[Juha]

Hello Tony
Quote:” The RAF crew reports can be dismissed out of hand in terms of damage, even though they were flying by day (supposedly impossible according to Kutscha?) and photographed the right target.”

IMHO one has to take crew reports with appropriate criticism but not dismiss them out of hand. After all this was a chimney height attack and there is much pictorial evidence on this attack because it was designed to serve 3 purposes, hit German war economy hard, by hitting where it really hurt Germany to force them to recall fighters from Eastern Front and to be a moral booster, a big daylight attack into rather deep in Germany.

And because 10 out of 53 (one early return) Blenheims and both Blenheim which acted as navigation leaders to 6 Spit sqns which were to meet the returning Blenheims over Dutch/Belgian coast, were lost, the lost rate was so high, even if there was some surprise element, that it was unbearable for longer campaign.

Mosquito development history was rather complicated, beginning as it was from twin Merlin engined bomber development of DH 91 Albatross 4 engined wooden airliner and gradually developing to what in to end became Mossie. And after all, even if Freeman was trice in 1940 told by Beaverbrook to stop DH. 98 project, he didn’t do that because he never got a written order to do that. So if RAF was first cool to the idea it also kept it alive.

IMHO Mossie as a very aerodynamically clean twin doesn’t seem to be easily to be modified as an dive bomber. There was later on one fighter Mossie prototype modified with angular airbrake around fuselage but that run into difficulties because of buffeting problems. Has anyone info on that dive-bomber Mossie.

And IMHO its unrealistic to think that RAF could have ordered A-36 before NA had some concrete design studies on it and definitely it could not have been in service before Mustang Mk I.

Juha