Discussion:
from Quora - Is this claim about Mosquito true?
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2020-12-06 16:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Is this claim about Mosquito true?
"The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets
as the heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American
Air Force."

Taken from:
David Moe
19h ago
Lives in Canadian Rockies (2006–present)

Was construction of parts for the De Havilland Mosquito the most
outsourced of any WW2 aircraft?
Hermann Göring said, “It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito… The
British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a
beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is
building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet
again.” It was faster than any of his fighters.[1]

In addition to over 5500 being made in British piano and furniture
factories, over 1100 Mosquitos were produced in Canadian workshops,
which also had a lot of skilled woodworkers. Australia produced over 200
Mosquitos.

The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets as the
heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American Air Force.
Since German fighters could not catch it, the Mosquito ended the war
with the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command service.

It also shot down a lot of German fighters since it could sneak up
behind them while they were sneaking up on British heavy bombers and
open fire with its four 20 mm cannons in its belly and four .303 machine
guns in its nose. It carried a radar receiver which could detect German
night fighter radars for that purpose. Night-fighter Mosquitos downed
over 600 enemy aircraft during the war.

Mosquito fighter/bombers being produced in Canadian factory[2]


Footnotes

[1] de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia
[2] De Havilland Mosquito
16.4K views166 upvotes1 share11 comments
a425couple
2020-12-06 16:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Is this claim about Mosquito true?
"The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets
as the heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American
Air Force."
David Moe
19h ago
Lives in Canadian Rockies (2006–present)
Was construction of parts for the De Havilland Mosquito the most
outsourced of any WW2 aircraft?
Hermann Göring said, “It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito… The
British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a
beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is
building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet
again.” It was faster than any of his fighters.[1]
In addition to over 5500 being made in British piano and furniture
factories, over 1100 Mosquitos were produced in Canadian workshops,
which also had a lot of skilled woodworkers. Australia produced over 200
Mosquitos.
The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets as the
heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American Air Force.
Since German fighters could not catch it, the Mosquito ended the war
with the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command service.
It also shot down a lot of German fighters since it could sneak up
behind them while they were sneaking up on British heavy bombers and
open fire with its four 20 mm cannons in its belly and four .303 machine
guns in its nose. It carried a radar receiver which could detect German
night fighter radars for that purpose. Night-fighter Mosquitos downed
over 600 enemy aircraft during the war.
Mosquito fighter/bombers being produced in Canadian factory[2]
Footnotes
[1] de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia
[2] De Havilland Mosquito
16.4K views166 upvotes1 share11 comments
Later, one can read this in comments:

James Page
2h ago
Just to clarify, the only way the Mosquito could deliver the same
payload as the B17 was when it was designed to carry the 4000 pound
“cookie”. It could never carry the number of bombs the B17 could.

Jacob Klaren
1h ago
Well it almost could. It can carry 1800kg of bombs. The B17 could carry
around 2000kg of bombs on long distance missions. For short distance
missions it can carry 3600kg of bombs but this would reduce the range to
little over 600km.
Jim Wilkins
2020-12-06 20:21:06 UTC
Permalink
"a425couple" wrote in message news:***@news2.newsguy.com...

The Eighth wanted to engage and destroy German fighters, not dodge them.
Offense wins wars, defense only prolongs them. The British promoted what
they could do and dismissed what they couldn't -- escort the bombers.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/targeting-the-luftwaffe/

"The fighters were no longer constrained to holding close formation with
bombers. Instead, they would fly ahead, look for German fighters, and attack
them where they found them."

"Bomber crews were dismayed at first, but the results were dramatic. Within
a few months, the Allies had seized air superiority from the Germans and
held it for the rest of the war. The average monthly loss rate for Eighth
Air Force heavy bombers fell from 5.1 percent in 1943 to 1.9 percent in
1944."

"Spaatz deliberately used the bombers as bait. By attacking the German oil
supplies, they would lure the Luftwaffe up into direct combat, where US
fighters waited for them. German airpower would be destroyed by attrition."

"The Luftwaffe in western Europe wrote off 34 percent of its fighter
strength in January, another 56 percent in February."

"“It is generally conceded that the air war against Germany was won during
the phase of our operations between the beginning of February 1944 and
D-Day,” Doolittle said years later."

