# Pick Your Own Air Force



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

Ok, this is your chance to design your own air force, for use in WWII............

Rules:

1) Your air force must consist of no more than 9 aircraft
2) You must have atleast one trainer and one transport
3) Any aircraft chosen must have seen service with an Air force during WWII

naming your air force is optional...........

have fun.........


----------



## JCS (Mar 13, 2005)

1) B-29
2) Mosquito
3) Focke Wulf FW190D-9
4) Reggiane Re.2005
5) Piaggio P.108T
6) AT-6
7) Junkers Ju86P-1
8) Junkers Ju88G-6
9) Messerschmitt Me410


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 13, 2005)

Trainer - North American AT-6 
Transport - Douglas C-47

Bomber - Boeing B-29
Attack - Douglas A-26
Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - Republic P-47N
Fighter / Fighter-Bomber- Chance Vought F-4U
Fighter - Messerschmidt ME-262
Night Fighter - De Haviland Mosquito
Torpedo Bomber / Dive Bomber - Curtiss-Wright SB2C Helldiver


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Bomber - B-29
Fighter - Re-2005
Fighter - Fw-190D-9 
Bomber - P-108B
Transport - SM.81
Trainer - Harvard
Attack - P-108A
Fighter - P-38L
Fighter - P-47


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 13, 2005)

1) B-17G Flying Fortress
2) P-51D Mustang
3) P-47D Thunderbolt
4) AT-6 Texan
5) C-47 Skytrain
6) B-29 Superfortress
7) P-38J Lightning
8) B-26G Mardauder
9) A-20 Havoc


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

Aircraft of the RMAF (Royal Mosquitoman's Air Force)
Trainer-Harvard
Transport-Avro York
Heavy Bomber-Lancaster
Heavy Bomber- Halifax
Torpedo Aircraft- Beaufighter
Nightfighter- Mossie NFMkXXX
Defensive Fighter- Spitfire MkXIV
Defensive Fighter- Me262
Offensive/Escort Fighter- Mustang D


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 14, 2005)

I'll think about this for awhile, I think!! 

Kiwimac


----------



## GT (Mar 14, 2005)

Update.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

Stupid question but why did ou go for the flying torch (AKA the He177)?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

very good lists people, still thinking of mine.............


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

Revised list...
Trainer- Harvard
Transport- Avro York
Maritime recconaissance- Consolidated Liberator
Heavy Bomber- Lancaster
Torpedo Aircraft- Beaufighter
Nightfighter- Mosquito
Offensive Fighter- Mustang 
Defensive Fighter- Spitfire
Defensive Fighter- Me262


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 14, 2005)

Very good question...heres my batting order

Trainer - AT-6 Texan/Harvard
Transport - Avro York

Dayfighter - Fw190A
Dayfighter - Mustang III
Escort Fighter - P51-D
Fighter/Bomber - P-47D
Fighter/Bomber- Hawker Typhoon
Torpedo Bomber - Grumman Avenger
Dive Bomber - SBD-5 Dauntless
Heavy Bomber - B-17G Fortress
Medium Bomber - Mitchell III


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

good list, although the trainer and transport should be included in the 9, try and cut it down a bit...

hehe you think the B-17's a heavy bomber.............


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 14, 2005)

I went for the Firtress for the same reason as I went for the P-47, Fw190, Avenger and Typhoon... they're all hard as nails!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

so then, which two are you getting rid of??


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 14, 2005)

Fw190 and Dauntless 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

Getting rid of the Fw-190 was the silliest thing ive ever seen!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

Equal with classing the B-17 as a heavy bomber


----------



## GT (Mar 15, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

B-17 was generally at the forfront of american 8th AF bombers................

but if i had to pick between a B-17 and a B-24 i'd take the -24............


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2005)

Other way around, GT. The B-24s were gradually replaced with B-17s later in the war. The B-24 had a severe weakness with the Davis wing. One good shot between the engines with a flak burst, and that wing folded up. The B-24 could carry a larger payload, faster and farther, but could not absorb the amount of damage the B-17 could.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Well I would go like this:

1. T-6 Texan (trainer)
2. DC-3 (transport)
3. Fw-190D-9 (Day fighter)
4. Me-109G-6 (day fighter)
5. B-29 (bomber)
6. He-219 (night fighter)
7. P-38 Lightning (day fighter)
8. Lancaster (bomber)
9. Tempest (ground attack/fighter)


----------



## GT (Mar 16, 2005)

Update.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Good point, GT. I was thinking only from the USAAF perspective, my bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

nice list adler...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 16, 2005)

Yeah, I notice he's got a Lancaster in there.  

Compared to the B-29, a dog ... with bad teeth.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

oh dear god you're a B-17 fan aren't you??


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 16, 2005)

Ah, the Flying Fortress, how'd you guess? 

I would have to say though that the B-29 was clearly head and shoulders above any other heavy bomber of the war. Any artificial airforce lacking the B-29 would be an air force lacking a massively powerful fast and long range punch.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

DAVIDICUS, not all Brits have bad teeth and why go for a B-17? it wasn't even a heavy bomber with that useless bombload


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

yeah i can't believe you're slagging off the lanc then say the B-17 was good 

the lanc was far superior to the B-17, and please remember the lanc was delivered in 1941 with no problems to be ironed out in service, the B-29 was delivered 3 years later with many many problems, and although i know the B-29 weas capable of carrying a grand slam, it never droped one in anger, unline the lanc, it's the lanc that will go down in history as the aircraft that used the heaviest conventional weapon of all time............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I prefer the B-17 over the Lanc only because my favorite bomber was the Memphis Belle which was a B-17. However I will agree that the Lanc was a better bomber then the B-17. It could carry more bombs and was just as durable. The B-17 however could take more damage then the B-24.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

well whilst the lanc was far more durable than people give her credit for, she wasn't as durable as the B-17, but damage tollerance, ceiling and defensive armourment were the only ways the B-17 is better than the lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I personally just like the B-17 better. It is just my own oppinion but the Lanc was a better bomber, I will give you that.


----------



## polebrook351st (Mar 16, 2005)

they were all good. advantages and disadvantages. but for me its the 17 for the durability and firepower. if you had a choice between a b24 or b17 you'd be nuts to climb in a 24, one engine out and you're going down almost for certain. my father flew in 17's and was grateful he did.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 17, 2005)

The Lanc was a good plane however It would not have survived Daylight rades like the B-17. 

The Lancaster was not directly comparable to the B-29 in any respect. So It carried the Grand Slam, as compared with the Atom bomb @ 22,000 TONS of explosives, it was at a reduced range with little firepower no pressurization (required for 30,000ft and above or missions of more than 10 hrs). 

An Average B-29 mission was 16,000lbs for 6,000mi. What does that add up to twice the load, twice the distance with 4 times the defensive (8 times the punch) firepower 50%greater speed and if desired twice the altitude plus a crew more fresh and ready to go when needed? The B-29 even carried Test Aircraft into the air. 

But that's not an embarasment for the Lancaster considering the B-29 was designed with a far greater knowledge base and 3 years development @ 3 Billion dollars invested - I've heard it was the largest most intense and expensive program in WWII. All of which was unavailable in '42 for the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

no that's what i'm saying, the two aircraft are different, would you compare a Ta-152 with a hawker hurricane?? no, because they're from two completely different time periods...........


----------



## GT (Mar 17, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

i would call an engine prone to catching on fire more than a teething problem.........


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no that's what i'm saying, the two aircraft are different, would you compare a Ta-152 with a hawker hurricane?? no, because they're from two completely different time periods...........



That goes for the B-17/Lancaster as well. It's amazing the B-17 still contended as well as it did! It was every bit as good as the Lancaster in it's own job as it did over Europe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i would call an engine prone to catching on fire more than a teething problem.........



I wouldnt. I reckon coupled engines would probably have become reliable enough if they were devloped.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

fact of the metter is though that the ones used were not reliable........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

I never said they were...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

Exactly, if you said coupled engines were good you'd have to say that the Manchester was good!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

TAF - Tony's Airforce

1.Trainer = Harvard - Good allrounder at a reasonable speeds
2. Transport = Avro York - High wing makes for better capacity!
3. Ground attack = Tempest - One hell of a mean machine!
4. Bomber = Lancaster - best in europe for capacity of bombs range.
5. Fighter = Spitfire XIV - Excellent all round performance
6. Nightfighter = Mosquito NF variant - good for intruder raids too!
7. Fighter = FW 190D-9 - interim stop gap variant, but damn fine.
8. Bomber = B29 Capacity range in the later years of the war
9. Maritime = B24 Liberator - Range more bomb capacity than a sunderland.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Exactly, if you said coupled engines were good you'd have to say that the Manchester was good!




