Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius, so it had to fly direct routes which would be fine for the occasional raid, but if it became a regularity, it would have been predicted and interdicted eventually. More often, the Mosquito carried a load in the 3,000+ pound range for those deep missions.From what I've read, the Mosquito and the B-17 had comparable bomb loads for missions to Berlin.
Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius, so it had to fly direct routes which would be fine for the occasional raid, but if it became a regularity, it would have been predicted and interdicted eventually. More often, the Mosquito carried a load in the 3,000+ pound range for those deep missions.
We need to also keep in mind that for ling range missions, the B-17 carried about 4,000 pounds BUT (and here's the Mossie theory killer) for shorter range missions, the B-17 carried twice that and could carry over 17,000 pounds at max. (using both internal and external racks), something the Mosquito could not do.
So let's say we send 100 B-17s into France on a mission with a load of 8,000 pounds each - to do this with the Mosquito, we're going to need 200 Mossies at their max. loading, where the B-17 is hitting it's stride.
Or we send 100 Lancasters into Belgium on a raid, each loaded with 12,000 pounds of bombs - this would take 300 Mosquitos at their max. to accomplish the same task that the Lancs are doing without breaking a sweat.
And I find it funny that many folks argue that the U.S. deliberately did not use the Mosquito instead of the B-17/B-24 (for various reasons) but *IF* the Mossie was such an obvious solution to strategic bombing, I'm fairly sure the British would have jumped at the chance first...
This was my post from the older thread on this subject several years ago;
"IMO if you used the Mosquito as a precision bomber (and say it carried a Mark XIV, Norton or Sperry type bomb sight), you've just placed yourself at speeds where you still could be easily intercepted or blasted out of the sky by flack until you delivered your bombs, and even then the chances of interception are great. I could agree with a pathfinder role (like was done with the P-38) but I think to use the Mosquito in a strategic role would have been disastrous and it would have squandered some of the best attributes of this aircraft."
IIRC the maximum speed at which the Mosquito can open it's bomb bay was a little over 300 mph. I don't think you're going to be very accurate dropping bombs with the optical bombsights of the day at those speeds.
No I didn't.You stated that the Mosquito had to reduce its bomb load for deep penetration missions like Berlin
Now you know better than that.However, it's not the weight of bombs carried that mattered. Rather it's the weight of bombs that actually hit the target.
Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?In that regard, I believe you could achieve similar degrees of damage with far fewer Mosquitoes than the numbers you identify by dint of being able to achieve greater accuracy (e.g. Amiens Prison, interrupting Goering's speech in Berlin, and many other precision targets that were attacked both by day and night by Mosquitos)...unless you're going to force the Mossie to operate just like a B-17 which would be crass in the extreme.
This was my post from the older thread on this subject several years ago;
"IMO if you used the Mosquito as a precision bomber (and say it carried a Mark XIV, Norton or Sperry type bomb sight), you've just placed yourself at speeds where you still could be easily intercepted or blasted out of the sky by flack until you delivered your bombs, and even then the chances of interception are great. I could agree with a pathfinder role (like was done with the P-38) but I think to use the Mosquito in a strategic role would have been disastrous and it would have squandered some of the best attributes of this aircraft."
IIRC the maximum speed at which the Mosquito can open it's bomb bay was a little over 300 mph. I don't think you're going to be very accurate dropping bombs with the optical bombsights of the day at those speeds.
No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.
Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?
You stated that the Mosquito had to reduce its bomb load for deep penetration missions like Berlin but the load, for that target, was comparable to, but probably slightly less than, a B-17. You're now moving the goalposts to consider shorter-range targets. However, it's not the weight of bombs carried that mattered. Rather it's the weight of bombs that actually hit the target. In that regard, I believe you could achieve similar degrees of damage with far fewer Mosquitoes than the numbers you identify by dint of being able to achieve greater accuracy (e.g. Amiens Prison, interrupting Goering's speech in Berlin, and many other precision targets that were attacked both by day and night by Mosquitos)...unless you're going to force the Mossie to operate just like a B-17 which would be crass in the extreme.
Strategic bombing is morally indefensible when it targets civilian population centers rather than military targets. It was well acknowledged that bombing London didn't "break" the resolve of the British people. Is there any evidence to suggest bombing Berlin did? It's my understanding that Mosquitoes were indeed sent over Berlin at night with the 4,000 pounder on a more or less regular basis to simply drop it somewhere, then run.No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.
Now you know better than that.
The weight of the bomb load directly influenced range.
Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?
Big difference between Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing.
From what I've read, the Mosquito and the B-17 had comparable bomb loads for missions to Berlin.
Accuracy will largely depend on the release altitude. Going in at low altitude will increase accuracy and likely reduce detection range for the defences. However, it also reduces range and imposes a limit on the number of aircraft you can get over the target in a given timeframe.
No free lunch in any of this.
No I didn't.
"Comparable, yes - but the Mossie didn't carry a 4,000 pounder to Berlin on a regular basis. To do so put it at it's max. combat radius"
So tell me, where in this statement of mine did I "move goalposts"?
More often, the Mosquito carried a lighter bombload (in the 3,000 pound range) for long range missions.
Now you know better than that.
The weight of the bomb load directly influenced range.
Do you want to collapse the roof and break the windows out of a factory or do you want to remove it from the face of the earth?
Big difference between Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing.
It's only "morally indefensible" by today's standards and if you were on the losing side of the war.Strategic bombing is morally indefensible when it targets civilian population centers rather than military targets.
the simple fact of the matter is that strategic bombing is about delivering strategic effects and that could be achieved differently than using large formations of B-17s (and B-24s) going over a target in formation.
Generating controversy is a selling point of any book. I only need to develop a plausible, not necessarily winning argument.Hi Donald,
I recommend that you continue your research into Chipman's history - it will make a great story.
I don't think you're on the right track with your arguments about pinpoint bombing with Mosquitos. If you want extreme accuracy, you need to fly during the day - but history proved that the Mosquito failed in the daylight bombing mission. One of the reasons for that failure was intense, low-altitude German Flak, which you claim was ineffective. The US examined the Mosquito thoroughly in all its roles. They knew it had failed as a bomber, but they wanted it as a PR platform and (at times) as a nightfighter. They didn't need many of these, and elected to buy them from Britain and Canada rather than waste manufacturing time on a handful of aircraft.
It's going to be hard to justify your arguments about the morality of strategic bombing while writing a book about a man whose job was the support of strategic bombing missions.
Cheers,
Dana
Generating controversy is a selling point of any book. I only need to develop a plausible, not necessarily winning argument......
You need not, but I thank you for your input.Thanks for that. I won't be buying it.