What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress? (2 Viewers)

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't think you can disprove a speculative scenario

Right - but when speculating consider the actual timelines and realistic events. I think it's quite clear there would have never been enough Mosquitoes to supplement or replace the B-17 and even if we used that "speculative scenario" the Mosquito "would have" had so start rolling down US production lines a least a year before the war started (for the US).

 

[Schweik]

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.

And also the towed / static positioned Flak 18/36/37, Flak 30, Flakvierling 38 etc., all quite formidable. I gather what the fighter-bomber and light / medium bomber crews in the MTO did was to come in fast and hard, strafing and only make one pass. The first wave typically got away without too many hits. Subsequent waves could be badly damaged.

Sometimes they also used dive bombing attacks (or 'glide bombing' with fighter bombers) to hit the flak positions, or some of them, right before the bombers went through. Timing was important.

The main advantage of an aircraft like a Mosquito is that because they could strike such a wide range of targets over such a wide area (compared to most other fighter-bombers or light to medium bombers) it means the Axis would presumably have to defend a much wider area.

Aside from the operational history of the Mosquito itself, I think one area to look at if you really wanted to get a better sense of the feasibility is Italy and the use of the A-36, because it too was fast, had a high cruise speed, and relied mostly on speed to avoid problems. I don't know the full history, just the combat reports from Shores and a family friend (of a friend) who was an A-36 pilot active there. But it seems like they were getting some good use out of them, they ended up phasing them out because the wings were getting bent from all the dive bombing. Italy is a more constrained environment geographically and because of all the mountains the Germans could do things like string (or rig?) cables across valleys, but A-36s seemed to still hit a lot of targets.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let us not forget "barrage balloons" as a counter to low-level attack.

Also, the Germans were not unaware of enemy aircraft operating in their districts.

The Mosquitos were great for diversion, and were often sent ahead of the heavies to draw defenses away from the main objective by attacking a nearby target, leaving the heavies in-opposed until it was too late.

 

[Schweik]

Right - but when speculating consider the actual timelines and realistic events. I think it's quite clear there would have never been enough Mosquitoes to supplement or replace the B-17 and even if we used that "speculative scenario" the Mosquito "would have" had so start rolling down US production lines a least a year before the war started (for the US).

Well like I said, I think there are three discussions to be had:

1) Could this aircraft get the job done technically. To me this is the most interesting part because were the discussion to survive long enough to really get into the weeds technically, I would certainly learn about the operational histories, offensive tactics and defensive countermeasures which were actually used in the war.

2) Could they produce enough to make this aircraft into a Strategic weapon? Was there enough industrial capacity, technical know-how, and time to get this ball rolling? Though not quite as engaging as operational details, this is also interesting to me because how such programmes were implemented is another area I can learn more about how things really worked. I don't think, however, that it requires a total cancellation of one programme in 1940 and it's replacement by another. I can see one type getting phased out as a newer type takes over. They didn't even know the capabilities of the Mosquito really until 1942. Much as P-38s gradually replaced other US fighter types in the Pacific, or P-51s in NW Europe.

3) Could they talk the "powers that be" into making this shift? This one is not as interesting to me necessarily, simply because it's more of a matter of individual personalities, politics and influence. Though here too something could be learned. I don't claim that this part of it could have actually been solved though.

To me 1 & 2 are worth thinking about and exploring as a thought experiment. Maybe next time around, if we understand better how those two parts could work, we can better address #3. Regardless, I think it's a useful way to learn more about the air war. To me, this is the actual reason to indulge in 'speculative scenarios' of this type, to see if better decisions could have been made - if they could have worked. Dealing with the political or doctrinal side of it is another ball of wax.



And IMO, if you hate 'speculative scenarios' on principle, because 'that didn't happen', maybe you should ban such threads in the future? I didn't start this one (or the Korean war one).

 

[Schweik]

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.

B-17s were used effectively in Low-level strikes in New Guinea a couple of times. I think they just decided the A-20s and B-25s were better for that purpose. But I would agree that B-17s were fairly versatile outside of the Strategic bombing role. It's just within that role that they are somewhat limited. IIRC the original concept of the B-17 was in a maritime strike role right? Or am I misremembering...

 

[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.

If you know the details of the operational history of the Mosquito as a day bomber, by all means share it. I'd certainly be interested.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

B-17s were used effectively in Low-level strikes in New Guinea a couple of times. I think they just decided the A-20s and B-25s were better for that purpose. But I would agree that B-17s were fairly versatile outside of the Strategic bombing role. It's just within that role that they are somewhat limited. IIRC the original concept of the B-17 was in a maritime strike role right? Or am I misremembering...

Your memory is correct. I seem to remember the -17s were used mostly for recon in SWPA, though. They reverted to higher altitudes for strikes on Rabaul as well, before largely being replaced by B-24s.