Good as it was, the Mosquito was not a day fighter like the P-38.
Geoffrey Sinclair
2020-12-07 07:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
The Eighth wanted to engage and destroy German fighters, not dodge them.
Offense wins wars, defense only prolongs them. The British promoted what
they could do and dismissed what they couldn't -- escort the bombers.
The British, like the US, escorted bombers that stayed within fighter range.
Post by Jim Wilkins
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/targeting-the-luftwaffe/
This is a fairly standard article with the usual problems. For example
bombing the German airframe assembly plants did little. The Eisenhower
"settlement" being about the British, not the need for the armies to win
the battle of the build up, which required the attacks on the rail system.

If you like "the Luftwaffe has no fuel" versus "the army has no Normandy
Beachhead". Everything became subordinate to Overlord for a time.
Post by Jim Wilkins
"The fighters were no longer constrained to holding close formation with
bombers. Instead, they would fly ahead, look for German fighters, and
attack them where they found them."
The improvement was the move from close escort to more distant,
with the reaction time needed for escorts to notice attackers, increase
speed and intercept it usually meant close escort stopped second
or later passes, rather than saw much fighter versus fighter combat.
The use of tactics like patrolling a section of the route during a given
time period then freelancing meant the fighters could cruise at what
was best for them, so better fuel arrangements, and they were more
likely to convert sightings into interceptions.

The following time line is 1943 to 1944, mainly from Air War Europa
by Eric Hammel.

20th December The first freelance fighter mission is flown when the
bombers turn up 30 minutes late and the 55th fighter group "puts into
action a plan much discussed by fighter pilots - ranging ahead of the
bombers as they converge on the bomber path. The 55th fighter group
scores no victories on this day, but its new tactic gets the attention of
VIII fighter command and there ensures a healthy debate that, in the
end, will free the fighters from the outmoded close-escort doctrine of
the day." Window is first used on this day as well. Some 491 fighters
were used as escorts for 546 bombers, 12 of which were pathfinders.

6th January Doolittle gained command

7th January Phased escort tactics used, fighters fly to rendezvous points
to relieve other fighters rather than a formation of fighters stays with a
formation of bombers for the entire mission, 571 fighters for 502 bombers.

11th January the first officially sanctioned test of freelance fighter
tactics,
where fighter formations range ahead and to the side of the bomber
formation hoping to catch Luftwaffe fighters as they are forming up, 592
fighters for 663 bombers. The USAAF mounts 2 raids that day, the one
with the freelance experiment, to Oschersleben and Halberstadt, has the
Oschersleben bomber formation hit hard by fighters and flak, losing 34
from 177 bombers despatched, the Halberstadt formation loses 8 from
114 despatched. The 221 escorting fighters for these two formations
claim 29 kills for 3 fighters lost, 11 of the kills by the freelance
fighters.
Only the 56th fighter group freelances, with two formations of 36 and 48
fighters respectively. All the bombers were B-17s.
Post by Jim Wilkins
"Bomber crews were dismayed at first, but the results were dramatic.
Within a few months, the Allies had seized air superiority from the
Germans and held it for the rest of the war. The average monthly loss rate
for Eighth Air Force heavy bombers fell from 5.1 percent in 1943 to 1.9
percent in 1944."
Monthly loss rates for the 8th Air Force bombers in 1943 range between
12.1% and 26%. For the first half of 1944 11 to 24.6% according to
Williamson Murray.

The quoted figures are probably percentage of sorties, not percentage
of bombers lost during the month versus strength at start of the month.

Think about it, run 10 missions in the month, all lose 1.9%, total monthly
loss 19%.
Post by Jim Wilkins
"Spaatz deliberately used the bombers as bait. By attacking the German oil
supplies, they would lure the Luftwaffe up into direct combat, where US
fighters waited for them. German airpower would be destroyed by attrition."
The bombers had to be hurting the targets attacked, otherwise they
could be ignored, as for example they were to an extent in mid 1943
when the attack at Kursk and the defence of Sicily were the priorities.

The bombers were more than bait.
Post by Jim Wilkins
"The Luftwaffe in western Europe wrote off 34 percent of its fighter
strength in January, another 56 percent in February."
Williamson Murray notes the Luftwaffe fighter units, so all fronts,
percentage
losses as 30.3, 33.8, 56.4, 43, 50.4 and 48.3 percent January to June 1944,
and would include all causes losses.
Post by Jim Wilkins
"“It is generally conceded that the air war against Germany was won during
the phase of our operations between the beginning of February 1944 and
D-Day,” Doolittle said years later."
Given the losses taken from D-day onwards, just the USAAF alone, that
is an interesting definition of won. It does ignore the way the USAAF
kept attacking through the northern winter of 1943/44, not allowing the
Luftwaffe fighter units their normal quiet period.

