Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
Considering the survivability and comparable bomb loads,would we have been far better off with the former? Would we even have built the lumbering Liberator had we had thousands of these?
What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?
- Thread starter Donald Johnson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
...there would be a lot less trees?
Hi Donald,
If we'd replaced the B-17 with the Mosquito, the Germans would have shot down far more Mosquitos!
Th unarmed Mosquito day bomber was a failure. Bomber Command reported to the AAF that the type was being pulled out of service after only 11 months of operations - the aircraft and crews were shifted to night missions.
The AAF wanted daylight precision bombing, which the unarmed Mosquito couldn't perform. No B-17, no round-the-clock destruction of German industry.
No B-24, no long-range war against the U-boat.
We considered the Mozzy, but decided against it as a bomber...
Cheers,
Dana
If we'd replaced the B-17 with the Mosquito, the Germans would have shot down far more Mosquitos!
Th unarmed Mosquito day bomber was a failure. Bomber Command reported to the AAF that the type was being pulled out of service after only 11 months of operations - the aircraft and crews were shifted to night missions.
The AAF wanted daylight precision bombing, which the unarmed Mosquito couldn't perform. No B-17, no round-the-clock destruction of German industry.
No B-24, no long-range war against the U-boat.
We considered the Mozzy, but decided against it as a bomber...
Cheers,
Dana
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Mossie had an impressive max. load which was comparable to the B-17's average bomb load of 4 to 8 thousand pounds (depending on the range of the mission), but the B-17 could, for short range missions, carry a max. load of just over 17,000 pounds using both internal and external racks - which would require four Mossies to accomplish.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Just like the Brits, sending pastries instead of high explosives!
- Thread starter
- #7
Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
They were building an excellent quality wood boat here in Detroit called the Chris Craft. It would seem that we're knew how to work with this stuff.
They key ingredient to the plywood, however was Ecuadorian balsa. Would should have been able to attain that as well.
- Thread starter
- #8
Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
- Thread starter
- #9
Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
Extra bomb load is wasted if you don't hit your target. These things rolled bombs into a retaining wall at ten foot altitude. Pinpoint accuracy is an understatement; far fewer civilians would have been killed.
The point is that these only had two crew members and better survivability than any planes flying during that war, period. Unarmed, they dropped and scooted at 4000 mph, faster than most fighters.
The point is that these only had two crew members and better survivability than any planes flying during that war, period. Unarmed, they dropped and scooted at 4000 mph, faster than most fighters.
Hi Donald,
Mosquito survivability was truly a wonderful thing. However, the many other varients more than made up for the poor survivability of the unarmed day bomber.
Cheers,
Dana
- Thread starter
- #11
Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
Enlighten me. Treetop flying negated flak defenses. Route changes at that speed provided less reaction time. They were flying over Berlin even late in the war with impunity.
Is it an overstatement to suggest that early adoption of these things may have stalled heavy bomber production or at least medium bombers. Were they not better than Marauders and Mitchells?
(The Brits built several bombers that were absolute junk).
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Mosquito's "tree top" missions with "pinpoint accuracy" were done in small groups.
Their max. load of 4,000 pounds were done on certain occasions - and that load both shortened their range as well as compromised their speed.
You are not going to destroy a manufacturing site (ball bearing plant or aircraft factory) with a hand full of 4,000 pound specialized bombs.
Additionally: oil refineries, ball bearing plants, aircraft manufacturing sites, marshalling yards, etc. were all staffed by civilians - how does one go about bombing these targets without collateral damage?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
And none of that addresses the enormous task of retraining the 8th AF's bomber crews for an entirely different suite of tactics and doctrine called-for by the switch to ultra-low-level bombing
Many of the Mosquito's famous targets were not defended because they were not considered targets, like Gestapo offices and prisons. Flying at tree top height doesnt negate flak defences, you can be hit by any machine gun or rifle and means it is very easy to get lost.
What kind of the respective bomb loads we'd have in 1943?
Hi again, Donald,
First - you're talking about eliminating a target. The AAF was talking about eliminating an industry.
Second - the 4,000-pound cookie was most often used at night, just to get Germany's attention. It did little good at eliminating a target, but it was great at making a lot of noise, keeping folks awake, and messing up things on the ground.
Third - several of the Mosquito's most famous daylight missions (such as the Amiens prison break) were flown flown by fighter bombers, which carried only two 500-pound bombs. (Only Cliff Robertson could pack a 4,000-pound bomb into a gun-armed Mosquito and fly it to a German heavy-water site in Norway!)
Don't misunderstand me. The Mosquito is my all-time favorite aircraft, and I've been researching America's interest in it since the early 1970s. It was the most capable aircraft of the war for several of its roles. However, while often cited as a fabulous, high-speed unarmed day bomber, that was the one role for which it failed. If it had succeeded, the RAF would not have ended the day bomber missions in May 1943.
Have a look at Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and M. J. F. Bowyer - a great history of the type.
Thanks for the interesting topic!
Cheers,
Dana
Shortround6
Major General
The problem with replacing the B-17 and and B-24 with the Mosquito is that the decision would have had to have been made in 1940 or very early 1941 at the latest.
At that time there were only a few (one?) Mosquitos flying.
That is when the decisions as to what bombers were to be built were made so that the factories could be built, the factories that made the engines could be built (Studebaker did NOT make radial aircraft engines using the same machinery they built car engines with) and so on. Allocations/production of aluminum (and other materials) were starting to be sorted out.
Saying in 1943 that the Mosquito was nifty plane and we should change over won't get you large numbers of Mosquitos until 1945 at best.
B-17s were assembled in 3 plants and B-24s in 5 plants. You want Merlins in large numbers (tens of thousands more than Packard produced) you need to arrange for several of the factories that built R-1820s or R-1930s to build Merlins back in 1940/early 1941.
There are other threads on this. The timing problem is just one problem.
At that time there were only a few (one?) Mosquitos flying.
That is when the decisions as to what bombers were to be built were made so that the factories could be built, the factories that made the engines could be built (Studebaker did NOT make radial aircraft engines using the same machinery they built car engines with) and so on. Allocations/production of aluminum (and other materials) were starting to be sorted out.
Saying in 1943 that the Mosquito was nifty plane and we should change over won't get you large numbers of Mosquitos until 1945 at best.
B-17s were assembled in 3 plants and B-24s in 5 plants. You want Merlins in large numbers (tens of thousands more than Packard produced) you need to arrange for several of the factories that built R-1820s or R-1930s to build Merlins back in 1940/early 1941.
There are other threads on this. The timing problem is just one problem.
USA making Mosquitoes is a good thing in general. We might 1st know the goal post: is it being made instead of B-17, or instead of B-24, or instead B-25 or/and B-26? Or a combination? Perhaps something not listed should be axed instead?
Before all of that - timing is the crucial issue here, and before it is well defined we're unlikely to arrive at plausible scenarios.
Before all of that - timing is the crucial issue here, and before it is well defined we're unlikely to arrive at plausible scenarios.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As I just watched a YouTube vid touching on it, how about the Mosquito instead of the P-38?
Same question pops out: when should the order to do so came out, and how much of time we need to have a sizable force of Mosquitoes. Also, the 'no P-38' scenario deletes the best long-range fighter in the Allied arsenal before 1944.
- Status
