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

[Schweik]

On the other hand, a big formation of heavy bombers means the German day fighters will be drawn to that force; either that, or they let that force smack whatever its target was for that day. Those big formations of heavies draws the Luftwaffe up, where it is then pounced upon by escortng Allied fighters. The eventual result is daytime air superiority for the Allies.

This has been brought up a couple of times before. The question is - if smaller fast bombers are flying smaller strikes but destroying more targets (more factories, more docks, more refineries and chemical plants) won't the Germans start sending al lot of their fighters after those raids? And if those raids are in turn escorted by the same fighters that protected the heavy bombers, don't you still get the same attrition result against the Luftwaffe?

 

[nuuumannn]

No, excuse me. You act like everything I post is in a foreign language then you make up points I haven't made to knock down. I have pointed out over and over that REDUCING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES ISN'T THE MAIN GOAL OF USING MOSQUITOES. It is just a happy side benefit.

But you have emphasised this as a pre-requisite in past posts and again, you are missing the point I'm making entirely. Even at low altitude Mosquitoes were not always "more accurate". The civilian casualties attest to this.

As for the "foreign language and making up points", I raise pertinent questions to test your knowledge and your line of thought. This is what debating is about. It doesn't always go your way.

I know the losses wouldn't be the same because I know that in spite of trying very hard to do so, the Luftwaffe was unable to destroy them in anywhere near the kinds of numbers they were getting of the heavies.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Different uses, different scenarios.

 

[Graeme]

I think that means you don't strike that target after the place is burning, you hit a different target.

But have you affectively destroyed the target before smoke, fire, flying debris tells you to move on?

Bomber Command's Operational Research Service estimated 500 short tons were required to destroy a 50 acre marshalling yard.
Wouldn't that require 250 low-flying Mossies?

 

[Schweik]

But you have emphasised this as a pre-requisite in past posts

Show me where I said this was a 'pre-requisite' please. I'll show you at least ten posts where I said "it's not the main point, it's a benign side effect" or something nearly identical.

You are making up something I didn't say to try to score points. That isn't how you actually have a discussion or win a debate.

and again, you are missing the point I'm making entirely. Even at low altitude Mosquitoes were not always "more accurate". The civilian casualties attest to this.

No, they don't. Just because some civilians were killed doesn't mean the raids were inaccurate - they still got the target. The key thing is they didn't have to go back. Four engined bombers were routinely sent back to hit targets again and again because they missed the first time. And this cost the lives of Allied aircrew.

Not perfect isn't the same as bad. That is a false equivalency.

As for the "foreign language and making up points", I raise pertinent questions to test your knowledge and your line of thought. This is what debating is about. It doesn't always go your way.

If I didn't actually say it, it's not a pertinent question. The definition of pertinence here would be refuting a point I actually made.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Different uses, different scenarios.

I think it's pretty applicable - the Mosquito was heavily used, they built 7,000 of them, and the Luftwaffe was going through fits trying to figure out how to shoot them down. They tried the jets right? That sounds like a pretty high priority. They would have been more of a high priority if there were a lot less heavy bombers flying, but that doesn't mean they would manage it. Mosquitoes proved fairly resistant to being annihilated, just like the insect they are named after.

 

[Schweik]

But have you affectively destroyed the target before smoke, fire, flying debris tells you to move on?

Bomber Command's Operational Research Service estimated 500 short tons were required to destroy a 50 acre marshalling yard.
Wouldn't that require 250 low-flying Mossies?

I don't think so because the bombing accuracy at low level was much, much higher. I believe that bomber command stat was for night bombing at medium to high altitudes. Not precision strikes.

 

[nuuumannn]

You are making up something I didn't say to try to score points. That isn't how you actually have a discussion or win a debate.

Let me be clear, I don't give a rats about "scoring points" or "winning". Which part of "I don't agree with you" as my reason for doing this do you not understand? Let's not get personal Schweik, stick to debating the subject matter rather than anticipating my intentions, because you are getting that spectacularly wrong.