In the first half of 1944 the Luftwaffe day fighter force suffered major
losses
which meant a major drop in average quality, just before better quality
fighters
began appearing. At the same time the Luftwaffe bomber force took major
losses attacking England and the ground attack force kept up operations in
the east. The bomber losses could not be replaced given the emphasis on
fighters.

Fighter losses then hit new highs in June 1944, resisting Overlord and
Bagration. It then required continual allied operations to keep the
situation
that way.
Post by Jim Wilkins
Good as it was, the Mosquito was not a day fighter like the P-38.
Agreed but note P-38 did very little to the Luftwaffe fighter force,
particularly
with the 8th Air Force, the big kill claims for the first half of 1944 were
by the
P-47 units, with the P-51 taking over during the time period.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
2020-12-07 07:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Is this claim about Mosquito true?
The archives of the group show it continuing to crop up and be
debunked.

Since Quora seems to be a registered users site and I do not feel like
registering feel free to copy this post as a reply to the queries.
Post by a425couple
"The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets
as the heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American
Air Force."
No, see below for further details.
Post by a425couple
David Moe
19h ago
Lives in Canadian Rockies (2006–present)
Was construction of parts for the De Havilland Mosquito the most
outsourced of any WW2 aircraft?
The answer to that is what is the definition of outsourced? Start with
the electronics, the oxygen systems, the engines and so on, representing
quite a lot of the value. For example in late 1944 the P-61 airframe was
estimated to cost about $150,000, a fly away P-61 was $250,000, while
the B-25 was $90,000 out of $155,000 and the B-26 $110,000 out of
$200,000. The aircraft companies concentrated on airframes.

Very few aircraft factories actually made lots of parts, they tended to
assemble them from suppliers. How many parts the aircraft company
made is another matter and would vary, small production runs would
have a bias to in house parts. Remember pre war De Havilland were
doing a lot of wooden aircraft, it would have the relevant workshops,
similar for companies doing metal work. With the arrival of mass
production the aircraft companies were stretched financially and
management wise to assemble the large numbers required before
you talk about setting up a major increase in workshop capabilities,
including mass production tooling.

The book Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer note
over 400 sub contractors were involved in Mosquito production in Britain,
there is a 5 page list of some of them in Appendix 19.

Supplying the Ford B-24 production line at Willow Run were 965
subcontractors located in 287 cities in 38 states.

Simply put the Mosquito may have had more sub contractors or not or
at different times.

For the US aviation industry as a whole airframe employment expanded by
15.9 times, engine 21.25 times, propeller 22.8 times, subcontractors 51.6
times, GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) 17.2 times from January
1940 to their peaks. Note the rise in subcontractors.
Post by a425couple
Hermann Göring said, “It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito… The
British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a
beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building,
and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again.” It was
faster than any of his fighters.[1]
Or about the same top speed.
Post by a425couple
In addition to over 5500 being made in British piano and furniture
factories, over 1100 Mosquitos were produced in Canadian workshops, which
also had a lot of skilled woodworkers. Australia produced over 200
Mosquitos.
For the record, Britain produced 6,424 Mosquito, Canada 1,133
and Australia 212.

Eight TR.37 Sea Mosquito, RAF serials VT730 to VT737, are often
reported as being built but there is no record of them in the official
production reports, nor of them being delivered, they are not counted
here.

For the detailed record, production by country by mark, B = Bomber,
FB = Fighter Bomber, NF = Night fighter, PR = Photographic reconnaissance,
T = Trainer, TR = Torpedo Reconnaissance (Naval). Mark numbers in
Roman Numerals to XX/20.

Australia, 178 FB.40, 23 PR.41, 11 T.43

Britain, the II, XII, XIII, XVII and XIX were night fighters, the VI a
fighter
bomber, the XV a high altitude fighter, the XVIII the Tsetse fighter
bomber with 6 pounder gun.

Prototypes: one each of the mark I (Reconnaissance), II (Fighter) and
V (Bomber) and 2 TR.33.