The Manchester was the seed from which the Lancaster Grew!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

Yep, they needed the Manchester to remove most of the problems to make way for the Lanc. Nice list BTW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Edit to my list:

Fighter - Fw-190A-8
Fighter - Fw-190D-9
Fighter - P-38L
Fighter - P-47D 
Fighter - F4U-4
Bomber - B-29
Attack - Me-410 
Transport - SM.81
Trainer - Harvard


Notice a theme?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

Yes the B-29 could not be compared to a Lanc, that I agree. But again there were no bombers that had the durability of the B-17. She could take a beating and still fly home. That is the main reason that the B-17 is my fav.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

yes CC, it's very anti-british............


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

Did you expect him not to be?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

well he's not giving the british enough cradit that's for sure............

mind you in saying that most if not all of my list will be british...........


----------



## Maestro (Mar 18, 2005)

Okay, here is the MAF (Maestro's Air Force) list :

1 - Trainer : Harvard
2 - Transport : C-47
3 - Fighter : Spitfire Mk. IX
4 - Fighter : P-51D Mustang
5 - Fighter-bomber : Tempest Mk. V
6 - Bomber : B-25 Mitchell
7 - Bomber : Lancaster
8 - Bomber : B-17 Flying Fortress
9 - Fighter : Hurricane Mk. IIC


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

Nice list!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Maestro, does that mean your airfield would be called the "Maestro Air Force International Aerodrome"? Or "MAFIA" for short? 

So what if my list is anti British, I dont need British planes to win me an air war 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes CC, it's very anti-british............



Well I am not anti British or anything but if were going to do this whole anti whatever country and all, I am going to change my list to and get rid of the 2 British planes I had on my list.

Adlers new list:

1. T-6 Texan (trainer) 
2. DC-3 (transport) 
3. Fw-190D-9 (Day fighter) 
4. Me-109G-6 (day fighter) 
5. B-29 (bomber) 
6. He-219 (night fighter) 
7. P-38 Lightning (day fighter) 
8. B-17G (bomber) 
9. P-47D (ground attack/fighter)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey, I'm not anti any country. I just prefer british planes. BTW 4 of my planes aren't British (Harvard, Me262, Mustang and Liberator)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Im not against any country either. I just dont really like British planes that much


----------



## Maestro (Mar 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Maestro, does that mean your airfield would be called the "Maestro Air Force International Aerodrome"? Or "MAFIA" for short?



Hey, that's not a bad idea...  

With a name like that (and the planes I listed) no one will dare to attack me.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

I don't know, maybe I could set the Kray brothers on you


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

My airforce would annilhate your airforce... 8)


----------



## Maestro (Mar 19, 2005)

I don't think so... 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

Bring it on everybody


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

I have 6 Fighters (if you include the Me-410) and I beleive that is waaay more than anyone elses force 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

"The bomber wil always get through"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Mine will, I have B-29's. You people with Lancasters and B-17's will get trounced by my fighters


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Hey, I'm not anti any country. I just prefer british planes. BTW 4 of my planes aren't British (Harvard, Me262, Mustang and Liberator)



Oh neither am I, I just thought I would pick on Lanc a bit, because he gets on CC everytime he goes non british about something.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Thanks. He obviously doesnt take into consderation that I defended both the Spitfire and the Lancaster quite strongly in another thread...I just prefer German, American and Italian planes for some reason.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

So what, no-one's going to get any submarine's on my convoys. I have Liberators which could double as a bomber


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Liberators are bombers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

I have SM.81's and P-38's for anti shipping 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeah I can just use my 38's for that and if need be use my B-17's and B-29's to drop bombs on them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

And my Corsair could do it too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

still thinking about my (what will proberly be heavily british) list, haven't even considdered anti-shipping yet..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Why do you need to think for so long? Theres no point cos theres no way youd every be able to take my force.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

This is a nice task...let's see

Fighters:
Spitfire Mk IX
Messerschmidt Bf-109
P-51 Mustang
Nightbombers:
P-61 Blackbird
Bombers:
Junkers Ju-87 Stuka(Effective though sensible)
Martin B-26 Marauder
Transporter:
Junkers Ju-52
Trainer:
I'm sorry...I don't know any trainers...could you give me some info...I'd be trully gratefull


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

not a bad list, and the main trainers being picked are the american harvard and the british tiger moth, both were simple elementary trainers........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

The AT-6 Texan is being picked more than the Tiger, lanc. I dont think the Tiger Moth is av ery effective plane to pick...

Nice list BTW. You also have room for one more plane! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

why was she not effective??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Come on Lanc, we know you are going to take the Swordfish for anti shipping because it is British.

Welcome Hellmaker, interesting that you choose the Ju-87 Stuke and the Ju-52. I happen to like the Ju-52. What varient Bf-109? I would go with a T-6 Texan as a trainer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

hey you know guys, i'm contemplating using the Avenger for anti-shipping, yes an american plane, although she did see service with the FAA so that's ok in my books........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why was she not effective??



Well, maybe early in the war, but if you gave someone training in a Tiger Moth, then sent them up in a Spit XIV, they might as well have had no training at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

The Avenger would be a good pic. It was a good aircraft for its role.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

The Bf-109K-4...Because it's fast, it has a very high service ceilling, it's robust...and...good looking too... 8)... an example of german engeniering...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

I would have taken a Bf-109G. Later versions of it were just as fast as the K and it had more maneauverability then the K. Speed is not everything.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

but crews absolutely loved the tiger moth, she was the perfect craft for anyone who'd never even flown before, and they sent plenty of pilots into combat after they'd gone from a tiger moth into early spits, they had allot of training in the plane they'd fly as well you know........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

Youre just making excuses to pick a British plane...

Harvard or Texan makes far more sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

The Texan is a pleasure to fly. It is easy and handles really well. I got to go up in one at an Airshow in Hendersonville, NC and it was quite fun and just a plain joy all around.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 22, 2005)

You really have to work at it if you want to get yourself killed in a Texan. They are durable and reliable. There are about 1,000 or more that still fly!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

They were used in combat in East Asia, some got some Zero kills


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

ok here's my list, it was gonna be all british aircraft but i thought i'd better change that, so here goes...........

De Havilland Tiger Moth (trainer)
C-47 (transport)

De Havilland Mosquito (pretty much every roles possible)
Avro Lancaster (heavy bomber)
Bristol Beaufighter (fighter, anti-shipping)
Hawker Tempest (long range escort, ground attack)
Supermarine Spitfire (fighter)
Me-110 (bomber interceptor, nightfighter)
Me-262 (as above)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

What mk Spit? Just saying the "Spitfire" is a bit broad dont you think?


My 'Force would demolish yours 8)


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Simple.

Me-262 B1 (trainer)
B-29 (Heavy Bomber)
Gloster Meteor MK. III (ground attack role, escort)
P-80 A or D.H. Vampire (air superiority fighter, escort)
He-162 A (against low level fighter sweeps)
Ar-232 B (recon plane) 
Me-262 A (interceptor)
Ar-232 C (light bomber)
He-343 or Ju-287 (middle bomber, ship buster)
Me-262 B2 (nightfighter)

Jet age rules! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Interesting list though. B-29 rules! 

I wish I could include the Skyraider, _man_ that plane kicks ass! 8)


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Yes! - Ther was nothing to compare with the B-29!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Hows about this list then:
Night Bomber: Mosquito Mk35
Day Bomber: Moquito Mk35
Night Fighter: Mosquito MkXXX
Shipping strike and anti sub: Mosquito MkXVIII
Trainer: Mosquito TMkIII
Transport: there were mosquitos used for light transport
Day Fighter: Spitfire MkIX


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Except maybe some of the TOTALLY INSANE German drawings ive seen


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

England would soon run out of wood.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2005)

Trainer: Texan
Transport: C-47/ME-323

Multi-role: Mosquito
Interceptor: ME-262
Escort: P-51
Ground Attack: P-47/Typhoon
Bomber: B-29
Attack Bomber: A-26
Nightfighter: He-219


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

The New Forest isnt totally renewable you know


----------



## evangilder (Mar 22, 2005)

And the enemy could devise a termite bomb!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

We import anteaters from Brazil to combat the possible threat


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok here's my list, it was gonna be all british aircraft but i thought i'd better change that, so here goes...........
> 
> De Havilland Tiger Moth (trainer)
> C-47 (transport)
> ...



