Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
HeavyD       8/10/2012 4:02:26 PM
Ok, I'll play the trump card:
 
The Mosquito was not the best bomber of the war because it had a relatively insignificant impact on the war.  Period.  Full stop.  Game, Set and Match.
 
The 'best' is the one that made the difference.
 
The Spitfire?  Made a difference.  The Mustang?  Made a difference.  B-17?  Made a difference.  Lancaster?  Made a difference.
 
The Mossie was a role player, and as such can never be voted MVP or man of the match.
 
COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE BEST?  Perhaps.  Was it the best on paper?  Perhaps.  You make compelling arguments (although I don't think it could 'dogfight' with the fighters of the day...).  But the historical FACTs are what they are. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/10/2012 10:18:34 PM


 

The Mosquito was not the best bomber of the war because it had a relatively insignificant impact on the war.  Period.  Full stop.  Game, Set and Match.

 

The 'best' is the one that made the difference.

 

The Spitfire?  Made a difference.  The Mustang?  Made a difference.  B-17?  Made a difference.  Lancaster?  Made a difference.

 

The Mossie was a role player, and as such can never be voted MVP or man of the match.

 

COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE BEST?  Perhaps.  Was it the best on paper?  Perhaps.  You make compelling arguments (although I don't think it could 'dogfight' with the fighters of the day...).  But the historical FACTs are what they are. 

That is a flawed argument on two counts. First, it did make a huge difference in each of its roles, i.e. 
 
-Strategic photo recon was a vital role that the bombing campaign could not have done without and the Mossie was one of the prime assets.
 
-Night fighting was a vital mission that saved thousands of civilian lives and the Mossie was the best in that role.
 
-Anti-submarine strike was probably one of the most strategically important missions of the war, allowing Britain to survive and the war effort to go on, an the Mossie was the only type that could safely conduct those missions without fighter escort in contested airspace. The Mossie also made a significant contribution in Australian service interdicting Japanese coastal shipping in the Pacific
 
-The fighter bomber interdiction missions  on the transport system in Northern Europe hindered the German's war effort and took the war to them in an effective manner at a time when nobody else was.They were also the most effective aircraft at destroying V weapon sites and performed close air support very effectively.
 
- The daylight missions that the bomber variants undertook made a huge impact. For instance, the raid on the Phillips Factory, Operation Oyster, wiped out a third of the radio valve production available to the Germans.
 
-The special transport missions over German controlled airspace to Sweden to pick up materials like ball bearings made a very important contribution to the  war effort.
 
The type was so good in fact that even the USAAF used them in the PR, the bombing and the night fighting roles ... the night fighting squadrons didn't want to give theirs up for the P-61 which they considered to be an inferior aircraft.
 
Secondly, while there were some major roles where it arguably had less impact, such as night bombing, pathfinding and night intruder, had everything to do with the fact that night bombing was not a particularly effective exercise and nothing to do with the quality of the aircraft. It makes no sense to take that into account circumstance or poor command decisions when assessing the capability of the aircraft, especially when the Mosquito more than demonstrated its capability with the numerous other contributions listed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/10/2012 10:20:08 PM
POS software ... try again.

That is a flawed argument on two counts. First, it did make a huge difference in each of its roles, i.e. 
 
-Strategic photo recon was a vital role that the bombing campaign could not have done without and the Mossie was one of the prime assets.
 
-Night fighting was a vital mission that saved thousands of civilian lives and the Mossie was the best in that role.
 
-Anti-submarine strike was probably one of the most strategically important missions of the war, allowing Britain to survive and the war effort to go on, an the Mossie was the only type that could safely conduct those missions without fighter escort in contested airspace. The Mossie also made a significant contribution in Australian service interdicting Japanese coastal shipping in the Pacific
 
-The fighter bomber interdiction missions  on the transport system in Northern Europe hindered the German's war effort and took the war to them in an effective manner at a time when nobody else was.They were also the most effective aircraft at destroying V weapon sites and performed close air support very effectively.
 
