What was the most versatile plane of ww2?

Also never said photo recon couldn't be done without air superiority. Just that having airsuperiority was in my judgement perhaps the most important job because in addition to being important in its own right it took some of the risk out of other jobs. Yes i realize others may have different judgement on what the most important job was and why. And thats one of the things that make this interesting.

The P-38's initial role was fighter.
The Mosquito's initial role was bomber.

While the Mosquito was most certainly a fantastic platform, it was not able to toe the line with Luftwaffe (or IJN/IJA) fighters like the P-38 did.

So yes, in fact, the P-38 did project a form of air-superiority within it's realm of influence.

michael rauls said:

No that's not what i said. What I said was that my impression at least is that the two types were fairly evenly matched in most tasks but in one key area, fighter performance, i thought the p38 was better. If you have two aircraft that are closely matched in multiple areas but one is better in a key area it seems to me quality of performance comes into play at some point also as an aircraft has to be able to do a job effectively to to have that job included in a list of things it could do otherwise any plane could be said to do any job to some degree and then every plane would then be the most versatile.
Also i don't think its a stretch to say the p38 provided air superiority. It wasn't outstanding in western Europe ( but wasn't exactly terable either. Still had a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters)due to a variety of causes some design related but many not but in every other theater I would think its fair to say it did quite well. Dont think anyone would argue it didn't provide air superiority in the pacific and make at least a healthy contribution to it in the med.

Click to expand...

There were a number of areas where Mosquito was superior to the P-38.

Bombing was one - surprising that the one designed as a bomber was superior as a bomber, and the one designed as a fighter was superior as a fighter.

And PR was another.

wuzak said:

There were a number of areas where Mosquito was superior to the P-38.

Bombing was one - surprising that the one designed as a bomber was superior as a bomber, and the one designed as a fighter was superior as a fighter.

And PR was another.

Click to expand...

Agreed. There were areas the mosquito was superior for sure. There were also ones the 38 was. Just my reasoning was if they were in the same ballpark in most areas but there was a big spread in one area that would give that plane the edge assuming they could both do all the other jobs reasonably well which I think in this case they could with the exception of transport in the case of the p38. Admittedly lack of transport ability is a deficit for a most versitile contender but is it enough to negatively counterbalance all the things that it could do well. My feeling is no its not but I would certainly respect the opinions of others who saw that differently.

wuzak said:

There were a number of areas where Mosquito was superior to the P-38.

Bombing was one - surprising that the one designed as a bomber was superior as a bomber, and the one designed as a fighter was superior as a fighter.

And PR was another.

Click to expand...

And no I don't find that surprising

GrauGeist said:

The P-38's initial role was fighter.
The Mosquito's initial role was bomber.

While the Mosquito was most certainly a fantastic platform, it was not able to toe the line with Luftwaffe (or IJN/IJA) fighters like the P-38 did.

So yes, in fact, the P-38 did project a form of air-superiority within it's realm of influence.

Click to expand...

There are claims that the mosquito, whilst operating in daylight, was responsible for the destruction of over 600 LW fighters during daylight and in air combat.

michael rauls said:

Let me expand on my reasoning. At least my impression is that the p38 and mossie were more or less peers in most tasks( yes im sure in some the mosquito held an edge) but that both because the only task where there is a large gap being in performance as a fighter/escort and because of the comparative importance of that role, that is to say air suppirriority makes all the other jobs posible or at least substantially less risky i would give the edge to the p38.
At least by a bit.
And what was I thinking when I left the ju88 out of my top contenders to start. Famous for versatility. Definitely an oversight on my part.
However I still think I would go with the p38 because of its comparative effectiveness at what seems to me to be the task that makes all the others work alot better and it could still do most of those other tasks well with obvious exception of transport.
My take on it anyway.

Click to expand...