I know it is your list and you can choose whatever you want but why the Me-110? A Fw-190A would do much better then a Me-110 yes the 110 was a good nightfighter but as a bomber interceptor? I am just wondering what made you choose this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

delycros, you have no transport, was the Me-262 B1 ever used as an elemantary trainer? and remember all planes on you list mush have seen active service with an air force in WWII..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

okay but what about the 110 Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

sorry you must have wrote that post just before i did mine, i kinda like the Me-110, i know a little about it's use as a NF and she was heavily armed..............

to be honest i'm not that happy with my list, it needs improving but i don't know what with...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Dont take me wrong I like the 110 as I am a Luftwaffe fan I can just think there were some better aircraft out there than that and there was. I would switch out the 110 and the beaufighter with something else.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

hey what's wrong with the beau??


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 24, 2005)

Great nightfighter and shipping stike plane, only thing better than it was the Mossie


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

that's why she's ni my list, though as old boots............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

I just dont really thinkt he beau was that great of an aircraft. She was not that bad but she was quickly outdated by better aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

well unless you convince me of a better aircraft- she stays.........


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 25, 2005)

Mine would go something like this:

B-29 - Very Heavey Bomber
B-25/Mossie - Strike Attack/Medium Bombing
C-46 - Cargo
P-38 - Fighter, Long range escort, Recon
Typhoon/P-47 - Ground attack/Straffing
F4U - Carrier fighter/Attack
Avenger - Carrier Bomber/Cargo
PBY5A - Scout/Rescue
Reserved for A/C built for new conditions

Minimum aircraft maximum capabilities, parts exchange ond coverage. Other planes could have been included or exclusive (Mossie, Spit, etc.) but parts exchange suggested 1 country for sourcing.


----------



## Mosin (Mar 25, 2005)

Hi my names Mosin. I just joined. I have been looking in the forums and this one looks interesting. These are my choices. Even though I am only picking 9 planes I am going to put in catagories and name one of the 9 planes that I feel is best for the role. 
HEAVY BOMBER --------------B-17 FLYING FORTRESS
LONGE RANGE BOMBER -----B-26 MAURADER/B-17
MEDIUM BOMBER ------------B-26 MAURADER
DIVE BOMBER ----------------JUNKER 87 STUKA
ANTI-SHIPPIING--------------B-26/ JUNKER 87
CONVOY PROTECTION ------B-26/ JUNKER 87
LONGE RANGE/ESCORT FIGHTER---P-51 MUSTANG
HEAVY FIGHTER-----------------MESSERSCHMITT 110
FIGHTER BOMBER--------------- DH-98 MOSQUITO/FOCKE WULF 190
FIGHTER--------------------------FOCKE-WULF 190
INTERCEPTOR--------------------FW-190/P-51/MESSERSCHMITT 110
TRANSPORT-----------------JUNKER 52
TRAINER---------------------- AT-6
GROUND ATTACK-----------------P-51/FW-190/JUNKER 87
TORPEDO BOMBER----------------DH-98/JUNKER 87
NIGHT FIGHTER-------------------MESSERSCHMITT 110/FW190 
CARRIER FIGHTER---------------P-51/ 
CARRUER BOMBER--------------JUNKER 87 
CARRIER TORPEDO BOMBER------DH-98 
The planes listed first are my first choice,the 2nd listed is mysecond etc.etc. 
Yours truly Mosin


----------



## Mosin (Mar 25, 2005)

Mosin again 

Sorry guys I forgot to put the DH-98 as second in the night fighter catagory . Not important but thought I would mention it
MOSIN


----------



## trackend (Mar 26, 2005)

OK my list
Heavy Bomber...........................B29 
long range Support fighter..........P51 Mustang
Low level/pathfinder Bomber......Mossie
Ground attack...........................Tiffy
Fighter......................................MKXIVE Spitfire
Recon ......................................stripped ME 262
Anti shipping ............................ Beaufighter
Transport.................................. C47
Trainer......................................Harvard


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

Nice list Trackend


----------



## trackend (Mar 26, 2005)

I luv the lanc but I think the B29 was a more advanced plane
the Mossie has to be in there as I personally think it was
about the most versatile aircraft of the war not only that but it did it all so well with a bit of conversion it can be my night fighter as well.
The mustang doesn't need any introduction its kill record says it all.
Same goes for the Tiffy in its ground attack roll.
The Spitfire because its a spitfire I still rate it as the best of the best
Bit controversial with the Beaufighter if it was purely on my favorite I would have picked the Stringbag.
C47 what else could it be for transport.
and the Harvard although I like the Tiger moth the Harvard being a mono plane was a better intro to modern aviation.
Oh I almost forgot the ME 262 because without the armaments it would have pushed its speed way beyond the normal 540mph (unmatchable)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

very very very nice list there trackend, one of my favourites so far.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Mosin said:


> Hi my names Mosin. I just joined. I have been looking in the forums and this one looks interesting. These are my choices. Even though I am only picking 9 planes I am going to put in catagories and name one of the 9 planes that I feel is best for the role.
> HEAVY BOMBER --------------B-17 FLYING FORTRESS
> LONGE RANGE BOMBER -----B-26 MAURADER/B-17
> MEDIUM BOMBER ------------B-26 MAURADER
> ...



Nice list for the most part but I there were many carrier bombers better then the Ju-87 especially since it did not see sevice as a carrier bomber. The P-51 as a Carrier Fighter? Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think they ever served on a carrier. Ju-87 as a Torpedo Bomber? Same thing as the P-51. Ground attack I would would have gone with a Hs-123 over a Ju-87.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

ok can you please keep those to the other "pick you own air force" topic please


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

What other topic?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

there's annother one entitled "Pick your own airforce (i'm not trying to copy the other one)"..........

thank you.........


----------



## Mosin (Mar 29, 2005)

Well deradler since I could only pick 9 planes I picked the ones I thought would best for the role with the available planes. 
The henschell 123 was a biplane and not fast enough later in the war. The P-51 wasnt used as a carrier plane but it could be converted ditto the junker 87


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Excuse me I meant Hs-129 not 123. My mistake and typo. However the 87 would have been a lousy carrier bomber, and correct me if I am wrong but the Stuka carrying a torpedo? The Fi-167 was the German carrier based torpedo bomber.

The Ju 87D-4 designation was used for a number of Ju 87D-1 and Ju 87D-3 aircraft that were converted for use as a torpedo bomber. However, they were never used operationally, and were later converted back to the Ju 87D-3 standard.


----------



## Mosin (Mar 30, 2005)

Yeah just as we started discussing this I had been going to make a new list I had accindentaly put in the wrong list the one I posted was meant for the other topic 
Heres my new list 
B-17---HEAVY BOMBER, CONVOY ESCORT, LONGE RANGE BOMBER
B-26---MEDIUM BOMBER, MARITIME BOMBER,LONGE RANGE BOMB 
JUNKER 52 ---TRANSPORT 
AT6 -----TRAINER 
DH-98 MOSQUITO---MANY ROLES MAINLY FIGHTER BOMBER 
D7A3 RYUSEI---- DIVE/CARRIER/TORPEDOE BOMBER 
P-51---------LONGE RANGE ESCORT/DAY INTERCEPTOR 
F4U CORSAIR ----CARRIER FIGHTER ( ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE USED FOR GROUND FIGHTER) 
MESSERSCHMITT 410 ----INTERCEPTOR 
Well thats my revised list


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

very nice by way of fighters but your bomber force is somewhat lacking.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Yeah very nice fighters and I would say that his bombers are quite fine thankyou!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

well his best bomber is the mossie..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 31, 2005)

You need at least one heavy bomber (by that I mean a bomber with a large payload)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

what my friend mosquito man is trying to say here Mosin, is that the B-17 sucked..........