- The daylight missions that the bomber variants undertook made a huge impact. For instance, the raid on the Phillips Factory, Operation Oyster, wiped out a third of the radio valve production available to the Germans.
 
-The special transport missions over German controlled airspace to Sweden to pick up materials like ball bearings made a very important contribution to the  war effort.
 
The type was so good in fact that even the USAAF used them in the PR, the bombing and the night fighting roles ... the night fighting squadrons didn't want to give theirs up for the P-61 which they considered to be an inferior aircraft.
 
Secondly, while there were some major roles where it arguably had less impact, such as night bombing, pathfinding and night intruder, had everything to do with the fact that night bombing was not a particularly effective exercise and nothing to do with the quality of the aircraft. It makes no sense to take that into account circumstance or poor command decisions when assessing the capability of the aircraft, especially when the Mosquito more than demonstrated its capability with the numerous other contributions listed.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/10/2012 10:22:50 PM
I also note that you list the Lancaster as making a difference. I largely disagree because I think that the night bombing campaign was flawed and that is what the Lancaster was designed to do, but to the extent that it did make a difference it only did because Mossies found it's targets for it.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Disagree   8/11/2012 2:28:40 AM
That is a flawed argument on two counts. First, it did make a huge difference in each of its roles, i.e. 
-Strategic photo recon was a vital role that the bombing campaign  could not have done without and the Mossie was one of the prime assets. 
 So was the P-38, A-36, Spitfire, and P-51's....Mossie was really no better than any of them in taking pictures
-Night fighting was a vital mission that saved thousands of civilian lives and the Mossie was the best in that role.
Tend to Agree....P-61 was a better nightfighter but by the time it arrived the Luftwaffe was broken
-Anti-submarine strike was probably one of the most strategically  important missions of the war, allowing Britain to survive and the war  effort to go on, an the Mossie was the only type that could safely  conduct those missions without fighter escort in contested airspace. The  Mossie also made a significant contribution in Australian service  interdicting Japanese coastal shipping in the Pacific
Catalinas and B-24's operating in the Mid Atlantic were far more effective
-The fighter bomber interdiction missions  on the transport  system in Northern Europe hindered the German's war effort and took the  war to them in an effective manner at a time when nobody else was.They  were also the most effective aircraft at destroying V weapon sites and  performed close air support very effectively.
B-26's and B-25's were far more effective in this mission. P-47's and Typhoons were vastly better in close air support
- The daylight missions that the bomber variants undertook made a  huge impact. For instance, the raid on the Phillips Factory, Operation  Oyster, wiped out a third of the radio valve production available to the  Germans.
A single mission does not a legend make...you can cherry pick a suceeesful mission for any aircraft...even the Wirraway
-The special transport missions over German controlled airspace  to Sweden to pick up materials like ball bearings made a very important  contribution to the  war effort.
See above
The type was so good in fact that even the USAAF used them in the  PR, the bombing and the night fighting roles ... the night fighting  squadrons didn't want to give theirs up for the P-61 which they  considered to be an inferior aircraft.
Wrong the P-61 was a far better nightfighter once the crews learned how to use it...almost as fast, more firepower and better radar
Secondly, while there were some major roles where it arguably had  less impact, such as night bombing, pathfinding and night intruder, had  everything to do with the fact that night bombing was not a  particularly effective exercise and nothing to do with the quality of  the aircraft. It makes no sense to take that into account circumstance  or poor command decisions when assessing the capability of the aircraft,  especially when the Mosquito more than demonstrated its capability with  the numerous other contributions listed.
It was a versatile aircraft but so were many others
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose       8/11/2012 2:42:27 AM
The  Mossie also made a significant contribution in Australian service  interdicting Japanese coastal shipping in the Pacific
B-25 Gunships and Beaufighters destroyed far more Japanese coastal shipping
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/11/2012 11:12:23 AM
So was the P-38, A-36, Spitfire, and P-51's....Mossie was really no better than any of them in taking pictures
 
Incorrect, the PR 1 had a 2000nm range in 1941 and the PR-34 had around 3500nm. None of the others came even close to that, the Mossie was a strategic recon aircraft par none and did missions that  the others just couldn't.

