4 ms·
> and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher a
by jabl 8y ago
> and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher and faster would decrease losses).
For the British, in particular, the (unarmed) Mosquito bomber loss rate was one tenth of the Lancaster loss rate, needed 2 crew instead of 7, cost about 1/4'th of a Lancaster, and carried about 1/3 of the bomb load.
- lutorm 8y agoWhat was the range of the Mosquito compared to the Lancaster?
- jabl 8y agoWikipedia claims the bomber version of the Mosquito had a range of 2400 km with 1800 kg bomb load (good enough for Berlin and back), whereas the Lancaster had a range of 4073 km with an admittedly massive bomb load of 6400 kg. So no, the Mosquito was not a replacement for all missions the Lancaster was capable of, but for many it probably would have been a better choice.