----------



## Mosin (Mar 31, 2005)

What was wrong with the B-17  It had better armament than the lancaster. Also what is wrong with only one heavy bomber  I think that the B-26 was good medium bomber too. 
Just tell me whats wrong with my choices and I will think it over


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

Well the only problem Lanc has with the B-17 is the fact that it is not British and most of all not a Lancaster which for him is the best thing since Bread and Butter.  I think it is a fine choice. I would have chosen the B-29 or B-24 over the B-17 because they both could carry more bomb load however the B-17 is a fine choice.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

ha you al read my post wrong, i simply made clearer what mossieman was trying to say, i did not convey an opion of my own.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

UH HU sure.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 2, 2005)

My personal view is that a B-17 didn't have the payload to be a heavy bomber


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

No I would classify it as a Heavy Bomber however it sacrificed some bomb payload for other things like armor, and defensive weapons.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

yes whilst it wasn't unheard for them to carry 2000-4000lbs of bombs to berlin, her absolute maximum payload means she's a heavy, as does the fact that she has four engines to a cirtain extent............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

glad to hear it..........

wow i just said something nice about the B-17


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Why yes you did Lanc. How does that feel.


----------



## Mosin (Apr 2, 2005)

Thats right it could carrty 5000 lbs bombs 2000 miles


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

> Why yes you did Lanc. How does that feel



Bad. Very bad.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

Im sorry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

i feel a sudden urge to "big up" the lanc now.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

Ill just shoot it down out of principle to keep the rivalry going.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

oh yeah with what, a B-24


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

No with a Fokker Triplane!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

you wouldn't stand a chance, i'd just turn inside you and shoot out down with the front turret just to show off!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

Not if I was Manfred Von Richthofen!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

ok then maybe i could strech to using my rear or dorsal turrets too..........


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

Fighter- Messerschmitt Me 262
Fighter/Bomber- Hawker Typhoon
Fighter/Escort- P-51D Mustang
Fighter/Bomber- Vought F4U Corsair
Heavy Bomber- Avro Lancaster
Medium Bomber- North American B-25 Mitchell
Medium Bomber- Boeing B-17 FF
Transport- Curtiss C-46 Commando
Trainer- North American T-6

Please tell me what you think about it.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 4, 2005)

lightning38 said:


> Fighter- Messerschmitt Me 262
> Fighter/Bomber- Hawker Typhoon
> Fighter/Escort- P-51D Mustang
> Fighter/Bomber- Vought F4U Corsair
> ...



Not to bad but considering your moniker and it's very considerable abilities - Why No P-38s?


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 4, 2005)

Nice list, is a T-6 a Harvard?


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 4, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Nice list, is a T-6 a Harvard?



Yes, the navy called it a SNJ too.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 4, 2005)

Ahh, thanks


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

I guess I just didn't think of it. Lightnings were pretty good. Thanks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

yeah but i wouldn't have them on a list like this...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2005)

Why not to afraid it would blow your Lanc out of the sky?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Probably. Its more likely the fact that it isnt British though, and hes shocked that a nation outside his BELOVED Britian made a great plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

no, canada made some damned good planes........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

During WW2? 

So did Germany, and America, and Italy, and Russia...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

yeah they made the Lancaster Mk.X, she was a good plane........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Please tell me you are not naive eneogh to think that the only good aircraft were made by England. Because I can think of some nations that led England in Aircraft design.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

no i knew there were some other great planes out there, it's just there's an ongoing joke about how patriotic i am..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Joke?  Its OTT!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Only a joke really?!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

I don't think anyone could ever accuse Lanc of not being patriotic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well no it's a joke at times, yes i am extremely patriotic, and for the most part it is me being genuine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Theres nothing wrong with being patriotic, most of the time I am just trying to push your buttons and get you to all out with your explanations becaust it is funny.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

well thanks........


----------



## Maestro (Apr 8, 2005)

Ahhh... Patriotism... That's a word I have not heard for a while. Here, for the most part of Quebecers, we are not patriotics but nationalists. What's the difference ? A patriot is proud, a nationalist is jealous.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

patriotism is still alive and well over here in britian.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

Not in my house it aint


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 8, 2005)

Maestro said:


> Ahhh... Patriotism... That's a word I have not heard for a while. Here, for the most part of Quebecers, we are not patriotics but nationalists. What's the difference ? A patriot is proud, a nationalist is jealous.


Jealous of who?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

mmmm, who could Canadians be jealous of


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 8, 2005)

Name it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

Cheese?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 8, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

No NS, I wasnt referring to me, as I know everyone is jealous of me (  ) I was referring to actual cheese


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 8, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> patriotism is still alive and well over here in britian.........



Patriotism for all intensive purposes is not allowed over here in Germany. There is no law against but if you are a overly patriotic they call you a Nazi! It realyl is a shame.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

That is most unfair really.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

yeah you should be able to be proud of your country if you so wish!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

So proud Germans are considered Nazis, in Germany? Well that sucks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

Yes if you are too proud of being a German over here the immigrants over here call you a Nazi so it is much better just not to be patriotic as my wife puts it. She considers it a shame that she can only fly the German flag in our house and not outside because some one will say she hates forigners and is a Nazi. It really is a shame.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes if you are too proud of being a German over here the immigrants over here call you a Nazi so it is much better just not to be patriotic as my wife puts it. She considers it a shame that she can only fly the German flag in our house and not outside because some one will say she hates forigners and is a Nazi. It really is a shame.


Well that's just stupid! (The whole idea I mean, not your wife.  )
Foreigners will sometimes pull that kind of bullshit here too. Well let me tell ya, if proudly flying my nation's colours makes me some kinda Nazi or racist, then so be it! You're in _my_ country now son, so if you wanna bitch about all things Canadian then go the hell home!  

I'm not just blowing smoke here, I've actually done this on occasion! Once I was even in uniform. Got in a bit of trouble for it too. 
Damn, I hate ignorant people! Regardless of race or nationality!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

> Damn, I hate ignorant people! Regardless of race or nationality!



nice to see you're still diplomatic about the people you hate though


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

I firmly believe in equal opportunity hatred.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

I am not racist. I hate everyone equally!



Nonskimmer said:


> Well that's just stupid! (The whole idea I mean, not your wife. )
> Foreigners will sometimes pull that kind of bullshit here too. Well let me tell ya, if proudly flying my nation's colours makes me some kinda Nazi or racist, then so be it! You're in my country now son, so if you wanna bitch about all things Canadian then go the hell home!
> 
> I'm not just blowing smoke here, I've actually done this on occasion! Once I was even in uniform. Got in a bit of trouble for it too.
> Damn, I hate ignorant people! Regardless of race or nationality!



I completely agree with you 100%!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 17, 2005)

right, we've had allot of newbies on here since this topic was famous on these forums, so i'm gonna attemt to bring it back to life, if you could pick any nine planes thatr saw service in WWII which would you pick?? you can have no more than nine, they can be from any nation but you must have atleast one transport and one trainer, read back to see what others have done if you wish..........


----------



## trackend (Sep 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not racist. I hate everyone equally!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So do I Adler, infact to be fair I even hate myself and have been trying to get myself deported  any vacancies in Canada for a Nurse H grade and a rail signalling technical officer Skimm ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Well Lanc since you are trying to revive this one I will make up a new list of 9 aircraft. It is probably different than my last but my views change everyday and here is a new one just to have a new one.

1. Bf-109G
2. Ta-152C
3. C-47
4. T-6 Texan
5. B-17G
6. Lancaster
7. Fw-190D
8. Tempest


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 17, 2005)

1.Trainer; AT-6 Texan

2.Low-Alt/Fighter Bomber- FW-190A9 (Armour, radial, great armament)

3.High Altitude/Escort Fighter- Mustang III (Fast at all alts, long range, reliable Merlin)

4.Strike/Shipping/Intruder/Nusiance Bomber- Mosquito FB 26 (3 built, Merlin 72/76s) (Mossie with 2 stage High alt Merlian, 'nuff said)

5.Night-Fighter/Fast Medium Bomber- P-61C (Dedicated night fighter, VERY manouverable, 6000lb external bombload)

6.Heavy Bomber- Lancaster (Tall Boy, Grandslam, little short on defenisve firepower)

7.Short Range Interceptor- Spitfire Mk XIV (5,000 feet per min climb, outstanding at all alts)

8.Transport/Cargo- C-54D (C-47s big brother, long range version with R-2000-9s)

9.Ground attack/fighter-bomber/longrange escort- P-38L (another ace in the sleve to back up the Mustang, twin engine reliablity, great performance in hot/tropical areas, does everything well)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Nice list there. You went far more in depth than I did.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 17, 2005)

1: Trainer: T-6.