Catalinas and B-24's operating in the Mid Atlantic were far more effective
 
Apples and oranges, the Mossies did the role under threat from fighters in the North Sea and the long range Cats, B-24s and Sunderlands did it in the mid-Atlantic. Both missions were important and required different specialiseds type to do it. 
 
 
B-26's and B-25's were far more effective in this mission.
 
Rubbish, neither of those types performed the unescorted, individual daytime intruder type missions in contested airspace that the Mossie did in Northern Europe, they would have been turned into mincemeat.
 
P-47's and Typhoons were vastly better in close air support
 
How do you work that out? The Mossie carried a larger bombload, had better forward firepower, had two engines and was as tough as either of these types. The only probable advantage that they had was cost and in any case the Mossie was better employed in the interdiction mission where it could use it's range, speed (assisted in practical terms by internal warload) and navigator.

A single mission does not a legend make...you can cherry pick a suceeesful mission for any aircraft...even the Wirraway
 
 It's just an example of what it could do, there were many other successful missions but I do think it was under used in this role.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/11/2012 11:13:34 AM
Wrong the P-61 was a far better nightfighter once the crews learned how to use it...almost as fast, more firepower and better radar
 
It would seem that the senior US officers responsible for night fighting operations in Europe didn't agree with your assessment. Note the bolded bit

 "The situation deteriorated in May 1944 when the squadrons learned that several USAAF generals believed the P-61 was too slow to effectively engage in combat with German fighters and medium bombers. General Spaatz requested de Havilland Mosquito... night fighters to equip 2 US night fighter squadrons based in the UK. The request was denied due to insufficient supplies of Mosquitoes which were in demand for a number of roles.[9]... Several pilots in the 422nd NFS threatened to turn in their wings if they were not permitted to fly the Black Widow. At the end of May, the USAAF insisted on a competition between the Mosquito and the P-61 for operation in the European Theater. RAF crews flew the Mosquito Mk XVII while crews from the 422nd NFS flew the P-61. In the end the USAAF determined that the P-61 had a slightly better rate of climb and could turn more tightly than the Mosquito. Colonel Winston Kratz, director of night fighter training in the USAAF, had organised a similar competition earlier. He said of the results "I'm absolutely sure to this day that the British were lying like troopers. I honestly believe the P-61 was not as fast as the Mosquito, which the British needed because by that time it was the one airplane that could get into Berlin and back without getting shot down. I doubt very seriously that the others knew better. But come what may, the '61 was a good night fighter. In the combat game you've got to be pretty realistic about these things. The P-61 was not a superior night fighter. It was not a poor night fighter. It was a good night fighter. It did not have enough speed".[3]"...
 
" target="_blank">link
 
B-25 Gunships and Beaufighters destroyed far more Japanese coastal shipping
 
Probably, they were both in theatre for several years longer but the fact is that the Mossie was more survivable than either of those types. and made a great contribution while there.
 
 It was a versatile aircraft but so were many others

You have only managed to list a  number of aircraft that could perform one or two of the many missions that the Mossie could not as well as the Mossie could in nearly all cases, but have failed to identify any which could do all or even most of those missions. It was an incomparable aircraft, simple as that.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Still Disagree   8/11/2012 6:36:45 PM
So was the P-38, A-36, Spitfire, and P-51's....Mossie was really no better than any of them in taking pictures
Incorrect, the PR 1 had a 2000nm range in 1941 and the PR-34 had around 3500nm. None of the others came even close to that, the Mossie was a strategic recon aircraft par none and did missions that  the others just couldn't.
So What?...90% of the Photo recon missions in europe did not require that range and the other aforementioned aircraft were just as fast as the mossie and were much more capable fighters if they were jumped

Catalinas and B-24's operating in the Mid Atlantic were far more effective
Apples  and oranges, the Mossies did the role under threat from fighters in the  North Sea and the long range Cats, B-24s and Sunderlands did it in the  mid-Atlantic. Both missions were important and required different  specialiseds type to do it. 
Not much threat from the Luftwaffe in the North Sea...they just didn't have that many fighter groups there to interdict many missions. The RN Carrier raids did a great job shutting down the Luftwaffe there...especially since they were using mainly F-4 Wildcats and later F-6 Hellcats
 
