Mosquito as primary strategic bomber

[Wuzak]

I thought for a first official poll we could revisit one of our more controversial and long running debates:

Could the Mosquito (bomber variants) been used as the primary strategic bomber?

a) Could the Mossie do the nocturnal strategic bomber role instead of the Lancaster, Halifax, etc?

b) Could the Mossie do the daytime strategic bomber role instead of the B-17 & B-24?

c) Could the Mossie replace the heavies to perform strategic bombing both day and night?

or d) it could not replace the heavies in the strategic bomber role

[Ricky]

Stand by for another 40+ pages!

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I was forced to take choice "d)" even though I don't agree with its wording. I think the Mosquito was usable in the strategic bombing role, but I don't believe that it could have replaced the heavies--either for day or night bombing. It was valuable when used along with the heavies, but could not have replaced them.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Only one pick to be made >> 'b'

If enough Mosquitoes could have been made, they most certainly could have replaced the B-17s and B-24s.

[Wuzak]

Hi All,

I was forced to take choice "d)" even though I don't agree with its wording. I think the Mosquito was usable in the strategic bombing role, but I don't believe that it could have replaced the heavies--either for day or night bombing. It was valuable when used along with the heavies, but could not have replaced them.

Regards,
Lightning

I have edited the text in the first post, but can't seem to get access to the poll to change it.

Your point is very valid - the Mosquito did perform some strategic bombing, but the real question is whether or not it the types primarily used for teh role - ie the heavies.

[Wuzak]

Stand by for another 40+ pages!

It need not be....

I voted for b) btw.

[Wuzak]

This poll is like a US presidential election.....

Hardly anybody turns out!

[gruad]

Yes it should have been used in both roles - unarmed fast stealth was how the bomber war went after WWII and it could have been anticipated with a forward looking commander.

Get US industry to churn the things out by the 1000s

[Pioneer]

If this was the case, then one should maybe consider the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster?

For the performance was excellent, being basically as described in the original proposal; as fast or faster than the de Havilland Mosquito but with defensive armament and twice the bombload!

The first XB-42 prototype flew on 6 May 1944



Regards

Pioneer

[Wuzak]

If this was the case, then one should maybe consider the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster?

For the performance was excellent, being basically as described in the original proposal; as fast or faster than the de Havilland Mosquito but with defensive armament and twice the bombload!

The first XB-42 prototype flew on 6 May 1944



Regards

Pioneer


Yes, the XB-42 would have been a good follow-up, but may have been too late to see action in WW2.

[Pioneer]

If this was the case, then one should maybe consider the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster?

For the performance was excellent, being basically as described in the original proposal; as fast or faster than the de Havilland Mosquito but with defensive armament and twice the bombload!

The first XB-42 prototype flew on 6 May 1944



Regards

Pioneer

[gruad]

On Test Flight Info the MixMaster seems great but there's a way to a combat aircraft being fully debugged.

The question on this poll might generally be phrased: could turret armed 4 engined heavy bombers be replaced with smaller machines that relied on speed and stealth to deliver their bombs. The USAAF would use the Mosquito built under licence or its own variant on this theme.

Possibly given the pressing need the MixMaster could have come a bit earlier.