A thanks for the mostly constructive comments all. My responses to them are as follows:

 

1. I disagree with HC's suggestion that the indirect effects of tying up German personel protecting cities at night was a comparitively effective contribution to the War effort. All the extra personel in the World would have made no difference to Germany once the USAF with its fighter escorted daylight bombing missions effecitively destroying Germany's ability to equip them. What I am suggesting is the use of Mossies more heavily in the daylight role could have bought forward that effect by preceeding and supplementing the USAF daylight effort.

 

2. Regarding whether the bombed up Mossie would have been fast enough to be survivable in the high-altitude daylight role, I don't have the exact comparisons of its loaded speed compared to those of German fighters at hand so it is hard to say. However, I have read that it was designed less to be able to outright outrun a fighter than to be able to operate at a sufficient altitude and speed that by the time the fighter got to altitude to achieve the intercept the Mossie had dropped its bombs and buggered off. I also note that I am not suggesting sending the Mossies with a full 4000lb warload or any external stores (other than the air to air rocket idea, see below), just 4 x 500lbers internally, so its performance may not have been that badly affected. Other points realed to this are that:

 

  a. in the low-altitude bombing role at least the Mossie was sent on unescorted daylight strategic missions and did  successfully prosecute them and survive. That might to an extent be because it was able to achieve a greater degree of surprise in the low-level role, but I can't see that the RAF would have sent them if they weren't fast enough to escape a fighter if caught bombed up. They also did survive flak over the target area.    

 

  b. under the alternative scenario that I have put I was suggesting that advanced programs that would have increased the mossies speed would have been prioritised. Specifically, the Sabre-engined Mossie that was planned but didn't proceed would have made for a much faster bomber.

 

Without more hard data I don't know the definative answer on how it would have matched up to the German fighters but I think it would have been an idea worth exploring.

 

However, the fact that it was successful at low altitude raises the prospect that if the high altitude role was a non-starter, the Mossie might have been able to make a bigger contribution with more low altitude raids. Apart from hitting industrial targets I can see how both mossie fighters and fighter bombers it might have greatly assisted the early unescorted US day bombing efforts by hitting German airfields and radar stations. Instead it seems to me that prior to D-Day the RAF tended to use the type during the day as a way of harrassing the Germans with solo intruder missions and occasional large raids. Apart from the occasioanal strategically effective raid such as destroying the Phillips factory in Operation Oscar, this seems to be a bit of a wasted effort.

 

Regarding air to air rockets, if proximity fuses weren't available then the alternative would be to fit the rockets with randomly set mechanical fuses. Any fighter pilot having to fly head on through a cloud of air burst rockets is at least going to have his aim ruined. If it was a choice between that and being able to outrun the fighter though, I'd rather go without the rockets.  

What part of the basic premise of the thread, that the Mossies would be operating by DAY do you not understand? I'm trying to promote a cordial discussion where we can agree or disagree agreeably, but it is very frustrating when somebody can't even take the time to understand the argument that is being made, even when it is pointed out to him. The same goes for your searchlights against the cloud backdrop comment .... not an issue at daytime.

Daylight AAA was murder AGG. Please note what I said...daylight AAA was murder AGG. 

Daylight precision bombing for a Mossie is  below 7000 meters into the effective teeth of German light Flak. 

 

That is why we try to avoid today on the deck strafing and bombing and why USAAF raids in WW II tried to stay above 7000 meters.  

 

Clay pidgeons.

 

H.

 

HC,

 

I don't need to theorise  the survivability of the Mosquito in attacks on heavily protected industrial targets at low altitude during the day, the fact that the Mossie was so successful during Operation Oyster proves that I am right. Only one mossie was shot down during the raid versus many more Boston's and Venturas. See here for yourself.

 

and read the relevant passages here on page 16.

 

You did read where I said the low level raids were rare, exceedingly carefully planned and very unBritish?

 

Also you try to compare a Mossie to a Ventura or a Boston?  The Boston maybe you have a small shot, but the Ventura was an airliner more akin to a DC-3. 

 

You can't cherry pick a data point out of a class set.

 

Here.

 

28 March 1943

24 Venturas, escorted by fighters, bombed Rotterdam docks and hit at least 6 ships and started a fire in a dockside warehouse. No Venturas were lost.

 

 

I missed your assertion about British military organisation, I must admit that I tend to zone out from reading long posts by somebody who can't even read the original post correctly and respond accordingly.

 

Anyway, to use a very British term, your assertion that that the high degree of military organisation demonstrated during the Mosquito raids was "unBritish" is complete and utter "bollocks". How on earth do you come to these ideas? Sheesh ... I'm just sitting here shaking my head.

 

The reality is that you are talking about the nation whose armed forces have on average demonstrated themselves to be amongst the most professional military's in the World. Just because Harris didn't want to make more use of Mossies or any other type on daylight missions, doesn't mean that the British wouldn't have been as up to the task organising them just as well as the USAF had they wanted to.

 

As for "cherry picking data points", if you want a global picture the fact is that the Mossie had the lowest loss rate of any bomber in the theatre and was highly successful in daylight low-level missions of both a tactical and strategic nature. That's why they used them for tactical missions like against railway yards etc after D-Day, even though the later were protected by light flak.

 

The reality is is that had they been more heavily used the Germans would have had to beef up their light flak protection for big targets. That means that it is likely that the Mossies would have tied up personel and materials in the same way that the Lanc did on its night raids, only it would have been more effective in hindering the war effort.

 

 

Incidentally, the link that I posted to the google book in my reply to HC describes 4 x 500lb bombed up Mk-IV's outpacing Fw190's on the deck, though the later could outpace the Mossie at altitude. However, the Mk-IX had a better high altitude performance due to its Merlin 72 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers. A Sabre Mossie would have been faster still. I reckon it could have had more intensive daylight use at both low and high altitude made whilst maintaing its superior survivability statistics.

It also describes the typical raid size which was TYPICAL of the 10-16 planes at one time, which was a pinprick and actually in that case ridiculously ineffectual.  I do notice those details, AGG.

 

H.

I have flown in a Ventura. The RAF was still using them as navigation training aircraft in the 60's. Dreadful slow, noisy lumbering thing it was too. I can't believe that it was used as a bomber. Suicide mission comes to mind.