim "this or that" would have saved civilians or changed one or more aspects. It was total war, and the objective was to incapacitate the enemy by any means possible as quickly as possible.
The Allied heavy bombers achieved that in a modern version of General Sherman's "scorched earth policy".

 

[Schweik]

How can you guarantee that? Again, even during precision raids like Carthage Mosquitoes missed the targets. School kids were killed during Carthage.

They didn't have to go back, unlike a whole lot of those heavy bomber raids that went back over and over and over again.

And there is always the Aarhus raid to look at.

But you don't figure these things from looking at a handful of raids. If you examine the overall wartime record of strikes by Mosquitos (and any other low altitude bomber or fighter-bomber) and strikes by the heavy bombers, the low altitude strikes are more accurate.

Lets ask an expert:

At low altitude accuracy improves,

Agreed!

 

[Schweik]

As much as it may disappoint some, the Germans weren't all that stupid (except for letting an idiotic Austrian take charge AND starting a big-ass war, but I digress) and would have quickly adapted to the "low level, precision" tactics.
To counter the A-36 in Italy, they strung cables across valleys.

Their AA system evolved into killing zones in response to the day/night bombing and it's a bit naive to assume they wouldn't adapt to this new Mosquito tactic.
Later in the war, they used Me262s as interceptors to Mosquitos - that is a direct adaptation.

Those are all fair points, and as I already acknowledged probably ten times by now, yes I agree the Germans would have adapted. But I think inherently, huge, loud streams of four engined bombers lumbering along at 150 mph, which by their nature had to fly together in huge formations for mutual protection, are a bit easier to adapt too than multiple fast strikes coming from god knows where at 375 mph.

How many Mosquitos did they get with Me 262s?

And while we know the Germans weren't stupid at least on a tactical level, there is certainly no guarantee that they could out innovate and out produce the Americans and British. In the event, they had the heavy bombers wrecking their cities and killing their families, they could have adapted the Me 262s to stop that, but they didn't did they?

The Mosquito was an amazing machine, but it is not infallible and would not be able to deliver the crippling blows that the Allied heavy bombers managed.

WWII was the last "total war" in human history, we cannot try and claim "this or that" would have saved civilians or changed one or more aspects. It was total war, and the objective was to incapacitate the enemy by any means possible as quickly as possible.
The Allied heavy bombers achieved that in a modern version of General Sherman's "scorched earth policy".

Because something happened one way doesn't mean that it was inevitable or that it was the best course of action.

I've pointed out already a couple of times, 'scorched earth' in and of itself is not a guarantee of victory. See the Korean War. See many other wars going back to antiquity.

 

[nuuumannn]

But you don't figure these things from looking at a handful of raids. If you examine the overall wartime record of strikes by Mosquitos (and any other low altitude bomber or fighter-bomber) and strikes by the heavy bombers, the low altitude strikes are more accurate.

But not as strategic bombing raids! These were fighter bombers flown by Fighter Command squadrons flying specialised low altitude operations where the crews received intensive training. Not even the same command! Their operational profiles can't be compared to bomber Mosquitoes operated by Bomber Command! As I mentioned earlier, you are getting your Mosquito variants mixed up.

Lets ask an expert:

Why thank you, but at the very least, if you are going to quote me, do the decent thing and use the full quote, rather than selectively quote to prove your point, which changes the context of what's being stated.

"At low altitude accuracy improves, but so does the accuracy of enemy anti-air defences; even Mosquitoes are not immune to interception and flak at low altitude."

 

[Schweik]

But not as strategic bombing raids! These were fighter bombers flown by Fighter Command squadrons! Not even the same command! They can't be compared to bomber Mosquitoes! As I mentioed earlier, you are getting your Mosquito variants mixed up.

I would consider the Eindoven raid a Strategic raid.

Why thank you, but at the very least, if you are going to quote me, do the decent thing and use the full quote, rather than selectively quote to prove your point, which changes the context of what's being stated.

"At low altitude accuracy improves, but so does the accuracy of enemy anti-air defences; even Mosquitoes are not immune to interception and flak at low altitude."

The point is, the accuracy improves. Evading defenses is a separate issue, but it's one the Mosquito excelled at. Compare the loss rate for Mosquitos to Lancasters.