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

Dana Bell · May 12, 2021

pbehn said:
Its on the Mosquito web page 21 January German Jet Encounters

In this case it helps to know the author. Norm Malayney famously made two version of all of his notes. The first was complete and as accurate as he could make it; the second had intentionally altered facts. He maked both copies as "copyrighted," but only circulated the doctored version - and he widely circulated that version! Then, when other authors (particularly Martin Bowman) used his materials without his permission, Norm could write lengthy reviews exposing the many errors that these authors had published. Norm himslef wrote a pretty decent book on the 25th BG (which includes stories about Chipman), but I don't trust ANYTHING he wrote on line or the many stacks of paper hesent me for review.

The rest of us will spend decades fixing the many errors Norm circulated, and we will never undo all the damage.

Cheers,

Dana

Shortround6 · May 12, 2021

ThomasP said:
I think that the often heard average B-17 load of ~3800 lbs to Berlin is because of the usual mix of HE bombs and Incendiaries. The Incendiary part of the load was less dense than the HE bombs so the overall weight carried was less.

Sometimes they mixed loads in each airplane, other times the loads were "mixed" by squadron. One squadron carried one type of bomb and and another squadron a different type of bomb.
Mixed loads are going to have poor accuracy, assuming you want accuracy. Each bomb type is going to have a bit different trajectory and one aim point or release point will not be correct for different types of bombs.

I would also note for the replace B-17s with Mosquitoes argument that Berlin was NOT the only target in Germany. On shorter missions the B-17s could carry 6,000lbs or more and on occasion they used a pair of 2000lb bombs (mainly to French targets) The B-17, even with it's rather small bomb bay, was more flexible in bomb load than the Mosquito. It would also take quite a while for the best combinations of bombs to be figured out. Committing to a bomber with an even more restrictive bomb bay may well have been a mistake.
At times B-17s carried 42 65lb incendiaries. Only 2730 lbs but try to find the volume in the bomb bay of smaller bombers. (include A-20s, B-25s, A-26s here, not just Mosquito)

The Mosquito vs B-17 argument seems to fixated on one bomb load (but not the types of bombs) on one target (or target area) and saying that result should apply to the entire bombing campaign. And tat comparison is flawed as has been shown in other posts/threads.

FLYBOYJ · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
Multiple sources are confirming that it is expensive to operate, buggy, and too often not combat-ready:

>>Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35's 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft's maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is "as complicated as anything on earth." What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35.<<

The F-35 tells everything that's broken in the Pentagon

Multiple sources written by an anti-aviation, anti-defense press. Over 600 have been produced and there are 2 production lines outside of CONUS. Again, do some research into the program, why there were cost over runs and where the program is today. Oh, and don't forget to get the perspective of the people who fly the aircraft!

FLYBOYJ · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
HistoryNet is a goto for high school history teachers seeking to develop controversial history topics for students to explore. If you can find a source that contradicts this, I'd like to see it.

I recall articles written in my youth that the Me 262, handicapped as it was by its range, would never have made a useful bomber, that it's utility as a fighter posed a far greater strategic threat to our bombers and fighters, and that Hitler's insistence delayed it.

While Historynet is a good reference, it only gives a limited over view and lacks detail.

Hitler delayed it becoming an interceptor. research "Erprobungskommando 262" and LEARN about how it was actually entered service.

buffnut453 · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
As relating to the issue of the forward-looking Mosquito being dismissed by backwards-thinkers, the F-35 is a piloted plane whose days are numbered:

>>The F-35 project has been troubled from the start and the future of jet planes is in doubt. Many believe the F-35 will be the last jet plane. But piloted planes retain an air of necessity in the military. A recent Rand study published by the Air Force Times reports that former pilots, over every other classification, have been promoted to positions of power, shaping debate about the future of jet planes. The current commander at Truax, Col. Erik Peterson, comes from this background.

The chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. David Goldfein, believes that the future of fighting adversaries is cyber warfare. This, along with missile technology and drones, are what the future holds — not fighter jet planes. The romantic image of dogfighting is no longer reality.<<

Opinion | The F-35 is already obsolete

Please show me an operational drone that has anything like the performance of even the F-16 or F-15. There have been mock simulations--not actual aerial combat--that have indicated drones may succeed against piloted aircraft but let's see that in the real world where perfect data may not be available to the drone.

In order for the F-35 to be obsolete, there must be something out there, operational, TODAY that can best it. Bottom line is that there isn't any such beast, nor will there be for a number of years.

Bear in mind the F-35 resulted from the merging of several programs dating back to the early 1990s. The JSF competition was initiated towards the end of the decade. Think back to the 1990s. How many drones were operational back then? The MQ-1 Predator first flew in 1994...and the Pred, for all its many talents, is not a competitor for a fast jet combat aircraft. In the 1990s there was no indication that artificial intelligence and drone technologies could be combined to address the dominance of manned fast jet combat aircraft.

The suggestion that the F-35 is backward-looking relies on 2 key assumptions:
1. That military requirements officials and contractor technical staff could foresee, in the 1990s, how technology would expand the potential and capabilities of drones.
2. There isn't a need to replace existing F-16, F-15, AV-8B and other platforms until those new drone technologies become operational.
Neither of those assumptions are viable.

With the US rolling off 20 years of low-intensity conflict to face China as an emerging superpower and a resurgent Russia, the idea that we can soldier on with systems designed/built in the 1970s is laughable in the extreme.

FLYBOYJ · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
>>At a recent US Air Force Association conference, Elon Musk, creator of the SpaceX reusable rocket, told thousands of fighter pilots that 'the fighter jet era has passed'.<<

In the late 50's folks said that air-to-air combat was obsolete. 6 years later we went to Vietnam and were initially getting our asses handed to us because those great minds didn't get the memo from the politicians of the day!

buffnut453 · May 12, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
In the late 50's folks said that air-to-air combat was obsolete. 6 years later we went to Vietnam and were initially getting our asses handed to us because those great minds didn't get the memo from the politicians of the day!

And this fantastic beast, which first flew in 1954, was supposed to be the UK's last manned fighter because SAMs could do the job:

special ed · May 12, 2021

As an 80 year old interested in aviation since age three (according to my father), I can absolutely remember when in 1959 guns would never be carried by interceptors and fighters again. The new F-110 (F-4) would be all missiles. That was the future.

SaparotRob · May 12, 2021

Re post #113. There is a YouTube channel called Military Aviation History. I enjoy watching these vids because the presenter always takes great pains to show his source documents. He has a video on "The real reason(s) the Me 262 had bombs". He shows that the planning for the Me 262 had already considered bomber, fighter and fighter bomber requirements before Hitler had even been shown the Me 262. I hadn't watched it before but following this thread sparked an interest. Donald Johnson, give it a look. I too had held some ideas that I knew to be "true" until proven otherwise.

FLYBOYJ · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
Multiple sources are confirming that it is expensive to operate, buggy, and too often not combat-ready:

>>Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35's 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft's maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is "as complicated as anything on earth." What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35.<<

The F-35 tells everything that's broken in the Pentagon

F-35 Is Performing Far Better Than Critics Would Have You Think

"Those who fly the aircraft are really the best judge, with one F-35 pilot remarking: "Five to eight years ago, we would plan an entire force package of [fourth-generation] aircraft, about 20-30 aircraft, all to maybe have a slim hope of taking down a modern surface-to-air threat—just one. Now, we train to accomplish the same mission with far greater certainty using just a few F-35s, while continuing to execute a host of other taskings." Said more directly, the F-35 gets far more done with fewer aircraft and does so at far less risk. That is what cost-per-effect assessment is all about."

drgondog · May 12, 2021

MIflyer said:
The fact is, the USAAF strategic bombing campaign in the ETO was both an abject failure and a rousing success.

