I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers.
Kris
That a lot of claims about both the Mossie and the 410. I'll leave it to others to comment on the 410's, except to note that production was cancelled in Aug '44, because so many were shot down by Allied fighters.
But the Mossie claims seem to conflict with known evidence.
(1)But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. (2) The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly.
Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. (3) Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter.
What Command and what year do you mean? Mossies were used in Bomber Command (bombers [direct and distraction raids], pathfinders and intruder night fighters).
Coastal Command used them for anti-U-Boat and anti-shipping.
Fighter Command used them for day intruder operations and night fighters.
2nd Tactical Airforce used them as day intruders.
Plus recon and all sorts of support stuff (even as comms relays and so on).
At April 1945 Bomber Commands order of Battle was 359 Mosquito bombers across various Groups, plus 93 night fighters in 100 group. That number of bombers was about the same size as a normal BC Group.
There were 217 in 8 Group alone.
(4) Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. (5) The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude.
The most numerous Mossie variant produced was the Mk VI, the fighter bomber version. So the British rather disagreed about it's unsuitability for low level operations.
Naturally it all depends on what you define as 'tactical'. If you take a broad definition as low level operations, especially where there is flak, then you have:
Fighter Command intruder operations. Bomber Command low level operations (of various kinds, day and night, inc attacks on night fighter airfields). Coastal Command operations. 2nd TAF operations.
Weapons included, internal and external bombs, rockets, 57mm cannon and the normal 4x20mm, 4x.303 in the VI fighter bomber version.
Armour varied according to the version. With fighters and fighter/bombers having more than the pure bombers. The most heavily armoured was the Tse Tse version (57mm cannon) with an extra 900lbs in armour. This was later removed to improve performance in Coastal Command operations.
There is no evidence (in fact quite a lot of counter evidence) that it was any more vulnerable to flak than any other comparable aircraft. Its composite composition was very strong, affording a high degree of protection just by itself and (taking the Banff strike wing as an example) many got home even after multiple 20mm and even 37mm hits (from flak or fighters).
So the British were very content to use it in large numbers in the low level role (of all types) and replaced other types (eg Beaufighter) as fast as they could.
(6) Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily.
There is no evidence that it caught fire any more than aluminium ones did. After all aluminium burns extremely well, particularly at the temperatures produced by a fuel fire.
(7)The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off.
Excluding some cases of sabotage and improper glue application (all quickly tracked down and fixed, including an execution for treason).
In bomber, low level and fighter roles again there is no evidence that its wings were weaker than any other comparable type.
In fact (taking the Banff strike wing again as an example) late models carried 100 (UK) gal tanks and 4 x rockets on each wing.
It was a single piece, composite construction, hence was very strong as evidenced by the fighter operations and ever increasing load factors of bombers.
Late model bombers were carrying 4,000lb bombers plus 200 (UK) gals in external fuel for example.
Low level rocket, bomb and gun attacks and dogfighting fighters all required high G manoeuvres, on which there were no limitations (that I am aware of) placed.
So all in all, whether in high or low level applications (across the different types with different engines), The Mossie could carry more bombs, with a longer range, was faster, could carry a wider range of weapon types and, unlike the 410, could hold its own against single engined fighters.