Time To Stop Saying The Mossie Could Do This? | Mosquito vs B-17 Myth

[@Legitpenguins99]

In history in general, if your asking "why didn't they use X instead of Y when X is obviously so much better", usually the answer is they would have used X if it was batter for that purpose. People tend to think that their forefathers weren't nearly as smart as they are today.

[@AndrewGivens]

God, yes, this. I see this all too often, and the answer is always "because you're dumber than you think you are".

[@erichammond9308]

@@Legitpenguins99 that's especially true if X has a maximum payload of 4,000 pounds whereas Y has a maximum payload of 17,500 pounds.

[@allenlombard3627]

I'm not positive but I believe the Mosquito was originally intended to be a high speed fighter bomber whose primary role was to be heavy bomber escorts in daytime raids... All heavy fighter bombers failed at this but they were the only option in a long distance daytime raid. They simply couldn't win fights with short range fighter interceptors. To be fair it was better than others as its light construction (wood) made it highly maneuverable compared to other fighter bombers. It was an excellent night fighter and shined in this role... Who can't love Merlin powered airship with a nose full of guns? Unless you happened to be a German aircraft trying to land in the dark, that is.

[@jonathonlee6254]

@@allenlombard3627 It was designed as an unarmed fast bomber, it was later converted to fighter-bomber variants. It was never intended to be a bomber escort.

[@allenlombard3627]

@@jonathonlee6254 Thanks for clearing that up.

[@jacktattis]

The only thing CLOSE about the Mossie and B17 was that the Mossie could drop 4000lb on Berlin the B17 6000lb .However the Mossie could go there bomb and be on its way home and the B17 would be just entering German Airspace

[@Rob-vv5yn]

And half of them wouldn’t have been shot down on the way there and back either.

@@jacktattis Excellent comment.

[@richardvernon317]

@@Rob-vv5yn Total Rubbish I'm Afraid. Mosquito Bomber Loss rate in Daylight Operations in 1942/43 was 7.2% of sorites flown. First operation was against Colone on 31st May 1942 which saw one Mosquito lost out of 5 sorites. Most mission were flown with as much cloud cover as possible and raids were aborted if they found themselves with no cloud cover with miles to go to the target. Any Interception by a German Fighter got a mission kill at the very least as the Mossie had to dump its bombs and run for the nearest cloud, if they didn't reach the cloud, they were normally shot down. After Operation Oyster, where the 12 Mosquitos on the operation suffered 1 lost (crashed just of the Norfolk coast on the way home, mostly likely due to Flak damage as engine was smoking as the crossed the Dutch coast), 2 damaged by Fw-190's after bombing and 1 mission kill due to intercept by another Fw-190 which resulted in the Mossie dumping its bombs. Almost all Mosquito sorties were flown at Night or with a time on target at sunset. The only exception was the Berlin raid on 30th May, where the aircraft crossed the German Baltic coast at low level after overflying Denmark and bombed Berlin from 20,000 feet. The first 3 aircraft had no issues and did see the rough area of the city where the radio station was through a hole in the cloud. The second wave did find Berlin clear of cloud and one of them was shot down by Heavy Flak. The other two had some real fun evading the Fw-190's with the help of cloud. The last low level raid that they did deep into Germany in "Daylight" was an attack on the Ziess Optical works at Jena on 27th May 1943. The raid launched at 19:15 in the evening and the aircraft got home at around midnight. The weather was quite bad and the aircraft had to fly with their Nav lights on for the later part of the flight. 14 Mosquitos took part in the raid, this is what the results were. DZ601 139 Sqn - Raid leader - Bombed primary target. Aircraft damaged by Flak and pilot wounded. DZ605 139 Sqn - Bombed primary target - suffered engine failure on route home, hit HT power lines trying to land at Coltishall. Crew killed DZ598 139 Sqn - Failed to reach target due to engine failure - bombed target of opportunity, managed to evade 6 Fw-190's by hiding in cloud. DZ598 139 Sqn - Bombed primary target DZ318 139 Sqn - Failed to reach primary target - Collided with DZ603 while trying to evade light flak on route - Crew Killed DZ603 139 Sqn - Failed to reach primary target - Collided with DZ318 while trying to evade light flak on route - Crew Killed. DZ591 105 Sqn - Bombed primary target DK337 105 Sqn - Missed primary target by 1/2 mile DZ595 105 Sqn - Bombed primary target DZ521 105 Sqn - Failed to reach primary target - bombed target of opportunity after losing formation in cloud. DZ414 105 Sqn - Failed to reach primary target - bombed target of opportunity after losing formation in cloud. DZ467 105 Sqn - Bombed primary target, shot down by Flak coming off target, crew killed DZ483 105 Sqn - Bombed primary target, crashed trying to land on one engine at Marham, crew killed DZ548 105 Sqn - Failed to reach primary target - bombed target of opportunity after losing formation in cloud. The Mosquito couldn't out run a FW-190 in daylight and hiding in cloud was their main evasion method. my source, the squadron operations record books!!!

[@nunyabidness674]

Fuel load... Yes, the Mosquito could fly to Berlin and back on internal fuel, just not anywhere close to full speed. The B-17 also didn't fly at full speed just because of range. Where I'm going with this, is from a command and control aspect, you want both types of planes to take the same amount of time when using mixed unit types.

[@petersmith7126]

Yes the Mosquito could carry a 4,000lb bomb load to Berlin but you really need to temper that with the fact it could only carry one type of bomb and that was the 4,000lb cookie that was great at blowing roofs off buildings and which allowed other bombs to penetrate easier ... The cookie on its own didn't do a lot of damage to plant or machinery

[@stevedownes5439]

Great work. I really appreciate the mention of tactics at the end. Many who discuss “this plane versus that plane” fail to consider anything but raw numbers.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for watching Steve!

[@erichammond9308]

Comparing the B-17 to the Mosquito is like comparing apples to oranges. Nothing against either one, they were both excellent in their respective roles.

[@CalibanRising]

I answered the question I set out to, so it was worth comparing them for that.

[@erichammond9308]

@@CalibanRising Oh, it was not a criticism of your answer, or the fact you made this video. It was absolutely meant as a criticism of the people who have made your video necessary with their faulty comparisons in other videos. (Does hardthrasher ring a bell?) 🤣

[@jacobmccandles1767]

I'm going to say...no, the B-17 was not a great aircraft. It was miserably slow and inadequately armed for it's mission.

[@erichammond9308]

@@jacobmccandles1767 really? Then what do you call the Avro Lancaster which was only slightly faster, had a slightly larger payload, much lower service ceiling, and had pitiful defensive armament? Oh, and the Lancaster had a nearly 50% attrition rate whereas the B-17 dropped 42% of all bombs by weight in occupied Europe?

[@fezparker2401]

@@erichammond9308 never trust anyone who publishes figures for one but not the other.what are the b17 loss rates?and what % of bombs dropped for the lancaster? i know. why don't we agree the early B17 was not good,and was used badly by it commanders to the dertriment of its crews,got better and with fighter support got even better,where as the lanc was good,then got used to go further and further into eastern germany to the detriment of its crews, resulting in both planes having almost identical losses

[@Dave5843-d9m]

One Mosquito could never achieve the delivery of one B-17. TWO Mosquitoes could carry considerably more with just four men vs 11 men and do it in less time over enemy territory.

[@0Zolrender0]

Thats why the Mossie was best used as a Pathfinder by the RAF and a precision bomber for low altitude attacks.

[@peterstickney7608]

@@0Zolrender0 The low altitude precision raids were mostly made by Mosquito Fighter-Bombers.

[@jacktattis]

@@peterstickney7608 Could be both

[@tim7052]

Also, the Mossie had the lowest loss ratio of any WWII frontline aircraft.

[@erichammond9308]

@@Dave5843-d9m for a mission range of 400 miles a single B-17 with 2 pilots and 1 bombardier could carry 17,500 lbs with external payload - that would be 5 mosquitoes and 10 pilots. Not to dismiss the other aircrew on the B-17, but pilots and bombardiers take longer, and cost more to train and are thus harder to replace.

[@geordiedog1749]

Excellent bit of proper history, mate. Good work!

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks mate!

[@ivorbiggin8170]

To get a more accurate bomb load you may also have to look at how many aircraft were shot down on route to the target, as only bombs on target is what matters, not how many took off but never reached the target.

[@CalibanRising]

A good point. I think it's still going to support the overall findings, many B-17's seemed to carry >4,000 lb bomb loads on a given sortie.

[@markgadsby5568]

And accuracy

[@richardvernon317]

@@markgadsby5568 Mosquito couldn't hit the broadside of a Barn from 20,000 feet in 1943 with a Mark IX bombsight!!! Mean Miss distance for an Oboe Mk 1 attack was 670 Yards!! That was when the kit in the aircraft actually worked, which on an average of 50% of the time it didn't!!

[@matejmacek5784]

the problem is accuracy. Mosquito was usually used in small groups with high accuracy. For Lancester and B-17 and B-24 majority of bomb fall inside area with radius of few km (ca 10). But the target was only few 100 m across. All WW2 bombings is a myth. We all know US bombers destroyed German oil production in september 1944, but nobody mention SU capture of Ploesti.

[@dereksollows9783]

And the historical record on accuracy per type too!

[@c.d.baumann7286]

If you check the pilots manual for the B17F, her internal bomb bay alone had a maximum capacity of 12,800lbs with a range of around 1200 miles. They also loaded them up with 7 to 9k in bombs during big week and when fighter escorts became the norm. A pair of disney bombs also weighed 10k lbs and they where specifically designed by the UK for the Fort's external racks. If you do a video comparing the Lancaster the the B17, I strongly encourage you to watch greg's airplanes Lancaster videos.

[@bignorbert1136]

Completely different design solutions.

[@Fidd88-mc4sz]

Mosquitoes did repeatedly hit Berlin with 4000lb cookies, some 2/3rds of the B17's bomb load. However, it did so with a MUCH MUCH higher efficiency, with more than a few airframes achieving 100+ operations against Berlin. One at least, did 200 such ops against targets in Germany. Moreover, less aircrew were risked, as the crew of a Mossie was 2, a B17 some 10 crew. This is not to imply that the Mosquito was a viable alternative to the 4 engined heavies, as a Lancaster or B17 could additionally drop a great many incendiaries, in addition to their iron bombs, and it was these incendiaries, in concert with cookies, that really did the damage to cities. Where the Mossie really excelled was in spoof raids, by causing the Germans to react at a timing that helped protect the main force. The simple fact, as I see it, is that each aircraft was employed according to it's strengths, and the synergy of both day and night bombing v the same targets by using the right aircraft for the right job, had an increased effect because it precluded effective fire-fighting. So there's a lot more to it that which aircraft carried which bombload.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

It’s not just about the bomb weight and the fuel consumption. We also have to take account of the casualties per sortie, the construction cost and the crew requirements (including training). Given the ability of US industry- and the fact that the Mosquito requires more carpentry than steelwork - tooling up to make more mosquitoes wouldn’t be a show stopper. Hypothetically a B17 crew could have made up 2 mosquito crews, using both pilots, the navigator and the bombardier as the second navigator. The other 6 would then be available for other roles (assuming they couldn’t be up-trained to be mosquito crews). That’s a lot of aircrew lives potentially saved. With fewer casualties the training of replacement crew would be reduced. Perhaps it simply doesn’t matter if the Mosquito couldn’t always carry the same average amount of bombs per sortie.

[@theflyingfool]

I think another factor that limited the production of Mossies was the availability of the specific high quality woods required in its construction. Creating a huge Mossie force would have been a massive headache for the global timber supply chain & probably unattainable. This point was well made in Rowland Whites book about the Mossie. It can also be said that under certain circumstances a Mosquito could carry a bomb load that was equal to that carried by a B17, but not necessarily to the same target...

[@ericadams3428]

Also a 4000 lb HC cookie was not always the right bomb for the target.