No, they don't. Just because some civilians were killed doesn't mean the raids were inaccurate - they still got the target.

Again, yes it does, because it plainly demonstrates that not every time the Mosquitoes were used did they get the bomb on the target, which means that they were not always accurate - yuh, it does... Yes, they were by and large accurate but often they weren't, they often missed and dead civilians was the result is the point I'm making!

The key thing is they didn't have to go back. Four engined bombers were routinely sent back to hit targets again and again because they missed the first time. And this cost the lives of Allied aircrew.

Again, apples and oranges, different commands, different aircraft, different mission profiles... And I'm the one not understanding...

Not perfect isn't the same as bad. That is a false equivalency.

What's the shoulder shrug emoji?

If I didn't actually say it, it's not a pertinent question. The definition of pertinence here would be refuting a point I actually made.

Nope. Pertinent question means a question that is relevant to the discussion - it doesn't have to be stated by you. Where does that come from?

think it's pretty applicable - the Mosquito was heavily used, they built 7,000 of them, and the Luftwaffe was going through fits trying to figure out how to shoot them down.

Yeah, in many different variants in many different commands, in many different roles, not all of those 7,000 were used by Bomber Command, so your point is...? A meaningless statement.

 

[33k in the air]

This has been brought up a couple of times before. The question is - if smaller fast bombers are flying smaller strikes but destroying more targets (more factories, more docks, more refineries and chemical plants) won't the Germans start sending al lot of their fighters after those raids? And if those raids are in turn escorted by the same fighters that protected the heavy bombers, don't you still get the same attrition result against the Luftwaffe?

(1) Winning daytime air superiority doesn't just protect the bombers, it protects the ground forces too.

(2) Big formations means concentration of forces. The enemy knows where that force is, and has to go to meet it, or else let it do what it wants. You force the enemy to come to a given point to do battle, or else cede the field. It is easier to force that combat with big formations at high altitude, it seems to me, than with small swarms at low level.

There is also still the striking power issue. You need anywhere from 1.5 to 3 times as many Mosquitos to replace one B-17 in terms of bomb lift capacity. (this ratio is even larger if you want to replace the British heavies with Mosquitos.)

 

[Graeme]

On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...

(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)

 

[33k in the air]

On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...

View attachment 649718

(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)

This is something that we don't like to admit these days, but has always been true of warfare, especially in the industrialized age: the military cannot exist without the economy; and the economy is civilians. (Add to that the replacements for the military are directly drawn from the civilian population.)

 

[Dana Bell]

I'm surprised to see this discussion still under way. The unarmed Mosquito day bomber failed for the RAF. Due to mounting losses, it was withdrawn from combat after only 11 months. With German defenses improving dramatically, there is no reason to believe more Mosquitos would survive in 1944/45.

Additionally, the AAF goal was not to hit a target - it was to destroy that target. I think of the small factory I worked at in the late 1960s. If a single 4,000-pound bomb hit it, production would have been disrupted, but most of the machinery would have survived in other, undamaged parts of the plant. Those really large plants took even more bombs on target to be destroyed.

Formations of heavy bombers put a large number of bombs over an area (sometimes even hitting the target).

Though it excelled at everything else, the Mosquito couldn't do the job. (not even if Cliff Robertson was commanding!)

Cheers,


Dana

 

[drgondog]

The bombing of Japanese cities I'm sure did affect the decision, as did the total destruction of their navy and the surrounding of the Japanese islands by Allied carrier task forces, but the historians seem to believe that the more immediate decision was motivated by the swift annihilation of their large and (they thought) still formidable Manchurian army.

I will not claim to be an expert on the Emperor's mindset - but the nuclear weapons and incindiery strikes posed extinction without the glory of a great battle on the homeland.

 

[drgondog]

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.

True - to a point. The point becomes somewhat obscure whn one considers that there were several 'lead crews' within a Combat wing - one (or two) per BG.

