Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[MiloMorai]

In any case I'm not sure that replacing entire B-17/B-24/Lancasters fleet by a Mosquitos would be right decision.

Only the B-17 fleet. The heavy lift capability of the Lanc was needed and the B-24, tho not in the numbers actually produced, for long range sea patrolling.

The Mosquito had the perfect escort in the P-51.

[Volron]

Yes they do:

Either to get over a target:
(Image removed from quote.)
Or to shoot from a standoff range:
(Image removed from quote.)

The B-52 and Tu-95 are still very much active as well.  I know the bomber variant of the B-52 is solely a cruise missile platform, and I believe the bomber variant of the Tu-95 has been converted like that as well.  I believe both are capable of carrying more cruise missiles than the B-2 and Tu-160, especially if they decide to utilize the external hard points on each.  Well, I can't say in regards to the Tu-95, but I know the B-52 is capable of carrying more ordinance on external points.

[artik]

The B-52 and Tu-95 are still very much active as well...

Yeah I know. But they not "under development" or "produced". Also both are very-very capable planes.

I referred to the above because:

Tu-160 - Russians promise to renew the production line
B-2 is still "very-fresh" also not produced.

[artik]

Less vulnerable to AA.  They spend about half the time in the AA's range and they are a smaller target.  While they can't take as much punishment as one of the big four engined bombers, those two factors more than make up for it.

Unless you are talking about XVI, the VI version is dive bomber that does low altitude penetrations...

It is one of the most vulnerable positions for AAA. While at 20,000 only 88mm can get them. At low altitude - every single gun would shoot at them.

[Karnak]

Unless you are talking about XVI, the VI version is dive bomber that does low altitude penetrations...

It is one of the most vulnerable positions for AAA. While at 20,000 only 88mm can get them. At low altitude - every single gun would shoot at them.

We're talking about bombers, not fighters or fighter-bombers.  The Mosquito marks in question would be the Mk IV, Mk IX and Mk XVI for wartime versions.

You would never use a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster for the tasks you would use a Mosquito Mk VI.  The aircraft have completely different roles.

[bozon]

Note, fighter bombers generally can defend themselves in equal terms against other fighters. Mosquito isn't the case. Of course in Your experienced hands in AH Mosquito is deadly but yet unless you come at advantage from the beginning, you are in trouble.

It is ideal weapon for surprise missions but probably not for strategic campaign.

Yes they do:

Either to get over a target:
(Image removed from quote.)
Or to shoot from a standoff range:
(Image removed from quote.)

Mossie FB.VI proved to be quite capable of defending against 109 and 190s (110s were considered as food), especially when operating in groups. Coastal command missions were intercepted a few times over Norway and the fights started from a very bad position for the mossies. Still, not only they were not obliterated by the LW, the shot down about as many of the enemy as they lost.

Post war, Mosquitoes served in the IAF. The pilots impressions of the plane was that while not as good a fighter and the spit or p51d, it was quite capable of defending itself in a dogfight.

Bomber Mossies are a different story altogether. First, as noted by Karnak above, they are far more survivable to flak than heavy bombers. Versus fighters, had they been used on large scale day time missions, they would have needed Escorts.

HOWEVER! This would have been a very different escort from the heavy bombers. Cruising at fighter speeds would have extended the range of the escorts far deeper than B17 escort ranges even before the arrival of the P51. It would have been very difficult for the LW fighters to get into position to intercept a bomber that is as fast if not faster than they are - even if they could slowly close from behind, any intervention from escorts would have made the enemy drop out of the race. Frontal attacks are difficult to set up against maneuvering targets - the mossies would have flown in small formations rather than big boxes and could easily ruin a good setup, not to mention that the attackers will fall far behind a and not get a second chance.

As for the B2,
Let's see, it has no defensive armament, it is quite fast and relies on evading interceptors altogether in order to deliver ordnance with high precision. Is it more like a B17 or a Mossie Bomber?

[artik]

Post war, Mosquitoes served in the IAF. The pilots impressions of the plane was that while not as good a fighter and the spit or p51d, it was quite capable of defending itself in a dogfight.

