First my caveat -- I am by no means an internet whiz and my patience for long research is low, so I only spent about an hour or so searching. That being said . . .
Have to agree with Scherf. I can find references to Mossies being able to get to Berlin carrying a 4,000lb bomb, and that B-17s to Berlin carried 4,000lbs also. Other than that, I can not find a reference that shows the Mossie ever carrying more than the single 4,000lb bomb, whereas the B-17 clearly could.
As for the accuracy claim, again I saw several statements that the mossie tended toward better accuracy, but no proof of these statements. I am sure it is out there somewhere, but not seeing it plastered everywhere someone makes this claim makes me wonder if "selective data" is used. That is, if the mossie was more accurate overall because of a large number of low-level raids, then we are comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps the mossie was as or more accurate than a B-17 at 20,000 feet -- or maybe not. Haven't found the data.
One place I saw even tried to posit the argument that lives would have been saved if the allies would have replaced heavy bombers with nothing but Mossies. His claim is that no German fighter could ever catch the mossies. While I am sure this is true in the early war years, I have a hard time believing that fleets of Mossies flying at 20,000 feet to Berlin in 1944 could not have been intercepted by German fighters (262 anyone?). Furthermore, if it was high speed / zero defensive armament the Germans had in their skies rather than Fortresses, their development of fighters would have gone the direction of light interceptors with light armament rather than armored 190s with 30mm cannon. That is to say, "what ifs" always have a counter-arguement and tend to get pretty useless.
That kind of got off topic, but no point deleting it. I would welcome any hard data anyone has to back up these claims, but I am still skeptical. Besides 4K lbs to Berlin, I just am not seeing any solid support. Without said support, I have to assume it is another matter of a plane's reputation or "mystique" overwhelming the facts (which seems to occur far too often).
Final note before I get flamed: I am not trying to say the mossie was in reality a "bad plane" or take away from its well documented accomplishments. It was clearly a great plane and did some remarkable things. All I am saying is, lets not go overboard if it isn't warranted.