If you are after air superiority, and follow Kenney's methods, then sending 1000 B-17s to bomb a single fighter aerodrome complex to smithereens is a massive waste of resources and will kill a lot of civilians. Sending in a small number of Mosquitoes would be the logical way to do that task. It is horses for courses as they say.

Incidentally, Kenney took command in the SWPA almost 2 1/2 years after the start of the European war where first the Germans targeted civilian (London etc) and industrial targets but ignored the airfields. Their way to deal with the fighters was to draw them into the air to dogfight them.

Then the Brits got air superiority and proceeded to targeted civilians (Hamburg, etc) and industrial targets but ignored the airfields. Their way to deal with the fighters was to draw them into the air to dogfight them. The advantage in that always lies with the defender as he can make an emergency landing and save himself and his aircraft while the attacker not only does not have those advantages but he must watch his fuel and break off and head home if he is to make it across the channel. At that stage he loses a lot of his ability to manouvre for defensive purposes.

Kenney rejected the tactics used first by the Germans and then copied the Brits and instead of sending out aircraft to draw the Japanese into air to air combat he decided that the fast and sure way to obtain air superiority was to destroy the Japanese aircraft on the ground, and to destroy their airports so they could not fly in replacement aircraft. That was a far better way to reduce his own losses to air combat, especially as the Japanese predominantly had plenty of combat experience and his crews had little more than basic training.

Kenney was not tasked with destruction of Japanese industrial capacity. His tasking aligned with Nimitz/MacArhur strategy to confront, destroy or bypass Japanese island strongholds on the road to gain strategic airfields for the bombing of Japan. His targeting included airfields, ports, shipping/logistics - largely tactical in support of Army and Navy suface ops.

The differences between Japanese capabilities and German capabilities to render a bombed out facility or airfield was significant. The Japanese never had the capabilities of our CB units to either repair construct operable airfields in a short time. Their logistics 'lines' were long and slow. Our (Allies) interdiction capabilities were overwhelming (submarine, surface shipping) and ports were bottlenecks as staging points and easy to interdict.

Ergo, the tactics were necessarily different. Additionally, airpower targets were both simpler to target and attack for maximum effect - with expectations for long lead times to rebuild/repair/resupply.

His tools of choice were largely available and not conscripted by RTO/MTO priorities, save the P-38 - and as you noted he 'upgraded tactical capabilities' of A-20, B-25 to operate very effectively - Had Japanese airfield area flak defenses been on par with LW, I believe A-20/B-25 losses would have been prohibitive for low level strikes. Granted, lead times to detect impending strikes would have been less for most Japanese strikes.

Fighter defenses of the islands (i.e. Truk, Rabaul, etc) were neutralized by USN, and achieved by RAAF/AAF in Solomons as replacement fighters achieved air superioroty.

For that he used, among other things, the nearest American equivalent to the Mosquito as a multi-role aircraft that he had available, the B-25. Replacing the navigator with a bunch of 50 cals and hanging some more outside the cockpit, both as devised by Pappy Gunn, made the B-25 what could almost be described as the American Mosquito FB.

Then he flew them at altitude to the target, not a choice because of the multiple 13,000 foot plus mountain ranges, and went in and straffed and bombed the Japanese from low altitude. And unlike in Europe where the attacking aircraft lined up like ducks to attack a target his crews often attacked targets from multiple directions at once so that the AA forces did not have a long string of targets that they could shoot at.

Although the Germans had far better AA and radar than the Japanese the advantages the Mosquito brings to doing the same in Europe are its ability to outrun most fighters and it had very low radar signature making it harder for radar to find and track. Also AA is nowhere near as effective against low flying high speed aircraft as the AA crews have little or no time to train their guns on a small target that is only in visual range for seconds.

On the last point, German 20mm was extremely effective on fast low flying targets. The VIII FC lost 1.5x fighters to flak vs air to air while strafing airfields.

 

[Schweik]

On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...

View attachment 649718

(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)

A lot of people in the 20's and 30's thought annihilating civilians (including with poison gas) was the ideal (and even, more 'humane') approach to winning the next war, so that it wouldn't drag in the horrific manner of WW1

What WW2 showed was that in spite of all the terror bombing and murder of civilians, people kept right on fighting and the war lasted just as long.