In no way shape or form can the P-38 be considered as comparable to the Mosquito as a bomber. The Mosquito was a league above in it capabilities. The Mosquito could and did deliver a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin which is well beyond what a P-38 could do. The Mosquito filled the role of strategic bomber, performing some of the duties of the 4 engine heavies. It was equipped with far superior navigation aids (and the navigator) necessary to find the targets. Bomber Command Mosquitoes dropped close to 27,000 long tons of bombs which is almost as many as the Short Stirling dropped.


The only time the P-38 was used in the strategic role was the Ploesti fiasco in which minimal damage was done to the target at the cost of 22 P-38s lost out of an attacking force of 72. This represents a 31% loss rate which matches the loss rate of the B-24s in their famous raid.


Mention has been made of the marine strike role which the Mosquitoes of the Banff strike wing excelled at. While the Beaufighter deserves more of the credit for the maritime role the Mosquitoes did sink a sustainable tonnage, including 8 U-boats. The p-38 did not have such success in the maritime role.


Some of the other roles mentioned for the P-38 are not serious. The transporting of people in a drop tank was public relations stunt with no practical application. The P-38 was a complete flop as a nightfighter with no victories to its credit. It was not a practical weapon. The flash from the front mounted guns destroyed the pilots night vision while the glow of its turbo chargers could be seen for miles. The so called torpedo bomber role consisted of dropping a concrete filled dummy torpedo from 20,000 feet above the desert, hardly proof of its capability to actually successfully launch a torpedo in action. The test of the P-38 as a glider tug ended when the tail snapped off.


If we follow the criteria of the air superiority role as being more important that the other roles, the P-51 wins. It was one of the very best air superiority fighters, it had a dedicated real dive bomber version, it was employed extensively as a ground strafer and it was used as a photo recon plane in very large numbers.

A bit harsh on the old P-38

A lot of what you say is true, the torpedo carrying was done by one airplane for test purposes. ANd probably before they found out the MK 13 was semi useless when dropped from an airplane without a lot of work and add on devices.(tail fins and wooden structures on the nose to cushion the impact.)

The night fighter role is a non issue. They built about 75-100 depending on which books you believe. however since the first one didn't role out the factory door until Feb 1945 they saw little, if any combat so lack of kills doesn't tell us anything. It may have been great, it may have been lousy. Nobody knows.

The P-38 did a bit more strategic bombing than you give it credit for, Not a lot but there were a number of raids using the droop snoots as pathfinders/bomb aimers. Targets were in France but it was formation bombing from medium height. I would note that P-38s tended to use 1000lb bombs which Mosquitos seldom, if ever carried. Results were mixed, in part due to the lack of training. If a formation is dropping off of a lead aircraft the formation had better be tight and precise to get the expected pattern on the ground. Fighter groups didn't train for that type of flight. They usually flew a bit looser for better reaction for air to air combat.

A lot of the Mosquito daylight bombing in 1943 had pretty high losses.

The Mosquito should have been more versatile, it was bigger airplane. size matters.

People have a real tendency to count the number of engines and think all aircraft with the same number of engines are equivalent to each other.

Anybody want to compare the Blenheim to the A-26

On the otherhand, the P-38 operating in it's intended role: fighter, accounted for more kills in the PTO than the P-51, P-47 and P-40 combined.

It's not surprising that they placed the P-38 into a variety of roles. You'd be hard pressed to find a fighter (of any nation) that was not pressed into a ground attack role at one point or another during the course of the war.

Shortround6 said:

A lot of the Mosquito daylight bombing in 1943 had pretty high losses

Click to expand...

I am perplexed by this claim. During the entire war, mosquitoes dropped more than 35000 tons of bombs for the loss of just 193 a/c. At what point in 1943 did they sustain "heavy" losses?

Conversely, I'm not persuaded that the Mosquito was a superior fighter to the P-38. I think that each a/c had strengths in different areas. The difference is, in versatility. The mosquito had more options as to role, so from that perspective, was more versatile..

parsifal said:

I am perplexed by this claim. During the entire war, mosquitoes dropped more than 35000 tons of bombs for the loss of just 193 a/c. At what point in 1943 did they sustain "heavy" losses?