[@markgadsby5568]

They surely could have reengineered the Mossie in metal?

[@waynemanning3262]

@@markgadsby5568 you miss the point! Aluminum was a strategic metal, wood was under utilized,plentiful and the source was safe. The skilled labour from the cabinetry trades was also under utilized. The only significant use of metal used in the Mossie was the undercarriage, radiator and engines/cowlings.

[@Heymisterareyougonnadie]

​@@waynemanning3262but it took huge amounts of resources to get the wood to the production plants. Balsa doesn't grow in temp zones.

[@Heymisterareyougonnadie]

​@@markgadsby5568 then it wouldn't be a mossie! It would be a beau fighter.

[@PortmanRd]

You can't compare a B-17 to a Mosquito. Two totally different planes. It's like comparing a P-38 with a Lancaster bomber.

[@CalibanRising]

Yet people do, hence the video.

[@JefferyHagen]

@@PortmanRd this did answer a question for me though because it’s been stated in various places how similar the bomb loads of medium bombers were to heavy bombers which I found suspicious because like you’re saying it’s an odd comparison. This is another example of how the stated capabilities are on paper don’t always translate into the real world.

[@PortmanRd]

@@CalibanRising Still pointless to me.

[@andrewallen9993]

Except a P38 couldn't carry 2/3 the bomb load of a Lancaster.

[@waynemanning3262]

The short of it is how many crew members were risked per ton of bombs dropped on any mission? What was the cost both monetary and in human lives lost per ton of bombs dropped? The B17 was known for flying characteristics and structural integrity and has become legendary in the media and has a well deserved place in history, but if your killing more crew members and using more resources to get a bomb on target then is it worth it.

[@JZsBFF]

Very interesting video. I'm a bit biased towards the Mozzie myself but it seems like a fair assessment. One element not mentioned is the effect on the Luftwaffe's punch as more of their planes were being shot down by the B17s.

[@surferdude4487]

I'm a big fan of the Mosquito, but using it as a heavy bomber is dumb.

[@colinelliott5629]

But what if the strategy of using 'heavy bombers' was dumb? The important thing is weight of bombs delivered over long distance versus resources committed, and of course huge losses of resources in trained men and expensive machines was what occurred with heavy bombers. Why were they 'heavy'? Because the theory was that adding firepower manned by men in rotating turrets was sufficient to defend the bomber. Just before the war, it was thought 'the bomber will always get through'. It never was; speed and agility worked far better, and in the final part of the war, this was achieved with fighter escorts. Whenever there's a dispute and someone wins it, from then on, the winner feels compelled to persist in his faith.

[@surferdude4487]

@@colinelliott5629 Here's another point. The B17 lacked a forward facing gun. The Japanese and the Germans knew this. So, what did they do? They attacked the bombers head-on, of course. Duh! What did the Mosquito have? Forward facing guns, lots of them. imagine being a WWII fighter pilot, coming in on a bomber formation head-on and running into a formation of Mosquitos instead. I expect that would be a very bad day for the fighters.

[@colinelliott5629]

@@surferdude4487 And the Lancaster lacked a lower rear turret, so what did the Germans do? They mounted guns pointing front and upwards.

[@sebclot9478]

@@colinelliott5629 Well, it wasn't. So there is that.

[@adamlee3772]

Hope you upload more videos on this subject. Very interesting about two magnificent aircraft.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks, will do!

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@6:50 "A mosquito would be expected to easily make a straight in and out run on Berlin. But there's a catch:" There's an even bigger catch with those paper numbers there - WW2 bombers basically never flew in straight lines. Those on paper numbers are marginal enough that the mosquitoes are basically forced to disregard things like misdirection and the possibility of bypassing known heavy flak concentrations while still leaving very little allowance for things to go wrong.

[@CalibanRising]

Yep, I was certain most of my audience was familiar with that fact. There's also the fact that the Mosquito could gain up to 5 nm per gallon on certain settings with a lighter overall load on the return leg. The trip to the German capital became fairly routine for those crews by 1945.

[@ARNM55-l9v]

Older American here. Wow, so much data & yet so many practical considerations overlooked. I personally would have preferred a little less "data heavy" video. The Mosquitos, for the sake of this discussion, would have to have flown daylight raids, like the B-17's, to make this a more realistic performance comparison. If the Mosquitos flew at lower altitudes, as you noted, they would probably have been exposed to at least equal if even greater amounts {volume & density} of AA flak, regardless of their speed. The reason being, if Mosquitos flew at lower altitudes the additional amount of smaller caliber AA flak, in the given airspace being flown through by the Mosquitos, would have been significantly greater in volume & density than the amount of AA flak experienced by the B-17's, in their given airspace at higher altitudes. The smaller caliber AA flak that could potentially hit the Mosquitos at their combat altitudes couldn't / didn't reach the B-17's at their typical altitudes. An increased volume & density of AA flak would most likely have accounted for an equal if not a greater number of actual hits, per plane, on the Mosquitos, per raid. Considering the construction of the Mosquito I doubt they could have remained flying if they sustained equal amounts of physical damage, per hit, that B-17's sustained. Mosquitos weren't built as structurally strong as B-17's. Mosquitos used 2 liquid cooled engines whereas the B-17's used 4 air cooled radial engines. Liquid cooled engines were significantly less resistant to even the slightest amount of battle damage & were far less likely to remain functional for very long after sustaining even battle damage, especially to their cooling system. In a one-to-one comparison, a Mosquito loses 50% of its propulsion when it loses 1 engine. A B-17 could remain airborne for a significant period of time with at least 2 engines, sometimes even 3 engines, being completely non-functional. Radial engines could & did remain functional with significant portions completely blown away. As most readers are aware the Mosquito had only 1 pilot & 1 set of flight controls in its cockpit, whereas the B-17 had a pilot & co-pilot & 2 full sets of flight controls in its cockpit. If both aircraft sustained identical damage to its pilots position inside the cockpit it is highly unlikely that the Mosquito would survive the event. Look up how many B-17's returned being flown by the co-pilot because the aircraft had lost its pilot & or the pilots flight controls, inside the cockpit, had sustained significant damaged. One final point, you mentioned in your video that it might have been necessary for daylight raids to have been discontinued if Mosquitos had been used in place of B-17's. Had this practice been adopted it would have allowed the Germans to have had full use of daylight hours to transport troops & materials & to have built fortifications completely unhindered throughout occupied lands. Around the clock bombing was necessary, regardless of how effective or imprecise it may have been at times. I doubt that anyone who truly understands the conflict could believe that Mosquitos could have duplicated the accomplishments of the B-17 in WW2. Both were great & valuable aircraft, but they were far from being equals.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for the feedback

[@tim7052]

A lot of hypotheses you mention - for instance if a B-17 got hit in the cockpit,who can categorically state that the 2nd set of controls would be undamaged and fully functional? Historical fact disproves a lot of your hypotheses - 2 Mossies (4 men) could deliver same bombload more efficiently, waaayy faster - and at the same height - as against 10-men in a lumbering B-17. Btw how many B-17 aircrew failed to return, compared to Mossie aircrew?

[@Batlaw1]

My earliest memory of my Dad, navigator in 107 Squadron, comparing the Mosquito to a B-17 would have been mid 50's. 'Same bomb load etc.', and his view could only have been based on what was being said before he was demobbed in 1946.

[@AnthonyBrown12324]

It would probably have been better if more Mosquitoes had been available in every role . However the factories were tooled up for the aircraft that had been ordered in 1940 onwards . You cannot just close down production and start another type . You just cannot stop and then have nothing . The massive production of the B24 was only really happening in 1943 and it was generally a serviceable aircraft ; though not a great aircraft at high altitude . US factories were good at making improvements without losing production . The fact is every aeroplane was being lost at numbers difficult to replace . It was probably well into 1944 before production and aircrew training caught up . That's why Wellingtons were still being produced through most of the war . Early Halifax's were not up to standard but the answer the MKiii onwards was not in service until 1944 .

[@slammerf16]

The B24 was essential for long range work over the Atlantic. Ironically the role for which the B17 was originally designed! RAF Coastal Command was begging for more B24s for most of the war.

[@AnthonyBrown12324]

@@slammerf16 the B24 was used in large numbers in the 8th Air Force even more so in the 15th air force . I agree it was more suited to the costal patrol role ; had a long range . Just took a while to ramp up production but ended being the most produced US combat aircraft of WW2 .

[@slammerf16]

@@AnthonyBrown12324 Oh yes, it did great service in many theatres. The Coastal Command also used Mosquitos but more for convoy attack using cannon and rockets over shorter ranges. B24 was ideal for U boat hunting when equipped with ASV radar and depth charges/bombs.

[@AnthonyBrown12324]

@@slammerf16 yes a highly regarded aircraft , better in the role than the B17 due to range .

[@AndrewGivens]

@@AnthonyBrown12324 And, of course, the 17 was designed for coast defence, as opposed to L/R (let alone VLR) maritime patrol. It didn't need *quite* the legs for 'flying offshore artillery battery' duties.

[@mookie2637]

This may, or may not, make Lord Hardthrasher happy.

[@erichammond9308]

@@mookie2637 🤣🤣 I know exactly what you mean, and it will piss him off, and good that it does - he's dead wrong in his video.

[@tonydrake462]

thought the same ....

[@hughjohnson2674]

@@erichammond9308 no he’s not, the B17 was expensive, slow and equiped with inadequate engines all because everything on the aircraft was electrical and it required the electrical output of the motors to keep all systems operating, once you lost a motor you lost amps and that had an effect on current draw. There were no reserves unlike a hydraulic or air operated system. By 1945 it was a ten year old design that was clearly outdated.

[@erichammond9308]

@@hughjohnson2674There's no doubt that by 1945 the B-17 was outdated. With the advances in technology it's expected. It was a 1935 design, for Pete's sake. 🙄 The logic of comparing it to designs several years newer, performance of missions when the B-17 was 10 years old, right at the end of its service, and at the very end of the war is fundamentally flawed. Comparing it to a light bomber design 5-6 years younger is simply ludicrous. Compare it to comparable designs that were in wide use in active service in early 1942. Yet despite all of the faults you just listed, the B-17 managed to drop more tons of bombs on Nazi occupied Europe than all other bombers combined. That's a record that's undeniable

[@Gannet-S.4]

@@erichammond9308 It is deniable though, the B-17 dropped about 42% of bombs which means other bombers combined dropped 58% of bombs, also I would disagree with you other the fact that we shouldn't compare the plane to its contemporaries, its being judged for how well it performed in the actual war which means we need to talk about the other aircraft that it faced you can't just ignore that and proclaim its unfair just because the B-17 was already outdated. when people talk about the Japanese type 95 Ha-go you don't go "oh well it was a perfectly fine tank in 1933 you shouldn't compare it to the Sherman or Matilda even though that's what it fought, they are newer tanks so obviously they are better." it doesn't happen.

[@antonrudenham3259]

It's my belief that rather than re-equipping the US bomber forces with Mozzies RAF bomber command ought to have been, Britain was much harder pressed for treasure and personnel than the USA and by the end of 1944 UK ground forces were out of personnel replacements while hundreds of thousands of airmen drove officers around or folded beds back or were otherwise engaged in menial activities back in the UK. It's also worth mentioning that Mozzies could and did operate from relatively basic airfields in continental Europe from late 44 onwards and this would obviously greatly increase their useful range over Germany, they also occasionally went to Berlin from the UK twice a night during winters long nights which obviously doubles each aircrafts bombs dropped. Same goes for the Navy too, there were countless thousands of matelots swabbing the decks of useless battlehips and heavy cruisers all over the world when they were desperately needed as soldiers.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I can glaringly see the Army bias there...... without sea power, your soldiers have no supplies. That means no troop ships, no Oil. no ammo , no food. And those dead airmen? They take German industry out the picture. They starve German Air Forces and his tanks of fuel.

