Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I just quoted Basil Dickens who said there were no reliable figures. You're not paying attention!You can draw whatever conclusions you like.…
What was the bombing accuracy for different types of Mosquito (strike) missions?
Ok - if the Mosquito was such a glaring solution, why didn't they?
There have been 1103 posts in this thread to date, counting this one, a large percentage aimed at contradicting something I posted. It may be possible I didn't read every link on every single post.I just quoted Basil Dickens who said there were no reliable figures. You're not paying attention!
You mention all the books you have. Start Looking at the primary sources. I provided a link to Basil Dickens paper. Read it.
They were there at the time, they were going on what they knew.I never said it was obvious at the time. But we do know about such things as the 'Bomber Mafia' in the US, and I have read enough about Harris (including his own book) to know that not all of his strategic decisions were wise, and in fact there were times when he didn't even follow orders. Curtiss LeMay is another one who I don't think was always thinking strait and I have no qualms pointing that out.
I believe IF it's true that the Mosquito could do the job, (and I think it may have been, though I don't pretend to be certain of that) it would have taken some extraordinary decision making to pull it off.
That said, we did have some extraordinary decision making involved in the very creation of the Mosquito itself, and in the decision to put the Merlin engine in the Mustang and bet heavily on production of that aircraft. Kind of similar for the Hellcat too I'd say.
But we know it wasn't done, I'm more interested in if it could have worked, than how you would talk guys like LeMay into it. I'm not sure that would have been possible.
My Patience is wearing thin! From Basil Dickens Head ORS Quoted post 857:There have been 1103 posts in this thread to date, counting this one, a large percentage aimed at contradicting something I posted. It may be possible I didn't read every link on every single post.
Why don't you summarize the actual data as distinct from the opinions? I already knew they didn't decide to use Mosquitos as Strategic bombers before this thread was ever even dreamed up. I knew that 40 years ago. Provide some data to improve the signal to noise ratio of the conversation.
They were there at the time, they were going on what they knew.
The Axis needed to be put down hard and fast.
This meant crushing the enemy by any means possible to remove their ability and desire to make war.
Little surgical precision strikes were not going to accomplish this.
Total war is ugly. It is costly and it requires overwhelming the enemy until you prevail.
Scipio didn't ask anyone their opinion on how to sack Carthage without hurting any of the civilians, he said kill anything that walks or crawls and tear the city down and toss it into the sea so that nothing remains.
My Patience is wearing thin! From Basil Dickens Head ORS Quoted post 857:
"It was bombs on the target per casualty that really mattered, and
there is little evidence of the bombing accuracy of the Mosquitoes."
Why? Because the Light Night Striking Force was only a few aircraft.
Look at the actual losses on the famous Mosquito raids like Amiens and other Gestapo buildings and telecom HQ.I'd really like to look at specific details and statistics of actual strikes. From the passage I read it sounds like he is referring to night-time level bombing strikes. Is his analysis based on low altitude strikes? Dive bombing? Day time or just night?
Look at the actual losses on the famous Mosquito raids like Amiens and other Gestapo buildings and telecom HQ.
Bottom line it can't, it's that simple. The leaders of the day saw fit not to use it as a high altitude strategic bomber, that simpleInstead, since this discussion kicked into gear, I've read a lot of attempts to shut it all down on the basis of:
1) A Mosquito can't carry as many bombs as a B-17 or Lancaster therefore it's inferior in that role. (Because strategic bombing = high altitude and / or night time area bombing)
No one ever said that - you were the one trying to show that using the Mosquito was going to limit civilian causalities, an opinion on your part.2) A Mosquito once killed civilians therefore it's inaccurate.
Again you're opinion but it was clearly shown why the leaders of the day did use it as a Strategic bomber3) The Mosquito wasn't actually used as a Strategic bomber therefore it couldn't have been.
That's 100% BS - what was shown was there was no interest to build COMBAT wooden aircraft by manufacturers or the War Dept.4) They couldn't build more Mosquitos because US industry couldn't manufacture wooden aircraft.
If you followed the HISTORICAL time line this is 100% true. You keep trying to revise history based on your own opinions!5) They couldn't build more Mosquitoes because couldn't make enough engines.
And that's exactly what you're doing, even when shown why some of your comments are out in left fieldAnd etc.
None of these types of arguments are actually true. Some of them are plausible until you look deeper into them, but a couple of those imply a lack of basic logical thinking ability. People declare an end to the discussion, without ever really having one (I think there was one for a few pages, but then it was drowned out). I didn't spend time posting in this thread just to argue round and round and round.
Then tap out now because there were many on here who provided ample evidence why the OP's question wouldn't be possible given the historical timeline and (drumroll) THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY!And I'm not going to do that for much longer because it's apparently pointless.
And I suggest you research who Basil Dickens was...That, and the quoted text, are generalizations. Wartime generalization, granted, but it's still just one mans opinion. And we already know they didn't decide to replace the heavy bombers with Mosquitos. We already know what decisions they made and didn't make.
I'd really like to look at specific details and statistics of actual strikes. From the passage I read it sounds like he is referring to night-time level bombing strikes. Is his analysis based on low altitude strikes? Dive bombing? Day time or just night?
Bottom line it can't, it's that simple. The leaders of the day saw fit not to use it as a high altitude strategic bomber, that simple
No one ever said that - you were the one trying to show that using the Mosquito was going to limit civilian causalities, an opinion on your part.
Again you're opinion but it was clearly shown why the leaders of the day did use it as a Strategic bomber
That's 100% BS - what was shown was there was no interest to build COMBAT wooden aircraft by manufacturers or the War Dept.
If you followed the HISTORICAL time line this is 100% true. You keep trying to revise history based on your own opinions!
And that's exactly what you're doing, even when shown why some of your comments are out in left field
Then tap out now because there were many on here who provided ample evidence why the OP's question wouldn't be possible given the historical timeline and (drumroll) THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY!
View attachment 649870
OK - now you're rambling. In addition to Basil Dickens I also suggest you look up our own Dana Bell who is a valued member here and provides this forum with a wealth of valuable historical information, not opinions or guesses.But let's not forget, WW2 lasted a while, and technological advancement was rapid. "The technology of the day" ranged from biplanes to jets. Bombers available in 1940 were not the same as what was available in 1943 or 1944.
In terms of performance, a Mosquito is a little closer to an Ar 234 than it is to a Whitley or a Botha. In fact the Mosquito had much better range, better climb and a higher ceiling, and carried a bigger payload than the Ar 234.
In some cases, improved technology led to significant changes in policy. What would have happened with the US Strategic bombing offensive if they hadn't rapidly developed the P-51? Serious question.
Luckily they made a pretty sharp turn there right in the middle of the war.
Luckily for the 8th AF aircrews they didn't just shrug their shoulders and stick with what they were already doing.
They were also not recognised targets so had no AA defences. Even so losses were suffered. Attacking something like a refinery, steelworks or marshalling yard at low level was close to suicidal, even at high level formations avoided such areas.The reason I think those are (a bit) outliers is that Gestapo hq etc. are often in city centers, and because those raids were in part propaganda raids, they were trying extra hard to avoid civilian casualties (which didn't work that well)
But factories and oil refineries are often located in the suburbs, in big industrial areas, and that means less flying in over built up areas.