Conversely, I'm not persuaded that the Mosquito was a superior fighter to the P-38. I think that each a/c had strengths in different areas. The difference is, in versatility. The mosquito had more options as to role, so from that perspective, was more versatile..

Click to expand...

For a good part of 1942-43 there were only 2 squadrons of mosquito bombers. They did do a number of high noted raids but their losses were such that the daylight raids were given up and the switch made to night bombing. It only takes 3-4 losses out of 12-16 planes for it to be "heavy" losses on percentage basis.

We do have to be careful quoting statistics

Shortround6 said:

For a good part of 1942-43 there were only 2 squadrons of mosquito bombers. They did do a number of high noted raids but their losses were such that the daylight raids were given up and the switch made to night bombing. It only takes 3-4 losses out of 12-16 planes for it to be "heavy" losses on percentage basis.

We do have to be careful quoting statistics

Click to expand...

Sorry SR but the whole "switched from daylight raids due to unsustainable losses" thing sounds completely bogus to me.

For starters, if the losses were so unsustainable, why did the RAF continue for a full year with 2 squadrons performing that role? Surely such heavy losses as to demand removal of the type from daylight ops would be apparent pretty quickly? It's not like 105 and 139 Sqns were flying short-range, low-risk missions for most of that 12-month period.

To add a little more colour, according to Bowyer's "Mosquito Squadrons of the RAF", 105 Sqn flew 524 operational sorties with some 35 Mosquitos failing to return. One loss for every 15 sorties doesn't seem particularly heavy to me.

In reality, the removal of the Mosquito from daylight missions was because of the decision to implement the Pathfinder Force, a role for which the Mosquito was ideally suited. That shift of focus was necessary to maximize the impact of nighttime bombing raids which was, after all, Bomber Command's primary effort.

Do you have any evidence of the unsustainable daylight losses by Mosquitos? I'm happy to be proved wrong but I've never seen any reference to such in the books I've consulted.

I think you are reading too much into this. The two squadrons were 109 and 139 squadrons. they began low level daylight deep penetration raids from 1 June 1942 and enjoyed exceedingly low attrition rates until a couple of particularly hazardous daylight missions over berlin carried out as a propaganda mission to disrupt Gorings (important as part of the 10th anniversary of the Nazi accession to power, and also as part of the conditioning process for the impending surrender of the Stalingrad pocket) speech and later that same day a similar speech by Goebels. In the course of those raids the 109 sqn CO was shot down by the flak defences of Berlin. It is worth noting the time of these raids.....January 1943, at which time, no other aircraft were risked on such a hazard ridden undertaking. in other words, no other aircraft at the time could even contemplate such a mission. no wonder goring was shocked by what happened.

I may be the case that the losses influenced the decision to halt the low level daylight raids, but I seriously doubt that. I seems too much coincidence that the very squadrons used in these daylight raids were also amongst the first to be used as pathfinders. Six a/c from 109 sqn were first used to test Oboe in December 1942. the two pioneering Squadrons, 105 and 139, joined No. 109 Squadron within the LNSF whose "nuisance raids" were already gaining approval from Harris and Churchill. Initially they were engaged in moderately high level (about 10 000 ft.) night bombing, diversionary raids and dropping Window. They made 67 trips that summer, mainly to Berlin. Soon after, some of the 105 Squadron aircraft were equipped with Oboe navigation . In June 1943 109 Squadron received Mosquito B.IX's, also fitted for Oboe, and with their higher altitude capability they were able to extend its range. Other Mosquito Squadrons were added to No.8 PF Group with better Marks of the bomber, starting with B.IX's going to 139 Squadron.

Low level daylight attacks in fact never finished. Its just that the relatively low output of BIVs and BIXs limited the extent of operations that they could be employed under. The daylight raids, at least over occupied Europe and the coastal waters attached thereto, were handed over to the FBVI units whilst the BIV and BIX units were used mostly in the pathfinder and other specialist support for the BC main forces.