[@luvr381]

B-17 bombloads were also lessened to allow higher altitude flight, reducing danger from flak and requiring defending fighters to spend more time climbing to reach them. If you compare B-17 and Lancaster bombloads, pay attention to the altitudes they were being dropped from.

[@csjrogerson2377]

Who really gives a crap about what altitudes they were being dropped from? The higher altitude of the B-17 made a difference of 1 min 40 secs in climbing. and seeing as the Germans had plenty of notice, it is irrelevant. The difference in how much effective flak there was at each altitude and again was also small as the firing solutions were aided by radar. The additional height of the B-17 only avoided 40 and 50mm guns which could engaged the Lanc at 15,000ft

[@reserva120]

@@csjrogerson2377 that makes zero sense- that’s a huge difference- higher better

[@csjrogerson2377]

@@reserva120 Higher is better, but the B-17 was only 5000 ft higher. In addition the radar input to the firing solution was very accurate and so the inaccuracies due to increased height were minimised. So it does make sense. Ppl forget that 50% of all Allied aircraft shot down were shot down by flak - not the Luftwaffe. German flak was the best and the 5000ft made little difference.

[@egocyclic]

@@csjrogerson2377 There is a US document from 1945.06.25 that evidenced that from 15k to 30k feet, flak effectiveness decreases by 50% for each 5000ft increase. The document was issued to the Pacific forces after V-E Day, but data is not stated to be derived from the Pacific operations. In any case it is clear that the US would have had far more flak data from the ETO than the PTO. Another document that is derived from data exclusively related to B-29 missions over Japan shows roughly similar figures. You can argue about how and where the data was collected, but it is clear that the Americans at the time did indeed believe that 5000' made a big difference in flak effectiveness.

[@csjrogerson2377]

@@egocyclic Interesting. I wonder over what period the data was collected. The Japanese had fire-control radars for most of the Pacific war, but was only deemed to be effective from mid '44 and came as quite a shock to the Americans. The Japs had produced a new fire control radar. However that doesnt help the ETO where the flak was deemed to be much more effective. One thing bothers me. IF the American report is accurate, AND applies to the ETO, why did the RAF continue to fly at 15000 ft? If losses could be reduced by 50% simply flying 5000ft higher why did they not fit merlins that could get them there? Well, it appears that the original Mk XX 1280 bhp engines were replaced by more powerful Mk22, 24s (1435 & 1610 bhp) and briefly Mk85 & 87s, but I can find no change in the operating height!

[@jakeglanville6835]

I fully agree with what you have to say here and I congratulate you on your extensive and thorough research. People forget that the majority of bomb-carrying Mosquitos did NOT have the enlarged bomb-bays which could take a 4,000 lb bomb.

[@kirgan1000]

One more thing, if you replace Mosquito with B-17, the German will answer, and there will be sprint FW-190 optimized for higher speeds, instead of the historical bomber destroyer, that was optimized to carry heavy armament.

[@slammerf16]

The Mosquito could have also been upgraded for increased speed. For the Germans a speed race would have been harder to win against the Allies and their 150 Octane fuel than the armament race which just required 20mm cannon.

[@bridge_studio]

@@slammerf16imagine a mosquito with griffin engines.

[@hammer1349]

​@@bridge_studio turboprop mossie would be a monster

[@jacktattis]

They did go for Higher Speeds FW190D series

[@rbgerald2469]

​@@jacktattis...And then there's the Focke Wulf TA-152H

[@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS]

Any notion that a single 4,000lbs "cookie" or the 4 500lbs internal load is equivalent to B17's spreading 8, 10, or more 500 lbs bombs over a large area per plane seems silly to me given that according to the butt report the RAF could barely hit a city in 1942-43 never mind an individual target. And that mosquito is unarmed so if it were to fly in large numbers slow with max bomb loads they would have lost nearly every element that allowed them to succeed in the mission types they did fly.......

[@jagracershoestring609]

All WW2 planes were compremises, Ministry of Supply civil servants were not too blessed with intelligence when it came to ordering the best aircraft because no-one knew which was the best. Resources and time did not allow research, and the limiting factor was lack of suitable engines, most important, someone to fly the planes. 60k UK airmen died, not only over enemy territory, but trying to take off and land badly designed new plane designs.

[@troiscinq7650]

Got into an argument with a guy on Reddit about this exact issue and the guy swore up and down that they simply could have done all the heavy bomber missions as low level precision strike missions and it would have completed the exact same missions and fractional collateral on civilians

[@bobharrison7693]

Considering its wooden construction, would it have even been possible to build enough Mosquitoes to do the job?

[@markgadsby5568]

It was designed in wood to save metal. It could have been redesigned in metal.

[@Rev6044]

The Mosquito BIVs would have been massacred. The BXVIs with two-stage superchargers would have cruised in at 30,000ft at speeds up to and exceeding 400mph. This would have been too fast for German fighters, especially if the Mosquitos were escorted. On the other hand, the Mosquito's 4000lb load was a single blockbuster bomb. If this was not the bomb for the job, the Mosquito could not carry 4000lb of anything else. The Luftwaffe got the crap kicked out of it over Europe because they did not have two-stage superchargers mid-war. Their best speeds were around 20000ft.

[@NielsenDK-1]

Interesting setup, which I find very challenging. A few things should be mentioned: 1) Are two Mosquitos XVI cheaper than a B-17? 2) Is it reasonable to assume that Mosquitos would not operate in mass formations if they replaced the B-17? Finally: Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett mentions in his book "Pathfinder" The Light Strikers, which Mosquitos bombed Berlin every night sometimes up to 100 planes. The book is highly recommended.

[@mrjockt]

Not flying in mass formations is a reasonable assumption, the Americans flew in mass formations in order to allow for mass defensive firepower, since the Mosquito was unarmed it made more sense for them to fly in a far more spread out formation, this would also make them harder to intercept.

[@jeremypnet]

From the American point of view, especially after 1943, it would be pointless. Their mission was to destroy the Luftwaffe by any means. Aircraft that couldn't fire back would have been a bit pointless.

[@sebclot9478]

@@mrjockt Not during the day in mass formation, it wouldn't. The Mosquito would start taking serious losses if it tried that. It's one thing to run nuisance missions in the dark while flying in small formations. It's quite another to do it during the day with a large formation.

[@mrjockt]

@@sebclot9478 The point is that without the need to provide mass defensive fire, which was the reason for the mass formation flying done by the USAAF, a large formation of Mosquito’s would be spread over a much larger area of sky making it harder for them to be intercepted, the Luftwaffe would need to vector in larger numbers of their fighters spread over a greater area in order to guarantee shooting some down.

[@BlueaxeReproductions]

That was a great video cheers. I think the premise for a lot of these misconceptions ideas also come from misunderstandings about production logistics and aims. Particularly latterly in 43 and onward with daylight bombing you have to ask why people think the B17 etc were there to deliver a payload only, rather than force an aerial confrontation to destroy the luftwaffe prior to d-day, and force german resources to be 'wasted' in fighter production. Bombing can be an indirect method of achieving these aims, rather than the aim itself.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for watching!

[@julianneale6128]

The way I remember it put was, the Mosqueto (carrying a 4000lb Cookie) could fly all the way to Berlin. Also, from what I remember, is that, a B17 could easily carry a much higher bomb load than a Mosqueto. However, if flying to Berlin, it would only carry a 4000lb bomb load, due to all up weight issues. What is also worth pointing out, is that the attrition rate of the Mosqueto was by far better than any other bomber. 2 crew, vs 10 for the B17. 2 similar power engines, rather than 4 for the B17. A Mosqueto flying to Berlin and back would be done in only 2/3 the time of a B17, saving huge amounts of total fuel usage.

[@CalibanRising]

Foreman's stats would suggest some if not most B-17's regularly carried >4,000 lb bomb load to Berlin.

[@pd4165]

@@CalibanRising All this is moot since they're apples and oranges - no B17 was carrying 4000lb cookies and Mossies didn't fly bomber streams, in daylight, to the Ruhr. Not only that but they were two different forces operated by different countries using different tactics. You can do crude calculations but the only points where you can compare are not total matches eg bomload does not include time of day, number of personnel to do so, cost of aircraft and overheads. There's also the missing point that the RAF couldn't afford B17s, even at nightime. As an import it would have been crippling, never mind the massive personnel cost (and other overheads).

[@tim7052]

Mosquitoes had the lowest loss ratio of any WWII frontline aircraft.

[@tim7052]

​@pd4165 Another point you haven't mentioned is that the US chose to conduct daylight operations - against RAF advice! - so in reality, the US (in their policy decision) hold some responsibility for the staggering daylight losses they suffered.

[@erichammond9308]

​@@tim7052The Mosquito attrition rate was 0.63%. The Martin B-26 Marauder had an attrition rate of 0.5%.

[@SlopeIndex]

There is an excellent book by John Buckley called the The Armchair General which includes a chapter on this very matter. It concludes that if the Allies had gone down the route of pouring resources into a very large fleet of schnell bombers (which is basically what the Mossie was), rather than slower heavier bombers, it is reasonable to conclude that the Germans would have invested heavily in counter technology and tactics. So the net result was unlikely to be much different - i.e. heavy losses over Germany in daylight and inaccurate bombing at night. The book is a fun read though and includes chapters on other key events including Midway. I forgot about some of the marginal tactical decisions (and a bit of luck) that led to US success at Midway and I accidentally made the wrong page turning choices which messed up Midway for the USN!

[@peterstickney7608]

The true answer has always been that _some_ Mosquitoes could carry a single 4,000 lb can of explosives and reach Berlin. Otherwise, the Mossie is limited to 4 Bomb Bay Stations, and in some cases, 2 wing pylons, with a maximum weight of 500 lbs each. That is limited by the size of the bay, hence the need for short-tailed 500 lb bombs. So if you're not dropping an unaerodynamic can of explosives with the ballistics of, well, an Oil Drum, you're talking a General Purpose payload of 2000-3000 lbs, depending on whether you need the wing pylon locations for fuel tanks. The B-17 has, as you point out, a plethora of bomb stations, and a wide range of options. As you note, it can easily carry 6000 lbs of bombs to Berlin, and beyond - as 6 x 1,000 lb bombs. The maximum number of bomb stations for 500 lbs bombs is 8, 8 8 for the 1600 lb bombs, and 2 for the 2000 lb bombs. - this is due to the bomb bay's geometry - the 1600 lb bomb is an Armor Piercing weapon, with a small diameter for its weight compared to a General Purpose bomb. The bomb loads of the B-17s were determined by the type of target being hit - if you're going for factory complexes or railroad yards, you're going to get better results with more 500 lb bombs than fewer larger ones. As a bomber, the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Halifax et all were General Purpose Weapons. The Mossie, great as it was, was very limited in its utility in the role.

[@fe6767]

In Donald Bennett's book Pathfinder, there is a similar comparison, this time between the Mosquito and the Lancaster. If I remember right he claimed from his experience running Pathfinder Force which used both Mosquitos and Lancasters, that 3 Mosquitos could do the job of 1 Lancaster using 6 men instead of 7. Bennett was talking about night bombing. It is a bit of a throw away remark because it doesn't address the problem of training 3x as many pilots and bomb aimers, and using 50% more Merlins. He also mentions that the loss rate of Mosquitos in the Pathfinders was lower than the loss rate of Pathfinder Lancasters.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

I wasn't aware of this being an argument.

[@CalibanRising]

I think I spend too much time in the comment section then.

[@temerityxd8602]

In my experience it's usually used as a way to point out how the B-17s bombload was rather limited considering it's size.

[@sebclot9478]

Now you are.

[@sebclot9478]

@@temerityxd8602 But its bomb load wasn't limited. It could carry a shitload. The USAAF and Bomber Command simply had different bombing doctrines. But bomber command paid a price for it. The USAAF had lower sortie loss rates than Bomber Command, despite flying the more dangerous daylight missions. Limiting the bomb loads for more ceiling, speed, defensive armor and firepower, along with better formation flying was all part of that formula.