10 PR.I, 394 II, 361 T.III, B.IV 273, IV PR 27, 2,288 VI, 5 PR.VIII,
54 B.IX, 90 PR.IX, 97 XII, 270 XIII, 5 XV, 400 B.XVI, 435 PR.XVI,
100 XVII, 18 XVIII, 280 XIX, 530 NF.30, 4 PR.32, 50 TR.33,
181 PR.34, 276 B.35, 163 NF.36, 6 TR.37, 101 NF.38

Canada (mark VII and XX were bombers) 25 VII, 245 XX,
3 FB.21, 4 T.22, 400 B.25, 435 FB.26, 21 T.27

How did the piano and furniture factories get completed airframes
out of their workshops? Or were they doing ultra grand pianos and
one piece room length wardrobes pre war and so had the lifting
gear and wide enough doors?

Mosquitoes were assembled in aircraft assembly factories, using
parts from suppliers. Some of those suppliers did furniture and
piano work pre war but note with the rise of gliders and plenty of
wooden training aircraft there was plenty of aviation work for the
entire wood industry.
Post by a425couple
The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets as the
heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American Air Force.
No.

The Mosquito could lift, as an absolute maximum, 5,000 pounds of
bombs, 4,000 pounds carried internally, in versions that began arriving
in 1943, the B-17 as an absolute maximum either 17,600 or 20,600
pounds, with 12,600 pounds carried internally, in versions that began
arriving in 1941.

Now comes the difference between real world and theoretical.

The first 4,000 pound bomb dropped by a Mosquito was on 23
February 1944

To bomb Berlin from Britain with 5,000 pounds of bombs a Mosquito
would need to be on economic cruise at around 10,000 feet, B-25/26
sort of flight plan, and even then would have a very small fuel reserve.
Or they could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs internally, put fuel tanks on
the wing stations and come in at 30,000 feet plus at 300 mph plus.

The usual conditions apply to the bomb tonnages mentioned below,
they are good put not perfect.

Figures for Mosquito raids where the target is given as Berlin by
month, fields are month, number of effective sorties, number lost,
bomb tonnage in short tons, average bomb load, that is bomb
tonnage divided by effective sorties. Richard Davis figures.

Mar-44 / 52 / 0 / 49 / 1895.38
Apr-44 / 54 / 0 / 65 / 2410.07
May-44 / 108 / 0 / 153 / 2824.89
Jun-44 / 212 / 5 / 376 / 3545.96
Jul-44 / 250 / 4 / 415 / 3316.10
Aug-44 / 240 / 1 / 371 / 3088.40
Sep-44 / 194 / 4 / 294 / 3026.31
Oct-44 / 300 / 4 / 400 / 2668.59
Nov-44 / 251 / 1 / 370 / 2948.59
Dec-44 / 165 / 1 / 227 / 2755.88
Jan-45 / 367 / 1 / 490 / 2672.13
Feb-45 / 815 / 3 / 1,070 / 2625.33
Mar-45 / 1,618 / 7 / 2,077 / 2567.83
Apr-45 / 995 / 4 / 1,426 / 2866.97

Totals / 5,621 / 35 / 7,783 / 2769.26

So the Mosquitoes were carrying 4,000 pound bombs to Berlin,
but that was clearly a minority of the sorties. If you assume the
loads were either 2,000 or 4,000 pounds then around 40% of
the sorties carried the heavier load. The above figures are
from 125 nights of raids, minimum average bomb load for a
given night was 1,629 pounds (on 15 nights the average was
below 2,000 pounds, 10 of these nights were in 1945), maximum
nightly average bomb load was 3,689 pounds with 11 nights
having an average of 3,400 pounds or greater and all bar 1 of
these in June and July 1944, the other the following September.

One explanation for the less than 2,000 pounds average bomb
load is siren tours, one or two bombs per city times several cities.

Also, given the usual size of the Mosquito raids, particularly in 1944,
an error of 1 aircraft credited with attacking per night would often be
able to shift the average 5 to 10%. The average number of Mosquito
sorties per raid on Berlin in the March 1944 to April 1945 period is 45.

Since the B-17 was sold as a continental defence aircraft, bombing
approaching shipping, it was optimised to carry the 1,600 pound
Armour Piercing bomb, 8 of them for 12,800 pounds internal, it meant
the bomb bay topped out at 6,000 pounds of High Explosive bombs,
external racks could add to the bomb load but at a reported significant
performance cost. The lower HE bomb load weight meant the B-17 fuel
tanks could be full.

It is fun trying to find B-17G range with bomb load figures, the RAAF
official history says 2,350 miles with 4,000 pounds, 2,250 miles with
6,000 pounds.

