Geoff
Did the Mosquito have the range necessary to strike deep into Europe?
Dj
Geoff Winnington-Ball wrote:
> Joe Foley wrote:
>
> > What's more fearsome? A battleship or a huge fleet of
> > PT boats?
>
> Joe,
>
> Not applicable in this instance. An Iowa class battleship was a hell of
> a lot more useful in its WW2 environs than a whole herd of PTs, but a
> slow moving, four-engined bomber was a target-in-waiting for both flak
> and fighters. Your people and ours paid the price accordingly...
>
> Both Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force found out the hard way that
> a legion of heavy bombers was a VERY costly way to wage war, in terms of
> both money and highly-trained manpower. Were there alternatives?
>
> My perspective is simple... take the Mosquito for instance. Well known
> speed. Well known manoeuvrability. Good bomb load. Two man crew.
> Manufactured from a structure of balsa and plywood, more resistant to
> radar. Capable of putting bombs through individual windows in specific
> buildings. Could the U.S, with its well-known capability for
> manufacturing anything AS WELL AS OR BETTER than anyone else, have taken
> the basic design, improved upon it, and come up with the best dual-role
> aircraft in the war? Don't forget, the Mossie was driven by TWO Merlins,
> which was the base design for the Mustang engine...
>
> While your B-29 was unique and necessary for the PTO, take the money
> spent on thousands of B-17s and B-24s -- never mind on the U.S. Mediums
> -- and turn it into the U.S. equivalent of Mosquitos. One fifth the
> crew, almost the same bombload, MANY, MANY more aircraft with all the
> advantages of the lighter aeroplane. Concentrate on low-level, pinpoint
> attacks against specific installations, with streams protected by gun
> birds (the fighter Mossie boasted four .303s and four 20mm cannon, and
> were impossible to differentiate unless too close to matter). Thousands
> of aircraft per strike, with better results, fewer losses and far fewer
> casualties.
>
> CLOUDS of Mosquitos, as it were...
>
> It was a damned good aeroplane which, although quite famous in its own
> right, could have been better employed by ALL ETO Allied air forces.
>
> IMHO, of course... :-)
>
> Geoff
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:18:31 PDT