[@lukemurley]

This is something I've always wondered about, so I had to watch this video as soon as I saw it.

[@CalibanRising]

Cheers Luke!

[@blarrrggg]

I thought people were being somewhat hyperbolic with these ideas, just to point out that the b-17 was a bit dumpy

[@CalibanRising]

Perhaps, but it was interesting to run through the numbers anyway.

[@bobharrison7693]

Dumpy? Compared to the B-24 and the British heavies? You must be kidding. And it was an older design to boot.

[@temerityxd8602]

That's always the way I've heard it used.

[@sebclot9478]

Some people might have. But I see people all the time who actually believe this stuff.

[@reincarnatethylacine70]

This debate probably arises out of an anecdote written by Air Vice Marshall Don Bennett , a Pathfinders founder who told of accompanying an American female journalist who watched B17's departing for Germany and asked the bomb load, later the same day (night) while watching Mosquitos depart on the same mission she asked Bennett if it was worthwhile sending such small aircraft against the Reich, only to be surprised by his reply that the Mossies were carrying twice the bombload with a crew of only two.("Pathfinder" Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett. CB CBO, DSO. Pub Muller 1958)

[@dougerrohmer]

I think the argument includes the speed of the Mosquito, assuming that it would be flying at top speed and outpacing the fighters. However, you are using a speed of 220 mph, which would have made them lunch. Obviously, top speed would have reduced the bomb load and range.

[@seanmitchell504]

Maybe not if escorted by Mustangs.

[@ericadams3428]

No WW2 aircraft could maintain maximum speed for long. The Mosquito would have had a higher cruising speed though.

[@dougerrohmer]

@@ericadams3428 Depends on the load, and if you are loading it up to compete with the B17 I suspect that Mr. Caliban's figures are more realistic.

[@dougerrohmer]

@@seanmitchell504 At 200mph during the daytime it would have had a bigger casualty rate than the B17, considering it did not have any defensive guns. If at night, it would not have been escorted by Mustangs.

[@sebclot9478]

That's exactly right. I see this argument all the time, and people act like the Mosquito is carrying 4000 pounds, while flying at 30,000 feet, at 400 mph. He mentioned the 220 cruise speed. What he didn't mention is that cookie equipped Mosquito's cruised at 15,000 feet.

[@kitten_processing_inc4415]

Accuracy. You need to compare it for each plane for this exercise to be meaningful. Carrying bombs to Berlin is useless if you miss your target when you get there.

[@alandaters8547]

Mosquitos doing daylight raids? That would have been suicidal! Facing only forward firing guns, only 2 liquid-cooled engines, little or no armor on the Mosquito, and only one pilot, FW 190s and Me 109s would have had virtually sure kills on every pass AND been able to engage more targets per flight because of less wasted ammunition and less need to setup for attack runs.

[@starsailor49]

The Mosquitoe did undertake daylight bombing raids and was very successful at it. It specialised in low level high precision raids.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@starsailor49 Operation Carthage The attack on the school killed 87 children and 18 adults (10 nuns, two firemen, four civil teachers and two fathers who tried to save their children) as well as wounding 67 children and 35 adults.[5] After the incident, the school never reopened. Most of the surviving children were transferred to another school, Institut Sankt Joseph. A monument in place of the school was inaugurated on March 23, 1953, to commemorate the children and adult civilians who died on the day.[6]

[@AnthonyBrown12324]

@@nickdanger3802 >They also hit the target precisely allowing some resistance men to escape from the top floor . The school was hit because of an accident a plane crashed near it and a few planes mistook it for the target but later aircraft hit the correct target .There was always a risk of damage to other buildings in a built up area . It's why the RAF was reluctant to make the attack . Of course it suits your propaganda to ignore this .

[@roborobo3340]

@@nickdanger3802 Sounds like a war or something.

[@IanDavies-gy4mg]

It would be interesting to speculate what the impact on German fighters would have been if a fleet of mosquitos had a proportion as fighters. The biggest issue I can see with mass Mosquito bombing, apart from production levels (maybe not such an issue if casualties remained low) would be the logistics of having more planes overall to get off the ground and land.

[@keesvandenbroek331]

Excellent video. Myth debunked. You would have been a good addition to “Mythbusters”. Still, Mosquito: “British Eccentric, Brutally Effective”.

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

The first time a 4000 cookies was taken and dropped on Berlin was by a Mosquitos of 629 Squadron on the night of 13/14 April 1944. The first B17 raid on Berlin was 4 March 1944 However the first daylight raid by Mosquitos was 30 January 1943, carrying 4 500lb bombs

[@pacalvotan3380]

Great video...I love your statistics and the effort you put into making these documentaries. I never thought that the Mosquito could carry more than the B-17. However, late in the war Mosquito squadrons were larger too, and their bombing was considerably more accurate than the larger bombing streams. Large bombing raids often missed their targets by considerable distances, but Mosquitoes were noted to hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy. Tactics played a big part in this too, as often the Mosquitoes would fly to their target at treetop level, or under 100', evading detection until the last possible second. Some of these later squadrons were 45 planes in strength, but with 4,000 lb cookies, this often meant that 45 city blocks could have been eliminated. At one point Mosquitoes did this trip to Berlin 36 days consecutively, which meant that a possible 1,620 city blocks were destroyed. Bigger bombloads than the B-17? No. More accurate bomb delivery than the B-17? Absolutely. But fewer more numerous raids weren't always "better" either. Even late in the war though, the Germans hated the Mosquito, probably because they were so very elusive.

[@nickdanger3802]

"bomber stream" was RAF, USAAF flew formation of up to 54 aircraft. "More accurate bomb delivery than the B-17? Absolutely." On strategic targets ?

[@kirotheavenger60]

​@@nickdanger3802B-17 combat boxes were horrendously inaccurate How accurate do you think a bomber can be when a formation several miles across all drop their bombs at the same time? The idea of the Norden bombsight was a sham

[@dukecraig2402]

That's because they never flew in formations nearly the size of the B17's, they only worked in smaller raids, try getting the same tonnage in the air as a formation of B17's and there wouldn't have been any Mosquito's coming back, the bomber variant was unarmed you know? You send that many bomb laden unarmed aircraft over heavily contested airspace and you won't be getting any of them back, and by accurate do you mean at hitting Danish schools? Yea, wasn't that just a fine example of accurate, bombed the wrong building, instead of Gestapo headquarters they blew up a building full of Danish school children, is that what you consider accurate? The Mosquito could never do the job of the B17 no matter how much you try clutching at straws, the bomber variant's flew strike mission's not heavy bombing mission's, if they could have done that the RAF wouldn't have bothered with Lancaster's would they?

[@bigblue6917]

@@dukecraig2402 And how many school children did the USAAF kill. The B17s used that tonnage and numbers and still missed the target. A useless waste of men and machines.

[@alexlupsor5484]

@@dukecraig2402 Only an idiot would suggest that they never hit the shell building ? You got to be kidding ! You think your Norden bomb sight was the way to go eh ? Read the history of the raid you discredit before you put your foot in your mouth ? The eighth never even came close to the accuracy of the mossie!

[@George-bb9yi]

Excellent work! Another key question is how many German pilots/aircraft were destroyed by Mosquitos vs B-17s: the mission of the Eight AF was destroy the Luftwaffe, not just to drop bombs.

[@nickdanger3802]

Per another Caliban video Mossie pilots claimed 835 shoot downs. As I understand it most of them by night fighters. Per WWII US Bombers 8th AF heavies, 17's and 24's, claimed 6,098 shoot downs. Over claiming by most AF's was by a factor of about 2.5.

[@petesheppard1709]

Given that useful load is ALWAYS a tradeoff between payload and fuel, a Mossie that traded fuel for bombs could carry more bomb-load than a fuel-heavy Fort--but Mossie couldn't carry the load very far.

[@roykliffen9674]

A B-17 had to make the same trade-off. up to 400 mile missions it could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs. To perform 800 mile raids it had to reduce its load to 4,500 lbs.

[@petesheppard1709]

Exactly!

[@bigblue6917]

@@roykliffen9674 And for most raids that was their normal bombload.

[@davidclarke7122]

Not a great deal of difference in bomb load, considering one is a light bomber / fighter bomber and the other is a heavy bomber.I know which I would rather be flying, and it ain't theB17!

[@nickdanger3802]

17's used 2,000 pounds of fuel to form up and climb to 25,000 feet. 60 aircraft taking off one every minute, by the time the last aircraft was wheels up the first aircraft had been in the air for an hour.

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY Callum. The answer to the question is already known , obvious , but nice to see you back on something.

[@peterrasmussen6720]

Interesting. The 'myth' I read was that Britain should have build a fleet of Mossies instead of Lancs as the Mossie - though only flying with half the bombload - would be much safer, cheaper, less manpower intesive and harder to spot on radar. Please adress this. I don't think it is a myth BTW.

[@CalibanRising]

An interesting research project, thanks for the suggestion.

[@jeremypnet]

Not totally a myth. The British Operational Research Unit calculated that the single most important factor in surviving a night mission was time spent in enemy territory. The armament, in particular had little effect. So they proposed removing all defensive armament from the Lancaster so that they could fly faster and spend less time over German territory or higher or with a bigger bomb load (requiring fewer sorties for the same tonnage dropped). This also meant that, if a Lanc was shot down, you only lost five highly trained aircrew, not seven. The RAF didn't go for it. Presumably, they reckoned it would be a really hard sell to the crews.

[@CalibanRising]

@@jeremypnet Yep. For anyone else reading this I looked at this in another video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oGjbgHp5gdaNepY

[@sebclot9478]

@@jeremypnet It presents a lot of the same problems that the B-17 does. It wouldn't have to reckon with being seen in large formations during the day in this case, but the Mosquito bomb loads were nothing like the B-17 or the Lancaster. It just couldn't do the job.

[@robinwells8879]

Horses for courses. B17 was a saturation bomber whilst the mosquito was a low level precision weapon delivery platform. Like comparing an F111 to a B52. Both were splendid in their field. I believe that the myth comes from the fact that anyone who has ever walked through a B17 will be taken aback by the tiny proportion of the plane dedicated to bomb bay. It’s quite shocking. Especially if you have looked up into a Lancaster bomb bay.

[@nickdanger3802]

"a low level precision weapon delivery platform" Look up loss rates for those missions.

[@robinwells8879]

@@nickdanger3802 absolutely. It’s was then and is now, very high risk. Slightly less of a sitting duck than a B17 perhaps. If, God forbid, I had had to choose… My father had a colleague who was a radar bomb aimer in the pathfinder squadrons. I prefer the idea of precision over carpet but carpet was essential.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@robinwells8879 Knocking down a prison wall is at one end of the scale, putting a massive factory complex out of operation is at the other end. Established in 1811 by Friedrich Krupp, the massive Kruppwerke occupied up to 5 km2 (1.9 sq mi) by 1912. wiki The decoy factory was 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from the real factory, situated on the Rottberg-Hills in Velbert. It occupied an area of 1.5 km × 2.5 km.[1] The dummy factory was supposed to mimic a poorly darkened and operating Krupp steel works as the Royal Air Force only flew at night. The decoy system consisted of a large number of very rudimentary dummy installations of industrial building and structures. Among them were shed roofs, a gasometer, chimneys, a railroad, and elaborate light arrays and fires, controlled from a nearby bunker. wiki

[@Quasarnova1]

Sadly, I think nationalism is a big part of this myth. It should be obvious that they are completely different aircraft for different roles, but common sense isn't that common. Looking at the comment section, there are still people saying things like the Mosquito being able to outrun enemy fighters (a loaded bomber variant could not), how it was stealthy because it was made of wood (doesn't do a lot of good when you have 2 giant metal propellers up front), or similar. No one seems to pay attention to the difference between daylight formation bombing or night bombing either. The B-17 is also a solid 5 years older (a big difference for planes in that time) yet remained as one of the best heavy bombers of the war, at least until the B-29 arrived. The Mosquito is a good plane that filled its role well, but it was a completely different role than the B-17.