It was a failure in that the idea of destroying a country's industrial war-making ability by air attacks simply did not work. The idea started when a flood wiped out an American aircraft propeller factory and the USAAC decided that if you could destroy that factory from the air you could win the war, right there; didn't work against Germany.

It was a rousing success in that it destroyed the Luftwaffe. From 1 Jan 1944 to 1 Jan 1945 the Germans lost over 20,000 airplanes while they were being delivered to the operational units. That was because USAAF fighters were roaming all over Europe, shooting up everything, especially airplanes.

And in turn that was because the fighters were needed to escort the heavy bombers. And the Luftwaffe could not ignore those bombers; they did too much damage. Also it was a matter of honor. During the Battle of The Bulge the USAAF used an especially vicious tactic. When the weather cleared enough to enable the Allied fighter bombers to go to work, the correct thing for the Luftwaffe to do was to throw everything at those ground attack aircraft. But the USAAF would stage a heavy bomber daylight raid on a nearby German city. The Luftwaffe was already being criticized. "500 American bombers hit us yesterday! Where was the Luftwaffe?" Well, the Luftwaffe was there, heavily outnumbered and getting its arse shot off, but it did not look like that from the ground. So they had to defend the cities rather than help the ground troops.

The RAF Bomber Campaign to "dehouse" the German populace and cause an uprising in the country to overthrow the Nazis was an abject failure. No matter how bad they got hit the German civilians were far more afraid of the Nazis than they were the Allied heavy bombers. Bomber Harris was opposed to anything that took his bombers away from dehousing but after the war said, "The Americans were right. We should have used our bombers against the German oil supplies."

So, we needed to use lots of airplanes that could be intercepted so to force the Luftwaffe to come up and fight - and be destroyed. In WWII the USAAF suffered as many casualties, killed, wounded, and captured, as the entire USN and USMC put together. It was worth it.

While I agree your primary statement of 'failure' (in 1943), the concept of destroying key German industry from the air was not flawed - it failed in 1943 because a.) the force was not large enough to repeatedly attack The Critical industry (Ball Bearings before decentralizing after August 1943) and b.) a few other 'critical industries' such as Chemical (not just powder/munitions but Fertilizer essential to feeding German population) and Central Power grids, as well as Petroleum/Synthetic Fuel refining.

The three barriers to success in 1943 were lack of high performance long range fighter escort, precision radar mapping/targeting technology to assist precision strikes in bad weather, and adequate inventory of bombers and trained crews. Additional issues included inadequate intelligence for critical target group selection and wrong bomb selection - most attacks should have made the 1000 pounder the absolute Minimum bomb, with 2000 pounders more appropriate..

pbehn · May 12, 2021

It is a mistake to take the best performance of some Mosquitos and assume that you can produce a force of several thousand of them. Many of the missions had specially selected crews who had already had special training and then spent a long time working on a single mission. 617 squadron could hit a battleship or a submarine pen and using a squadron of aircraft achieve a few hits. Putting a tallboy in 800 Lancasters may not increase the number of hits at all because 617 Squadron already took the best crews and then gave them lots more intense training. Harris stated that the "warrior rule" applied to bomber pilots as to everywhere else in warfare. 10% of the pilot and crews who undertook pilot training were responsible for 90% of the damage caused.

Donald Johnson · May 12, 2021

Snautzer01 said:
Hi,
Take this in mind when viewing internet sources
Many books written in the not that ancient past use the same sources. An awfull lot of them are surpassed with more and other archive source material wich can and will frequently change viewpoints.
The fan boy sites. Those have an agenda. They think airplane x is the best and listen to no reason. Not from real live pilots to manuals to documents. Blind but stubburn.
Propaganda. Try to find here on this board the discussion on the P-61 nightfighter. For all sorts of reasons as Dana Bell explained it was not that a great plane. In fact it was far less then great. But period documents would make one believe it was great. Only after really researching and digging one can get another more realistic opinion. And this is not just 1 case.
Interpretation of facts. Somehow people see the same charts in different ways or come to a totally different view on the same subject i.g could the luftwaffe have won the battle of Brittain or the p-51 won the war. Not only armchair generals will fight over these kinds of subjects but even professional historians.
Writers. Not all writers stick to facts some (Caitlin i.g. ) have quite a big thumb. Or just want to sell books and juice up history with imagination
Now if you really want to teach youngsters, show them how archives work. Let them chase the sources of the books they read. That will be interesting, and let them try to find new material. Tons of it still waiting.

