There was one other difference between the 4 engine bombers and the British
light bombers. The Americans in the heavy bombers flew during the daytime.
There is a slight chance that this is the reason we lost so many crews.
On the other hand, your idea of using all light bombers (two engines) is the
same one Germany used in the Eastern Campaign. They decided that lots of
twin engine bombers would be better than half as many heavy bombers. This
concept didn't work out too well for them in Russia.
We would have needed an airbase in Germany in order to run bombing raids
with fighters. The limiting factor is called endurance.
Joe Garrett
cell 425-344-1402
Please note my new email address is
j.garrett@gte.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of Geoff Winnington-Ball
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 6:44 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] Mosquito vs. B-17G
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