[@sheldoninst]

@@Quasarnova1 One other factor to consider… the B29 was extremely late and never quite lived up to its promise until after the war when the bugs were worked out - mostly the engines. Had the actual deployment dates followed a reasonable schedule, surely they would’ve had a tremendous impact. This meant that an old and obsolete B17 was the only bomber available, which was a major reason for it receiving lots of scorn from the Brits.

[@Quasarnova1]

@@sheldoninst What? With the exception of reliability, the B-29 lived up to its promise, easily outclassing every other WWII bomber (except the B-32, its limited production backup). The B-17 was a bit old, but it was by no means obsolete. It still outperformed newer bombers like the Halifax in several important metrics.

[@sheldoninst]

@@Quasarnova1 This is what I thought as well, until you dig deeper and listen to commentary by the Brits on the B17 which was designed in the late 1920s, and also study the history of the B-29 which was designed in the late 30s and beginning of the early 40s. Additionally, watching in depth documentaries on the development of the B-29, glossy adjectives are thrown all over the place; however, the truth of the problems reveal their ugly self, in particular with the lousy engines. The B-17 was improved upon during the war, because it was one of only two of the large bombers the US could supply (the other being the NA B25 Mitchell). Other than it's only redeemable feature being its ruggedness, by the time it saw real combat it was really slow fully loaded, and a fairly easy target for the Germans. The B-29 represented a major step forward relative to the B17 and B25 despite being severely late by at least a critical 2-3 years, which is why it may have been perceived to be a success relative to the other planes already flying. Initially, it was plagued by so many bugs and lousy engines, and sadly there was an inordinate number of accidents. It really wasn't until after the European theater had been already decided and nearly towards the end of the war in the Pacific, that the B29 became the great plane it was envisioned to be; but almost within a year or two, it was replaced by the B36 behemoth (another poor airplane that fortunately did NOT see action), and then quickly by the jet age.

[@Quasarnova1]

@@sheldoninst See, this is what I'm talking about with nationalism leading to these kinds of myths. You listened to some British commentary instead of actually looking up the numbers yourself. The Duplex Cyclone had some reliability issues at first, but once fixed it became the most powerful reliable aviation piston engine ever made (the more powerful Wasp Major never fully got over its cooling issues). The B-29 also had several other features that were revolutionary for the time like remotely controlled turrets and full pressurization. Similarly, its ruggedness was not the B-17's only saving grace. Thanks to its turbocharged engines, it could fly higher and faster than most other medium or heavy bombers, easily outpacing planes like the Hailfax above 20,000 ft and having a much higher service ceiling. I honestly don't know how one could come to the conclusion that the B-17 was slow unless they only looked at deliberately misleading information.

[@sheldoninst]

@@Quasarnova1 I’m a proud American, and an engineer by trade… been exposed to expert historians and listened to many documentaries. As revolutionary as the B29 was, it was very late, mainly because of the engine problems. The B17/B24/B25s were kinda obsolete by the time the US got involved… had the B29 been ready as promised and not plagued with so many technical issues (eventually resolved), it would’ve been amazing. But facts are facts.

[@paulbriggs3072]

B-17's and especially B-24's had a significantly higher service ceiling than the Lancaster for example- as much as 10,000 feet higher. This made flak damage way less likely and thus became the altitude the bomb loads were calculated at. A lower altitude allowed greater bomb loads but was much more dangerous. At least during daytime.

[@zerstorer335]

Something that comes to my mind is that, if we’re trying to use the most economical cruise and maximum range settings mentioned around the 6:00 mark, the Mosquito would have to forfeit its speed advantage against the enemy. While it’s still faster than the B-17, the B-17 was always intended to use its redundancies, armor, and defensive armament to fight its way to the target. The Mosquito was meant to outrun the enemy, which you’re not doing at 200mph at 20,000 feet. Add in how “straight in, straight out” flight plans aren’t something you usually want to use a whole lot because you want to be unpredictable to the enemy, and that maximum “as the crow flies” range you can achieve gets shorter So, even if it could mechanically match the B-17 for payload and range, is it a match for those things in terms of PLANNING PRACTICALITY? I doubt the mission planners would think it to be very practical to have the Mosquito forfeit its advantage like that in the face of an enemy determined to stop them. So they probably wouldn’t make many plans that would call for it (if any). Meanwhile, it might seem much more practical for American planners to plan to send forts slow and far over enemy territory because they expected to always be duking it out with the Luftwaffe and for the gunners to be the main defense.

[@CalibanRising]

In reality 220 IAS (KT) is more like 313 kt, but I see your point. The high speed cruise setting still gives you 2.5 nm per gallon with a 260 IAS at 20,000 feet (349 TAS) according to the manual.

[@paulpotter1041]

There was of course the Light Night Strike force of the pathfinder group about 180 Mosquitos used for diversionary raidas and raids on berlin this is a quote from Bennett the Pathfinder leader. The experts on the Air Staff who turned down the Mosquito as a type in the early days might be interested in the argument which subsequently became current to the effect that one Mosquito was worth seven Lancasters. For those mathematically minded, here is the exercise: A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin. Its casualty rate was about 1/10th of that of the Lancaster. Its cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in its crew instead of seven. Bennett concluded that although it was a little hard to get an exact mathematical result out of these figures, it was quite clear that the Mosquito’s value was higher than ‘any other aircraft ever produced in the history of flying’. He clearly had enormous affection for ‘the greatest little aircraft ever built’.

[@timmytwodogs]

As versatile as the Mossie was, the B-17 was far more crucial to the prosecution of the war against Axis industry and infrastructure than any bomber in that theater. The added benefit of causing the Luftwaffe to expend precious resources of fuel and trained pilots in order to intercept the huge box formations of B-17s at high altitude cannot be overstated. The Mosquito was a great airplane but its impact on the war effort was not comparable to the B17.

[@edwardpate6128]

Don't forget the B-17's compatriot the B-24 LIberator.

[@timmytwodogs]

@@edwardpate6128 Very true. The most produced bomber in WW2. The Davis wing however was a double edged sword, so to speak.

[@davidclarke7122]

Lowest loss rate, highest crew survivability rate = mossie., to hit the mossie you first had to catch it. Mossie would have been decimated in daylight, Tell that to Fat Herman and Gobels! 10 aniersarry raid, disrupting radio broadcast.

[@jacktattis]

The Lancaster has entered the chat.B17 and Lanc similar times entering service Lanc dropped 608612 long tons B17 403 357 long tons Lanc could carry 4000 lb cookies 8000lb 12000lb and 22000lb bomb nOTHING IN THE THEATRE AS GOOD.

[@michaelgill5186]

Yeh right .... . Mosquito best allied aircraft of WWII...lowest loss rate

[@cjackmond]

Yes the Mosquitoes could have taken over if you manufactured three times as many and been willing to accept hideous losses in the 1942-1943 era. The better question is why didn't the British replace their Lancaster's and Halifax's, etc with Mosquitoes? Part of the reason is that Mosquitoes and any other light and medium bomber formation flew in coordination with the other bomber missions that are going on so they don't get noticed as much. 16 Mosquitos are not as high a priority as a five hundred bomber stream of heavy bombers.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

👍Impressive amount of research and work for this video. Thank you.

[@davidparsons5189]

Would that not be a Lancaster without any guns?

[@CalibanRising]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@tomburley]

The key word in this is "COULD" not that it did or should. Part of the strategic bombing role was to drain the German fighter force (once the Allied long range escort fighters were supporting the the heavy bombers)

[@pobinr]

Ridiculous comparison. Different roles. Different size aircraft. Do you compare a lorry to a van & say the lorry's better as it can carry a heavier load?🤔 Now consider a more relevant comparison. One heavy bomber to another. Lanc v B17. You'll find the Lancaster far superior

[@matydrum]

@@pobinr I don't think so. Lanc had a much better payload, but beyond that they would have been obliterated even worse than the b-17 in a day light bombing scenario.

[@josephking6515]

Apples and oranges. Lancaster had .303 rifle cartridge machine guns, remind me what the B-17 was armed with? Could the B-17 carry a Highball, Tallboy or a Grand Slam? Did the Lancaster carry 10 crew and have two pilots? Lancaster dropped after navigating individually to the target and each bomb aimer lined up on that target. B-17s played followed the leader and dropped when he did. Only thing they had in common was they each had 4 engines and two wings. One was designed and first flew in 1941 and the other in the mid 1930s and was *eight years old* when it flew combat missions in the ETO. One was designed and built under wartime conditions and the other in the relaxed and unhurried time of peace. Again, apples and oranges.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@josephking6515 17 was same age as 109, 1 year older than Spit and 5 years older than Short Stirling. 'The idea of area bombing was to attack an aiming point which lay at the centre of a large area whose destruction would be useful. It was, in other words, a way of making bombs which missed the aiming point contribute to the destruction of the German war machine. Since nearly all the bombs were missing the aiming point, there was a certain logic about the idea.' - Noble Frankland, historian and Bomber Command veteran BBC Thousand-bomber Raids

[@alexlupsor5484]

@@matydrum Exactly! Thus the comment. You want a jaded look between the two, go to Greg's channel . He goes way woke on the Lancaster and points to every plus point he can find to boost the B-17 reputation. If fact, this essay has the same points that Gregs did and added alot more info made tnat tnis essay missed ! I don't understand why this bird is always ends up looking better I guess . Must be an American complex. What the RAF created as front like bombers, the USAAF HAD TO BE BETTER in their own minds. For example.the Lancs crushed two large dzms in 43 with a total of 18 bombers . USAAF , nottta . They sank the kms Tripitz. USAAF, notta. With its vointed B-29 , supposed best of the best. I mean it had reverse but it also killed many of its crews with engine fires, but there you go . It was designed to carry the atomic bombs but Boeing designed this ship with TO SMALL BOMB BAYS (2) on either side of the wing spares and had to REDESIGN the entire bomb bay around the main wing spares. On the other hand the Designers of tne bomb bay in the Avro Lancaster never had this problem , but the design was based on inferior 24 cylinder vulcan. This kite killed more crews then the enemy. So Sir Sydney Chadwick increased the wings and fuselage , putting 4 merlin 12 cylinders engines and wella , the legendary Lancaster is born. A far cry from the original Boeing design. The fact is the redesign of the 29 was up in the air , so Avro had created a squadron of, once again alteration Lancs called Tiger Force to carry the atomic bombs to END THE WAR . although Greg's list doesn't even want to entertain this fact . The Lancs were up engined again and a fuel tank to increase the range but this was another time where prideful arrogance by the USAAF wouldn't even consider this, even though the Manhattan Project was a gift from the Uk . You never would have beaten the rest of the world had it not been from the British Empire. Gospel. His sight is on utube . It was a great video even tnough I didn't agree .

