What if: Mosquito vs P-38

[michaelmaltby]

I confess I am not as enamored with the P-38 as some on this forum. Considering it's advantages (twin engines, concentrated firepower, and range) I don't think it did as well in the ETO as it should have. I am sure it was a delight to fly at above zero temperatures but the advantages it offered were wasted on average pilots, I suggest. In the hands of exceptional pilots .. another story .. but equally true of the Me-109, the Hurricane and most fighter aircraft. There are pilots and then there are fighter pilots

In contrast, I believe the Mosquito was probably the best value, most versatile airplane on the Allied side.

Both the Mosquito and Lightning were used as Pathfinders, both had quite a respectable bomb load, but the P-38 tackled aircraft like the Me-109 whereas the Mosquito (as a fighter) tackled night fighters like the Ju-88, Me-110, 210, 410 etc and was stalking rather than dog fighting. The rest of the time in daylight it just "ran".

So my question to you is this: In the hands of experienced pilots which aircraft would have prevailed under typical daylight combat conditions. The P-38 has the slight advantage in altitude, speed and range (although I question the range differential if the Mossie has slipper tanks). Structurally, I believe the Mosquito is tougher than the P-38 and is trading 4x20mm cannon fire for 1x20 + 4x50's.

In the night fighter role I think the Mosquito would have it all over the P-38.



MM

 

[river]

Hi,

If typical daylight combat operations means flying high and fast, beyond reach - maybe getting into a melee with the odd plane that could get up to my height, then I'd take the Mossie.

If it mean down low and locking horns with enemy fighters, I'd take the P38.

river

 

[parsifal]

what were the turn characteristics of the two aircraft????

 

[michaelmaltby]

Parsifal, one of the reasons I posed this question was to discover more of their characteristics. I suspect the P-38 could out turn and the Mosquito could out-dive ... but I'd like that confirmed. They are very close in weight.

MM

 

[davebender]

When do we start comparing the P-38 vs other long range day fighters rather then night fighters?

 

[michaelmaltby]

"When do we start comparing the P-38 vs other long range day fighters rather then night fighters.."

Is that a no-no, DaveBender? Moreso than comparing things that were built in quantity with things that weren't ...

MM

 

[drgondog]

In typical daylight conditions, each starting at same altitude I would favor the P-38 all day long, at the end of the respective life cycles the P-38L is far superior airframe in air to air combat and should remain so at any altitude.

The Mossie had a lower wing loading but the 38J-25 and newer ship had dive brakes, manuevering flaps and boosted controls and should turn with the Mossie even at low speeds.

 

[davebender]

Of course not. You can compare a B29 heavy bomber to a Me-109 fighter if you really want to. However it makes more sense to me to compare aircraft of the same type and produced during the same time period.

 

[Glider]

As a day fighter then the choice has to be the P38. If you want any other role then the Mosquito wins the day, but as a day fighter, its the P38

 

[Dark Matter]

The mosquito is simalar the the Bf-109 except for its higher speed.

The P-38 would win.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The mosquito is simalar the the Bf-109 except for its higher speed.

The P-38 would win.

What?????

How is the Mosquito similar to the Bf 109?????

 

[Dark Matter]

I'm sorry, I ment the Bf-110.

 

[FalkeEins]

Both the P-38 and Lightning were used as Pathfinders, both had quite a respectable bomb load
MM

..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17

 

[Colin1]

..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17

Well OK, but Mosquitos:-

1. Weren't composed primarily of metal
2. They didn't have to carry 10 aircrew
3. Or 12 heavy machine guns, each packing:-

i. Ball turret: 650 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in containers attached to hangers outside of turret.
ii. Tail turret: 500 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in bins located in aft section of fuselage.
iii. Nose turret: 700 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in boxes located outside of turret on each side of nose fuselage.
iv. Top turret: 480 rounds/.50 cal (2) stored in containers supended from turret ring in front of gunner.
v. Waist gun x 2: 700 rounds/.50 cal gun (1 @ each waist window stored in boxes along fuselage on each side).
vi. 10 - 15 boxes (150rds per box) reserve ammunition

as well as the payload.

Both good aircraft, but a direct comparison is stretching it a bit

 

[Maximowitz]

I don't think Neil is making a direct comparison, he's merely pointing out that the Mosquito was a far more flexible aircraft, very good at any role it was asked to perform.

Or that's how I interpreted his post anyway.

 

[davebender]

Well OK, but Mosquitos:-
1. Weren't composed primarily of metal
2. They didn't have to carry 10 aircrew
3. Or 12 heavy machine guns, each packing:-

Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.

BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.

 

[Dark Matter]

Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.

BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.

Me too.

I also consider fabric to be a bad feature.

 

[Colin1]

Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.

BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.

Well
of course they were design choices, what else would they be? The fact is, Boeing DIDN'T make similar choices, hence Mosquito primarily wood, B-17 primarily aluminium; for which we can assume alot of surviving B-17 crews were very thankful.

I also consider wooden construction to be a negative feature, I would say its greatest achievement was freeing up aluminium for other aircraft and employing an area of the private sector in war production that would otherwise not have been. Sitting in a Mosquito that's getting thumped by German cannon must have been like sitting in something half greenhouse and half garden shed.

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

So my question to you is this: In the hands of experienced pilots which aircraft would have prevailed under typical daylight combat conditions.

MM

In a dogfight? Mossie vs. P-38? Or, Mossie vs. Axis Fighter compared to P-38 vs. same Axis Fighter? Or, Ground attack on the same target? Altitude? Weather conditions? There are so many variants of both types, how are we deciding which versions are going up against each other?

I'm not trying to be an a-hole, I just want clarification of the scenario.8)

 

[michaelmaltby]

Frankly, I posed this particular thread because it's an opportunity to compare 2 twin-engine high performance aircraft, both very versatile, that had similar features (nose armaments) range, manoeverability etc. etc. If I'd wanted to compare a B-17 to a Mosquito I would have ... duh

The question I posed was whether a solid-nose fighter version of a Mosquito could hold its own with a P-38 (not the ultimate P-38F or whatever) but the P-38 as it was operating in the ETO circa 1943 - in daylight - under typical conditions - from altitude to the deck. If I had wanted to compare the ultimate P-38 with the Mosquito I would have called for the post war aluminum version .. the de Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet.

So far, I'm not getting much insight except that planes made out of wood are BAD and planes made out of metal are GOOD. I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases ... Hurricanes in the B of B -- which were fabric covered and had some wooden structural members -- often survived 20mm hits because the shells passed clean through without detonation - whereas Spitfires ....

I would love HoHun to jump into this thread with his charts and graphs ...

To my knowledge, the only downside to Mosquito construction was that it didn't do well in the tropics .... dry rot eh what

DaveBender may consider this thread frivolous but no more so than speculating on RR Griffin-powered P-40's with 5-bladed props - which, to me, is just silly.

Mosquitos were still being flown in military roles several years after the P-38's had all been scrapped or auctioned off as circuit racers.

"..Sitting in a Mosquito that's getting thumped by German cannon must have been like sitting in something half greenhouse and half garden shed."

And getting thumped by German cannon sitting in the P-38 must have been real comforting too, Colin. Those booms break up and you're in deep sh*t. Frankly, the only aircraft I'd want to be in under your scenario is a P-47 ... I could dodge around inside (Little joke from Eagle Squadron pilots when they were first confronted with their Spitfire replacement P-47's).

But for my next thread, DaveBender, I'd like to compare B-29's and Sturmaviks ... you know ... in the ground support role

MM