Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Mosquito as primary strategic bomber


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Poll: Mosquito as primary strategic bomber (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Mosquito as primary strategic bomber

  1. Yes, replace RAF types at night (2 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  2. Yes, replace USAAF types during the day (3 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. Yes, replace RAF & USAAF types both night & day (8 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  4. No, could not be used as a strategic bomber (11 votes [45.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.83%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 04 September 2008 - 02:46 AM

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

Edited by Wuzak, 05 September 2008 - 02:54 AM.
Edited option d) wording for clarity


#2 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months and 2 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 04 September 2008 - 02:40 PM

Stand by for another 40+ pages!

#3 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 7 Months and 5 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 04 September 2008 - 03:36 PM

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

#4 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 7 Months and 19 Days
  • 116 topics

Posted 04 September 2008 - 05:14 PM

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.

#5 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:56 AM

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.

#6 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:59 AM

Stand by for another 40+ pages!


It need not be....

I voted for B) btw.

#7 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 10 September 2008 - 02:30 AM

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

Hardly anybody turns out!

#8 gruad

gruad

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 11 Months and 14 Days
  • 8 topics

Posted 11 September 2008 - 09:02 AM

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

#9 Pioneer

Pioneer

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 6 Months and 18 Days
  • 2 topics

Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:52 PM

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

#10 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 05 August 2009 - 01:02 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users