[@dukecraig2402]

I don't know why you guy's believe that Lancaster's carried their maximum load on mission's because they didn't, just like the B17 didn't carry it's maximum load and for the same reasons, range speed and altitude, look up what Lancaster's carried on a mission to Berlin and you'll find it's very close to what B17's carried, you're believing the same kind of nonsense stories about the Lancaster that you've always believed about the Mosquito that all come from the same nonsense sources and which he clearly straightened out here, and is exactly what I've been explaining to for years to everyone who tries making that malarkey claim about the Mosquito and the B17, it could never have fulfilled it's role, furthermore most of you guy's seem to believe in the fairytale that bomber Mosquito's didn't need escorted because somehow or the other aircraft loaded down with bombs could dogfight at the same time, never mind the fact that the bomber variant's were unarmed, look up Operation Carthage, that's a prime example of a Mosquito mission that lists how many escort fighter's flew along on the mission, you can't send unarmed bomb laden planes into enemy territory, you won't get any back. Now off to this, the B17 and the Lancaster had almost identical empty weights and fully loaded weights, the same laws of physics that apply to the B17 also apply to the Lancaster, it didn't have magical properties that could defy the laws of physics no matter how many Mark Felton videos claim it did, when it comes to defensive guns for the life of me I'll never understand what the designers of RAF bombers were thinking by using .303's, the reality is it's a hunting cartridge that may have been fine in WW1 for use in aircraft but by WW2 it was woefully inadequate, it's something else that doesn't have magical properties and it's because of the .303 defensive guns is why the RAF quickly switched to night bombing after trying daylight, anyone who thinks the 8th Air Force suffered heavy losses on raids like Schweinfurt should try taking a look at the RAF's losses on their daylight mission's, the losses over Schweinfurt pale in comparison to those, and it's because of the 400 yard maximum effective range of their .303 guns, the Germans quickly realized that they could engage an RAF bomber at the maximum range of 700 yards of their 20mm cannons and simply disengage before getting within the 400 yard range of the bombers .303's. Now, knowing that the B17 and a Lancaster weighed approximately the same one has to ask why the B17 could have so many .50 cal guns sticking out of it and the Lancaster only had a few .303's, that's because of it's Merlin engine's, if you look up the weight of a B17's R1820 engine's and the weight of the Lancaster's Merlin engine's you'll see they're almost identical, but there's a problem with that, the Merlin's weight doesn't include it's cooling system and coolant which is about 250 lbs per engine, the weight savings that the B17 has from it's air cooled engine's is why it can have another 1,000 lbs in defensive guns and come out weighing the same, plus it had the advantage of the much tougher and more survivable air cooled engine's. As far as the large Tall Boy and Blockbuster bombs that's another fairytale, the Lancaster's that carried them were specially modified Lancaster's because those bombs wouldn't fit in their bomb bays, the insides had to be gutted and additional reinforcements added along with the fact that the biggest bombs hung out of the bottom of special bomb bay doors that had cut out which would add drag, plus they lost their defensive guns also when modified to carry those large bombs, B17's could just as well have had similar modifications done to some of them in order to carry those same bombs but they simply didn't do it because the 8th Air Force had no interest in doing it, they weren't as effective as the RAF had hoped they'd be so the 8th Air Force just didn't bother with them, all they were really good for was dragging a bomber down to lower altitudes where AA gun's could have a field day on them, every 5,000 ft reduction in altitude doubled the chances of getting hit by ground fire and the 8th Air Force was flying over the most heavily contested air space in Europe and had absolutely no interest in doing it 5,000 lower than they were so twice as many bombers could be lost to ground fire, certainly not over dropping bombs that intelligence showed wasn't as effective as it was hoped they'd be. Lancaster's also lacked a copilot, in the event something happened to the pilot good luck with that, having a copilot also reduced the work load on the pilot. Another area that the Lancaster falls short in is it only had a generator on one engine, lose it and you've lost all your electrical power, no navigation aids, no radio and no power to the electrically driven defensive guns, the B17 had a generator on each engine with every one capable of supplying the entire aircrafts electrical needs. And finally the Lancaster was notoriously difficult to get out of when hit with it's single hatch the crew had to bail out of, the B17 had a hatch, a full size fuselage side door and the crew could also bail out of the bomb bay which was accessible from both the front and back, the Lancaster's bomb bay was underneath the floor in the fuselage, there was no access to it from inside once it was airborne which also means the bombardier couldn't manually arm or disarm the bombs once it was airborne, if the electrical system failed there was no way of doing it. The B17 was a vastly superior and much better thought through design than the Lancaster was.

[@thebritishengineer8027]

Well their is one point you have over looked... How much of that bomb load could they get on target?? It was said by a guy I knew in my youth that the safest place to stand in a US Air Raid was on the target. Their bombers dropping on the leader, often after action photos displayed 5 mile lines of destruction upto or after the target. So much for the Nordon bomb site....

[@nickdanger3802]

Bombing Berlin was Harris' plan, and it failed.

[@nickdanger3802]

Butt Report Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within five miles. Over the French ports, the proportion was two in three; over Germany as a whole, the proportion was one in four; over the Ruhr, it was only one in ten. In the Full Moon, the proportion was two in five; in the new moon it was only one in fifteen. In the absence of haze, the proportion is over one half, whereas over thick haze it is only one in fifteen. An increase in the intensity of [AAA] fire reduces the number of aircraft getting within 5 miles of their target in the ratio three to two. All these figures relate only to aircraft recorded as attacking the target; the proportion of the total sorties which reached within five miles is less by one third.

[@nickdanger3802]

BBC Fact File : Thousand-bomber Raids 'The idea of area bombing was to attack an aiming point which lay at the centre of a large area whose destruction would be useful. It was, in other words, a way of making bombs which missed the aiming point contribute to the destruction of the German war machine. Since nearly all the bombs were missing the aiming point, there was a certain logic about the idea.' - Noble Frankland, historian and Bomber Command veteran

[@icewaterslim7260]

@@thebritishengineer8027 Bingo The Uboat pens in France never got penetrated. Romanian oil refinery increased production after the disastrous raid. Ball bearing production wasn't slowed after the first disastrous raid and wasn't located on the premises during the second disastrous raid. Aircraft production kept increasing as we bombed. Daylight "precision" bombing was a failure for the British who admitted and abandoned it in short order. It was a failure for us but the Army Air Force was out to prove it alone could win wars easily and was lying about their success for everybody to see. It wasn't until attrition of a two front war began to evidence itself in the Luftwaffe than Eaker's replacement, Doolittle latched onto the only thing beneficial that could be seen out of it and made killing the Luftwaffe the purpose of the 8th AAF.

[@icewaterslim7260]

F

[@rararnanan7244]

A mosquito strategic offensive would have looked entirely different than flying in huge box formations. You don’t use these aircraft in the same way. Mosquitoes could come in many smaller formations that would spread the defenders both in space and in time. The mosquitoes could be escorted much more efficiently by fighters that would fly at similar speeds, which would also extend their range. Any engagement by the escorts would make an interceptor fall behind as it would have a hard time running down the escorted mosquitoes, even if its speed was slightly above theirs. Finally, you would not need as many bombers - 8 mosquitoes coming in at tree top hight would destroy a factory better than 80 B-17s bombing from 24,000 feet. It’s not only about how many bombs you bring - it really matters where you put them. B-17s with their BS bombsight could barely hit a full size city. NOE Mosquitoes could put the bombs through the front door of the factory.

[@nickdanger3802]

Operation Carthage The attack on the school killed 87 children and 18 adults (10 nuns, two firemen, four civil teachers and two fathers who tried to save their children) as well as wounding 67 children and 35 adults.[5] After the incident, the school never reopened. Most of the surviving children were transferred to another school, Institut Sankt Joseph. A monument in place of the school was inaugurated on March 23, 1953, to commemorate the children and adult civilians who died on the day.[6]

[@nickdanger3802]

Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack. page 158 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II Krupp Decoy Site RAF Bomber Command did not correctly identify the installation until 1943, by which time its bombers had dropped 64% of all high-explosive bombs and 75% of all incendiaries on it rather than the real site. wiki, sourced

[@rararnanan7244]

@@nickdanger3802 Operation Carthage was not an attack on the school - the school was hit, that is a huge difference. The actual target was also hit, so mission accomplished. The cost was high both in civilians and Mosquitoes, but this is still nothing compared to the collateral damage and aircraft & crew losses had this been attempted by B-17s, not to mention that the chances they’d hit the target were slim.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@rararnanan7244 USAAF heavies did strategic bombing, propaganda raids were the RAF's domain. "For many months the War Cabinet, reluctant to kill friendly civilians, had refused to permit attacks by night against industrial objectives in the occupied territories. Gradually opinion changed; and on 2nd February, 1942, impressed by the need to destroy German war capacity beyond as well as within the Reich, and hoping to deter French civilians from working for the enemy, our political leaders sanctioned night attacks on this type of target." page 122 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II " Many bombs also struck the neighbouring towns of Hamborn, Duisburg and Oberhausen. In the Essen area the local authorities noted the fall of 3,000 incendiaries and 127 high explosive bombs, and reported appreciable damage to engineering works, railways and houses. Krupps was virtually untouched. --124-- Despite the favourable reports of crews, Harris at once realized that the raid was no more than a partial success; for none of the forty-three successful photographs taken during the operation showed any recognizable feature of the target area. On the following night he struck again, but once more much of the attack went astray." Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II

[@gaggle111]

Things were headed in that direction. The single engine Douglas A1 Skyraider was designed in 1945 and became operational in 1946. It could carry 10,500 pounds of ordinance. It had a range of 1300 miles (probably not with 10,500 pounds on board). Imagine losing one man per plane instead of 10.

[@warheadsnation]

You can see the rapid evolution in the naval aviation realm. As engines got over the magic 2000 hp figure, fighters gained 400 mph speeds as intended, but also gained much bigger bomb loads than before. At the start of the war navies all relied on slow 2-seat single-engine dive bombers, or 3-seat torpedo bombers. But as the USN refused to permit Corsairs to do deck landings during a critical period of the war, they went to the Marines who focused on ground attack missions from land bases. Charles Lindbergh was secretly flying Corsairs on strike missions against Japanese positions where he experimented with loads of up to 8000 lbs. (He was a "civilian consultant.") So it's not surprising that both the USN and Fleet Air Arm were working hard on single-engine all-purpose bombers by the end of the war.

[@mbkomfort]

Myth i heard (read) : The Mosquito could do two sorties in the time B-17 could do one so it could in theory be more effective 🙂

[@CalibanRising]

Yes, this is a good point. In theory you could reduce the force needed if you increased the sorties flown each day.

[@ethelmini]

@@CalibanRising Could you? Each sortie requires an amount of ground based tasks before it gets airborne. You could do more night sorties if you had more, faster bombers.

[@sebclot9478]

Probably a myth. It comes from people thinking it was cruising at 400 mph. It also presents maintenance issues. However, if they were low on aircraft, and the missions were close by, then it might be possible to fly 2 missions in one night. But it's more a desperation move when aircraft are in short supply. Heavy bombers could theoretically do this too.

[@sebclot9478]

@@ethelmini It could be done. Especially if the targets were close by in France. But you are putting a lot of stress on those planes and crews. It would be a desperation move for an air force that had pilots, but was short of aircraft.

[@Geoff31818]

I think this myth comes from various sources, a relative of mine who was a ground crew for the raf said a variant that “if you turned each B17 into 2 mossies we [the allied air forces] could deliver more bombs quicker than the 8th [Air force]”

[@princeofkernow9875]

Still the B-17 had a very light bomb load for a 4 engine bomber even the Vickers Wellington give the B17 a run for it money on the bomb load front. I see the B17 as over gunned and overloaded...and quite slow by late war and had a bombsight that was stupidity over rated.

[@ivanconnolly7332]

Its altitude exceeding 30,000 ft due to supercharging provided it a lot more sky to elude flak 'n fighter.

[@josephking6515]

They should have demanded the Germans put *pickle barrels* around the targets then.

[@alexlupsor5484]

@@ivanconnolly7332 the Lancaster never had this issue . The fact that the b-17 had a turret on it's bottom of it's fuselage made it the ideal nightbomber . That is the only thing that it makes it almost equal to our Lancaster.

[@timmytwodogs]

Remember this, the original Boeing 299 prototype was a very successful testing platform for turbo-superchargers, bombsights, viriable pitch propellers, auto pilot and gun positions. She also predated the Lancaster by seven years.

[@timmytwodogs]

@@alexlupsor5484 Not sure what you are getting at, the B-17 could operate at altitudes that the Lanc was incapable of. 1 August 1939: Captains Clarence S. Irvine and Pearl H. Robey, United States Army Air Corps, used the Boeing Y1B-17A Flying Fortress (Model 299F), serial number 37-369, to set a Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) World Record for Altitude with a 5,000 Kilogram Payload. The bomber climbed to 10,371 meters (34,026 feet) with a payload of 11,023 pounds.