The point, of course, is that tactics needs must take into account the circumstances an airframe must address.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well like I said, I think there are three discussions to be had:

1) Could this aircraft get the job done technically. To me this is the most interesting part because were the discussion to survive long enough to really get into the weeds technically, I would certainly learn about the operational histories, offensive tactics and defensive countermeasures which were actually used in the war.

No - it was shown for the technology of the day low level strikes were not going to put the bombs on target to completely obliterate a given target or city.

2) Could they produce enough to make this aircraft into a Strategic weapon? Was there enough industrial capacity, technical know-how, and time to get this ball rolling?

No - not within the factual timeline. Start the war for the US 2 years earlier and start building Mosquitoes (providing a contract award is given and accepted) or else you're trying to make 2+2=6

3) Could they talk the "powers that be" into making this shift?

No - right or wrong you had the bomber mafia running the show and again for them it was a matter of putting bombs on target

To me 1 & 2 are worth thinking about and exploring as a thought experiment. Maybe next time around, if we understand better how those two parts could work, we can better address #3. Regardless, I think it's a useful way to learn more about the air war. To me, this is the actual reason to indulge in 'speculative scenarios' of this type, to see if better decisions could have been made - if they could have worked. Dealing with the political or doctrinal side of it is another ball of wax.

No for the same reasons above

And IMO, if you hate 'speculative scenarios' on principle, because 'that didn't happen', maybe you should ban such threads in the future? I didn't start this one (or the Korean war one).

1 - I never said I hate these discussion.
2 - Please leave the context of discussions to the mods on this forum
3 - Please refer to our previous conversations about this forum. I'm not discussing this again!
4 - So please keep your opinions about what I allegedly hate to yourself!

 

[Schweik]

No - it was shown for the technology of the day low level strikes were not going to put the bombs on target to completely obliterate a given target or city.

I don't think that has actually been proven - far from it, quite to the contrary. It appears to me that the Mosquito could do the job of obliterating a given target. Obliterating a city may not actually be a viable objective, but if you think it is I agree Mossie is not the way to go.

No - not within the factual timeline. Start the war for the US 2 years earlier and start building Mosquitoes (providing a contract award is given and accepted) or else you're trying to make 2+2=6

And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.

No - right or wrong you had the bomber mafia running the show and again for them it was a matter of putting bombs on target

You may be right.

No for the same reasons above

Some people seem to be interested in discussing it, and I'm not the only one who noticed that the Mosquito had some merits in this scenario.

As for the rest of it, I think I have made my point.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't think that has actually been proven - far from it, quite to the contrary. It appears to me that the Mosquito could do the job of obliterating a given target. Obliterating a city may not actually be a viable objective, but if you think it is I agree Mossie is not the way to go.

Again your opinion, I've seen many on here who have posted compelling evidence stating otherwise.

And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.

Yes - because both programs were accepted by the War Dept. and the contractors awarded an actual contract.

Some people seem to be interested in discussing it, and I'm not the only one who noticed that the Mosquito had some merits in this scenario.

And I agree and I also welcome the discussion within a rational context.

As for the rest of it, I think I have made my point.

And I made mine - the next time I want your opinion about my feelings I'll tell them to you!!!

 

[33k in the air]

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

The thinking went along these lines: since civilians don't have the training that military personnel have to tolerate difficult conditions, by doing some bombing of the civilian population and causing hardship, the civilian population would soon fold to that pressure, stop working, and be out in the streets en masse demanding their government end the war.

Such went the prewar theories. The reality, of course, demonstrated something different.

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.

That was the power of a fully mobilized industrialized nation-state — it had a vast capacity to grind out new equipment and replacements.

Unless, that is, its underlying industrial ability was significantly degraded. (And even then it still takes a long time and a hell of a lot of effort to knock it out.)

 

[33k in the air]

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.

Or the Halifax explosion of Dec. 6, 1917, which resulted in the deaths of some 1,800 people after an ammunition ship caught fire and exploded in the harbour. (The force of that explosion is estimated to have been about 2.9 kilotons.)

 

[Schweik]

The thinking went along these lines: since civilians don't have the training that military personnel have to tolerate difficult conditions, by doing some bombing of the civilian population and causing hardship, the civilian population would soon fold to that pressure, stop working, and be out in the streets en masse demanding their government end the war.

Such went the prewar theories. The reality, of course, demonstrated something different.

Right, and like I said, the (quite popular) ideas of Douhet etc. included things like busting up the city center and then dropping poison gas, along 'ends justify the means' lines. As I mentioned, Dan Carlin does a very good overview of all this in his podcast on it.

That was the power of a fully mobilized industrialized nation-state — it had a vast capacity to grind out new equipment and replacements.

Unless, that is, its underlying industrial ability was significantly degraded. (And even then it still takes a long time and a hell of a lot of effort to knock it out.)

Right, and the notion here is that a bit more accuracy and a lower per-mission loss rate can maybe make that happen faster than all the "de-housing".

 

[Schweik]

Or the Halifax explosion of Dec. 6, 1917, which resulted in the deaths of some 1,800 people after an ammunition ship caught fire and exploded in the harbour. (The force of that explosion is estimated to have been about 2.9 kilotons.)

