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

#11 Pioneer

Pioneer

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 6 Months and 16 Days
  • 2 topics

Posted 05 August 2009 - 01:03 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

#12 gruad

gruad

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 11 Months and 12 Days
  • 8 topics

Posted 30 August 2011 - 12:30 PM

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.

#13 USAF Steve

USAF Steve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 1 Day
  • 2 topics

Posted 10 April 2014 - 05:38 PM

I voted no -- I think it's possible that enough Mossies could have been produced to cause roughly the same amount of damage, disruption of production etc but I think one of the main values of the daylight bombing campaign was that a lot of Luftwaffe pilots were killed defending against it.   If Mossies were used as strategic bombers, going in high and fast as they were able to do, I think the Luftwaffe would have had difficulty intercepting them.  The result would have been good for allied aircrews but I have doubts about whether the Luftwaffe would have been so thoroughly suppressed by D-Day, and the war post D-Day might have been quite a bit more difficult.   Just my theory, not based on much else, although if I recall when Doolittle took over command of the 'Mighty 8th' he specifically issued commands that changed  tactics to allow escorts to really go after the defending Germans, and I think he recognized that with the approach of D-Day it was critical to reduce the number of pilots the Luftwaffe could field.



#14 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,570 posts
  • Joined 4 Years and 29 Days
  • 182 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 13 April 2014 - 07:42 PM

I like your theory Steve and I agree. But I believe if Mossies had started hitting target in numbers and the B-17/B-24s had been pulled from combat or not even started, the Luftwaffe would have set up different strategies in order to intercept them. However, the P-51B also had a high cruising speed and could have been used as escorts for the Mosquitoes by December 1943. I have always like the idea of eliminating the high altitude bombers and there crew of 10. This would put less crew members at risk.

 

Jeff 


  • Mercman likes this

#15 Prestonater2

Prestonater2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 28 Days
  • 0 topics
  • LocationWashington,tyne and wear,United kingdom

Posted 28 May 2015 - 10:58 AM

Don't think the Mosquito could replace the heavies, what would the outcome have been if the Mosquito was used on the DamBusters raid,instead of the Lancaster.even though the Mosquito was used on primary testing of the bouncing bomb. My thoughts would be it would be best as a low level fighter bomber as intended.Speed and manouvrability .thats just my thoughts anyway.
Regards Keith...

#16 [email protected]

[email protected]

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 2 Months and 22 Days
  • 18 topics
  • LocationTyne and Wear, United Kingdom

Posted 11 August 2015 - 04:46 AM

I'm incline to agree with the above comment made by pioneer,i think had the XB-42 prototype flew earlier than May 1944 then I think it would nave certainly made a good replacement for the Mosquito,but unfortunately was too late to see action in WW2.
Regards Keith .

#17 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,570 posts
  • Joined 4 Years and 29 Days
  • 182 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 August 2015 - 09:30 PM

Just a quick comment on the XB-42. If the first prototype flew in May of 1944, it would easily have been more than 8 months later before it went into service (probably longer). Hum? Waaaaaaaaaaaaay too late. I don't think so.

Just an opinion, Jeff



#18 Mercman

Mercman

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined 11 Months and 18 Days
  • 1 topics

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:37 AM

 Curiously the USAAF in the ETO North-Western Europe attempted to make some use of the excess P-38's on hand there,

( after being dumped from the 8th AF in favour of Mustangs & unwanted by the 9th AF in the Thunderbolt A2G role) 

by making de-facto Mosquito fast light-medium bombers out of them, including  100+ expensive 'Droop Snoot' conversions.

 

However, sans a proper bomb bay, the Lightning was never really going to be good enough to succeed in such a job.

 

Too bad the USAAF hadn't decided earlier to utilize the V-1710 turbo wasted on excess P-38's - in a proper Mosquito analog.

 

I do note that the British never bothered with building an up-to-date medium bomber once the Mosquito showed its mettle,

- even if more non-bomber Mosquitos were actually made than bomber variants.

 

Sure they did use some US mediums, but  these suffered prohibitive losses  when using them in daylight beyond fighter escort range,

(even the fast  R-2800 powered Ventura couldn't cope) 

 

Too bad the British didn't build enough engines in the 2,200+ hp class to make a 'Super Mosquito', or Hawker 'High Speed Bomber,'

a reality, - bigger than the Mosquito in bomb capacity & yet just as fast, to make the horrifically vulnerable 'heavies' redundant.



#19 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 28 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 14 September 2016 - 06:48 PM

Old topic, excuse moi for necroing along Mercman.

 

British ministry of war did ask the number-crunchers (mathematicians) to make suggestions in 1941/42 since the losses were getting bad.

 

They calculated a bit and came to conclusion that speed is decisive factor, meaning that slower aircraft suffered more losses and suggested to remove defensive armament from heavy bombers, thus adding payload, range and speed by losing the equipment and extra crew members.

 

In this light, adopting Mossie would have been very good choice, saving lives of crewmembers and retaining the strategic bombing with less effort. 


  • CORSNING and Mercman like this

-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#20 Mercman

Mercman

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined 11 Months and 18 Days
  • 1 topics

Posted 14 September 2016 - 10:35 PM

Old topic, excuse moi for necroing along Mercman.

 

British ministry of war did ask the number-crunchers (mathematicians) to make suggestions in 1941/42 since the losses were getting bad.

 

They calculated a bit and came to conclusion that speed is decisive factor, meaning that slower aircraft suffered more losses and suggested to remove defensive armament from heavy bombers, thus adding payload, range and speed by losing the equipment and extra crew members.

 

In this light, adopting Mossie would have been very good choice, saving lives of crewmembers and retaining the strategic bombing with less effort. 

H-R, you are correct, the bloody minded 'Butch' Harris was virtually 'Soviet-style' in the obdurate methods of 'strategic bombing' he employed.

I wonder if anyone has calculated how many thousands of R-R Merlin engines were 'exported' to German controlled areas - along with bombs & crews.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users