Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
I think that means you don't strike that target after the place is burning, you hit a different target.
But you have emphasised this as a pre-requisite in past posts
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.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.
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.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 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.You're comparing apples to oranges. Different uses, different scenarios.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...
View attachment 649718
(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...
View attachment 649718
(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)
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).
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.On the subject of civilians - I thought this was interesting - a prediction from 1927...
View attachment 649718
(Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh)
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.
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.
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.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.
Because the P-51s were escorting B-17s and B-24s and shooting up Luftwaffe airfields!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?