If one would try to do research only based in internet sites, wiki etc one would risk a very bad research outcome.

Unfortunately, internet-based research is where schools are going, especially now that remote learning has been increasingly "a thing." Quaint idea about "archives", though.

I've donated history books to Ann Arbor schools that I thought there was a chance would get read. Unfortunately, I have been made persona non grata as a substitute in Ann Arbor schools since being "cancelled" for opining that religious fundamentalism and theocratic are a chief contributor to war (I happened to mention the Hasidics as an example). Political Correctness means that there are acceptable versions of history that can be taught, that if a student seeks alternative explanations, they will be sanctioned or ignored.

As for HistoryNet, I fail to see where Stephan Wilkinson is in error here. He is a reputable author who makes history palatable, unlike the dozens of musty, over-technical, biased volumes I possess (including six by Martin Caidin who thrilled me as an adolescent).

My approach to history in the classroom is based on the Discovery Approach. I present something provocative without preface, challenging them to seek their own answers and applauding those who present arguments that are supportable, ever when I don't agree with the conclusions. This is what I was taught to do at The Universuty of Iowa, but was chastised for using it in the classroom. Like many of the "experts" here, it was my job to tell them what to believe, to present the set of facts the Texas Education Agency agreed upon.

MIflyer · May 12, 2021

drgondog said:
While I agree your primary statement of 'failure' (in 1943), the concept of destroying key German industry from the air was not flawed -

Subsequent examination indicated that the German aircraft engine industry should have been a focus of the attacks rather than the airframe industry. You can build an airplane just about anywhere. Brewster used a multistory downtown factory originally used for carriages. Lockheed did a lot of work outside.

But engines require much more challenging facilities to manufacture. Foundaries, precision machining facilities, and assembly areas are not easy to duplicate nor to move. I suppose that to some extent smaller radials and flat fours could be built partially in "shadow factories" and then assembled in a suitable workshop, but those big block Allisons, RR, and DB's took a sophisticated physical plant.

pbehn · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
Unfortunately, internet-based research is where schools are going, especially now that remote learning has been increasingly "a thing." Quaint idea about "archives", though.

I've donated history books to Ann Arbor schools that I thought there was a chance would get read. Unfortunately, I have been made persona non grata as a substitute in Ann Arbor schools since being "cancelled" for opining that religious fundamentalism and theocratic are a chief contributor to war (I happened to mention the Hasidics as an example). Political Correctness means that there are acceptable versions of history that can be taught, that if a student seeks alternative explanations, they will be sanctioned or ignored.

As for HistoryNet, I fail to see where Stephan Wilkinson is in error here. He is a reputable author who makes history palatable, unlike the dozens of musty, over-technical, biased volumes I possess (including six by Martin Caidin who thrilled me as an adolescent).

My approach to history in the classroom is based on the Discovery Approach. I present something provocative without preface, challenging them to seek their own answers and applauding those who present arguments that are supportable, ever when I don't agree with the conclusions. This is what I was taught to do at The Universuty of Iowa, but was chastised for using it in the classroom. Like many of the "experts" here, it was my job to tell them what to believe, to present the set of facts the Texas Education Agency agreed upon.

Why do you put experts in quotation marks? Some posters here really are experts and I are not one of them.. If you do a forum search you will find that the subject of using Mosquitos as a strategic weapon is far from new some would say it has been done to death. You are not challenging people with a provocative theory that challenges assumptions, you are going over an old theory that has been debunked many times.