I read Dani Shapiro's biography (he was most famous IAF test pilot) and remember quite a different story. He wasn't fond of Mosquito and considered them as quite dangerous because they had very small safety margins. i.e. Mosquitos are not forgiving planes at all and you could easily get yourself in trouble with it.

[bozon]

I read his book decades ago so I cannot recall his exact words. The mossie was quite a plesant plane to handle - until you lost control over it. Like most twins it could get into very nasty spins (I guess it has to do with the high wingspan/length ratio and having the engines off the central axis). Interestingly, it handles just so in AH as well.

[Jabberwock]

The Mosquito wasn’t great shakes as a dayfighter. Sure, it made some kills, but that was more being in the right place at the right time and having something stumble across the gunsights.

According to the AFDU tactical trials, the FB Mk VI’s controls were very heavy at 3G and above, detracting from its general performance as a fighter. Even a single-seat lightened version (-1500 lb) without the elevator weight wasn’t really considered that good against S/E fighters.

In trials vs the Spitfire V, IX and XII and Typhoon, it was found that all the single-engine fighters could throw the Mosquito off their tails, with the exception of a Typhoon handled by an inexperienced pilot. The Mosquito however was unable to disengage S/E opposition using turns or climbs.

However, there were a couple of points in the Mosquito’s favour. It was generally considered to be a very difficult target for fighters and at medium altitudes, it was found to have better initial level acceleration and dive acceleration than the single engine fighters.

The general conclusion was that the Mosquito was unable to go on the offensive against S/E fighters and it was limited to making itself as difficult a target as possible.

On the general behaviour of the Mosquito, most of the pilots reports I've read indicate that it was a comparatively nice bird to fly, with well balanced controls and few bad manners with its handling.

Single-engine flying was poor in the early marks, I think purely due to a lack of power combined with a high stall speed. Stall behaviour, even with a single engine, was relatively benign from what I've read, with a pronounced buffet and 'mush' period prior to full onset.

[FLOOB]

Dude's named Jabberwock!

Frumious Bandersnatch!

[MiloMorai]

Jabberwock knows his aviation. He might not post here much but he does on several other boards.

[FLOOB]

Jabberwock knows his aviation. He might not post here much but he does on several other boards.

What's that have to do with anything?

[bozon]

Jabberwokie,

We are not considering the mosquito as a day fighter. This is the one role it was never meant to fill. The discussion was about the vulnerability of the mossies (bombers and FB) to enemy fighters had they been used in large scale.

AFDU tested a merlin 23 mosquito which was not fast enough vs. contemporary fighters. This is why the FB.XI got the merlin 25s. In the same document you can find some tests that were performed later with merlin 25s. It walked away from all spitfires including the Griffon powered XII that was the fastest spit on the deck (faster than spit 14, which our mossie VI isn't by the way), and it matched or out performed the Typhoon in turn and climb.

AFDU has some wrong assessments in their time. You should read what they thought of the P-47...

Actual combat records suggest that the  mossies were difficult opponrnts. Most of those records come from coastal command actions in Norway since other many on many engagements were rare. You also have to remember that mossie pilots were usually not trained as fighter pilots and when engaged were focused on protecting each other and disengaging. I think that most of the mossie kills in those engagements were by pilots that started out in single-engine fighters and had more of a day-fighter mentality and training, though I did not do the actual statistics.

[PR3D4TOR]

The main reason the Mosquito did so well was exactly because it wasn't used in greater numbers. The Luftwaffe's interceptor aircraft and tactics evolved to counter the main threat of the slower heavy bombers, where firepower and armor was more important than speed. Had the Mosquito been the main threat, the Luftwaffe would have evolved differently throughout the war to counter it.

[Karnak]

The main reason the Mosquito did so well was exactly because it wasn't used in greater numbers. The Luftwaffe's interceptor aircraft and tactics evolved to counter the main threat of the slower heavy bombers, where firepower and armor was more important than speed. Had the Mosquito been the main threat, the Luftwaffe would have evolved differently throughout the war to counter it.

Given the performance aircraft of the day were capable of, or what the technology might max at in terms of climb and speed, there isn't all that much the Luftwaffe could have done to make intercepts better.  It is simply a matter of numbers and the window to intercept Mossies was vastly smaller than the window to intercept the heavies was.