Jump to content

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

- - - - -

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

#51 Wuzak


    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 10 Months and 16 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 22 January 2017 - 01:05 AM

This I posted on another forum:



Another document I have recently acquired is about trials of the Norden bomb sight in the Mosquito during July 1944.

The conclusions were that the bomb sight was well made, was easy to learn how to use, but was more complicated in operation than the British Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight (SABS).
There were tactical limitations to the use of the Norden. A bank of 18° would topple the gyro - not an issue in a B-17 and the way they were used, but not good for a type such as the Mosquito. Furthermore, in the Mosquito installation a bank of 5° would make it impossible for the bomb aimer to sight through the telescope. 
It was noted that of 25 test bomb runs at 15,000ft in only 15 was it possible to aim and drop bombs due to the weather. The Norden required a long straight run up to target with little or no cloud in that time.
During the tests it was found that it was difficult to level the gyro in flight due to fluctations of the bubbles in the level gauges. It was thought that this was due to slight instability of the Mosquito, no issues having been experienced in the similarly sized P-38. The experience was that the sight would often need to be releavelled, after which the crosshairs would invariably be off target.
The Mosquito used was a B.XX, whose CoG was further aft than normal, which may have contributed to the instability experienced.
Bombing results were poor, with an average distance from target of around 500 yards.

#52 Ricky



  • Moderators
  • 3,015 posts
  • Joined 15 Years and 27 Days
  • 139 topics

Posted 22 January 2017 - 12:39 PM


1) Speed is life. Faster bombers are harder to intercept and cannot be intercepted as often. Even a modest speed increase had noticeable effects (eg Halifax II to III)

2) Mossies cannot replace RAF heavies for every mission, nothing beats those big big bomb bays.

3) Mossies can replace USAAF heavies on all but the longest-ranged missions - average bombloads per mission were quite similar.

4) Mossie raids are less flexible in some ways (less range so limits on targets and decoy routes) but more flexible in others (can be high or low, can be one big formation or lots of little ones). Plus they cruise at similar speeds to the escorts which helps.

5) The role of the daylight bombing campaign started out as 'cripple their industry' but after escort fighters became common it was much more about being the bait to bring up the German fighters so they could be shot down. I am not convinced that Mossie raids would accomplish this.
  • Wuzak likes this

#53 GregP


    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,313 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months and 16 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 27 January 2017 - 09:41 AM

Pretty good conclusions for a fantasy what-if.

#54 curmudgeon


    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined 15 Years, 1 Month and 30 Days
  • 30 topics

Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:24 AM

Pretty good conclusions for a fantasy what-if.


No wonder I felt deja vu ... this is an 8 year old topic. Where we've been ...


Mosquitos + escort ... Mosquito cruise speed was higher than escort cruise ... the escorts set off earlier and the Mosquitos passed through. This was also a defence against the Luftwaffe as fighters couldn't cruise to interception points and a sharp change in direction late in a raid would leave interceptors in the wrong place and short of fuel. From 25000ft over Berlin Mosquitos could return home in a shallow dive, averaging over 400mph. The stream could be split with window and nightfighters on the original course.


At night once 100 Group was operating Mosquitos could fly with Mosquito nightfighters embedded ... but loss rates were so low that this was only done a few times (source Chisholm). Johnen describes the effect of Mosquito nightfighters, paralleling the destruction of Lw dayfighters wrought by P51s, and Brown contrasts the lauded He219 with the Mosquito ... no contest the German was too slow and not manoeuvrable enough.


Mosquitos with Oboe (and the experimental extended range Oboe) were relatively accurate. Half the CEP requires 1/4 the bombs (and we've been through that with the development of the British Mk XIV sight (Blackett/Braddick)).


Some things the Mosquito couldn't do, others it could and did. Other things it could have done it was never tasked with (oil plants, where Oboe could have let it hit individual tanks).

But neither the RAF or the USAAF had doctrine or training systems that would have enabled mass employment of Mosquitos, nor were weapons designed for use by Mosquitos (I think there was a short 1000lb bomb).

#55 Wuzak


    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 10 Months and 16 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 31 January 2017 - 12:31 PM

 nor were weapons designed for use by Mosquitos (I think there was a short 1000lb bomb).


There were two sorts of 1,000lb general purpose bombs used by the RAF during WW2 - the 1,000lb General Purpose and 1,000 Medium Capacity bombs (not including the US 1,000lb GP bomb occasionally used)..


The 1,000lb GP bomb was the older bomb. It was 16.15" diameter and came with two length tails, giving an overall length of 71.0" or 86.5". Charge to weight ratio was 33%. The shortened tail was designed to increase loads in the heavy bombers, such as the Lancaster.


The 1,000lb MC bomb was the newer version that was introduced during the war. It had a diameter of 17.75" and an overall length of 72.6". Charge to weight ratio was 47%.


Of course the 500lb MC had its tail shortened so that 4 could be carried by the Mosquito.


Early in the war an experimental bomb load out included 1 x 1,000lb GP (short tail) and 2 x 500lb GP/MC bombs. The 1,000lb GP bomb was positioned at the front of the bomb bay, and slightly offset to one side. The door stiffener had to be modified to give clearance. The rear 500lb bombs were on the standard carriers.


Later in the war Mosquitoes that were modified/built to use the 4,000lb bombs were modified to take 1 x 1,000lb TI, then 2 x 1,000lb TIs, which were the same size as the MC bombs. The bulged bomb bay was required to take the bigger diameter TI/MC bombs, and some other bomb bay mods were required. The length of the 1,000lb bomb was not a problem.


Som 347 1,000lb TIs were dropped by Mosquitoes. Only 12 x 1,000lb MC and 2 x 1,000lb GP bombs were used, all by 627 Squadron on the raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo in late 1944.


There was also a program for a twin 2,000lb AP bomb adapter. But interest/priority in this was lost when the Tirpitz was sunk.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users