Donald Johnson · May 12, 2021

drgondog said:
While I agree your primary statement of 'failure' (in 1943), the concept of destroying key German industry from the air was not flawed - it failed in 1943 because a.) the force was not large enough to repeatedly attack The Critical industry (Ball Bearings before decentralizing after August 1943) and b.) a few other 'critical industries' such as Chemical (not just powder/munitions but Fertilizer essential to feeding German population) and Central Power grids, as well as Petroleum/Synthetic Fuel refining.

The three barriers to success in 1943 were lack of high performance long range fighter escort, precision radar mapping/targeting technology to assist precision strikes in bad weather, and adequate inventory of bombers and trained crews. Additional issues included inadequate intelligence for critical target group selection and wrong bomb selection - most attacks should have made the 1000 pounder the absolute Minimum bomb, with 2000 pounders more appropriate..

You argued against your own point with the evidence you present. Largely because of the reasons stated, it was flawed. We had neither the intelligence nor the overwhelming numbers early to do anything but nuisance raids, and at that, the Mosquito excelled.

More Mosquitoes earlier could have disrupted more infrastructure. Roaming flights with fighter protection could have rumbled rail lines and bridges sooner. We could have supplied a couple of thousand Mosquitoes by the end of 1942 to marked effect. Thar's my basic argument, likely the one Elliott Roosevelt unsuccessfully advanced. He did grasp its utility with secret intelligence operations, though. I'm suggesting more could have been done with more resources directed toward covert activities.

Some have argued that the semi-disastrous Ploesti raid would have been just as effective using fewer Mosquitoes with less loss of crews. Fuel really was the Nazis' Achilles heel and we knew that, but we diverted bomber energy to civilian targets which did not break the German morale any more than Hitler's London bombing broke the Brits.

pbehn · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
You argued against your own point with the evidence you present. Largely because of the reasons stated, it was flawed. We had neither the intelligence nor the overwhelming numbers early to do anything but nuisance raids, and at that, the Mosquito excelled.

More Mosquitoes earlier could have disrupted more infrastructure. Roaming flights with fighter protection could have rumbled rail lines and bridges sooner. We could have supplied a couple of thousand Mosquitoes by the end of 1942 to marked effect. Thar's my basic argument, likely the one Elliott Roosevelt unsuccessfully advanced. He did grasp its utility with secret intelligence operations, though. I'm suggesting more could have been done with more resources directed toward covert activities.

Some have argued that the semi-disastrous Ploesti raid would have been just as effective using fewer Mosquitoes with less loss of crews. Fuel really was the Nazis' Achilles heel and we knew that, but we diverted bomber energy to civilian targets which did not break the German morale any more than Hitler's London bombing broke the Brits.

Who is "We", the first thousand bomber raid was in May 1942. that is long before the Mosquito was announced to the public. Thousand-bomber raids - Wikipedia

pbehn · May 12, 2021

The Mosquito caught the British in a bit of a bind, because they didnt have what was needed to do what they wanted to do. They were unenthusiastic about the Mosquito at the start because it was only a two seat airplane. Conventional wisdom of the time was that you needed a crew of three and a lot of space to carry equipment, like radios and RADARs. The Mosquito forced the design of smaller simpler to operate equipment and aids to the pilot, navigator/flight engineer/weapons tech (he was a busy bee at times).

drgondog · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
You argued against your own point with the evidence you present. Largely because of the reasons stated, it was flawed. We had neither the intelligence nor the overwhelming numbers early to do anything but nuisance raids, and at that, the Mosquito excelled.

More Mosquitoes earlier could have disrupted more infrastructure. Roaming flights with fighter protection could have rumbled rail lines and bridges sooner. We could have supplied a couple of thousand Mosquitoes by the end of 1942 to marked effect. Thar's my basic argument, likely the one Elliott Roosevelt unsuccessfully advanced. He did grasp its utility with secret intelligence operations, though. I'm suggesting more could have been done with more resources directed toward covert activities.

Some have argued that the semi-disastrous Ploesti raid would have been just as effective using fewer Mosquitoes with less loss of crews. Fuel really was the Nazis' Achilles heel and we knew that, but we diverted bomber energy to civilian targets which did not break the German morale any more than Hitler's London bombing broke the Brits.