[@jdg3275]

Thank you for your in depth research on this myth. A number of documentaries lead me to believe the Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs at 400mph begging the question as to why they weren't used more in the bombing role and possibly replacing B17's. A lot more of them would have been nice but Merlin engines were in high demand as well as other important materials.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for watching. I'm not sure if I showed it, but the Mosquito Mk B.XIV manual gave details on the high-speed cruising settings. It would give you a TAS of 378 kts at 30,000 feet but reduced the average nm per gallon to 2.5 thus reducing the range.

[@derrickthatcher8150]

Given that the cost of a B17 was something in the order of 20 times that of a DH Mosquito (1945 B17 > $238k vs 1951 Mosquito

[@derrickthatcher8150]

The B25 cost $142k

[@derin111]

Also given that if a Mosquito was brought down ( in itself less likely) compared to a B17, an additional 8 mens' lives wouldn't have been lost. (Ooops...just noticed you mentioned that already)

[@nickdanger3802]

17 cost looks close, 12,000 USD would buy 2 merlins at ww2 prices. 17 mission became destroying the Luftwaffe on the ground and in the air. "On the night of 18th/19th August, 1944, twenty-one Mosquitos attacked Berlin, seven Cologne, two Wanne Eickel and five the airfields at Florennes. By then Mosquitos of eleven squadrons had been used for diversionary attacks on a small but gradually increasing scale since the first thousand-bomber raid on Cologne on 30th/31st May, 1942. From the spring of 1943 until the end of the war 'harassing' raids as they were originally termed were to prove a constant and, from the point of view of the enemy, a most irritating and unpleasant feature of the bomber offensive. Night after night the Mosquitos were over Germany, flying at between 30,000 and 40,000 feet to inflict damage out of all proportion to the weight of bombs they dropped. They were at once of great value as a nuisance, for they caused the sirens to wail and tired workers to spend yet another night in fetid, if bombproof, bunkers, and they created a diversion, thus drawing the enemy fighters away from the main bomber stream." Hyperwar Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Chapter XII Oil and the Climax

[@bobharrison7693]

The Lancaster with its radar probably cost twice what a B-17 cost.

[@genreynolds6685]

By 1951 you would be buying war-weary clapped-out Mossies on the surplus market, not brand-new ones.

[@peterflitcroft9756]

I had the privilege of meeting a guy who was a navigator on pathfinder Mosquitos. The mossie could be there and back by the time the Lancaster got to the target for much fewer losses.

[@bobhamilton298]

So what was the average monthly bomb load for the Mosquito? You show that for B17s over and over but unless I missed it, you didn't show that value for the Mosquito. Going to guess the average for a mission that long was probably 2000 lbs at best.

[@CalibanRising]

I didn't have that data to be honest Bob. As the Mossie could take off with a fuel fuel and bomb load we can assume it regularly carried its full bomb load (2000 or 4000 lb).

[@solicitr666]

I would note that your range calculation for the Mossie is based on 220 knots at 20,000 feet- which flight profile would negate the Mosquito's survivability edge, of being able to fly too fast and/or high for the defenders to catch.

[@cabanford]

Imagine a 4 engine version of the Mossie. Skip the defensive guns and go for Zoom

[@jmevb60]

I think these comparisons compare the whole concept of a slow, long range bomber with lots of defensive guns vs. faster machines, less bomb load, and only two people

[@josephking6515]

The DH98 due to it's superior speed could make two trips to the target so that alone closes the tonnage dropped. If it had been designated to do the work of the B-17 then changes would likely have been made to allow the carriage of larger ordinance as per the _buldging_ bay doors that enabled it to give the Cookie a hug on the way to the target. If the DH98's Bay had been modified to allow 3,000lbs and it flew two trips per night then that's an average of 6,000lbs. Sort of closes the tonnage gap of the outlaying 8,000lbs B-17 trips.

[@nickdanger3802]

two trips in winter

[@olpaint71]

No, it couldn't. The cruising speed of the Mosquito is not 2x that of the B-17.

[@gbentley8176]

All I know is that we were bloody lucky to have both the Mosquito and B17 on our side in WW2. The Mosquito allowed my father a Mossie Recce Pilot to survive the war. He always said it was more dangerous instructing pilots at the beginning of the war, than doing a low level sortie over some factory or oil refinery or even the German gun training HQ at Klagenfurt, such was the relative safety of the Mosquito. Confidence in the aircraft brought results.

[@mikedearing6352]

I don't think the mosquito would take as much damage and still return to base

[@markhindmarsh2811]

A great job Phil My two ultimate allied aircraft bar none. I always thought it peculiar when it was said a Mossie could do the work of a 17. How about comparing the Ju88 and the Mosquito next. They were both multi-roled aircraft. An interesting comparison I believe. Keep up the good work

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks Mark. Great suggestion. If I can get my hands on the right sources I'll have a crack at it. Cheers.

[@adamcrookedsmile]

now do one for the Mosquito replacing the Lancaster. RAF Bomber Command lost 50+ thousand aircrew killed.

[@westprog2012]

There's something to be said for this. The Lancaster (and its less famous stablemates) suffered terrible losses. However - I just watched a video about the destruction of the Tirpitz. This was accomplished using Tallboy bombs. The Mosquito could not have done the same damage to the ship. The Tallboy was so effective that three bombs that missed, by quite a substantial amount, generated shockwaves sufficient to capsize the biggest ship in the German fleet.

[@0Zolrender0]

Enter the Lanc... carrying 15000pds the same range as the B17.

[@solomonpilbrow8488]

Excellent and informative video as always! I would argue there is greater difference betwen 'did' and 'can' for this question than you give credit for? Looking at operational data for the b-17s is very informative, but imo is less valuable for the mosquitos in answer this question given they weren't flying comparable strategic sorties, so their missions are less representative of their potential as strategic bombers. For example, you note the ability to carry a 4,000lb load was limited by the small number of aircraft modified for the role, but the number of modifications was limited in part because that capability wasn't as needed in the missions they were actually assigned. Had they ended up being pressed into the strategic role, inevitably more would have been modified to that desired standard, along with a host of other potential adaptations to make them more suitable for the different role. Operational data tells us the existing mosquito fleet *didn't* generally cary bomb loads of 4,000lbs to deep targets, but that doesn't necessarily mean they *couldn't* had the neeed arose. That's not to say they would have been better in the role, obviously, or that a comparable force could have been reasonably delivered in practice, but I would argue the data is somewhat less conclusive than you argued :) Can't wait to see your next video, have a fantastic day!

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for watching mate! Unfortunately I didn't have a similar data set for the Mosquito as for the 8th Air Force. It would have been good to do a like for like comparison for actual mission bomb loads.

[@JefferyHagen]

My Toyota’s speedometer says it’ll do 140mph but I’m sure Toyota would advise against it.

[@memonk11]

Plus... how many Germany aircraft were shot down by B-17s?

[@CalibanRising]

I started looking into this but haven't got the final data yet. Often there would be hundreds of German fighters claimed destroyed, but my gut feeling was it was much less than thought. That being said, it was a large number that certainly added to LW pilot losses.

[@nickdanger3802]

Surprising Results, Bomber Gunner Kill Ratio B-17 vs. B-29 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oITac2SDrcaopMk

[@icewaterslim7260]

@@memonk11 claims or kills? I wonder how much damage B17 gunners might've done to one another considering their mutual support formations and the fact that M2 .50 cals had some velocity and reach. My uncle got to 12 missions of 25 as a substitute waist and tail gunner for the 351rst out of Polebrook England. His last was the Henshel Motor Works in Kessel Germany in July '43. The B17, "Poisonality", was scrapped after the mission. Their main problem was motivated Luftwaffe and accurate flak.

[@Truusjair]

Its much harder to shoot down 2, 3 or 4 Mosquito's than one B17. They were faster, smaller and harder to find (stealthy, wood!) with radar. And 5 Mossies had the same crew as one B17.

[@CalibanRising]

I was reading an interesting entry in 'Mosquito Log' by McKee which described the anti-mosquito defences around Berlin. It basically involved a couple of searchlights and single engine fighters. They were apparently becoming quite effective with it by 1945.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@Truusjair Nonsense, and your claim is actually more proof that the Mosquito couldn't do the B17's job. First off is what all you guy's fail to realize because you're always claiming the top speed of the fighter variant is what all Mosquito's flew at is nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the bomber variant, they didn't fly the speed of the fighter variant, they were loaded down with bombs, so just get that "They could outrun German fighter's" nonsense out of your head because it's not true, and they weren't stealthy at all, that's another product of your imagination, just building something out of plywood doesn't make it stealthy by any stretch of the imagination, it takes very special computer designed shapes and special coatings that didn't exist back then, so no, they weren't stealthy, the reason they evaded radar is because small groups of them flew under it, so since it takes twice as many Mosquito's to carry the same amount of weight as B17's you'd need 700 Mosquito's to do the job of a 350 B17 mission, you're really delusional if you think you can hide 700 Mosquito's, you don't even need radar to see that coming. If you attempted to send Mosquito's carrying the same amount of weight as a B17 raid you wouldn't get very many of them back, do you even realize that the bomber variant of the Mosquito didn't have any guns? It was completely defenseless, which is why even though they flew in small groups they needed fighter escorts, and if you're another one of those guy's that lives in the dream world where Mosquito's didn't need fighter escorts you can start with looking up Operation Carthage, 18 Mosquito's were escorted by 30 Mustang's, that's the ratio of fighter's to Mosquito's it took to protect them and still 4 Mosquito's were shot down, that's almost ¼th of them, plus 2 Mustang's, so much for your malarkey claim. And that was them flying in a manner they could with only 18 Mosquito's, once again if you're going to try having them deliver an equal amount of weight in bombs as a 350 bomber B17 raid you can't have them fly like that, 700 of them would have to take off in waves and form up, that right there means they couldn't do it because as his map clearly showed a Mosquito taking off and flying directly to Berlin barely had enough fuel to make it there and back, assembling that many aircraft takes over an hour so right there they couldn't do it, but let's say somehow magically they have enough fuel, in the first place they wouldn't be flying at low level because they're not in a small group, so you'd have 700 unarmed Mosquito's bobing along loaded with bombs getting tore up by German fighter's and AA fire, in their environment they lost almost ¼th on a raid trying to fly a B17 size raid and it'd be a lot worse than that. The Mosquito could never do the B17's mission, that whole narrative is an unrealistic bedtime story that you guy's got suckered into believing but now it's time to face reality.

[@warheadsnation]

@@CalibanRising There's a book, "The Women Who Flew For Hitler", a dual biography of the infamous Hanna Reisch and the forgotten Melitta von Stauffenberg (the sister-in-law of the guy who nearly blew up Hitler). Melitta was heavily involved in developing and personally testing night-fighter techniques during the last few years of the war. It's no good if the pilots can shoot down the enemy if they crash their planes landing at night.

[@troiscinq7650]

The B-17 slander must end!!

[@temerityxd8602]

B-17 is over rated, was a decent plane but it was slow with to small a bombload and more defenses then was practical.

[@williamdowns1917]

Practically, you'd need at least twice the number of Mosquitos to replace either the US Army's or British Air Force's strategic bombers. That's brings the cost and personnel more in line with the traditional B-17s & Lancasters (double the engines, radios, etc.). Accuracy would have gone down when flying in the large formations required and losses would have climbed. Unarmed Mosquitos also could not have shot down or damaged the attacking fighters, which was a large part of the intent of the daylight bombing campaign. Overall, the Mosquito was a great airplane, but could not have taken on that role. Meanwhile the B-17 was an older design that did pretty well for it's intended purpose. It's main fault was the US leadership who believed it didn't need to be escorted and therefore made no effort to equip P-47's (or P-38's) with drop tanks. Once P-51's arrived with drop tanks and could escort the bombers to the target, things improved considerably.

