Mosquito better than B-17?????

[Chiron]

"Mossie could carry almost the same load as the B-17 normally carried the same distance, and much faster"

Ya, I too found that statement from some website regarding of Mossie's bomb load. But, it seems unbelievable. I meant, B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two.

Here is what I found from RAF History on Mosquito:

"An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons!"

So, from this view, does it means that Mosquitor was much superior and technological advanced to any other bomber in WWII? Since Mosquito already qualifies several components of modern bombers: fly with high speed, solo mission, long distance, and most importantly all, the precise bombing.

[mosquitoman]

Other mosquito variants would be night escorts, shooting down and german nightfighters and providing tactical and weather reconnaisance

[the lancaster kicks ass]

B-17 was a HEAVY bomber and equiped with 4 engines, whereas Mosquito had only two.

but remember the mossie was much lighter so didn't need more engines..........

and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads...............

[Chiron]

"and the B-17 was a heavy but very rarely carried heavy payloads......"

I agree. And it seems also that whereas B-17 suffered tremendously in air until the arrival of P-51, the Mosquito was capable of conducting solo operation without accompanying fighters to safeguard itself from enemies' planes.

(MM.......something tells me that B-17 wasnt a good plane after all....)

In comparison with Mosquite's bombing record, how effect was B-17's role in strategic bombing?

[evangilder]

You are really comapring apples to oranges. Yes, the mosquito did fly solo missions against small targets, but large industrial targets required a large formation of aircraft with a large amount of bombs.

Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well.

The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.

[mosquitoman]

Pathfinder mosquito's did very well as bombers, the LNSF very rarely lost aircraft either

[Chiron]

"but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well. "

But cheddar cheese already stated that "B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster"

So, even in large bombing operation, I think a pack of Mossie can handle the job beautifually.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by evangilder

You are really comapring apples to oranges. Yes, the mosquito did fly solo missions against small targets, but large industrial targets required a large formation of aircraft with a large amount of bombs.

Realistically, how do you think the Mossie would have faired if they had had large formations of them attacking large targets? Because of their relative size, they would obviusly be more manueverable against fighters, but with a full bomb-load, they would be heavy and slower to manuever as well.

The roles that the aircraft were designed for are different. You have a right to the opinion that the B-17 was "not so good", but fo rthe role it was designed for, it did a good job.

Well said

[cheddar cheese]

Yeah, comparing the 2 aircraft is a little silly. But It does show that the Mossie was a good bomber.

However, if there was a large formation of Mossies attacking a target, and Some 190's were scrambled to intercept them, the Bombers would turn into fighters and have to take out the 190's, correct? Thus meaning that the bombload would not be able to be dropped. In the same situation with the B-17, the escort fighters would take out the 190's and the bombers would bomb. It was far more logical to use the B-17 than the Mossie, which is the question in hand. Also, it was the combined day and night bombing the harmed Germany so much, and if the Mossie was used it would more than likely be at night, meaning there would be no daylight bombing.

[Chiron]

How about if we compare B-17 and Lancaster?

[cheddar cheese]

Oooo thats been done Lancaster wins every time.

B-17 v Halifax might be interesting...

[evangilder]

Are you looking for an honest comparison, or are you just trying to find a way to bash the B-17?

[cheddar cheese]

Im not looking for a way to bash the B-17...I love the plane, but I dont think it was as good as the Lancaster. It was probably better than the Halifax though, and I dont know what else to compare it too.

[Chiron]

ya, can someone tell me why Lancaster is so great? even the Discovery Channel ranked it as the best bomber in WWII

http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=26

In terms of defense, B-17 was the best, so what made Lancaster special?

[evangilder]

That question was for Chiron, CC.