Look at the one recently in Beirut at the grain elevator... there have been several similar grain elevator explosions around the US, among other large industrial accidents. Same principle as a fuel-air explosive in some respects.

 

[MiTasol]

And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.

Agree but remember the Merlin P-51 was using standard production practices in established factories with established supply lines (and an existing design, the Mustang for the RAF).

The Mossie required all new (much bigger) factories and required far more labour and tooling.

Remember the Mustang was designed as a P-40 replacement and to use less man-hours to build as the industry had come a long way since the basic 1936 H-75 that the P-40 was descended from, and incorporated many parts from.

 

[pbehn]

Remember the Mustang was designed as a P-40 replacement and to use less man-hours to build as the industry had come a long way since the basic 1936 H-75 that the P-40 was descended from, and incorporated many parts from.

The whole situation had moved on by 1940-41. The first orders for Spitfires and Hurricaneswere in the hundreds, with orders for Merlins in the low thousands. By 1940 to late 1941 it was clear there was a real war and orders were in the thousands. Although the first order for Mustangs wasnt very big it wasnt delivered in full because the USA (understandably took what was in USA for themselves. Since it was better than the P-40 and P-39 it would obviously remain in production longer than those two at least.

 

[Dana Bell]

If you know the details of the operational history of the Mosquito as a day bomber, by all means share it. I'd certainly be interested.

I find it interesting that you strongly press your position, yet don't already know this. First, see Bowyer and Sharp Mosquito, pages 203-205. The first mission was late May 1942, the last was late May 1943, with nearly all the May '43 missions being dusk (not daylight) raids. Somewhere in my four linear feet of reports on US evaluations of the Mosquito is a memo noting that the RAF reported the end of unarmed Mosquito daylight missions as a result of increasing losses.

The US was very interested in the Mosquito for a variety of missions - I did a short article on the subject in Airfix Modelworld back in 2017, though I can't find my copy at the moment.

Finally, don't forget that the first very-long-range P-51 escort missions didn't come in any numbers until 1944. Large numbers of unarmed, unescorted Mosquitos did not stand any better chance than heavily armed B-17s and B-24s.

It's been an intersting discussion, but this just wasn't going to happen - and if it had happened, the results weren't gonna be pretty...

Cheers,



Dana

 

[MiTasol]

Much as I love the Mosquito I have to respond to the OP's question

Considering the survivability and comparable bomb loads, would we have been far better off with the former? Would we even have built the lumbering Liberator had we had thousands of these?

with NO.

Comparing the Mosquito to the B-17 is like comparing the Jaguar E type to an American school bus. Both are good for what they were designed for but not practical for the other vehicles purposes. Looks wise the comparison is similar, the Mossie looks great while the B-17 looks grate.

AND note - if my memory is correct the lumbering Liberator cruised far faster than the B-17. Many of its "faults" were caused by being forced to fly at B-17 speeds on large raids rather than at it's design cruise.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm sure many of us, at one time or another, wondered about Mosquitos instead of B-17s. I have. What if the RAF went with Mosquitos instead of the Lancaster?

 

[nuuumannn]

Right, and the notion here is that a bit more accuracy and a lower per-mission loss rate can maybe make that happen faster than all the "de-housing".

But again, there is no evidence that removing 'some' of the heavy bombers and supplanting them with Mosquitoes is going to achieve what's needed to do the job. Mosquitoes with Fighter Command flying pinpoint raids is not going to destroy a factory. Two different raids, two different requirements and this is what you continue to ignore. They are not the same. You can't guarantee the Mosquito is going to do it to the degree you believe it might.

Someone here posted a letter stating that there might be some advantage to this, now for one reason or another it didn't happen. The logistical issues with attempting to undertake the OP of the thread alone would have been enormous and would have raised those pertinent questions that you refuse to answer and accuse me of using to derail the thread when I ask them, like, when is production of the B-17 going to end and what mark of Mosquito will be put into production and will it still be relevant by the time it has entered service or will it have been replaced by more advanced types and so on...

As mentioned, nothing exists in a vacuum. You are proposing replacing some of the bombers with Mosquitoes, but to what end? What will it achieve? Because your presumption of lower loss rates etc simply don't add up. You are still using the big bombers that you want to use the Mosquito to replace, why not replace them all? Why leave only some?

As stated time and time again, the versatility of the Mosquito was not as a bomber on strategic raids but its airframe saw application through many different disciplines and commands, not specific to the bombing role. Those low level strikes were not Bomber Command operations and were carried out by specially trained crews. Not every Mosquito pilot instantly by osmosis became able to fly low level strike ops. And they missed their targets often, they killed civilians, too, so to what end are you proposing this split between the heavy bombers and Mosquitoes? What results do you think you can achieve?

As mentioned by others, the original post is a non-starter from a logistical and operational point of view. There would be no benefit to doing it, no saving of lives, no more precision than without it happening, no fewer raids to achieve the same objective...