[@washingtonradio]

The concepts and roles of the 2 aircraft were entirely different. Each was great at certain things with some potential overlap but one was a heavy bomber while the other was more a strike bomber.. The fact that under certain circumstances they carry the same weight of bombs ignores whether the bomb load was appropriate to the target. Also, ignored by many is not the weight of bombs but the number of bombs that could be carried by each.

[@doctordeej]

Allowing for the fact that you could build and man about five times the Mosquitos that B17’s I still say the Mosquito was better VFM. Speed, overall payload, and accuracy alone.

[@warheadsnation]

Is it really as large as x5, though? You have a limited talent pool for pilots and navigators, whereas a B-17 carries crewmen who are mostly gunners. I'm also not clear on the construction costs. Besides the issue of quality wood mentioned elsewhere in comments, you need quality woodworkers. Wooden monocoque production doesn't scale like metal construction does - if it did, then we would all be driving around in composite cars. There is no Willow Run for Mosquitos. Engines are also a limiting factor. You're comparing two Merlins vs. four R1820s. The Merlins were in heavy demand because RAF used them in everything. We need not only to know construction rates, but survival rates. If Mosquitos had even a somewhat higher survival rate than B-17s in 1943, the accumulation of Mosquitos and crews would eventually dwarf B-17 availability. Of course, all of this would have been rendered moot if 5th Air Force had committed to getting drop tanks on escort fighters from the get-go in 1942 instead of resisting until late '43. That, I've been convinced, was unconscionable.

[@doctordeej]

@@warheadsnation Admittedly it’s an optimistic estimate, but two pilots per B17, four engines vs two, some of the B17 aircrew could be taught to fly, increasing the numbers of pilots overall. Yes the wooden production line doesn’t scale, but the build time for each? The better attrition rate would negate a large part of the build issue. I’m happy to reduce out to 3:1 though.

[@simonpkershaw]

So technically possible but in practice mossies are carrying half the amount and there’s no where near as many of them and the 2 bombers have very different roles and each has some really good abilities that suits what they are doing

[@billp3337]

I'm glad the commentator pointed out the Mosquito's vulnerability. Mass day light bombing missions of Mosquito's the German fighters would have had a field day. The Mosquito was designed as a sneeky pete in and out. which it excelled at. Videos like this make me wonder if England shouldn't have been left to their own devises. The 8th and all other U.S. Army Airforce air wings suffered horrifically to save Europe.

[@lewis_sefton]

I think many people are beginning to wonder if the world would be a better place now, had the USA stayed neutral. If that were true, there would be no cause for rioting in the UK this week. “In my mind, it was real” Herman Rosenblat

[@warheadsnation]

@@lewis_sefton There would be no cause for rioting because the rioters would have had Britain under their Fuhrer for 80 years. The question is, who would be left alive? Read up on Generalplan Ost and realize that from the get-go the Nazis planned to decimate non-Aryan populations. "Purification" is never satisfied.

[@Thenogomogo-zo3un]

One of the main advantages of the Mosquito is it's speed. Making it a heavy bomber makes no sense at all.

[@ronhudson3730]

Your logic breaks down on so many levels. Sufficient numbers of Mosquito's could not have been built from wood. Meaning a switch to aluminum construction - which is doubtful on many levels. The needed to redesign the aircraft, tool up for production etc. being some of them. They would have to have been built in the U.S. Good luck with that - national pride etc. The bomb-load issue is spurious. Night area-bombing was a guaranteed success. Any area over the target was the target. The extra speed of the Mosquito over the target would have made interception more difficult. As you state, the loss-rate was lower for the Mosquito. Presumably due to its speed and bombing altitude. The egress issue could have been addressed - pop the whole canopy off - problem solved. In any case, even the total loss the crew meant 2 not 7-8 in a Lancaster or 10 or so, in a B-17. As well, Germany was stressed to the limit in mid to late 1944. Fuel, trained crews, manpower being diverted to the Army etc. resulted in severe shortages. In short, the USSAF would have been wiser to switch to night area-bombing as the RAF did. Think of all the money saved on useless Norden bomb sights! The combined effort of the USSAF and Bomber Command would have eliminated the German cities sooner and led to an earlier end to the war. All impossible due to national pride and the American faith in the daylight precision-bombing theory that was proven erroneous almost as soon as it started.

[@Oligodendrocyte139]

Why couldn't enough Mosquitoes be built from wood?

[@josephking6515]

Paragraphs, were they not taught at your school. They make the post readable unlike your possibly very interesting comment.

[@johnhudghton3535]

Wood was considered a non strategic resource this was one of the attractive aspects of its construction. There was plenty of weeod available compared to the metals needed in modern aircraft construction which were very much in demand.

[@johnhudghton3535]

@@josephking6515 Dear grammar policeman, have you perhaps missed put a question mark? " Remove the log from your own eye before taking the splinter out of your brother's eye."

[@Oligodendrocyte139]

@@johnhudghton3535 So enough could have been made.

[@raygiordano1045]

Given this was just an interesting "What if?" comparison, the Germans weren't stupid, and would have tried all sorts of ways to counter the hordes of Mosquitos bombing the crap out of everything. Then we'd have all sorts of videos on that, including a "What if?" video discussing why weren't B-17's were used instead of Mossies? Does that mean B-17's would be used to bust dams and Gestapo prisons? So many questions.

[@PauMaz]

May I suggest you look at the numbers from a slightly different perspective. What is the ratio of men at risk (crew size) per thousand bound bomb load? The mosquito put fewer men at risk per equivalent bomb load compared to the B-17 even if you needed 2 or 3 mosquitos.

[@CalibanRising]

Yes, I'd agree with that.

[@nickdanger3802]

"On the night of 18th/19th August, 1944, twenty-one Mosquitos attacked Berlin, seven Cologne, two Wanne Eickel and five the airfields at Florennes. By then Mosquitos of eleven squadrons had been used for diversionary attacks on a small but gradually increasing scale since the first thousand-bomber raid on Cologne on 30th/31st May, 1942. From the spring of 1943 until the end of the war 'harassing' raids as they were originally termed were to prove a constant and, from the point of view of the enemy, a most irritating and unpleasant feature of the bomber offensive. Night after night the Mosquitos were over Germany, flying at between 30,000 and 40,000 feet to inflict damage out of all proportion to the weight of bombs they dropped. They were at once of great value as a nuisance, for they caused the sirens to wail and tired workers to spend yet another night in fetid, if bombproof, bunkers, and they created a diversion, thus drawing the enemy fighters away from the main bomber stream." Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Chapter XII Oil and the Climax

[@ret7army]

Interesting topic. Something alluded to in the video and pointed out in the comments is the speed difference between the B17 and mosquito. Someone properly noted that the bombers would not go in straight lines to the target as an attempt to confuse the German planners for fighter deployment flak and such Nor could they go max speed with max bombs due to range cosiderations.

[@ericadams3428]

I looked at some data( I think it was from Robert Jackson) and there was a tendency to load B17's conservatively pre 1944.

[@CalibanRising]

Yes, I certainly saw that in my research. I could have done a bit more about particular targets, but that might work better in another presentation.

[@ivanconnolly7332]

I often did the sums assuming all late war types could carry a cookie .

[@timgosling6189]

Wow! That's a lot of work!. A couple of points. First, I know it's a long time since my degree but I believe the median of a data set must be one of the numbers in the set. So did a B-17 in Jul 44 carry 4138lb to Berlin? Or is this an arithmetic average of medians for the month? Seems odd. But mainly, it's clearly a stretch that the Mosquito force could have supplanted the B-17. The argument that makes more sense should be between smaller, lighter aircraft, relying on performance and agility against a force of large, heavy bombers relying on heavy and mutual firepower. Which force would be the more survivable, with the more effective weight of effort to achive the same weapons effects? If the Mosquito had been assigned a strategic role akin to that of the B-17 it would certainly have had to be modified into it, just as the B-17 evolved in the light of hard experience. There are as usual too many what-ifs to make be definitive but it is at least an interesting debate. When working in the Air Staff I was once asked to produce a paper to define the UK's needs to achieve global conventional power projection. After a couple of weeks I came up with a first draught that included carriers, cruise missiles and submarines. My boss was incensed and threw it back. He then redefined the question. After another week I came back with what he really wanted: a paper showing we could bomb anywhere in the world with a Tornado. "What are the coloured circles on the map" he asked. I explained these were sortie rates. East Germany was green, easy, big numbers. But for a lot of the World the rate was less than one sortie per week and required the entirety of our, then still substantial, AAR force to be deployed and serviceable. So yes, the Mossie could carry 4000lb, comparable to a B-17 typical load, and it could and did get to Berlin. But there's a long way to go from those two facts to a practical strategic capability.

[@seanmitchell504]

If Mosquitoes had Mustang escort, as did the B17, their survival rate would presumably have been better. Increased survival of airframes and more importantly crew could have resulted in a large number of available aircraft plus the benefit of experienced crew, with higher moral being more effective at actually hitting their targets. Bomb load doesn’t really matter if you miss.

[@nickdanger3802]

"more effective at actually hitting their targets" Based on what ?

[@seanmitchell504]

@@nickdanger3802 Mosquitoes achieved some attacks with pin point accuracy and the more combat hours a pilot has the better he will generally get.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@seanmitchell504 If you take an objective view of those raids you will find about half were not the huge success wartime propaganda made them out to be. To inflict significant damage on something as large as Krupp Werks in Essen saturation is required which requires flying a tight formation which 17's could do with many weeks of practice and a copilot and 8 other men to spot for the aircraft commander. If Mossies had been built in sufficient numbers and employed as strategic bombers the Luftwaffe would have adapted to that threat just as it did for USAAF daylight raids.

[@CalibanRising]

I'd agree with you Sean as far as P-51 fighter sweeps and advanced escort roles. However, any concentration of a Mosquito force would have been heavily damaged by German fighters if intercepted. I don't have the exact figures, but I don't recall many missions I documented that didn't put in some claims for fighters meaning they had been intercepted. I'd even argue that splitting up the attackers into smaller groups would lead to heavier casualties among the ones that did get intercepted. Of course this is all considering mass day light missions where 800-1000 mossies would be needed to carry the same bomb load as some B-17 raids.

[@seanmitchell504]

@@CalibanRising My point is that there wouldn’t be mass Mosquito raids. Mass of bombs (hoping that some would destroy the target) would be substituted by more accurate bombing of targets by much smaller formations. Multiple such raids carried out simultaneously surely would have been rather challenging to intercept and if during the day would be protected by long range fighters. Having read up on this a bit, including Max Hastings “Bomber Command”, it would seem that the most decisive attacks were carried out during the Oil Plan attacks on the fuel refinery and storage facilities and the bomb loads of Mosquitoes would surely be sufficient to be effective against such targets.

[@reserva120]

The Japanese military considers the B-17 “ a Mossie “ for the big boy ranges and payloads of the Pacific Ocean War- they thought of the B-17 as a all rounder - cargo - bomber - even armed escort- reconnaissance- etc etc .. Tiny euro planes could not to this duty

[@stop-the-greed]

RAAF had mozzies in the Pacific . Good ship killer ..as for Japan in ww2 ...meh 😂❤

[@reserva120]

@@stop-the-greed Range speed cargo - firepower reconnaissance- all which the the B-17 had in spades- not the like the toy mossie euro tiny toy - and the Japanese were hit with a nuclear weapon and still thought about fighting- so you Meh stupidity is matched only by the sloth behind it ( Japan had good military thinkers , but like all socialist nations, their culture of sloth and “ being Stupid Cheap “ undermines all )..

[@nickdanger3802]

@@stop-the-greed "RAAF had mozzies in the Pacific" India was not part the Pacific theatre and Mossies fell apart there.

[@stop-the-greed]

@@nickdanger3802 play nice now