"DH Mosquito as bomber escorts?" Topic

I'm curious why this was never tried in 1943 when long range escorts were not adequate.

The Mosquito was available and had the range.

I'm guessing there may be several reasons it was not attempted or even suggested.

The existing production of Mosquitoes was fully employed already.

The Mosquito was not agile enough to dogfight with Bf109s and Fw190s.

The 8th USAAF did not want more RAF 'help'.

The 8th USAAF were still trying to prove the B-17s/B-24s were able to fly unescorted.

Anyone know or care to speculate?

Plywood?

"The 8th USAAF did not want more RAF 'help'.

The 8th USAAF were still trying to prove the B-17s/B-24s were able to fly unescorted."

I think these two would figure amongst the top reasons. It could also be due to the mosquito falling between the "doctrinal" cracks. My grandfather flew Ventura's with the RAAF during the war. That was one of those designs hacked from pre war commercial aircraft that had poor performance as a bomber, but could be produced cheaply and quickly so there were thousands available. It found a happy home as an anti shipping and submarine bomber, so it may have been that the Mozzie in 43 hadn't found it's happy place.

The Mosquito had comparable performance to the P-38 in many ways and much longer range – so it could have been tried/considered.

I suspect the RAF wanted nothing to do with long range escort missions into the teeth of the LW defences during mid-late 43…they would have been decimated.

All in all much more useful things for Mosquitoes to do than shepherd B-17s [and arguably more useful things for the B-17s to do anyway…]

McWong73,

American Bomber missions were escorted to the limit of fighter endurance, by P-47s and P-38s from the USAAF and by Spitfires of the RAF. The 8th Air Force wasn't stupid, they used what was available. The Mosquito was never designed to be a daylight fighter. Daylight raids by Mosquitos had suffered some high casualties, one RAF sqdn, #105 lost over 50 aircrew in a one year period, 1942-43.

The RAF did have other things for the Mosquito to do, first was the straight unarmed night bomber and Pathfinder aircraft, then Night Fighters and Intruders. The Mosquito was badly needed for attacks against German shipping as well.

I'm sure the 8th USAAF leadership was not stupid but it was stubborn. It was only by enormous sacrifice and a massive expenditure of resources that they prevailed after the setbacks of 1943. The fact they were training some aircrew in night bombing raids bears witness to how tough 1943 was.

From looking at the performance of the Mosquito it probably could not have coped any better than the P-38 [which was not a great success in the escort role either – better than nothing but not by a wide margin is how I judge it].

It was not until the Mustang arrived in large numbers during early 44 that the tide turned and bombing could proceed without unsustainable losses.

Numbers, primarily.

The limited Mossies were used for more important tasks that they could fulfill, safely.

They were used on Serrate sorties (essentially night bomber escorts – albeit loosely tied to them), as well as on intruder ops over enemy airbases. Due to these, late in the war, they caused what has been referred to as Mosquito Panik, amongst the German Nightfighter pilots, who were forced to fly at low level, and to frequently land on darkened airfields, causing many accidents amongst their units.

In addition to that, with their target marking, and acting as the Light Night Strike Force, they caused a lot of sleepless nights, and halts to German production, far in excess to the actual numbers involved in the sorties.

Agreed entirely with Rob there – Mosquito availability was finite, and there were so many roles it was exceptional at and needed for. Diverting what would've needed to be a very significant chunk of production to a task it would be merely decent at, and inevitably suffer pretty serious attrition performing, just wouldn't add up.

Where to start?

1943, production was really just getting into stride.
As well everyone wanted it.
As a bomber, it carried as much if not more than a fully laden B17, at twice the speed, to a greater range with a two man crew.

As a marker pathfinder or even as the aircraft used by master bombers controlling tjhose pathfinders.

As a straight up night fighter.

As a counter to night fighters in the bomber streams and as an intruder.

As a naval strike fighter to replace Beauforts and Beaufighters.

As a high speed transport for valuable cargo. I have even heard of it used to transport the odd escaped POW back to the UK from Sweden in the bomb bay.

As a PRU photo-recce to take the before and after pictures for bomb damage assesment.