Utter Bovine Fecal matter. First, there was zero possibility given the wildest of fantasy prioritization to build Mosquito airframes, beginning in 1940, to be able to develop a logistics capability of filling projected Bombardment TO&E for FY 42/42. Second there is no fantasy priority to develop and produce Packard engines to even fulfil existing 1941/42 requirements for RCAF/RAF Lancasters and Mosquitos. That was the Major barrier to introducing the P-51B in the ETO in September vs December.

To your other point - More Mosquitoes earlier could have disrupted more infrastructure. Roaming flights with fighter protection could have rumbled rail lines and bridges sooner. We could have supplied a couple of thousand Mosquitoes by the end of 1942 to marked effect.

Say What? What Fighter Protection in 1942 and 1943 was there to escort Mosquitos past mid-France and Holland? Where is the Mouse in your pocket? "We could have produced a couple of thousand Mosquitos by the end of 1942".

In 1944, the 8th AF was pressing for Mosquitos to equip the soon to be formed Scouting Force - a relatively high priority in mid 1944 for 8th AF. The RAF could not supply more than 25 or commit to spares.

The fools that argue that Ploesti mission of August 1, 1943 would have been just as effective using Mosquitos are not supplying rational thought concerning load outs, range tables or strategy to defeat Ploesti air defenses augmented following the Halverson attack in early 1943.

Just for drill, get your combat loading vs Combat Radius charts for any Mosquito type you propose to use for Ploesti and pick the airfield launch site out of range from LW intruders in Med and propose a Plan (altitude and airspeed) to attack Ploesti. Do Not fly a straight line course.

Snautzer01 · May 12, 2021

Donald Johnson said:
Unfortunately, internet-based research is where schools are going, especially now that remote learning has been increasingly "a thing." Quaint idea about "archives", though.

I've donated history books to Ann Arbor schools that I thought there was a chance would get read. Unfortunately, I have been made persona non grata as a substitute in Ann Arbor schools since being "cancelled" for opining that religious fundamentalism and theocratic are a chief contributor to war (I happened to mention the Hasidics as an example). Political Correctness means that there are acceptable versions of history that can be taught, that if a student seeks alternative explanations, they will be sanctioned or ignored.

As for HistoryNet, I fail to see where Stephan Wilkinson is in error here. He is a reputable author who makes history palatable, unlike the dozens of musty, over-technical, biased volumes I possess (including six by Martin Caidin who thrilled me as an adolescent).

My approach to history in the classroom is based on the Discovery Approach. I present something provocative without preface, challenging them to seek their own answers and applauding those who present arguments that are supportable, ever when I don't agree with the conclusions. This is what I was taught to do at The Universuty of Iowa, but was chastised for using it in the classroom. Like many of the "experts" here, it was my job to tell them what to believe, to present the set of facts the Texas Education Agency agreed upon.

Ahh yes the discovery approach. Ok that says lot. Try if you can to watch some of its programs. And see what kind of acedemic value survives. Research has to be fast and a kinda of sexy.
I hope in all your efforts to teach, it is the research, not the outcome that marks the paper. Well researched no result is better then i have seen some sites stating the p-51 won the war. For one i have been ancles deep in research in archives, but still consider myself an armchair general. It takes determination, guts, a whole lotta time and plain simple talent to combine what you have found into a paper let alone a book.
As for reputable authors, look up what D Dana Bell said about another historion just the other day. It is common knowledge among some of us. Now ..how about taking an author for what he writes as the truth?
There are some genuine experts here but alot more like me. We know sources, have documents, and in a few cases have been in the army and even fewer flown those airplanes or the jet versions of it. Combined it is a knowledge base to be noticed. Take your time and find discussions. Some are dull, many entertaining but formost it tries to get facts before fiction.

Dana Bell remarks in another auther What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

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

Senior Airman

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

1st Sergeant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Colonel

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Colonel

Airman

Colonel

Colonel

Major

Honourably banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads