Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well you would have to replace Wellingtons and Halifaxes so if we include B-17s and B-24s and considering payloads lets call it a round 100,000 Mosquitos?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?
Hi Dana.the last was late May 1943,
Schweik and other proponents: Would you please reread this post (857) again?Yes. However Oboe guided Mosquito could, in theory, have done so with accuracy. However, such aircraft typically dropped target indicators, rather than bombs. The "cookie" was not particularly aerodynamic, and accurate delivery suffered as a result.
Thread creep! Wow! 43 pages on why didn't the US build Mosquitoes instead of B-17's. The correct answer is "Because they didn't." It's irrelevant. The US chose the tools they wanted to fight the battles over Europe and it didn't include the Mosquito. Basil Dickens, the head of Operational Research, Bomber Command, notes the topic had come up many times during the war. Why not Mosquitoes instead of 4-engine heavy bombers? His answer, not mine, is attached. "It was bombs on the target per casualty that really mattered, and
there is little evidence of the bombing accuracy of the Mosquitoes."
View attachment 648859
The full document is available here and is a fascinating read, even if your lips get tired.
Operational Research and Strategic Bombing
Series Description This series consists of documents covering the role of operational research and its impact on strategic bombing operations in the Second World War. One of the most most significa…lmharchive.ca
Jim
And replaced by the Halifax??
And replaced by the Halifax??
I saw (and heard) these two critters running up their engines at Elvington, it was like some Sci-Fi mechanical mating ceremony.The Vulcan is Super Cool.
On the head of a pin, where else?Ah, airfields. I hadn't thought of that. Where do you park all of those wooden wonders between sorties.
Considering that de Havilland felt that when not flying the Mosquito should be kept in a hangar.Ah, airfields. I hadn't thought of that. Where do you park all of those wooden wonders between sorties.
Amen...Schweik and other proponents: Would you please reread this post (857) again?
Basil Dickens, head of Operations Research for Bomber Command, and wartime witness of events, clearly had more insight, expertise, scientific background, experience, years of real time examination of far more data on this than you have! It was his expert opinion that the mosquito could not replace heavy bombers! It's case closed! End of story! Seriously!
The Commanders of the Strategic Air Offensive were not fools. Second guessing them is fruitless and in this case, just plan silly!
Again. The mosquito was a fabulous aircraft that had it's role. But it was not a good candidate to replace the B-17.
1,065 posts on this topic! Unbelievable!
Jim
Well the UK was an aircraft carrier, it just needed a bigger stowage area.Considering that de Havilland felt that when not flying the Mosquito should be kept in a hangar.
Very well said - additionally it makes it additionally painful when some participants try to continually justify their position with opinions and assumptions rather than hard facts or fully researching the subject matter at hand. It is so easy to play armchair quarterback 75 years after the fact! (I think we kinda said the same thingThe problem with this thread is that (and this is the same with a lot of these what-if threads) we are painting a very sanitised version of the aircraft without acknowledging the bugs or the issues that might arise if such a thing as stipulated in the original post were to happen. It's easy to place an aeroplane like the Mosquito on a pedestal, but without context it is meaningless to do so - the Mosquito was not infallible and complications to the thread, like mission profiles, bomb loads to destroy relevant targets, casualty rates, collateral damage, production issues, diversion of resources etc provide much needed context to a simplistic and unrealistic scenario. We can "say" anything we like, but without that context it makes no sense in a real-world situation.
Blame it on me!I know, being a kill-joy is nooo fun.
When I was about 14 I heard the sound of jet engines I had never heard before. Definitely a military sound. I lived close to a naval air station as well as JFK and I would try to identify planes by sound. This was different. I looked up and saw the delta shape of a Vulcan. I knew it was one having seen Thunderball. First time I had seen someone else's air force in my sky.I saw (and heard) these two critters running up their engines at Elvington, it was like some Sci-Fi mechanical mating ceremony.
View attachment 649804Elvington Airfield (XV250) Aircraft Pictures & Photos (XL231) Aircraft Pictures & Photos - AirTeamImages.com
The Signal Square was used on all wartime airfields and used extensivley till the 1960's in the background the newly retired from servive XV250 Nimrod and Victor Lusty Lindywww.airteamimages.com
There was one at an airshow at El Toro MCAS IIRC, this was right after the Falklands. It was sitting on the ramp proudly waving the RAF flag from an open window in the cockpit.When I was about 14 I heard the sound of jet engines I had never heard before. Definitely a military sound. I lived close to a naval air station as well as JFK and I would try to identify planes by sound. This was different. I looked up and saw the delta shape of a Vulcan. I knew it was one having seen Thunderball. First time I had seen someone else's air force in my sky.
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".