2: Transport: C-46

3: Interceptor: Spitfire 21

4: Escort: P-38

5: Night Fighter/medium bomber/ground attack/anti-ship (everything basically): Mosquito

6: Night Bomber: Lancaster

7: Day Bomber: B-29

8: Maritime Recon: PBY

9: Convoy Escort: B-24


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Nice pic for a maritime recon aircraft. I would have picked that or the Fw-200.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 17, 2005)

I was thinking about the Fw-200 but then I thought the PBY could land in the sea and be picked up by ships if the need arose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Yeap that is propably why I would choose the Catalina also.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 17, 2005)

And here is my alternate list;

1.Low-altitude/fighter bomber- Tempest V with a Sabre IIc at +13lbs

2.Interceptor/ Air Superiority- FW-190D9

3.Strike/Medium Bomber- A-26C

4.Long-Range Bomber- B-29

5.Carrier Fighter- F4U-4

6.Night Fighter- Hs-219 Uhu

7.Interceptor- N1K2-J 

8.Transport- Avro York

9. Trainer- Me-108


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I like you night fighter pick.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 17, 2005)

nice lists jab.......


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 18, 2005)

Really looks good!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 18, 2005)

PAC (Patrick Air Corps)

1) T-6 Texan/trainer
2) C-47/transport 
3) A-25/attack
4) P-47/fighter-bomber
5) P-38/ fighter
6) P-51/escort-interceptor
7) Mosquito/ night fighter
8) B-25/ Medium bomber
9)B-17/ heavy bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2005)

dear lord you're almost as bias as me.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Yeah he is, but I still think you are worse.


----------



## quayhog (Sep 18, 2005)

1. B-29 Boeing Stratofortress (Hvy bomber)
2. SNJ/AT-6 North American Texan (Trainer)
3. P-51 Mustang (Interceptor)
4. F4U Corsair (Naval based fighter)
5. Curtiss SB2C (Naval attack aircraft)
6. Lockheed PV-1 Ventura (Medium Attack bomber)
7. Northrup P-61 Black Widow (Night fighter)
8. Grumman J2F-6 Duck (Utility)
9. Douglas C-47/R4D (Transport)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Interesting your pics. I dont know if I would go with the P-61 Blackwidow. But hey they are your pics and you are entitled to them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

Funny how some people completely leave off all Axis aircraft....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

I dont have a problem with it, everyone has there own opinion. I try to get a mixture though in mine because I like aircraft from both sides.


----------



## quayhog (Sep 18, 2005)

I don't know the axis aircraft well enough to have chosen any. I grew up steeped in naval aviation traditions. My dad had his wings before 12/7/41. I'm sure my bias shows. The P-61 was designed from the outset to be a night fighter. The US also used F6F-5N and there was a marine squadron of PV-1 Venturas. Both of these aircraft were esigned over existing platforms and were full of compromises.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 18, 2005)

Trainer= AT-24..Converted B-25 Mitchells. 
Transport= C-47.
High Altitude Fighter/interceptor= Ta-152H
Night fighter= Me-262 B1a/U1
Long Range bomber= B-29
Carrier Fighter/interceptor= F6F-5
Close support aircraft= FW-190 F-8
Strike Aircraft= A-26 Invader


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

Bomber: B29
Attack Bomber: B25J
Fighter-Bomber: P47N
Fighter: F4U-5
Patrol: PB4Y
Night Fighter: P61C
Trainer: AT6
Tactical Transport: C47
Long Range Transport: C54


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

Trainer: AT6
Transport: C-47
Fighter: Fw-190D-9
Fighter: Spitfire Mk XXI
Fighter Bomber/Anti-Tank: Fw-190F-8
Fighter Bomber: P-47N
Nightfighter: He-219A-7/R2
Attack Bomber/Strafer: B-25J
Heavy Bomber: B-29


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 18, 2005)

Why make the -190F-8 a tank buster? I would have gone with either a IL-2 Sturmovik or Me-110 with the additional 57mm it could carry under it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

quayhog said:


> The P-61 was designed from the outset to be a night fighter. The US also used F6F-5N and there was a marine squadron of PV-1 Venturas. Both of these aircraft were esigned over existing platforms and were full of compromises.



I just would not have gone withit because it was too heavy in my opinion for a night fighter I would have gone with the He-219 Uhu. It was a great Nightfighter.



P38 Pilot said:


> Why make the -190F-8 a tank buster? I would have gone with either a IL-2 Sturmovik or Me-110 with the additional 57mm it could carry under it.



Because the Fw-190F-8 was a great tank buster and was made for that reason. Ground Attack and Tank busting and was better than a Il-2 and the Me-110. The Fw-190F-8 could unload its ground ordinance and was still effective as a fighter. Which you rather have, drop your ordinance and then have to run away from enemy fighters or be able to fight them because you are in a fighter bomber that is worth something?


----------



## Piaggio108 (Sep 19, 2005)

Trainer : AT-6
Transport : Piaggio P.108T

Interceptor : Ta-152
Escort : P-51D
Carrier Based : F6F

Heavy Bomber : B-29
Medium Bomber : B-26
Ground Attack : Hawker Typhoon

Recon : Arado Ar-234


----------



## Dac (Sep 19, 2005)

1.) Escort- P51D
2.) Bomber- B-29
3.) Attack- A-26
4.) Night-fighter- P-61
5.) Anti-shipping- Beaufighter TF X
6.) Trainer- Harvard
7.) Transport- C-69 Constellation
8.) Reconnaissance- Spitfire PR
9.) Interceptor- Me262A-1a


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 19, 2005)

Alot of people are choosing the P-61 black widow as a night fighter, rarely do i hear the night fighting Me-262, or the He-219 mentioned...the latter more than the former. Both aircraft would prove exceptional night fighters, the 262 more against mosquitos in the final days of the war, and the He-219 simply showing enormous potential, and exceptional performance. Granted the P-61 was a great aircraft, but the 219 offered a better pilot view, and often carried heavier armament.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

The P61 had four .50's and four 20mm. That makes quite well armed.

The P61's SCR-520 radar was quite advanced for its time.


----------



## Glider (Sep 20, 2005)

Long Range Fighter P51
General Fighter Fiat G55
Heavy Bomber B29
Medium Bomber Do217
Strike Mossie
Ground Attack Tempest
Nightfighter - Mossie
PR - Mossie


----------



## F4D (Sep 20, 2005)

My WW 2 Air force... 

Trainer T-6 Texan (What else?)
Transport C-47 (Nuff said!)
Fighter/Escort/Interceptor P-51H (Sold American!)
Fighter Bomber P-47D ( We don't need no stinkin Dive bombers!)
Heavy Bomber Lancaster (We came, We saw, We bombed.)
Med. Bomber B-26 Marauder (That's right the Marauder.)
Night Fighter Do-335 (You heard me!)
Reconn/Fighter F-6 Mustang (Smile when you say that!)
Eight is enough for me...Oh OK one more.
Give me the Mosquito for an all rounder. (Pass the wood glue please!)

My first post...Busted that cherry! Was it good for you?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

Welcome F4D - great name!


----------



## MacArther (Sep 20, 2005)

Fighter/Intercept/Escort--P 51 B with drop tanks

Figher-bomber--P-40 and Mosquitoe

Naval Fighter--F4-F3 (four gun model, more on par with zeke in manuevering)

Night Fighter--P-61

Bombers--B29, B17 G

Recon-- PBY Catalina with late model all .50 cal mgs and heavier bombs


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 20, 2005)

Welcome F4D!


----------



## F4D (Sep 20, 2005)

Thanks FLYBOYJ and P38 Pilot!  

This is a great site and I was lucky to find it.


----------



## F4D (Sep 20, 2005)

Oh btw I thought for sure someone would point out the Do-335 thing!
You know what they say about the best laid traps of mice and men...well
plans then.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 21, 2005)

Thats true!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

Bomber - B-29
Fighter - G.55/56
Fighter - Fw-190D-9 
Bomber - P-108B
Transport - SM.82
Trainer - Harvard
Attack - P-108A 
Fighter - P-38L
Fighter - P-47


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

Who made the P-108, I don't think I've heard of it before?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

Piaggio, only Italian 4 engined heavy bomber, and quite advanced for its time.