I think in fact that it is yourself that is misusing highly selective and discriminatory statistics to paint a particular picture that simply never existed. if there was a period that Mosquito losses were too high and thereby affected the use of mosquito squadrons solely on that basis, ive yet to find it.

Shortround6 said:

For a good part of 1942-43 there were only 2 squadrons of mosquito bombers. They did do a number of high noted raids but their losses were such that the daylight raids were given up and the switch made to night bombing. It only takes 3-4 losses out of 12-16 planes for it to be "heavy" losses on percentage basis.

We do have to be careful quoting statistics

Click to expand...

Often raids were done with 3 or 6 aircraft. A single loss is a big percentage.

But that is not to say that the losses (to the enemy) would be any greater if they had 500 bombers in the air.

Are the losses sustainable?

If you lose 1 or 2 aircraft 2 times a week, I think those can be easily covered.

the last raid, to the Schott glass works at Jena on May 27th 1943 of 14 aircraft had 3 lost over/near the target and two crash trying to land at home. Other raids had lower loses. But.....

From wiki so it may not be worth much.
During this daylight-raiding phase, Nos. 105 and 139 Squadrons flew 139 combat operations and aircrew losses were high.[115] Even the losses incurred in the squadrons' dangerous Blenheim era were exceeded in percentage terms. The Roll of Honour shows 51 aircrew deaths from the end of May 1942 to April 1943 [116]

115, Birtles 2017, ch. 10.
116 Scott, 1999, pp 197 – 200

Birtles, Philip. De Havilland Mosquito: The Original Multirole Combat Aircraft. Stroud, England: Fonthill Media, 2017
Scott, Stuart R. "Mosquito Thunder: No. 105 Squadron RAF at war 1942-5." Sutton Publishing, Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK, 1999

there were only 273 MK IV bombers built. The prototype B MK IX first flew in March of 1943.

The Mosquitoes of No 105 and 139 squadrons (and their crews) may have been more valuable as pathfinders than dropping four 500lbs at time from each plane in low altitude raids.

Still not buying it. The personnel losses equate to 1 pilot or nav for every 10.27 sorties (or 1 entire crew lost for every 20.5 sorties). That's a pretty good rate and is hardly "unsustainable". The Mosquitos were going to fun places like Berlin and to attack vital targets like Jena which makes their loss rates even more remarkable.

You can hardly compare Blenheim losses with those of the Mosquitos because the Blenheims were not spending anything like the amount of time over enemy territory that the Mosquitos were. The Blenheims certainly weren't going to Berlin.

As noted previously, the actual reason for removing the Mosquito from daylight raids was to implement PFF with Oboe.

I think it is slightly humorous that almost uniformly we have split on this issue along national lines.......on one side of the fence are our American friends, and on the other, the british and commonwealth nationalities. We generally can never agree on the mosquito......

The German guys in this forum must be scratching their heads in wonder that they are not the targets in this particular debate.....

Reluctant Poster said:

In no way shape or form can the P-38 be considered as comparable to the Mosquito as a bomber. The Mosquito was a league above in it capabilities. The Mosquito could and did deliver a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin which is well beyond what a P-38 could do. The Mosquito filled the role of strategic bomber, performing some of the duties of the 4 engine heavies. It was equipped with far superior navigation aids (and the navigator) necessary to find the targets. Bomber Command Mosquitoes dropped close to 27,000 long tons of bombs which is almost as many as the Short Stirling dropped.


The only time the P-38 was used in the strategic role was the Ploesti fiasco in which minimal damage was done to the target at the cost of 22 P-38s lost out of an attacking force of 72. This represents a 31% loss rate which matches the loss rate of the B-24s in their famous raid.