One of the unheralded but vital jobs was of weather recce over the continent. It usually meant the mission was a go or scrubbed.

Besides the free ranging fighter role. So obviously there were not a whole lot left over until near wars end.

On top of all this, the USAAF did actually ask for some too. This does not take into account, the Middle East Air Force, the Balkan/Italian Air Force, The Burma Theatre or so much more.

While eventually production caught up at wars end, including Canadian and Australian builds, it only caught up by the end of 1944.

Now, personally, I would have to say that in ability and versatility it left the P38 in the dust.

Add to this that in '43 the fight was on just to prove the viability of daylight bombing. The sceptics were seriously from within the USAAC at this time. Thankfully, some far reaching souls could see the writing on the wall as to production of bombers, fighters and crews and where 1944 would take them.

One of my favorite planes… Some things just look right….

We got a few, too, but they were pressed into weather and photo recce/bomb damage assessment (see what I did there, instead of the American, recon, in a nod to our British cousins) service.

Supposedly, by Sept. 1944, the P-38Ls had all the kinks worked out, and were ready to go. However, by that time, the P-51 was committed to, and made more sense from an economical standpoint, since it only needed one engine, instead of two.

OK – so that has the 'why not' well covered.

A side question – how effective could they have been? Lets assume more than a token force but nothing like the Mustangs numbers.

I'm guessing not all that effective. Though well capable of defending themselves by their speed if chased and their guns if in a head on attack – I don't think they could stop the single engined Bf109s and Fw190s from getting through to attack the B-17s/24s. Just not maneuverable enough.

BTW – I always liked the Mossie. My father worked on them during his national service in the RAF and said they were his favourite A/C.

Supposedly, they were very maneuverable for a twin-engine fighter, and with their heavy nose armament, they packed quite a punch. Wooden construction leads to a pretty light wingloading.

My guess is they'd be on a fairly even par with the FW-190s, and Me-109s, though of course more expensive to lose, due to the two pilots, and engines.

"My guess is they'd be on a fairly even par with the FW-190s, and Me-109s, though of course more expensive to lose, due to the two pilots, and engines."

I'd be interested in others take on this – I suspect roll rate and turn rate markedly lower than both the Fw190 and Bf109.

I think the comments about remarkable maneuverability are for a twin engine a/c – so it would be better than a Bf110 by a good margin – but not as good as any single engined a/c of the same era.

I found this in another forum [ww2aircraftnet] and it covers these questions pretty well…

"The RAF didn't think that the Mosquito was particularly good as a day fighter.

The AFDU did tactical trials of the F/B Mk VI in Mar-1943. The aircraft was fitted with Merlin 23 engines, allowing +14 lbs in combat boost, so was a little down on the speed and climb that can be expected of a Merlin 25 equipped example, but the results generally stand.

The aircraft was found to be nice to fly, with well balanced controls and effective ailerons. However, the inertial weight on the controls meant that "forces over 3G are very difficult to impose and detract from the general manoeuvrability as a fighter". It was found to be tail heavy in a dive.

Elevator control at 450 mph IAS was "very heavy" but aileron control was "quite light".

The aircraft was flown against the Spitfire V, IX and XII and the Typhoon IB.

Low altitude

It was found to be outpaced at low altitude by all fighters except the Spitfire Mk V. All S/E fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get onto its tail themselves. The Mosquito was found to be unable to disengage whenever a S/E fighter got into position behind it.

However, its evasion was considered "particularly good", making it difficult for fighters to get easy shooting solutions. The aircraft was easy to corkscrew and could weave easily, even at high speeds.

The exception to being out-turned and out-manoeuvred was against a Typhoon flown by "an inexperienced pilot". However, "when the Typhoon, which has a turning circle similar to the FW 190, was well flown, it could make matters almost as difficult for the Mosquito as the Spitfire".

Medium altitude:

Similar results to low altitude tests. There was a better chance for the Mosquito to escape though. It accelerated in a slight dive faster than the S/E fighters. Time to max speed from fast cruise was two minutes. The Mossie could lead the fighters on a stern chase and sometimes avoid combat outright using a slight dive. Best speed was at about 9,000 ft.