I would highly recommend Dan Carlin's "Logical Insanity" on this specific issue

Hardcore History 42 – (BLITZ) Logical Insanity – Dan Carlin

www.dancarlin.com

Luckily for whatever combination of reasons, they didn't use poison gas at least.

 

[Schweik]

I'm surprised to see this discussion still under way. The unarmed Mosquito day bomber failed for the RAF. Due to mounting losses, it was withdrawn from combat after only 11 months. With German defenses improving dramatically, there is no reason to believe more Mosquitos would survive in 1944/45.

If they were focusing a main effort on Mosquitos, I really don't understand why they couldn't have started getting escorted by P-51s by 1944/45

Additionally, the AAF goal was not to hit a target - it was to destroy that target. I think of the small factory I worked at in the late 1960s. If a single 4,000-pound bomb hit it, production would have been disrupted, but most of the machinery would have survived in other, undamaged parts of the plant. Those really large plants took even more bombs on target to be destroyed.

Formations of heavy bombers put a large number of bombs over an area (sometimes even hitting the target).

And quite often not hitting. How fast a plant can recover from damage depends on the industry, and how many times it is hit. Bombs scattered around nearby fields and neighborhoods have considerably less effect. I'd really like to look at a bombs hitting per sortie comparison if B-17s, Lancasters and Mosquitos to see if this statement really makes sense. It's just a matter of how many bombs actually land on the target.

 

[pbehn]

On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...

View attachment 649718

(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)

It wasnt a thought out of the blue. There were some catastrophic explosions in WW1. The Silvertown explosion in West Ham at the time a town outside London but now in it. &3 killed and 400 injured. The explosion at the National shell filling factory at Chilwell killed 134 and injured 250.

Silvertown after the explosion.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I disagree. 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.

The mission profile called for low level in order to fly under the German radar.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I really don't grasp why this is so difficult to understand. And we aren't saying for sure that the Mosquito could do it, or at least I'm not, I'm just having the discussion about whether it could. At no point was I ever in this thread trying to suggest that the Mosquito should be used to drop bombs from 25,000 feet.

Some people might be shocked to learned that the B-17 was an effective skip-bomber too.

Militaries in general and air forces in particular have regularly and historically made a practice of adopting new tactics in order to min/max strengths/weaknesses of the equipment in use, and to get the most effective results for a particular set of circumstances. Indeed, 'tis folly to not do so.

 

[GrauGeist]

On the last point, German 20mm was extremely effective on fast low flying targets. The VIII FC lost 1.5x fighters to flak vs air to air while strafing airfields.

They also had equipment like the 37mm SdKfz161/3, the 37mm "Ostwind" and the quad-20mm equipped "Wirblewind" - all of which were very effective against low-flying aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If they were focusing a main effort on Mosquitos, I really don't understand why they couldn't have started getting escorted by P-51s by 1944/45

Because the P-51s were escorting B-17s and B-24s and shooting up Luftwaffe airfields!

And how do you know "If they were focusing a main effort on Mosquitos"? Is this your unsubstantiated opinion or a fact from a reliable source? I think by 1944/45 the main effort by the Luftwaffe and anti aircraft defenses were to stop ANY allied aircraft bombing German territory!

 

[Schweik]

Because the P-51s were escorting B-17s and B-24s and shooting up Luftwaffe airfields!

And how do you know "If they were focusing a main effort on Mosquitos"? Is this your unsubstantiated opinion or a fact from a reliable source?

No, I mean per the OP.

Historical situation: B-17s and B-24s are the main focus of daylight bombing campaign. They are escorted by P-51s as they become available.

OP: "What if they emphasized the Mosquito instead of B-17?"

If that was the case, I suspect the P-51s would be used to escort Mosquitos when they became available.

I don't think you can disprove a speculative scenario "What if they decided to XYZ?" by pointing out that "But they didn't decide to XYZ!". That kind of misses the point.