de Havilland Mosquito (WWII Fighter/Bomber) - what allowed it to strike with "pinpoint accuracy"?

It wouldn’t have worked - the germans would modify their defensive strategy to counter low level strikes (balloons, wires etc) and losses would have increased again. After the Dambusters raids (low level Lancaster attacks) this was the german response.

Those few raids were a success precisely because they were a surprise move, aided by the speed of the Mosquito and the bravery of the crew - the whole bomb aiming technique for a low level strike involved aiming the plane directly at (or just past) the target, releasing the bomb and pulling the plane up, with the bomb following a ballistic path to the target. The bombs had to be fused with a delay, so the plane wasn’t directly overhead the bomb when it detonated. It was risky and fast and involved flying directly into the ground fire.

And high level bombing could be precision bombing with the right crews - again, 617 squadron were called to target a french machine shop without hitting the canteen and workers quarters (Churchill wished to avoid antagonising de Gaulle). This they did, with only one bomb off target in a nearby cemetery. They also hit the Tirpitz with a 5 ton Tallboy from 20,000 feet.

Si

Mosquitoes were not involved in the Dambusters raid. If you are talking about subsequent 617 squadron operations, Mosquitoes were used as described to mark the aiming point for the rest of the squadron in Lancasters . The Lancasters bombed on these markers from high level, as you said.

I wasn’t suggesting they were. But the Mosquito raids mentioned in the OP did have some similarities to the Dambusters raid - low-level, specific nonstandard targets. These raids were successful for that reason, but in general they were not repeatable due to defensive changes on similar targets following the successful attacks.

Si

This may be a good place to mention what started me thinking of the Mosquito (and thence my OP).

It seems the Germans themselves were extremely concerned about the effectiveness of the Mosquito. They were so concerned that one of their primary targets, if not their number one target, for sabotage (if not aerial bombardment) was the de Havilland aircraft (Mosquito) factory outside of London. This is one of the many remarkable tidbits that I’ve found in Ben MacIntyre’s wonderful Agent Zigzag which, regrettably, I am almost finished.

Martin Caidin’s Black Thursday describes one of the raids on Schweinfurt in an attempt to knock out the ball bearing plants, there. It was a disastrous daylight raid, (undertaken before underwing tanks extended the range of fighters to protect the bombers for the whole route), in which 20% of the attacking force was lost.
At the end, he noted that to the extent that it was successful, it showed the Germans that the ball bearing industry was a potential Achilles Heel and that they immediately tried, with moderate success, to re-engineer much of their equipment to use fewer bearings. Unfortunately, Bomber Harris, who insisted that area bombing was the only possibly successful approach, argued that the Germans had distributed their manufacturing so that such heavy raids were pointless. Without the intelligence reports to refute him, (the Germans were only able to distribute their manufacturing in the later days of the war), his opinion was enough to get the U.S. to scatter their missions on more diffuse targets, possibly prolonging the war, according to Albert Speer.

Yeah, like Speer was someone we could trust.

He made the B-17 ball turrets!

Sperry, Speer… Close enough. :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

That would explain why we had to wash so many guys out with a hose upon crash landings.

The Area Bombing directive was, in my opinion, an almost war losing move. Bomber command alone lost 55,000 crew flying death traps with comparatively little return. Even judged on it’s own morally dubious objective to kill as many Germans as possible (however understandable at the time), if you take out Hamburg in late 43 and Dresden in Feb 45, and 3 other raids in 45 in the Ruhr, you are left with under 2 Germans civilians for each RAF crew killed, injured or captured. You had a better chance of climbing out of a trench on the Somme and coming home than you did working for Bomber Command.
It was only when Harris was told to start taking out infrastructure systematically on the run up to Overlord, that the Mosquito was used extensively for it’s original, primary, design purpose, i.e. a fast bomber, as oppose to performing every role imaginable to help the area bombing directive and anything else we could get it to do.
The RAFs own report after the war estimated that the mossie was almost 5 times more effective than heavy bombers. I dont know if this figure factors in the following

  1. lowest casualty rate of any bomber
  2. much cheaper to build. I cant find a figure, but a lanc was £7,700 I think, I’d like to know how many mossies you could build for that. The extensive use of wood meant that you could use the ally on something else obviously, and also you can use the thousands of skilled wood craftsmen too old to fight but plenty young enough to make stuff.
  3. actually uses less fuel to drop the same bomb load as a b-17
  4. and is so fast doing it that they regularly flew two sorties a day!. (and still use less crew than one heavy bomber sortie)

There is also the ability to bomb targets simply inaccessible from altitude, e.g. sticking a bomb in a railway tunnel which they did regularly. I accept that, if we’d gone out to stick a bomb through the front door of every building carrying a swastika in occupied Europe, that they’d be sticking up more barrage balloons. But they’d still have to get around to doing that, and we’d have done spectacular help to the resistance in doing it.