The B-17 missions in Europe required rapid climbs and tight formations,
as a result the early F models had a effective radius of around 300 miles,
way below what was done in the Pacific, the extra wing tanks from the
late F models onward were therefore required for attacks on distant targets.

The 8th Air Force flew 274,921 effective heavy bomber (B-17 and B-24)
sorties in WWII, dropping 714,719 short tons of bombs, average load
5,199.5 pounds.

The US heavy bombers in the Mediterranean flew 147,111 effective
sorties January 1943 to the end of the war dropping 378,824 short
tons of bombs, average load 5,150 pounds.

Average bomb loads US aircraft attacking Berlin, basically
the tonnage of bombs credited as dropping on the target
divided by the aircraft credited with bombing the target,
Richard Davis figures. Note that many to most of these raids
had bombers attacking targets other than "Berlin", the usual
targets of opportunity or different aiming points, which
explains some of the differences between despatched and
attacking figures.

Berlin on 9 March 1944, 361 B-17s despatched, 332 credited
with attacking, average bomb load 4,630 pounds.

Berlin on 22 March 1994, 474 B-17s and 214 B-24s despatched
621 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load
4,425 pounds (around 80 bombers attacked other targets, including
32 the Berlin/Basdorf industrial area)

Berlin on 29 April 1944, 446 B-17s and 233 B-24s despatched,
581 bombers credited with attacking Berlin, average bomb load
4,900 pounds.

Berlin on 7 May 1944, 600 B-17s despatched, 525 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,810 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Osnabruck average bomb load 5,435 pounds.

Berlin on 8 May 1944, 500 B-17s despatched, 384 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,765 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 4,790 pounds.

Berlin on 19 May 1944, 588 B-17s despatched, 493 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,325 pounds. The
B-24s sent to Brunswick average bomb load 5,710 pounds,
or around 1,000 pounds more than 11 days earlier.

Berlin on 24 May 1944, 616 B-17s despatched, 459 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,500 pounds.

Berlin on 21 June 1944, 866 B-17s and 366 B-24s despatched,
to many targets, 560 bombers credited with attacking Berlin,
average bomb load 4,900 pounds.

Berlin on 3 February 1945, 1,093 B-17s despatched, 934 credited
with attacking Berlin, average bomb load 4,890 pounds (interestingly
the 215 bombers who used H2X to sight their bombs had an average
load of around 70 pounds more, which is a warning to treat the figures
as a guide, not absolute).

Berlin on 26 February 1945, 840 B-17s and 367 B-24s despatched,
to many targets around Berlin, 1,089 bombers credited with attacking
3 targets in Berlin, average bomb load 5,100 pounds. Interestingly
the Alexander Platz rail station strike, all B-17, had the highest average
of 5,810 pounds, the North rail station strike, all B-24, the lowest at
4,480 pounds. Strike assignments from Freeman, Mighty 8th War Diary.
If this is correct presumably this was done to allow the B-24s to fly that
little bit higher. This hints at the possibility that, on average, the B-24
carried fewer bombs to Berlin than the B-17 in 1945 anyway.

Berlin on 18 March 1945, 982 B-17s and 347 B-24s despatched,
1,219 bombers credited with attacking. The raid list has 7 entries,
for the targets attacked, by between 25 and 498 bombers,
bomb load averages from 3,860 to 5,170 pounds, overall average
bomb load 5,052 pounds.

Berlin on 28 March 1945, 446 B-17s despatched, 403 credited
with attacking, average bomb load 5,155 pounds. By March 1945
many groups were flying with 9 crew, leaving one gunner behind
and there was widespread removal of some gun turrets as well.
The advantages of air superiority.

In summary when flying for maximum range with bomb load the
B-17 was well ahead of the Mosquito. With the limitations of
the B-17 bomb bay and the operational conditions the air
forces were under in Europe the gap narrowed considerably
in 1944 but the B-17 was still ahead.
Post by a425couple
Since German fighters could not catch it, the Mosquito ended the war with
the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command service.
There are plenty of post war research confirmed kills of Mosquitoes by
German day and night fighters.

