JFC Fuller said:
The RAF perfectly understood, even prior to the war, the necessity for greater speed to aid survivability. The various discussions around B.1/39 and the "ideal bomber" frequently discuss this.
However despite this understanding they still specified bombers with a degree of weight on-board that cut speed. The whole point of the fast bomber concept as proven with the Mosquito and post war strike aircraft was that the fastest possible was better than just fast.
JFC Fuller said:
The problem was that for the destruction of most targets, especially large industrial targets, large amounts of ordnance were required on target even with the greatest level of precision available with the technology of the time. This meant larger bomb loads, which the mosquito could not do.
The whole point of the Mosquito vs Lancaster type argument is based on force vs force not individual aircraft vs individual aircraft. Thanks to the efficiencies of the fast bomber a two to one ratio in aircraft is more than feasible allowing for the same level of striking power per mission.
JFC Fuller said:
The mosquito was cheap because it was made of wood,
An all-aluminium type similar to the Mosquito would still be much cheaper, at least half as cheap, as a Lancaster type. Wood construction of the Mosquito takes its cheapness to the next level. Plus of course other costs like aircrew, fuel, maintenance, etc are in the 1/3 to ½ ballpark for the twin engine, two crew fast bomber compared to the four engine, seven crew heavy bomber.
Even a two crew, gunless Hampden would be cheaper to build and operate than the legacy aircraft. Not by much but it would certainly make a force vs force difference. A two crew, gunless Wellington would be far cheaper.
JFC Fuller said:
At least part of the Mosquito's accuracy with the pathfinder forces was derived from the quality of its crews, something which would have been diluted over a much larger force. Finally, there was the limited flexibility of the small bomb-load it carried, four x 250lb or 500lb bombs or a single 4,000lb weapon. A Lancaster could be and often was loaded with fourteen 1,000lb bombs.
Bombing accuracy is going to be far better in streams by day than by night regardless of crew competency. As to the particular bomb layout this is predicated on the exact same aircraft solutions. If the RAF had never built the heavy bombers then while the Mosquito is likely to be a huge part of its force there would probably be other fast bombers able to carry 4-6 1,000 lb bombs. Providing this type of ground saturation when needed. And Tallboys and the like could be carried into action in a handful of Wallis style Victory bombers (four engine, high altitude, fast bombers).
Perhaps the most significant element of the fast bomber vs heavy bomber equation is the effect of attrition. The RAF lost 5,000 Lancaster and Halifax bombers in action in 1942-45. Replaced two to one with Mosquito and Mosquito like aircraft this casualty figure would have only been 1,000 aircraft. That’s a huge increase in striking power brought about by a reduction in attrition. Tens of thousands of aircrew would also not be lost to action. It is reasonable to suggest that by 1945 Bomber Command would have at least five times as many Mosquito type aircraft in service than the Lancaster and Hallifaxs it had.