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

Nice looking aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

there's allot of nice lists out there, i guess mine would be

trainer- tiger moth
transport- C-47

Heavy bomber- lancaster
Medium bomber- B-25 (or wellington)
strike/light bomber/night fighter-mossie
night/strike/anti-shipping fighter- beaufighter
maritime patrol/strike- sunderland
fighter/bomber- Fw-190A-8
long range escort- tempest (if not- P-51)

ok so it's baisically the RAF


----------



## F4D (Sep 21, 2005)

Just for the record,it is my understanding that the Lanc did take part in Daylight raids from 1944 onward. Not saying it could hold up like the Fort in daylight raids before 1944. Just getting it on the record.  

The B-17 was built for Daylight raids and the Lanc for Night raids...the Fort for taking out a factory area and the Lanc for taking out a city, so to speak.
Both excellent aircraft each built for what it's country wanted it to do and it did it. 
Thats the true test of any weapon IMHO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

ok it's too late to go into the target argument but yes, the lanc did allot of daylight bombing in '44-'45........


----------



## MacArther (Sep 21, 2005)

any one seen the preserved f4f3 at O'Hare airport, cause that is the kind of naval model I'm talking about.

Extra:

Naval Bomber: Dautless SBD-3

Anti-shipping/anti-material/invasion preparation:  B25 H

Welcome aboard comrade F4D


----------



## chris1966 (Sep 21, 2005)

Trainer: AT-6
Cargo: C-54, C-47
Bomber: B-29
Fighter: FW-190, Spitfire, P-51 
Medium Bomber: B-25

I don't need anymore; I could win an airwar with these


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2005)

Welcome to anyone I haven't welcomed (I'm lazy).


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 21, 2005)

first if one was to pick his ac you would want commonality amongst engines and avionics for ease of maintainance and training or more bang for the buck
basic trainer Piper Cub which would double as Aop
advanced trainers harvard (AT6) and Avro Anson
Fighter Interceptor P51 d 
Jntruder /strike bomber/ recce Mosquito
Heavy bomber and coastal Patrol Liberator
Transport dakota (c47)
asw / rescue PBY5 Canso (catalina)
soe a/c Lysander
Ithought of the lancaster but it was not a good daylight a/c defensively


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Alot of people are choosing the P-61 black widow as a night fighter, rarely do i hear the night fighting Me-262, or the He-219 mentioned...the latter more than the former. Both aircraft would prove exceptional night fighters, the 262 more against mosquitos in the final days of the war, and the He-219 simply showing enormous potential, and exceptional performance. Granted the P-61 was a great aircraft, but the 219 offered a better pilot view, and often carried heavier armament.



Of the 3 I would choose the He-219 Uhu. It was well suited for the job and packed a great punch.

Performance: He 219A-7
Maximum speed: 416 mph (670km/h)
Initial climb: 1,804 ft (550m)/min
Service ceiling: 41,660 ft (12,700m)
Range: 1,243 miles (2,000km)

Armament

He 219A-7/R1
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 103 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun

He 219A-7/R2
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun


The Armament allone out does the P-61.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 23, 2005)

Good God! That does punch a wallop! I would hate to have been shot at by one of those.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Yeap the Uhu was a very good night fighter.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

Yes, but like Joe Foss said - 4 .50s are good enough, and 6 isn't any better if you don't hit what your aiming at. Thas a trmendous ammount of firepower esp for aircraft to aircraft though if I were taking on tanks or ships that would be great.  

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I would just hate to be a bomber that happened to meet a 219 someplace over the dark skies of Europe.


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2005)

Hhhmmmm ... let's see ..... First, nothing French ...

1) Transport: Ju-290
2) Trainer: Arado Ar-96 / 196
3) Heavy Bomber: Boeing B-29 Superfortress 1st or Avro Lancaster 2nd
4) Fighter: Yak-3 or lavochkin La-5FN (Bad Weather Best Picks), no preference
5) Fighter: P-38J Lightning (Great Plane if ever there was one) or Reggiane Re-2005 Sagittario or Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate "Frank". Whichever was available, no preference unless range were the deciding factor.
6) Attack: Ilyushin Il-2 (Toughest in the world) or Petylyakov Pe-2
7) Naval Fighter: Grumman F6F Hellcat
8) Naval Attack: Aichi B7A Ryusei (any theater)
9) Recon: Nakajima C6N Saiun (any theater)

If I had one more pick, it would be the Supermarine Spitfire, probably XIV or 21.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 25, 2005)

Nice list, good selection from all countries! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Yes I must say a good all around list.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 25, 2005)

Mustang
Spitfire
Heavy bomber 1:Superfortress
Heavy bomber 2:Lancaster
Medium bomber:Heinkel 111
Multi role:Mosquito
Transport:Skytrain
Trainer:Harvard
Night fighter:Black widow
Anti tank: Henschel 129
Naval fighter: Hellcat


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2005)

Adler the Uhu A-7 varinats never flew combat ops. The A-0 and A-2 did, and not even the A-5's were in the lineup with I./NJG 1 and I./NJG 3, the latter never flew the bird on ops only NJG 1. the Uhu was garbage and is overcredited with kills. Only 12 Mossies to their credit.

Would take the Ju 88G-6 with Morgenstern aerials in the plywood nose cone or with the Berlin 240a-1 radar set as the variants could keep with any RAF a/c, and of course the Kommando Welter 262A-1a would even be more superior.

Ah night fighting is a whole nother story. Theo Boitens work on the Night air war diaries next year is going to be something to behold. Has already gathered over 1800 German aces bios already but still searching to cover the rest......sorry a little OT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

You would think the Uhu would have been better than the Ju-88. She had better performance and was capable of better armament.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2005)

Friend, actually the guys in I./NJG 1 removed most of the 3cm setups reducing to two wingmounted 2cm and the under tray to 2 2cm weapons. this was standard retro fit for the unit to make them faster, and also it was a proven armament in the other NF's. The uhu only had two members, usually NO rear warning radar and with out an extra pair of eys the radar operator was busy trying to set up targets for the pilot, and then along came Mossies. The ejection seat failed several times and was never perfected, crews flew through a closed canopy and you can guess what happened to them. Faulty engines with many breakdowns. The Uhu could have been 'THEE" plane for the nf besides the vaunted Me 262A. the B series would have come into production with enclosed fuel system, streamlined and to carry on the fight with the RAF Lancs/Halibags, none of the external forward twin drop tanks which reduced speed and aerodynamics.

The Ju 88G-6 was quite roomy and encllosed the latest NF technology with printer-tele and Bewrlin radar system along with FuG 217 rear warning in the wings. A single or zwilling .50 for rear defence and the capable twin Schrägwaffen which was actually much better than the Uhu's twin 3cm which blew terrible holes in the belley of the RAF a/c the debris usually damaging the Uhu in some fashion. the Uhu like the P-61 was a very large a/c by night fighter standards of WW 2. Of course in this age we wouldn't think anything of them but back then....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Interesting good info. I knew there was another reason why I liked the Ju-88 so much. She may not have been the fastest aircraft but she was very very versatile.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2005)

actrually 350 plus mph isn't bad for an old banger Ju 88. with an enlcosed radar system, speed jumped as much as 25mph given wind, clarity during the weather at night. what can be done on a cloudless full moon-night is quite different than a heavier hazy/cloudy eve, but of course I do not need to tell you guys this as most of you already know. have one acct of a late war Ju 88G-6 crew busting 400mph in their G-6 on a Mossie chase, will presume conditions were excellent with a slight tail wind or downward flight but one of the crew members during the interview never told me. the crew lost the mossie in the ground haze as it dove for the ground, the Ju 88 banked off and looked for more Allied ground targets to strafe. incidently from march 45 till wars end this was becoming standard practice for the night gruppen along with trying to fight the ever present RAF bomber/Mossies


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Damn I never new a Ju-88 could top 400mph. I could almost see it with a Ju-188 or Ju-288 but not a 88. That is really fast for a Ju-88.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2005)

MW 50 boost system, sure it could. And used many times. also the consideration as I poted earlier about removing the antler arrays and having them enclosed in a streamlined fitting whether FuG 220d or Berlin 240a-1


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2005)

I am reading a book on KG200 and there is an interesting report of a Ju-88C-7 doing a photo recon over England and the British fighters not catching it at 30,000 ft. The pilots name is Knemeyer.