Mention has been made of the marine strike role which the Mosquitoes of the Banff strike wing excelled at. While the Beaufighter deserves more of the credit for the maritime role the Mosquitoes did sink a sustainable tonnage, including 8 U-boats. The p-38 did not have such success in the maritime role.


Some of the other roles mentioned for the P-38 are not serious. The transporting of people in a drop tank was public relations stunt with no practical application. The P-38 was a complete flop as a nightfighter with no victories to its credit. It was not a practical weapon. The flash from the front mounted guns destroyed the pilots night vision while the glow of its turbo chargers could be seen for miles. The so called torpedo bomber role consisted of dropping a concrete filled dummy torpedo from 20,000 feet above the desert, hardly proof of its capability to actually successfully launch a torpedo in action. The test of the P-38 as a glider tug ended when the tail snapped off.


If we follow the criteria of the air superiority role as being more important that the other roles, the P-51 wins. It was one of the very best air superiority fighters, it had a dedicated real dive bomber version, it was employed extensively as a ground strafer and it was used as a photo recon plane in very large numbers.

Click to expand...

So you saying that P-38 was not successful in versatility and P-51 or even P-47 was more versatile?

Reluctant Poster said:

In no way shape or form can the P-38 be considered as comparable to the Mosquito as a bomber. The Mosquito was a league above in it capabilities. The Mosquito could and did deliver a 4,000lb bomb to Berlin which is well beyond what a P-38 could do. The Mosquito filled the role of strategic bomber, performing some of the duties of the 4 engine heavies. It was equipped with far superior navigation aids (and the navigator) necessary to find the targets. Bomber Command Mosquitoes dropped close to 27,000 long tons of bombs which is almost as many as the Short Stirling dropped.


The only time the P-38 was used in the strategic role was the Ploesti fiasco in which minimal damage was done to the target at the cost of 22 P-38s lost out of an attacking force of 72. This represents a 31% loss rate which matches the loss rate of the B-24s in their famous raid.


Mention has been made of the marine strike role which the Mosquitoes of the Banff strike wing excelled at. While the Beaufighter deserves more of the credit for the maritime role the Mosquitoes did sink a sustainable tonnage, including 8 U-boats. The p-38 did not have such success in the maritime role.


Some of the other roles mentioned for the P-38 are not serious. The transporting of people in a drop tank was public relations stunt with no practical application. The P-38 was a complete flop as a nightfighter with no victories to its credit. It was not a practical weapon. The flash from the front mounted guns destroyed the pilots night vision while the glow of its turbo chargers could be seen for miles. The so called torpedo bomber role consisted of dropping a concrete filled dummy torpedo from 20,000 feet above the desert, hardly proof of its capability to actually successfully launch a torpedo in action. The test of the P-38 as a glider tug ended when the tail snapped off.


If we follow the criteria of the air superiority role as being more important that the other roles, the P-51 wins. It was one of the very best air superiority fighters, it had a dedicated real dive bomber version, it was employed extensively as a ground strafer and it was used as a photo recon plane in very large numbers.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.....let me go way out on a limb and guess you don't agree with my pick.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that.
However i did not say in a vacuum that the p38 was better in the fighter role and therefore was more versitile. Yes that would make for a bad logic flow chart.
What I said was, in context, that if 2 planes more or less balance out( the skeeter better at some things and the 38 better at others) than the one that held the advantage in the what I felt was the most important role( yes others may disagree just explaining my reasoning) would be the most versatile as efficacy in each role must hold wieght in the comparative as any plane can do almost any role to some degree so if effectiveness is not a part of the equation then all planes would be most versitile.
Now if someone felt that the fighter role was not the most important of tasks then yes this would negate this line of reasoning in relation to these 2 planes for them and thats certainly valid for them but saying that i said the p38 is a better fighter and therefore more versitile isn't what i said at all.

Even if the fighter role was the most important role, the fact that the P-38 was quite versatile and also better at the fighter role than the Mosquito does not make it more versatile than the Mosquito.

The Mosquito did more things well. Therefore it is more versatile.