High altitude

The manoeuvrability of the Mossie was much diminished over 25,000 ft and aileron control "feels comparatively mushy".

Enemy fighters

It was also flown against a captured 190A (probably an A3) and a 109G2.

The aircraft was found to be around about as fast as the enemy fighters near sea level, faster than both aircraft at 9,000 ft but slower at altitude, particularly against the 109 which was much superior over 17,000 ft. The Mossie was 700 ft/sec slower in initial climb than the 190A, and 1000 ft/sec slower than the 109G2 in climb. This deficiency increased with altitude.

Overall assessment

It was judged that the Mossie was not a good day fighter against S/E types. If in contact with enemy fighters it was "unable to go on the offensive and must content itself with defensive tactics".

It was not judged to be expected to behave as a fighter against enemy S/E types.

It was considered "only able to be offensive against enemy bomber type aircraft". It "cannot take on enemy single seater fighters effectively".

It was also considered to be a poor aircraft for bomber escort and would "probably be a liability to a bomber force"."

link

Good info Skarper – nice find, thanks. :-) The follow-up comments about the viability of a single seat Mosquito as a dogfighter are interesting though….

I think that Skarper has it pretty well covered.

Against single engine fighters, they would have lost more than they would have shot down. That being said though, they would have dissuaded attacks against the bombers and that was the same mission as any other fighter escort.

I agree that it was nuts to try and fly a Mossie as a fighter against German single engine types. But was the P-38 much more maneuvrable?

I found a reference to Mosquitoes providing cover on the return run from Bordeaux on 16th September 1943. It seems the B-17 gunners got confused and fired on them!

link go to page for 8th April 2015

… was the P-38 much more maneuvrable?

The P-38 had an excellent sustained turn rate at high altitude (LOTS of wing area). Not so much at medium and lower altitude. It did not have a good instantaneous rate of role at any altitude, though, so it was a bit lethargic getting into a turn. It had very good acceleration, and accelerated startlingly fast in a dive (to the detriment of early P-38 pilots' life expectancies). It also had good zoom performance (it retained speed well in a climb).

So … does that mean it was maneuverable? Well it depends on how you used it and who you were challenging. The question isn't whether it was more maneuverable than the Mossie (it was), but whether it was more maneuverable than it's opponents in the theater.

It was very successful against the Japanese from 1943 on. US pilots learned to use it as an "energy" fighter, maneuvering in the vertical plane rather than the horizontal. They would swoop in and climb away rather than turning in dogfights. After a shallow dive a P-38 could climb for several miles at more than 100mph faster than the top speed the Japanese could make in level flight, (nevermind climbing). The pilot of a Zeke or Hayabusa had almost no way to counter-act P-38 attacks, other than to turn into them head-on when they saw them coming, and hope they were the better gunners.

But the German fighters were very different birds. The Me-109 was a highly capable energy fighter in its own right, with excellent climb and dive characteristics. And the Fw-190 accelerated well, dove well, could bleed lots of energy on demand, and had about the fastest instantaneous role rate of anything in the air. Both were fast enough that the P-38 did not stand-out on speed. They were substantially more challenging for a P-38 jockey, as they negated most of the P-38's strongest capabilities.

Or so I've read. Never flew any of 'em m'self.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@ Mark1
Bf109, not Me109.

Bf109, not Me109.

Not quite so, oh wizened one.

Yes the RLM originally designated it the Bf109, and that was the official label for the early part of it's service.

However, allied pilots always knew it as the Me109 … and for good reason …

After Willy Messerschmitt acquired the Bayerische Fleugzugwerke and renamed the firm Messerschmitt AG in 1938, all further products of the former Bf were named Me rather than Bf.

RLM documents from the wartime period use both designations, Bf109 and Me109. Since allied pilots always used Me109, I find it to be the more reasonable label for the plane used during the war. Certainly by 1943, when it might have seen it's first combats vs. P-38s and Mossies, it is better to refer to it as the Me109.

But that's just my opinion. You may call it whatever you like, including Emile or Franz or Gustav, if you prefer.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)