_From Stavanger-Sola, Knemeyer flew a Ju-88C-7 to Scapa Flow every day for a week, each day approaching from a different direction, to obtain photographs of the ships of the home fleet. He wrote:

"Once I came in above the clouds; Scapa Flow was clear and to the south Northern England was completely covered. First I photographed the Scapa Flow roadsteads, then flew some way south and photographed airfields on the Scottish Coast. A little south of Aberdeen my flight engineer, Ali, nudged me in the back and pointed out two fighters. They were climbing as a close pair from astern and to port, turning in towards us from 2 km away and 300 meters lower. I switched on the first stage of the GM 1 and let the plane slowley draw away, flying on south to Edinburgh. As we returned both were still 2 km away under our 'keel' but remained in that position. I then went into a gentle left turn. As I crossed the coast south of Dundee heading east, both fighters forced to sacrifice height to match our speed, which had gradually increased.

When we arrived back at Stavenger, the Staffel-Kapitaen had been talking to the listening post for enemy radio traffic on the Norwegian coast. The fighters reported a twin engine German recon plane south of Aberdeen on which they had closed. Then both the German engines had emitted smoke from there exhausts: 'The aircraft is increasing speed - it is accelerating easwards - breaking off contact'. They thought the engines were overloaded, so stayed behind over the North Sea waiting for the engines to fail._

*KG200 The Luftwaffes Most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley*


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 1, 2005)

> Damn I never new a Ju-88 could top 400mph.


Man, that is fast for a Medium Bomber! It moved as fast as the early Mosquito models!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Unfortunatly the report up there does not say what kind of British fighters tried to intercept it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 8, 2005)

I bet it would have been a challenge!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2007)

ok, i thought that since we've now got a lot more members they might like to give this a go, and some members would like to revise their old lists, so this seems as good a time as any to bring the thread back to life!

For those that're too lazy to look back a few pages, in this thread you get to pick your own airforce and name if it you like! there are but 3 rules


1) Your air force must consist of no more than 9 aircraft
2) You must have atleast one trainer and one transport
3) Any aircraft chosen must have seen service with an Air force during WWII

have fun, it'll be good to see a lot of your lists.........

and here's just an example, this is my list as of september 2005..........

trainer- tiger moth
transport- C-47

Heavy bomber- lancaster
Medium bomber- Wellington
strike/light bomber/night fighter-mossie
night/strike/anti-shipping fighter- beaufighter
maritime patrol/strike- sunderland
fighter/bomber- Fw-190A-8
long range escort- tempest (if not then the P-51)


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 1, 2007)

For me, 

1 - transport- Douglas DC3 dakota (its a beauty)
2- trainer- Tigermoth (classic trainer)
3- fighter- Spitfire (enough said)
4-fighter/bomber/night ops- Mosquito (beauty) 
5- defensive fighter - Hurricane (now which luftwaffe pilot wants to mess with 8 cannons?!?!)
6- bomber- lancaster (one of the most sucessful bombers)
7 - fighter bomber- ME262 (tecnically, it was in operation in WWII)
8- anti shipping- Beafighter
9- special operations- A lancaster modified to use the "grand slam" bomb, or a 617 squadron Dambuster Lancaster!

if i wanted a tenth, on technicalities i would put in the ME262


----------



## davparlr (Jan 1, 2007)

*Trainer* - AT6/SNJ
*Transport* - C-54 (C-47 is great but the C-54 has too much of a performance edge)
*High Altitude Fighter *- Ta-152H
*Medium/Low Altitude Fighter, Ground Attack, Naval Fighter *- F4U-4 (great all around fighter)
*Heavy Bomber *- B-29
*Escort/Long Range Strike Fighter *- P-51D (would have picked the P-51H, but it didn't see action)
*Night Fighter/Medium Bomber *- Mosquito (would have picked the P-61C for night fighter, but it did not see any action)
*Naval Recon/Anti-Submarine/Sea Rescue* - PBM-3C w/radar
*Bomber/Strike Interceptor *- Me-262


----------



## Crow (Jan 2, 2007)

Okay my list

Tiger Moth
AVRO York 
Lancaster
Spitfire XIV 
Tempest VI
Beaufighter
De Havilland Hornet 
Mosquito
Swordfish


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2007)

well done that man


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

Well my always chose British manufacturer broken record friend, then this should piss you off...

Strategic Bomber - B-29 (armament, speed)
Medium/Attack Bomber - A-26 (armament, speed, versatility)
Fighter/CAS - P-47 (ruggedness, handling, speed, range)
Night Fighter - P-61 (radar sophistication, range)
Maritime Patrol - Short Sunderland (armament, range)
Transport - C-46 (loadout)
Fighter - F4U (nuff said)
Trainer - Piper Cub (what's not to like)

And my choices are HEAVILY influenced by common engine cores for virtually all of my choices. Thus saving training, maintenance, spares and operational readiness.


----------



## Crow (Jan 3, 2007)

nice list Matt308, but do you reckon you could get air superiority with the p47 and Corsair? forgot about the Sunderland though, theres just too many British types to fit into a 9 slot list


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2007)

don't worry, i feel your pain 

and yes matt, your list infuriates me, other than the Sunderland........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2007)

Heavy Bomber: B-29
Medium/Attack Bomber: A-26
Light Bomber/PR/NF: Mosquito/Arado 234
Fighter: Ta-152/Fw-190D
Fighter Bomber: Tempest/Fw-190F
Interceptor: Spitfire/Me-262
Transport: C-46
Trainer: T-6 Texan
Maritime: Sunderland


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2007)

Heavy Bomber - B-29

Medium/Attack - A-26

Light - Ar 234

Fighter - Spitfire XVIII

CAS - Tempest

Transport - C-46

Maritime - Sunderland


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> don't worry, i feel your pain
> 
> and yes matt, your list infuriates me, other than the Sunderland........


 Hey its a good plane. And it to somewhat sticks with my theory of sticking with P&W twin radials. While the Sunderland did not use R2800s like 5 of my other choices, some maintenance similarities did exist with the R1830.

And some folks don't think I could maintain air superiority with P-47s and Corsairs? Wow. P-47s for long range escort of my B-29s and Corsairs for local defense and top cover. Not the most maneuverable planes, perhaps, but could dang well hold their own.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Heavy Bomber: B-29
> Medium/Attack Bomber: A-26
> Light Bomber/PR/NF: Mosquito/Arado 234
> Fighter: Ta-152/Fw-190D
> ...



Gnomey cheated. He picked 13. And I almost picked up the T-6 or the Po-2 for my trainer. But the Piper Grasshopper is just too neat and REALLY inexpensive.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2007)

Couldn't decide between them so just put them both down.


----------



## Bf109_g (Jan 3, 2007)

Aircraft of the RIAF (Royal Independent Air Force):

1.) Trainer: AT-6 Harvard
2.) Transport: C-47 Skytrain
3.) Heavy Bomber: Lancaster B.I (Special)
4.) Heavy Bomber: Lancaster B.III (Dambuster)
5.) Dive Bomber: Ju87D-5 Stuka
6.) Night Fighter: Mosquito Mk.XXX
7.) Defensive Fighter: Spitfire Mk.IX
8.) Defensive Fighter: Spitfire Mk.XIV
9.) Offensive/Escort Fighter: Focke-Wulf 190


----------



## davparlr (Jan 3, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And some folks don't think I could maintain air superiority with P-47s and Corsairs? Wow. P-47s for long range escort of my B-29s and Corsairs for local defense and top cover. Not the most maneuverable planes, perhaps, but could dang well hold their own.




Well, counting airspeed and climb rate, you would find few planes that could challenge an F4U-4 below 25k feet, including a Spit XIV, and few planes that could challenge a P-47N above that altitude, while the spit would edge out the climb, it would suffer from a significant airspeed limitation. And, I don't believe that manueverability is a problem with either in its primary domain. So, if you chose the F4U-4 and the P-47N, you would have a great combination. I chose the F4U-4 and the Ta-152H, with similar capabilities.


----------



## Jank (Jan 3, 2007)




----------



## Crow (Jan 4, 2007)

fair enough Matt. I dont know enough about either fighter ( p47 or F4u) it appears.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Crow said:


> nice list Matt308, but do you reckon you could get air superiority with the p47 and Corsair? forgot about the Sunderland though, theres just too many British types to fit into a 9 slot list



Wow thats a pretty biased list aint it. I am sure your air force would not survive against to many others out there.
You too limited because of the fact that the aircraft were British. While they are great aircraft, I am sure there were better out there than some.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Okay here is a attempt to make a good list. I dont know what my original list was a year ago or what not so this is a different list.

*Trainer:* AT-6 Texan (can it be argued that there was a better advanced trainer out there)

*Transport:* C-47 (simply the best transport of the war and the best aircraft of the war in my opinion.)

*High Altitude Fighter:* Ta-152H (Simply the best aircraft at high alltitude just a little too late and too little) 

*Medium/Low Altitude Fighter, Ground Attack, Naval Fighter:* F4U-4 (great all around fighter, thanks Dave I will take this from yours)

*Heavy Bomber:* B-29 (undisputed best heavy bomber of WW2. Nothing can come close, not even a Lancaster)

*Escort/Long Range Strike Fighter:* P-51D (even though I do not like the P-51D and think that it was an overated aircraft, it did take the war to the Germans and no other aircraft could at the time)

*Night Fighter/Medium Bomber:* Ju-88 (gotta love that versatility, not the best aircraft of the war but damn good at everything she did)

*Naval Recon/Anti-Submarine/Sea Rescue* - PBY Catalina (I like her looks  but would also not have a problem choosing the Do-24 and Do-26 which were actually a bit better than the Cat)

*Bomber/Strike Interceptor* - Me-262 (but I would also want some Fw-190As in there as well)


----------



## davparlr (Jan 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *Transport:* C-47 (simply the best transport of the war and the best aircraft of the war in my opinion.)



I looked at this simply from load lifting, range, and dependability standpoint, ie. strategic airlift. However, on second thought, the C-47 was more versatile and probably was was used in situations where the C-54 could not perform, especially in the tactical airlift. If we were smart, we probably would give up some other aircraft to include both. The C-46 was also a workhorse and underrated but still just doesn't stand up to the C-47.




> *Night Fighter/Medium Bomber:* Ju-88 (gotta love that versatility, not the best aircraft of the war but damn good at everything she did)



Being mostly an allied kind of guy, I didn't think too much about the Ju-88. I chose a Mosquito mainly because of the speed. The Ju-88 was certainly an outstanding aircraft and an airforce could not go wrong with either of these. I also thought of the P-38, but I didn't know the airspeed with load and I suspect it was quite a bit slower with all the wing weapons and tanks.



> *Naval Recon/Anti-Submarine/Sea Rescue* - PBY Catalina (I like her looks  but would also not have a problem choosing the Do-24 and Do-26 which were actually a bit better than the Cat)



These are good selections. I went strickly with range and payload.

Over all? Nice, formidable Air Force!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Thankyou, I was not disagreeing with yours either. I was just using your template for mine.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 4, 2007)

I didn't have a problem with what you said. There are quite a few really good aircraft that could be exchanged. Since I don't have any reference books on British aircraft, I tend not to know much about them. I have learned a lot more about German planes since I have been reading this forum.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 4, 2007)

Picked a few that I couldn't argue with, but also picked a few just to be different.

Trainer: AT-6 Texan 
Transport: C-47 
High Altitude Fighter: Ta-152H 
Fighter/Naval Fighter: F6F Hellcat (I'd really pick the Corsair, but just to be different) 
Heavy Bomber: B-29 
Medium Bomber/Attack: A-26 Invader
Night Fighter: P-61 Black Widow (just cause I like it) 
Naval all purpose: - PBY Catalina 
Attack/Fighter: - P-47N


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2007)

I noticed that none of us picked a reconnaisance airplane.

What about the Ju-388? Faster than hell.

Or for the Maritime aircraft the Kawanishi H8K? Now that baby had legs, weapon loadout and (different from many Japanese planes) self sealing fuel tanks.

And while folks have focused upon the Ta-152H, and rightly so, what about the Ta-152B??


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Well my always chose British manufacturer broken record friend, then this should piss you off...
> 
> Strategic Bomber - B-29 (armament, speed)
> Medium/Attack Bomber - A-26 (armament, speed, versatility)
> ...



I like it - smart move on transport (better than C-47). Smart on engines too. One problem is Corsair - I have read too much about them (picking a fight  )
jk
Is Bearcat legal on this list?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2007)

Bearcat is not legal. I was wondering about P-80 though. Made it to Italy before close of war.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I noticed that none of us picked a reconnaisance airplane.
> 
> ?



Actually, I did, I just didn't label it as such. I picked the Catalina, which was an excellent recon plane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I noticed that none of us picked a reconnaisance airplane.



That is because most aircraft could be converted to dedicated recon aircraft. The Fw-190s that I said would compliment my Me-262s could be used as photo recon.

The Ju-88 that I chose as a medium bomber was the same thing and had dedicated recon versions.

The Cat and the Do-24 and Do-26 all could be used as recon as well.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 4, 2007)

Very true. I didn't think of it that way. Dont forget the Mossie was used as a recon plane too.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2007)

Yeah I was thinking that no one actually assigned a dedicated high altitude recon.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 4, 2007)

1) Your air force must consist of no more than 9 aircraft
2) You must have atleast one trainer and one transport
3) Any aircraft chosen must have seen service with an Air force during WWII

Allied Side

Trainer: Piper Cub J-3. 
Transport: C-47
Heavy Bombers: B-29
Fighters: P-51, Spitfire, Gloster Meteor
Medium Bombers: B-26
Ground Attack: P-47
Camera reconnaissance plane: de Havilland Mosquito


Axis Side

Trainer: Bucker Bu 131 Jungmann
Transport: Junkers Ju 290
Bombers: Junkers Ju 88, Arado Ar 234
Fighters: Focke-Wulf Ta 152, ME 262, The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate
Reconnaissance plane: Nakajima J1N
Ground Attack: FW 190 A-9


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

I think he meant 9 catagories of planes not that you could only have 9 planes total.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 4, 2007)

Oh. Thanks. That helps my poor little Air Force a LOT!!!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I noticed that none of us picked a reconnaisance airplane.
> 
> What about the Ju-388? Faster than hell.



As fast as a Mosquito?? 




> And while folks have focused upon the Ta-152H, and rightly so, what about the Ta-152B??



My sources says that there was no production versions of the Ta-152B.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 4, 2007)

Trainer Fleet Finch
Strategic Bomber B29
Fighter/Escort/Interceptor P51
Attack A26
ASW/Patrol Kawanishi H8K
Transport C47
and for my naval component
Helldiver and Corsair


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 5, 2007)

Trainer: Bu-131
Heavy Bomber: B-29
Medium Bomber: Ar-234, Ju-188
Interceptor: Me-262
Fighter: Ta-152, Spitfire XIV
Escort/Ground Attack(?): P-38
Transport/Maritime Patrol: Ju-290


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

davparlr said:


> As fast as a Mosquito??
> 
> My sources says that there was no production versions of the Ta-152B.



Faster at altitude. 460mph max with 435mph in armed version. But I'd have to check. A bit faster than wartime Mosquito.

[Below is the Wikipedia pic. She looks brutally fast.]

I'll have to check on the 152B. I thought that some were made in production, but only a handful.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 5, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Faster at altitude. 460mph max with 435mph in armed version. But I'd have to check. A bit faster than wartime Mosquito.
> 
> [Below is the Wikipedia pic. She looks brutally fast.]
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'll check some of my references. I thought that I read that in an Angelucci Encyclopedia of WWII Aircraft reference. I'll see. Now my curiosity is piqued.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2007)

> I was wondering about P-80 though. Made it to Italy before close of war.



as a purely token measure so the Americans could say they had an operational jet fighter in WWII didn't do anything until post war- NOT LEGAL!



> I think he meant 9 catagories of planes not that you could only have 9 planes total.



no i did mean 9 planes in total, if you want lots of roles to be filled you'll have to pick multi-role aircraft! you don't have to be mark specific with aircraft though..........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

No P-80. Party pooper.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Matt308 said:
> 
> 
> > Faster at altitude. 460mph max with 435mph in armed version. But I'd have to check. A bit faster than wartime Mosquito.
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Jan 8, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> davparlr said:
> 
> 
> > Davparlr my memory did not serve me right. I was thinking not of the 44,000ft altitude max -388, but rather the -188. It had a max speed of 440mph for the T-1.
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

...and brutally pretty to boot.


----------