I also accept the negating factor that the mossie was the tool of choice for anyone with squadron leader in his name, and hence you’d expect better stats than ackack fodder in a halifax. But that in itself tells a story. We’ll never know if highball would have brought those dams down but I know which plane I’d rather be trying to do the job in. I read somewhere that a mossie was once accidentally loaded with 10,000lbs and still took off, so in theory I guess it could have carried Upkeep (the larger bouncing bomb used for Chastise).

In my view, it’s not “what if” (we’d built more than the 7,000 that we did), but “why the hell not”. We (Britain and the US) built over 60,000 heavy and medium bombers. I guess you could have built at least 150,000 mosquitoes with the same effort. Just double what we built, an extra 7,000 deployed in a relentless 24*7 onslaught, would have left the Germans running a guerilla war, and cost less of our own lives.

The obvious culprit is the Area Bombing Directive. This came right from the top, and while Harris was obviously the front man with his famous “well I say, no one has ever tried it” remark in his cine address, I am afraid Churchill has to take a significant amount of the blame. His own scientific advisors falsified data as to the effectiveness of the German campaign on British towns in order to justify the policy.
Perhaps another aspect ironically working against it was it’s sheer versatility. It’s hard to think of anything this plane couldnt do better than almost anything else. A preposterous sounding claim perhaps, but I reckon you could have even towed the gliders in with it. I guess, given the number of jobs it was doing, claiming that this is even 5 times more effective as a bomber than the mighty beasts tasked with the job, must have sounded too much. I think, given the factors I listed above, it was between 1 and 2 whole orders of magnitude a more effective weapon than a Lanc. That has to be regarded as an almighty cock up.

But I am going to have a dig at our allies on this as the biggest failing. USAF didnt drop a single bomb from a mossie. And yet American pilots were forbidden from flying the Lightning next to it (which of course was a long range fighter) . So if you were so embarrassed about how this wooden wonder, a bomber, outperformed your (perhaps 2nd) best fighter plane, why didnt you instruct your industrialists to start building these (despite their protests) and save tens of thousands of American lives. And that’s just in the air.

Ironically, but in a way pleasingly, the only one flying these days is in the States. Indeed I have read very many glowing appraisals by Americans. It seems to be better appreciated by U.S. historians these days than by Brits.

The Mosquito was in my opinion, as you will gather, the greatest “get lost” weapon anyone had in the entire horrific shooting match. It’s a bloody national disgrace we havent got any flying.

Nitpick: I don’t think that “stat” includes dive bombers. A Stuka, Dauntless, or Val pilot can routinely get it bomb within that 1km circle you mention above.

[I am aware of the near undead nature of this thread.]

that last lot was a bit of a rant. sorry.
however

some of the original planes, used for reconnaissance, were painted mat black. it took 16 mph off the performance.
Incredible lightness and superb streamlining with no worthless defensive gunnery, and two stupendous engines, made it 20 mph faster than anything else, i.e any fighter plane, in the sky when first flown. it’s a bomber. that’s ridiculous.

Whenever Mosquito Squadron would show up on like Turner Classic Movies or such, I’d always chuckle at the machine gun they had sticking out of the back of the cockpit…

The Lancaster carried a larger bomb load, and had defensive machine guns.

