Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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).I don't think you can disprove a speculative scenario
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.
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).
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.
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 Due to mounting losses, it was withdrawn from combat after only 11 months.
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...
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.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 - 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=62) 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 - right or wrong you had the bomber mafia running the show and again for them it was a matter of putting bombs on target3) Could they talk the "powers that be" into making this shift?
No for the same reasons aboveTo 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.
1 - I never said I hate these discussion.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).
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 - 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.
And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.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
You may be right.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
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.No for the same reasons above
Again your opinion, I've seen many on here who have posted compelling evidence stating otherwise.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.
Yes - because both programs were accepted by the War Dept. and the contractors awarded an actual contract.And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.
And I agree and I also welcome the discussion within a rational context.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 made mine - the next time I want your opinion about my feelings I'll tell them to you!!!As for the rest of it, I think I have made my point.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.)
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.)
And yet, they got the Merlin P-51 and the F6F up and running PDQ.
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.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.
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.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.
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".