If you use Bomber Command War Diaries the lowest loss rate for "any
aircraft" was in fact the Radio Counter Measures B-24 at 0.45% of
sorties, Mosquito second at 0.78%. Of course the RCM aircraft were
never exposed to the same risks as the bombers but the claim as
written is false.
Post by a425couple
It also shot down a lot of German fighters since it could sneak up behind
them while they were sneaking up on British heavy bombers and open fire
with its four 20 mm cannons in its belly and four .303 machine guns in its
nose. It carried a radar receiver which could detect German night fighter
radars for that purpose. Night-fighter Mosquitos downed over 600 enemy
aircraft during the war.
The Mosquito bombers did not carry guns, the Mosquito night fighters
deleted the machine guns when centimetric radar sets were fitted, the
mark VI fighter bombers continued to carry the 4 machine gun 4 cannon
armament but did not carry radar until late in the war when the ASH sets,
which were actually Air Surface search sets, were fitted to some and in
any case the mark VI were largely confined to the 2nd Tactical Air Force,
not Bomber Command.

Sort of like the B-17 could carry lots of bombs and airborne life rafts
and quite a few passengers and so on, just not at the same time.
Post by a425couple
Mosquito fighter/bombers being produced in Canadian factory[2]
Footnotes
[1] de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia
[2] De Havilland Mosquito
16.4K views166 upvotes1 share11 comments
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Jim Wilkins
2020-12-08 13:45:55 UTC
Permalink
"a425couple" wrote in message news:***@news2.newsguy.com...

...Mosquito vs Luftwaffe...
------------------------

This is what happened when the top scoring Mosquito pilot met day fighters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Braham_(RAF_officer)

April 1944:
"Two Messerschmitt Bf 109s appeared on the scene soon afterwards. The cloud
base was only at 1,000 feet and he effected his escape by hiding in its
folds."

June 25, 1944, in an FBVI
"There was no cloud cover and the Mosquito could not outrun the faster and
more agile single-engine fighters for long."

Braham showed that was possible for a Mossie to defeat a single engine
fighter in daytime but not very likely.
Keith Willshaw
2020-12-09 12:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
...Mosquito vs Luftwaffe...
------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Braham_(RAF_officer)
"Two Messerschmitt Bf 109s appeared on the scene soon afterwards. The
cloud base was only at 1,000 feet and he effected his escape by hiding
in its folds."
June 25, 1944, in an FBVI
"There was no cloud cover and the Mosquito could not outrun the faster
and more agile single-engine fighters for long."
Braham showed that was possible for a Mossie to defeat a single engine
fighter in daytime but not very likely.
The RAF frequently used fighters such as Mustangs and Typhoons to
provide top cover for Mosquito light bombers in daylight. The 18
Mosquitos that attacked Amiens Prison (Operation Jericho) were assigned
Typhoons from 174 Squadron and 245 squadron but because of severe
weather over the channel not all arrived and the result was heavy losses
to Fw-190's

Keith Willshaw
2020-12-09 12:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Is this claim about Mosquito true?
"The Mosquito could deliver the same bomb-load to distant targets
as the heavily armoured, four-engine B-17 flown by the American
Air Force."
In certain very limited circumstances and for special marques yes
otherwise hell no.

A small number of The B Mk XVI's and B Mk XX's could carry a single 1800
kg Cookie which was a thin walled blast bomb. Useful for cracking open
residental buildings but not much else. Many of them were used by the
Light Night Striking Force against Beralin and other highly defended
targets such as Dusseldorf. These raids were as much about harassment as
anything else. They also attracted more than their share of night
fighters as the presence of bombers over such targets seemingly
untouchable drove the Luftwaffe High Command crazy. If the main force
was to hit the Ruhr it would often be timed to arrive when the LNSF was
keeping the German NF's busy.


A more typical Mosquito bomber variant would carry 4 x 250 lb or 4x500
lb bombs

However when the RAF really wanted to destroy a target they would send
in the 4 engined heavies. A Lancaster on city busting duties would carry
a payload of a 4,000-pound "Cookie" blast bomb with 12 Small Bomb
Containers, each with 236 4-lb incendiary bombs. If 1000 such bombers
turned up over your city it could spoil your whole day. They would be
preceded by a pathfinder force including Mosquitos who's job was to mark
the target for the main force. This was fundamentally the same strategy
used by Curtis Le May to destroy Japanese cities with his B-29 force.

Attacking industrial targets would often be done with a demolition load
of 14 1,000-pound MC (medium capacity) high-explosive bombs and of
course in 1944/1945 the really big stick was either the Tallboy 12,000
lb earth penetrator or its big brother the 10 ton Grand Slam. By 1945
these were busily rendering really well protected targets such as U-Boat
Pens untenable.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...