True. But I believe the point is that, unless you need to deliver a 10-ton bomb in one go, you could divide the Lanc’s bomb load among several Mosquitos, which would cost less put together than the one Lanc, and whose speed would be a more effective defence than the heavy’s machine-guns, and which would deliver their load with better accuracy.

before the mossie, all bombers had turrets sticking out of them
after it, no bombers had anything more than some machine guns stuck out of the front, if that. ok, this transition coincides with jet power, but the principle, that speed is EVERYTHING in an aircraft’s defence, belongs to de Havilland.
The failure of the RAF to adopt and then deploy the mossie more quickly to all out round the clock bombing of infrastructure, and also to largely fail to follow up the outrageously successful attacks on Nazi offices and camps, cost untold lives. I think in total 250,00 allied airmen were lost, either killed or captured. Given the radically lower casualty rate AND step change in damage done per lb of bomb of the fast bomber approach, we can only wonder how many lives on our own side, let alone the German civilian population were needlessly lost.

There is, naturally, always going to be controversy about why Auschwitz was never bombed. In truth even senior jewish figures were against such bombing, even when the specific industrial nature of the place became aware in June 1944 (when a report from two resistance guys who actually volunteered to go in and then escaped). But there can be no argument that the gas chambers and ovens, and barracks, could have been wiped out. But you need the right aircraft!,

Second Schweinfurt raid (14 Oct 1943). The first raid was on 17 Aug 1943, and was nearly as bloody as the second raid, but was split between Schweinfurt and Regensburg.

Part of the reason that heavy bomber raids were as inaccurate as they were was mostly due to the tactics involved. British night raids were deliberately intended to be saturation raids/carpet bombing raids, not precision attacks on defined targets.

US daylight bombing was intended to be considerably more accurate with the use of the Norden bombsight, but in practice, the planes tended to drift into each other and get seriously out of formation while on the bomb runs (the bombsight controlled the plane during the run), which compromised the formations’ defensive ability. In decent weather, it was possible for an entire group (4 squadrons, 48 planes) to put their entire bombloads in a circle of 300 meters radius, but the weather wasn’t often great, and this accuracy was rarely achieved.

So the tactics changed to having the best bombardiers in the lead planes for each combat box formation, and stressing rigid formation flying. When the lead planes dropped their bombs, presumably on target, the rest of the formation would drop en-masse. Apparently the training and experience to be a good bombardier was such that this tactic was actually more accurate in terms of destroying targets than individual bombing had been.

(the US strategic bombing offensive is a historical interest of mine; my grandfather was a gunner on a bomber in the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, and had been reassigned from A-20 Havocs to B-17s as a replacement after the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission)

Wow. He must have had some stories. Where was he stationed ?

The Lancaster, such an icon to the British, was actually built in my home town of Oldham. It is a magnificent aircraft, and could at least carry a massive bomb bigger than anything else I presume bar the super fortress.
But flying over anti aircraft fire, within range, at 200mph, is suicidal. I dont know if a mossie could fly at 30,000 ft with a full bomb load, but that appears to be above what most German guns could have reached.

The Lancaster cost £45,000 says wiki (not the £7,700 as I previously said). I cant find a figure for the mosquito.

Great Ashfield, which is a short distance from Bury St. Edmunds. According to what I can find on the internet, there’s just some remains of the old airfield and an old parish church there now- not even a town to speak of. He was in the 385th Bomb Group, 549th squadron.

He did have some harrowing stories- the one that stuck with me the most was the one where something shot out the power to the ball turret (and his heated suit!), and he had to hand-crank the thing around to get out of it and get to the radio room so he wouldn’t freeze. Plenty of stories about battle damage, etc… and one odd story about some peculiar plane (German jet, I suppose?) that flew up into their formation for a bit and then peeled off down and away. He said nobody shot at it since they had no idea what it was or whose side it was on.

The B29 could carry 9 tonnes (as near to 9 Imperial tons as makes no odds) but this is less than the Grand Slam Lancasters. I don’t know how often B29s would be fully bombed up given that a lot of the time they must have had to carry a huge amount of fuel. Little Boy and Fat Man were both about 4 1/2 tons, about the same as a Tallboy conventional bomb.

Hello good people,
I have no cite for this comment, save memory, however…
The F117A ‘apparently’ has a similar un-refueled range, weapons payload and radar signature to some of the late model Mosquitoes.
Sounds absurd but I agree with the OP’s conviction that the De Havilland Mosquito, and the Tetse variant, was/is an Aircraft that could still still convince the military of most countries of their own mortality.
The P-38 Lightning was an interesting take on the same concept of a twin engined fighter/light bomber, proved very successful in the Pacific War.
Off to the RAF Museum in Hendon this Weekend, so if anyone needs some current pictures contact me.
Peter