B-26's and B-25's were far more effective in this mission.
Rubbish,  neither of those types performed the unescorted, individual daytime  intruder type missions in contested airspace that the Mossie did in  Northern Europe, they would have been turned into mincemeat.
B-26's had the lowest operational loss rate of any Allied Light Bombers...both were much better bombers than the Mossie...more bombload, better bombsights, etc...the Mossie was just faster
P-47's and Typhoons were vastly better in close air support

How do you work that out? The Mossie carried a larger  bombload, had better forward firepower, had two engines and was as tough  as either of these types. The only probable advantage that they had was  cost and in any case the Mossie was better employed in the interdiction  mission where it could use it's range, speed (assisted in practical terms by internal  warload) and navigator.
If I had to strafe a Wermacht airfield loaded with AA the last plane I would chose is a relatively flimsy wooden aircraft with inline engines...the P-47 was FAR, FAR more rugged than the Mossie, faster, and could survive a lot more damage and come home. The Typhoon was just as rugged but it was hampered by their inline engine. The Mossie wasn't used as much as a tactical fighter bomber down on the deck as the other two because they were better...the Mossie was used more in the role of the B-25's, B-26's in the behind the front line transportation interdiction...In my opinion the A-26 was the best WW2 aircraft ever made for that role.

A single mission does not a legend make...you can cherry pick a suceeesful mission for any aircraft...even the Wirraway
It's  just an example of what it could do, there were many other successful  missions but I do think it was under used in this role.
You may have a love affair with the Mossie and I agree it was very versatile but other aircraft were just as good or better in the roles assigned...it's just the Mossie could fill a lot of roles adequately...I would not want to be flying daylight bomber escort missions vs Bf-109G's and K's, or Fw190D's in a Mossie....any competent Lufwaffe pilot would eat them alive....the P-38 was probably the best twin engine fighter of WW2 and they really didn't have any major advantages over those aircraft other than pilot quality later in the war.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/12/2012 12:06:10 AM

 
Nonsense, the Luftwaffe were a threat in Norway right until the end of the war. See link for an example of what they did to Mustang escorted Beaufighters off the Norwegian coast. Also note the comments about the greater air to air effectiveness of the Mosquito equipped Banff strike wing, fighting the F-190s on equal terms.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_%281945%29
" target="_blank">link
 
If you want to read more get hold of a back copy of Issue 10 of "Aviation Classics" from 2011. It is dedicated to the Mossie and describes how the Banff wing would mix it up with single seat German fighters and get positive kill ratios, in fact acting as escorts for Beaufighters that they accompanied. 
 
B-26's had the lowest operational loss rate of any Allied Light Bombers...both were much better bombers than the Mossie...more bombload, better bombsights, etc...the Mossie was just faster
 
 The B-26 was an accurate bomber but it could not operate unescorted in contested airspace. Here is what happened when it was tried.
 
 "The B-26 entered service with the Eighth Air Force... in England... in early 1943, with the 322d Bombardment Group... flying its first missions in May 1943. Missions were similar to those flown in North Africa with B-26s flying at low level and were unsuccessful. The second mission, an unescorted attack on a power station at IJmuiden..., Netherlands...resulted in the loss of the entire attacking force of 11 B-26s to anti-aircraft fire... and Luftwaffe...Focke-Wulf Fw 190... fighters.[25]... Following this disaster, the UK-based B-26 force was switched to medium altitude operations, and transferred to the Ninth Air Force..., set up to support the planned Invasion of France.[25]"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder
" target="_blank">link
 
It may have had a lower loss rate than the Mossie but that is to be expected for an aircraft which was only ever operated escorted in less challenging air to air environments supporting the invasion. Try taking a Marauder unescorted to Berlin during daylight like they did with the Mossies and the difference in quality between the types would become apparent.


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics