# Pick 6 a/c to build your AF at beginning WWII



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2008)

Pick 6 and only 6 aircraft - any choice of truly operational aircraft built during WWII as your five choices to produce for entire war. Whatever model and version you pick, you stick with.

You pick your group based on what you believe best serves the country of choice in the strategic and tactical doctrine of the military leaders of that country.

Example - Seafire, Lancaster (or B-29A), C-47B, Mosquito MKXII, PT-17A (or AT-6) (whatever you pick you have to use for you entire airforce) and a carrier borne bomber of some type for your fleet if you are Britain.

F4U-4 would be another choice for Fighter if your country needed to populate Carrier Air and also provide for long range escort and TBF might be a choice instead of SB2C for example. If you don't pick a trainer state which of your choices you start your zero time student with?

Or pick Me 262, F4U-4, TBF, C-46, Mosquito XII, and PT-17 with no intention of any greater strategic capability than Mosquito (which ain't bad)

State the country and strategic tactical mission you believe you are picking for.[/


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 1, 2008)

I think we've done this a couple times, but it's always fun to pretend!!

F4U-4 - Fighter/Attack/Navy Fighter
P-47N - Fighter/Attack
B-29 - Strategic Bomber
A-26 - Medium Bomber/Attack
C-47 - Transport
AT-6 - Trainer

I think if these were all I had for the entire war that I would do ok.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2008)

Hmm lets see.

1. B-29A (Bomber)
2. Me 262A (Intercepter)
3. C-47 (Transport)
4. Fw 190F (Fighter Bomber/Attack)
5. T-6 Texan (Trainer)
6. P-51D (Escort Fighter)


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 1, 2008)

I'll go this way 
Bomber B29
Fighter Hawker Sea Fury
Attack Douglas A1 skyraider
Transport C47
Trainer DHC82 Tiger Moth
Advanced Trainer AT6 /Harvard 
I took 2 trainers The Tigermoth to teach him how to fly amd the Harvard to get him up to speed for the higher performance aircraft would actually like a 7th just to get a primary twin aircraft like the Anson or Cessna Bobcat otherwise there are going to be tons of high performance multi engines scattered around the countryside


----------



## ccheese (Feb 1, 2008)

Hmmm..... nobody picked a P-38 or a Spitfire.....

Wonder why ?

Charles


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

Well, I would pick:

F4U-4 (Carrier, fighter)
Ta 152H-1 (Fighter, escort, interceptor)
Mosquito (Ground attack, bomb, recon)
B-25 (bomber, ground attack)
C-47 (transport)
AT-6 (trainer)

Tried to pick some that had adaptability with other roles.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Well, I would pick:
> 
> F4U-4 (Carrier, fighter)
> Ta 152H-1 (Fighter, escort, interceptor)
> ...



I would think along these lines:
Assume I am Germany and I decided that Strategic Airpower was not part of my doctrine, nor did I have or plan to have a large surface fleet including carriers? What I do need to do is train, deploy and support my 'mission'.

I might pick Me262b-1a for interceptor, in night fighter/two seat version but capable of daytime intercept. 

I would choose either the C-47 or C-46 over the Ju 52 because of load and speed and range and still be able to land in reasonabley rough areas. If C-47 it would also be my advanced multi-engine trainer.

For Primary I would pick AT-6 even though it is a 'load' for a zero time pilot, but plan for a lot more of dual instructor time 

I would pick the P-38L to a.) extend my long range interceptor capability and complement the 262 in Fighter bomber role. It is my swing ship for Recon, light bomber, Ground Support and Interceptor. If Germany had a fleet I would have picked the F4U-4 or F7F instead.

I would pick the Mosquito XVI as my long range medium bomber 

I would have difficult time picking between Fw 190D-9 or F4U-4 for my multi role tactical fighter - rejecting the P-51H and P-47N and Tempest V becuase I think the P-38L's offer more versatility. Probably pick the F4U-4 for range and load combined with fighter/fighter ability at all atitudes through 30,000 feet.

I would not have a Strategic Air Force but I am capable of striking, effectively at the capitals of all my adversaries except US and make the convers very painful.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 2, 2008)

Not sure if we're supposed to pick just one model from a type, looks like everyone is just picking a type. I'll stick to props, though jet performance was unsurpassed, keeping them operational was a problem.

1:Trainer-Tachikawa Ki36/55. trainer and army cooperation

2:Heavy Bomber- B29, max bombload and high alt

3:Medium Bomber-Mosquito, multirole:nightfighter, recon and bomber

4:Ground Attack: P47-heavy armament 8x.50 mg (carried 10 rockets compared to 8 on others used in this role) capable of defending itself or carrying on offensive attacks after delivering ordnance. 

5:Fighter- Mustang MkIV/P51-D, UNLESS I knew that the maximum range needed was less than 1100 miles, then I'd go with Spitfire XIV 

6:Transport-C47/Lisunov Li-2


----------



## ccheese (Feb 2, 2008)

Guess it's my turn....

F4U - Fighter/Attack/Bomber
P-38 - Fighter/Attack/Recon
B-29 - Heavy Bomber
B-25 - Medium Bomber/Attack
C-47 - Transport
AT-6 - Trainer

Charles


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Not sure if we're supposed to pick just one model from a type, looks like everyone is just picking a type. I'll stick to props, though jet performance was unsurpassed, keeping them operational was a problem.
> 
> 1:Trainer-Tachikawa Ki36/55. trainer and army cooperation
> 
> ...



It's my thread - pick the types you want, jet or prop or rocket. But state your 'strategic and tactical' objectives - like 'who are you' and who are you fighting? You are the one determining whether you want Carrier air fighters or bombers, etc.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

My picks for US, given Naval surface and Land based airpower.

B29A for all land based minelaying, night bombing, daylight bombing, tactical and strategic bomb missions. (Expensive A26, B-25, JU 88, etc but hey, this is America)

F7F for night fighter, recon, long range interceptor with very heavy (for US) firepower, Carrier based attack roles including torpedo attacks, both land and carrier based roles.

F4U-4 for all tactical fighter Bomber roles, escort (along with F7F), interceptor augmentation, both land and carrier based roles.

C-46 for payload, speed and fairly good rough field capability - the latter deciding for me over C-54. Not as good as C-47 for multi engine trainer so I would still have to think on this one.

AT-6 for Trainer all the way from Basic to Advanced, Instrument training.

Me-262 dual seat, night fighter version for all interceptor roles for strategic bases and US, and figure out how to increase range for medium range escort..

The latter was a tough choice because the Mustang and P-38L and Mossie and SB2C and TBF all have huge potential roles. But, I have to consider one of you will take Germany or Japan and decide you want a B29 or Lancaster in your portfolio


----------



## Njaco (Feb 2, 2008)

Understood drgn. Does the Mossie carry a larger bomb load than the Mitchell? I had the B-25 because of bomb load in a conventional way and also it could adapt to ground attack and shipping with added guns in the nose. Both it and the Mossie were interchangable to a point.

But I see your point. Gonna think it through a bit more.

Ok, instead of another post.....

As crazy as it sounds, I'll pick Norway and the mission would be convoy and port interdiction of hostile countries (germany, Russia or even England, who knows). Probably small carrier fleet - so the Corsair would stay for now and the Mitchell if needed! Mossie and Mitchell for my bombers and other needs. Now the Ta I might need to change. Thinking.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Understood drgn. Does the Mossie carry a larger bomb load than the Mitchell? I had the B-25 because of bomb load in a conventional way and also it could adapt to ground attack and shipping with added guns in the nose. Both it and the Mossie were interchangable to a point.
> 
> But I see your point. Gonna think it through a bit more.



I think the Mossie carried the same load faster and farther. 

I thought this exercise was more meaningful than 'what six are best' - more 'what six support Germany, Commonwealth, USSR, US, Japan air/sea power doctrines and how would the 'isolation' of your country alter doctrine?

That is why I struggled with choosing the Me 262. Clearly the best Interceptor, arguably one hell of a fighter bomber, best recce - but worthless if you want a very long range escort or intercept capability as your only fighter. But if Japan and Germany has B-29 I want Me 262 in Continental US from Aleutian based bombers early, and guarding bases in UK and Italy, etc.

Ditto C-47.. it actually might be a better choice for me than C-46 simply because it is docile enough to act as a true multi engine trainer whereas the C-46 was less forgiving.

If you are thinking about Japan for example, they needed force multipliers in the Fleet. If I was picking for them, then for JNAF I would think first about the F7F because of it's versatility as a night fighter (it actually deployed in that role first IIRC) for USMC, a load carrying fast mother with both bomb and torpedo capability, and loved as a high potential day fighter by the guys that flew both the F4U and F8F.. It was very bad in a spin however.

They could almost get by with something like that plus a SB2C to combine dive bombing and alternate medium load carrying a/c.

Then pick Me 262 as interceptor for JAF and Mossie for medium bomber and versatile roles.

That leaves room for a trainer and another a/c. I am not sure that a B-29 fits their doctrine - if so I would drop the Mossie and replace with B-29 for all land based bomber roles (we don't have a budget) and reject the Ar 234 because of the ranges involved.

For the same reason I might pass over the C-46 and C-47 and pick C-54 but that leaves a big hole in multi engine trainer... so I'm forced back to C-47.

Back to AT-6 for trainer

I'd like to see someone parse Commonwealth or USSR or argue my choices for LW


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 2, 2008)

ok first time doing this here we go b-29 bomber, at-5 texan trainer, me 262 fighter, c-47 transport, p-38 ground support, night fighter, recon, and one more well i would go with the b-25 mitchel it has so many areas i could use it in , and i would be germany, i think i could get alot done with this force . the b-29 never know what i might want to hit , hint hint


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 2, 2008)

I'll stick with Canada and will concentrate on taking on the Atlantic for ASW rather then heavy bombing having a tacticle component operating out the British Isles or continent 
I would have LB4Y Privateer as my primary ASW aircraft operating from North America , Azores, Iceland and Africa I could do a pretty fair job on the U boats 
My CAP aircraft would be the Tempest just to be a little different
with Mossies that could play the Maritime/Tacticle/Intruder aircraft with a semi strategic value
Transport would be the Lockheed C69 Constellation because of the distances involved in supplying the bases 
The training would be done with the Arado 96 and C45 just to make sure I didn't waste potential new aircrew with overwhelming aircraft making smoking holes all over the countryside
ASW LB4Y Privateer
Fighter Tempest
Tacticle/Maritime Strike Mossie 
Transport C69 Constellation
Trainer Arado 96
Utility/Trainer C45 "Bugsmasher"


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I'll stick with Canada and will concentrate on taking on the Atlantic for ASW rather then heavy bombing having a tacticle component operating out the British Isles or continent
> I would have LB4Y Privateer as my primary ASW aircraft operating from North America , Azores, Iceland and Africa I could do a pretty fair job on the U boats
> My CAP aircraft would be the Tempest just to be a little different
> with Mossies that could play the Maritime/Tacticle/Intruder aircraft with a semi strategic value
> ...



Pb - This is a clever selection of mission and mix. I might have scrapped the C-45 and kept the C-47. I've had some right seat time in the both and the C-47 in my opinion is as easy (maybe even more forgiving) than the Beech... that way you have some intermediate, rough field capability to work your infrastructure within Canada or back and forth with intermediate supply runs close to Africa and UK?

Just made me think (unusual) that if Canada performed this role in the Commonwealth, freeing RN and RAF for UK from that mission, I wonder waht the Down Under component would/should specialize in?

Or conversely, what would Italy focus on for Axis? Based on their own strategic guidelines (I think air defense, medium range air and sea attack/defense, and?)


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2008)

B29 - Long Range Bomber and ASW (OK it didn't but why not use it)
Mossie, - NF/PR/Medium Bomber/Strike
Tempest - GA Low/Medium fighter
HA Fighter - TA152
Transport - C47
Trainer - AT6


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2008)

Glider said:


> B29 - Long Range Bomber and ASW (OK it didn't but why not use it)
> Mossie, - NF/PR/Medium Bomber/Strike
> Tempest - GA Low/Medium fighter
> HA Fighter - TA152
> ...



I assume no daytime strategic missions or even daylight intermediate strikes in high threat target areas? The B-29A should be 'adaptable' to all long and medium range strike missions so ASW, Mine Laying, long range anti shipping, even night strategic missions w/o factory modification - so you wouldn't need escort fighters as much as for daylight raids..

Was there a specific Mossie version that was both a Night Fighter and had bomb carrying capability? If there was then I would switch my Mk XVI to it?


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 5, 2008)

My choices for the RAAF engaged in operations in Australia/Pacific region.

B29 - Long range bomber and mine laying. 
P51 - Intercepter/escort/TacR/ground attack
Beaufighter - ground attack/maritime strike/NF
PBY - Recon/ASW/ASR/Night bomber/mine laying/convoy patrol/maritime strike/special duties
C47 - transport
Wirraway - trainer/Army co-op/light bomber/TacR

I tried to pick a/c that were versitile enough to use in many different roles that would involve long ranges over jungle and water. The B29s would be used against strategic targets and the mining of enemy held ports and sea lanes. I would probably use them in the anti shipping role aswell for targets outside the range of the Beaufighters and Mustangs.
I chose the Beaufighter over the mossie simply because it had less trouble in the humid tropics were it would be employed. It would be my primary strike a/c plus my NF force. Could also be employed as a day fighter if need be.
I chose the Mustang simply because of its range and the fact that some Australian built Mustangs were fitted with cameras filling my PR role. Also handy in the ground attack role, though I would probably prefer the Corsair for this.
Due to the vast amounts of water to be patroled I chose the PBY to fill my ASW/ maritime patrol role. Also be employed as a mine layer/night bomber/anti-shipping a/c (night only) as per the RAAF's black cats of WWII. I chose this over the B-24 simply because I can use it for vital ASR work for downed aircrew. Also be used for special duties behind enemy lines (Clandestine missions/resupply etc).
I think the Wirraway was a good choice because apart from a trainer it would also be employed in the Army co-op/ light bomber (dive)/ TacR role which proved itself invaluable in New Guinea in WWII. If things got real desperate, could also be thrown in the air defence role too. However I'd hate to be the man to give that order!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> My choices for the RAAF engaged in operations in Australia/Pacific region.
> 
> B29 - Long range bomber and mine laying.
> P51 - Intercepter/escort/TacR/ground attack
> ...



One of the struggles I have about B-29 is airfield preparation and logistic requirements. If your base is primarily Australia/New Zealand this is a non issue but until the bases are taken to strike Japan the B-24 and Lancaster would be pretty hard to beat. For`ANZAC I wonder if either a B-24 or Lanc is a better Choice or even a Mossie XVI?

If you have a Pappy Gunn in RAAF you could probably put a field modifies 'hard nose' on the Mossie and extend the versatility. Just wouldn't have the range to do mine laying until Iwo Jima taken.. I'm assuming mine laying not truly effective until you can saturate Japan waters and ports?


----------



## Soren (Feb 5, 2008)

Ar-232 = Transport.
Ta-152H = Figher escort, air superiority fighter, high alt interceptor recce.
Fw-190 = std. air superiority fighter fighter bomber.
F4U = Carrier fighter fighter bomber.
Me-262 = Interceptor, night fighter air superiority fighter.
B-29 = High alt strategic bomber.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 5, 2008)

PBY-5A, Recon, Rescue, Bomber, Patrol etc. 
C-47, Cargo/Transport
B-29, Long Range strategic Bomber
B-25, Medium Bomber 
F4U, Carrier aircraft, Fighter Bomber
P-51, Long Range Escort Fighter

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 5, 2008)

I'll take
3 Me262, 
1 C-47 
2 p-51H

Immediately go on the offensive and clear the sky of all opposition.

 


.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ar-232 = Transport.
> Ta-152H = Figher escort, air superiority fighter, high alt interceptor recce.
> Fw-190 = std. air superiority fighter fighter bomber.
> F4U = Carrier fighter fighter bomber.
> ...



So, Soren - are your carriers just populated with F4U's for anti shipping, ASW and AirCAP or? and is the 'ensign killer' your choice for basic and primary flight training? Is the Ar-232 your multi engine flight trainer for B-29?

Are you picking Germany for the strategic profile/national purpose? If so, do you need to have a carrier fighter in addition to the three other excellent fighter choices. 

One thing for sure - you will be hell on other air forces and, as long as the B-29 ops doesn't exceed 600-700 mi radius, you have a chance to achieve air superiority 'over there' - if you can graduate any pilots out of basic.. lot of smoking holes in ground when first flight is solo in one of those birds. 

Can we say "whoa Nellie? and hard right foot on the rudder" on that first take-off (with either the 190, the Ta 152 or F4U). 

This is turning out to make me think too hard.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I'll take
> 3 Me262,
> 1 C-47
> 2 p-51H
> ...


How do your guys learn how to fly? Lol

Is this the Brazilian Air Force or do you take this to Finland? What is the country and Mission?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> PBY-5A, Recon, Rescue, Bomber, Patrol etc.
> C-47, Cargo/Transport
> B-29, Long Range strategic Bomber
> B-25, Medium Bomber
> ...



TO - what country and strategic/tactical mission? If you have carriers, do they need bombers to work against the other guy's carriers or subs?

Is the F4U or the P-51 your basic and Primary trainer?


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> How do your guys learn how to fly? Lol



IL-2 Sturmovick flight sim of coarse!

.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> IL-2 Sturmovick flight sim of coarse!
> 
> .



The 1939-1945 software/hardware version?


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The 1939-1945 software/hardware version?



Yes... it worked on the ultra device


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> TO - what country and strategic/tactical mission? If you have carriers, do they need bombers to work against the other guy's carriers or subs?
> 
> Is the F4U or the P-51 your basic and Primary trainer?



In my case I listed the combat aircraft only. Understand the need for trainers, just didn't list them. Six choices are too few. 

TO


----------



## Soren (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> So, Soren - are your carriers just populated with F4U's for anti shipping, ASW and AirCAP or? and is the 'ensign killer' your choice for basic and primary flight training? Is the Ar-232 your multi engine flight trainer for B-29?



The Ar-232 I'm sure would be a good trainer, even eing used by the British after war as a transport a/c and being noted for its great flying characteristics. As for fighter pilot training well the FW-190 was used as a trainer by the Germans during the war with great success, a good number of two seaters being built, so no problem there. Also the FW-190, F4U Ta-152H were known as pilots airplanes so I think they'd be excellent for that first solo flight, esp. the Ta-152H with its very low stall speed, kommandogerät auto pilot would be a great solo trainer. 



> Are you picking Germany for the strategic profile/national purpose? If so, do you need to have a carrier fighter in addition to the three other excellent fighter choices.



Hehe I didn't know we had to pick a country, I just picked the a/c I'd need most in my AF if I was to have a more widespread international influence. 



> One thing for sure - you will be hell on other air forces and, as long as the B-29 ops doesn't exceed 600-700 mi radius, you have a chance to achieve air superiority 'over there' - if you can graduate any pilots out of basic.. lot of smoking holes in ground when first flight is solo in one of those birds.
> 
> Can we say "whoa Nellie? and hard right foot on the rudder" on that first take-off (with either the 190, the Ta 152 or F4U).



As long as the preflight instructions are good enough there should be no problems, and yes ofcourse with fighters so powerful much right rudder would be needed for full power take offs.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> How do your guys learn how to fly? Lol



With this?


----------



## Njaco (Feb 5, 2008)

CFS .001?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ar-232 I'm sure would be a good trainer, even eing used by the British after war as a transport a/c and being noted for its great flying characteristics. As for fighter pilot training well the FW-190 was used as a trainer by the Germans during the war with great success, a good number of two seaters being built, so no problem there. Also the FW-190, F4U Ta-152H were known as pilots airplanes so I think they'd be excellent for that first solo flight, esp. the Ta-152H with its very low stall speed, kommandogerät auto pilot would be a great solo trainer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No pre flight 'instruction' set will prepare a student to hop into something like an F4U (in my opinion) I think a docile twin with very good s/e flight characteristics would be a better choice than a 'live single' like the AT-6 if only one was in your fleet.. but that's why I picked the AT-6 and the C-47. Having feet on rudders and hand on stick/wheel under mentorship of an instructor next to you is really important in going from zero to first flight.

I doubt that my old man, with his time and experience, would have been unable to fly the Dora and 109 (I think K) but it had to be an easier transition with the two seat Fw and Me 109 at Gablingen post VE Day. I know that with my limited time it would have been a far more formidable transition to just hop in, have an instructor, tell me what to do - then do it alone on first flight... for even an a/c like the Fw 190 with its nice characteristics?

I don't know anything about the AR-232 Soren so don't have a feel for how it stacks up against a C-47, etc.

But yeah, pick a country and it's perceived doctrine before picking your six ships - it helps narrow the choices down. I really like how Pb didn't try to be all things in his selection of Canada in the framework of the Commonwealth.

If you Pick germany you are better off not goofing around trying to build a long range Daylight strategic mission w/B-29A because you probably need a pull in a 2000+ mile target escort capability but you could do B-29A for night missions and maybe not have a long range escort fighter? for example. 

I'm curious to see what the mix is if someone propses Nationalist China or USSR or Italy or Finland (or Switzerland trying to stay neutral) or Spain thinking about joining the Axis?

But given the tactical doctrine of Germany it seems hard to escape throwing a Ju 88 (or equivalent), etc into your mix to address medium, tactical, anti shipping, long range fighter, etc.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

Marcel said:


> With this?



I guess that IS the 1940 version of IL2 Flight Sim.. 

Marcel, on the other hand - anyone want to volunteer stepping out of that and into an F4U-4, (or Ta 152), have the instructor patiently explain (and explain again) what will help you survive your solo first flight?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 5, 2008)

This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> One of the struggles I have about B-29 is airfield preparation and logistic requirements. If your base is primarily Australia/New Zealand this is a non issue but until the bases are taken to strike Japan the B-24 and Lancaster would be pretty hard to beat. For`ANZAC I wonder if either a B-24 or Lanc is a better Choice or even a Mossie XVI?
> 
> If you have a Pappy Gunn in RAAF you could probably put a field modifies 'hard nose' on the Mossie and extend the versatility. Just wouldn't have the range to do mine laying until Iwo Jima taken.. I'm assuming mine laying not truly effective until you can saturate Japan waters and ports?



All good points Bill, I picked those a/c for initial ops around Australian waters and New Guinea and New Britain. I was envisaging the B-29s to be based in Oz for around the clock operations against Rabaul. To complement this a portion of my B29 force would be used to heavily mine Simpson Harbour (Rabaul), this would hopefully block in (and more importantly, out) Japanese shipping which would then be subjected to attackes by rocket firing Beaufighters and Mustangs (most likely based on Kiriwina Is) and occasional night strikes by "Black cats". This would be repeated in other Japanese held Harbours in New Britain/New Ireland and parts of New Guniea held by the Japanese. The B29's would also be employed against oil refineries in Balikpapan therefore hopefully knocking out a major source of oil for the Japanese.
Agreed with your comment about the PBM, to tell the truth I totally forgot about it! In hindsight would probably be a better choice then the PBY as it can fill all the roles assigned to the Catalina but would also be useful in the transport role and has a longer range then the Cat.
No doubt there's flaws in all this, but as I just finished night shift, it's all my feeble brain could come up with.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight



It sure would not have worked for me. I had time in a cessna 150, a Beech V-35 and an AT-6 - solo in all before riding around a lot in the back seat of a modified 51. It is a very forgiving airplane in some ways but you just screw up once. What is in my opinion impossible to talk about and teach - is the first time 'feel' of really powerful ship like a Ta 152 or F4U. No muscle memory or point of reference - just hop in statrt er' up, give it throttle - and lose control/over correct and die.

( I have zero time in either - but physics of lots of power to torque a prop one way while the fuselage wants to 'compensate' in the opposite roll direction is not taught on IL-2 Sim!), particularly in full power take off and first set up and landing.

My first experience with the 51 on a landing was forgetting to fly it to a point on the threshold and ending up floating in ground effect about halfway down the runway before carefully throttling it up and going around for a 'smarter' landing.

I'm sure there are 'natural' pilots that would have done better but the attrition rate of even very talented guys on first take off (ever) at 60 inches of Hg would not have been pretty. 

That is my hardest compromise which is why I picked a powerful (two seater) s/e trainer and a C-47 as my dual/multi engine compromise. I think that a mentor program with a lot more 'follow me through this' with a light hand and foot in an AT-6 could get most of the students (and instructors) through Basic and Primary - including instrument time then the trash haulers would migrate to Gooney Bird (or AR-232) before going to B-29 (another large leap).


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> All good points Bill, I picked those a/c for initial ops around Australian waters and New Guinea and New Britain. I was envisaging the B-29s to be based in Oz for around the clock operations against Rabaul. To complement this a portion of my B29 force would be used to heavily mine Simpson Harbour (Rabaul), this would hopefully block in (and more importantly, out) Japanese shipping which would then be subjected to attackes by rocket firing Beaufighters and Mustangs (most likely based on Kiriwina Is) and occasional night strikes by "Black cats". This would be repeated in other Japanese held Harbours in New Britain/New Ireland and parts of New Guniea held by the Japanese. The B29's would also be employed against oil refineries in Balikpapan therefore hopefully knocking out a major source of oil for the Japanese.
> Agreed with your comment about the PBM, to tell the truth I totally forgot about it! In hindsight would probably be a better choice then the PBY as it can fill all the roles assigned to the Catalina but would also be useful in the transport role and has a longer range then the Cat.
> No doubt there's flaws in all this, but as I just finished night shift, it's all my feeble brain could come up with.



I liked your thought processes about specifying the 'mission' within the Commonwealth and building your Airpower aound the delivery.

I thought and hard about Germany - It wouldn't and shouldn't invest in the B-29A. While it was excellent choice for strategic ops and would have been nice - it would have been a huge investment in raw materials and inserted into a doctine that nobody in the Luftwaffe was committed to.

If I had the six choices I have to be able to attack tactically and strategically 600-1000 miles from my permanent bases and be able to operate so that I can move with the Wermacht. I think the options narrow to variants of Ju-88 or Mossie

I want long range very high performance interceptor if possible, and want one that can operate night or day if possible. I have to maintain control over my airspace and over the tactical AOA to deny my opponents a free hand at my army. So if I can get long range day and night interceptor in one airframe and short range extremely high performance day/night/fighter bomber combination (Me 262a-1? two seater, radar equipped, external racks for fuel) plus a P-38L/M or F7F I think two of those fighters offer attack, ground support, high performance intercept, night fighter compliment, recce, anti shipping.

If someone could convince me that a Ta 152 could perform escort on a target 600-1000 miles away, or carry 1,000 pounds of bombs 300 miles and back I would pick it and go with either the F4U or F7F as my All purpose compliment to it and might reject the 262 in favor of the Ta 152.. "might". It would leave me with single seat night fighters which I need to think about.

So if I pick the two fighters and the Mossie or Ju88, that leaves me with three remaining. 

Troop logistics and re-supply leads to C-46 if I think I can also limp in with dual seat trainer role.

What would you pick with Germany's resource position, Tactical mission, air superiority requirements for the last two chices if you agree mine - or which series would you pick instead??


----------



## Njaco (Feb 5, 2008)

> This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight



I was thinking the same thing Pb. Fws were used as trainers after they became familiar with other types. Awful hard to start on the 190 especially after getting out of that box.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 5, 2008)

F4U-4 carrier ops, air-to-ground, air-to-air.
P-51D long range escort, long range interdiction, air-to-air
C-47 airlift 
Me-262 interceptor
B-29 all bombing (complete with atomic bomb)
T-6 trainer.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

Guys, 

The FW-190 S-8 was used as a primary trainer for LW fighter pilots, NOT a secondary one, and it worked great being a very easy a/c to fly. And as to theory that the first solo flights in these a/c being suicide runs, well that's just ridiculous, many of the Finnish fighter pilots flew their first solo flights in a Bf-109G, and many LW pilots had their first solo flights in a fighter as-well.

Two seater 109's 190's were the rpimary training a/c used by the LW for training its young pilots.

As a matter of fact, there were quite a few LW bomber pilots transferred over to the Jagdgeschwaders to fly fighters, and that was solo on their very first flight in a fighter. But with preflight instructions they did just fine as far as taking off landing, the rest (Proficiency) came with experience.



> Fws were used as trainers after they became familiar with other types.



Exactly what gave you that idea Njaco?


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

Bill,

The Ar-232 was the first truly modern transport a/c and it combined high speed, ceiling range with great loading capability and versatility. And because of a genius flap design the Ar-232 only needed a 200m take off run with a 8,000 kg cargo load!

And because of its excellent flying characteristics ample excess power it was a good trainer as-well. The Ar-232 was used post war by the RAF as a transport a/c and as the basis for their own future designs.

*Ar-232B*






Anyway starting over again I pick Germany because of its central position in Europe and the LW doctrine with the following a/c:

Ta-152H-1 = Offensive air superiority fighter, escort fighter, high alt interceptor recce.
FW-190 = Primary air superiority fighter, fighter bomber, interceptor trainer.
Ju-388 = Nightfighter, destroyer, ground attack a/c, medium bomber, AT shipping recce.
Ar-232 = Transport trainer.
Me-262 = Interceptor, night fighter air-superiority fighter.
B-29 = High alt strategic bomber.

Could I situate Germany where I wanted I'd have probably picked Spain.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 6, 2008)

Soren, almost every diary I've read about LW pilots had them start training on other types like Bu 33 or similar.

But,

Now that you mention the 2 seat FW I do recall that was also the case. I am in error.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

Soren can you please show me something that states the 190 was used a primary trainer I've references that it was used as a conversion trainer (the bridge between advanced and operational training) but primary thats unbelivable


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> F4U-4 carrier ops, air-to-ground, air-to-air.
> P-51D long range escort, long range interdiction, air-to-air
> C-47 airlift
> Me-262 interceptor
> ...



Dave - will you use F4U for heavy lifting in air assault on surface fleets? 

I am assuming you are picking US as the only difference in mission structure/capability is my choice of F7F over my 'beloved' Mustang (I would have picked P-51H over D however, it was being delivered operationall in US in March 1945 so it counts). If someone wanted to be picky, the 51D did pass preliminary carrier trials. 

I wanted a torpedo capable, versatile and agile, fighter that actually was used as night fighter, had very long range and extremely good conventional performance.

Most of the Navy/USMC jocks that flew this ship raved about it.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

Pbfoot,

The primary trainer for the LW from 1934 to 1943 (Still used allot in 44 -45) was the Go-145, but by 1944 to 1945 many pilots didn't even get to fly this and went straight to flying the high powered fighters, the S-5/8 being the trainer version of the FW-190. In the end there simply wasn't time to train pilots anywhere near as thuroughly as in the beginning and up untill the middle of the war, so a step in the education process was removed.

You'll be surprised to know how little experience with fighters and a/c in general many of the pilots who initially started flying the Me-262 had, and the experienced pilots were simply just rushed into it without anything but a few pre-flight instructions on acceleration and throttle control.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

Bill,

Forgot to mention that in case I needed a carrier fighter the Ta-152H-1 was the perfect candidate with its very low stall speed, high load carrying capability, range and very high agility performance. 

In short with the Ta-152H-1 I would have a world beater in piston engined fighters.

The Me-262 would prove important as an air-superiority fighter interceptor as-well, and with two 300 L droptanks it could be used as an escort along with the Ta-152 for my B-29's. It would also prove essential for defending my AF because of its exceptionally lethal armament against bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Pbfoot,
> 
> The primary trainer for the LW from 1934 to 1943 (Still used allot in 44 -45) was the Go-145, but by 1944 to 1945 many pilots didn't even get to fly this and went straight to flying the high powered fighters, the S-5/8 being the trainer version of the FW-190. In the end there simply wasn't time to train pilots anywhere near as thuroughly as in the beginning and up untill the middle of the war, so a step in the education was removed.
> 
> You'll be surprised to know how little experience with fighters and a/c in general many of the pilots who initially started flying the Me-262 had, and the experienced pilots were simply just rushed into it without anything but a few pre-flight instructions on acceleration and throttle control.



Soren - in this exercise you get to start 'fresh in 1939 with any aircraft put into production and don't have to start in desparate times for LW if that is what you choose.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm sure the FW-190 S-5/8 is all I'd need in terms of a trainer for fighter pilots, it's a two seater so the instructor will ofcourse perform the first few take off's landings with the student carefully paying attention, and then when the student gives it his first try the intructor can keep an eye out and make sure everything goes as it should, being able to intervene immediately. Ofcourse the Ar-232 could be used as-well for some of the basics being a very easy to operate a/c with great forgiving flying characteristics. (Would also hugely minimize landing accidents because of its millipede gear flap system)


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

I must ask have you ever flown , alls your going to get by using a 190 as a trainer is a decimation of the gene pool but the aero industry would love it as they would be going balls to the wall building them to replace all the one that crashed


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2008)

Yes I fly pbfoot, do you ? 



> alls your going to get by using a 190 as a trainer is a decimation of the gene pool but the aero industry would love it as they would be going balls to the wall building them to replace all the one that crashed



Got anything to back that up with ???

The FW-190 S-5/8 was a two seater with two control columns and instrumentation panels, thus the instructor was always in control. Furthermore the FW-190 featured the kommandogerät computer which automatically controls fuel mixture propeller pitch, relieving the pilot of allot of work making it that much simpler for the student. 

So the FW-190 S-5/8 would do fine as trainer, just like it did in WW2.


----------



## magnocain (Feb 6, 2008)

I might be stretching the rules just a bit...

BV 222 Wiking: transport and long range recon (3787 miles)
Ju 390: all-around bomber including trans continental, marine patrol, atomic, strategic, tactical, recon, and night bomber... also inland transport
F4U-5: carrier fighter, escort fighter, night fighter, superiority fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack, anti-shiping, and interceptor
TBF Avenger: carrier bomber, torpedo bomber, light bomber, anti-shipping, anti-sub, light transport
T-6:trainer, army co-op (armed)
P-80: interceptor, superiority fighter


My nation has the land now called Ireland.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Forgot to mention that in case I needed a carrier fighter the Ta-152H-1 was the perfect candidate with its very low stall speed, high load carrying capability, range and very high agility performance.
> 
> ...



Soren - actually I would have picked it also except my rules were 'version' in production which is why I picked the two seat night fighter Me-262a-1(?). I didn't know the Ta 152 (or say Fw 190D-9) were actually equipped to land on a carrier? I would have tried to put the 262 into day interceptor and ground support depending on it's external rack capability (good enough if 25okg each)

Additionally, one of the negative comments on the 51 was the poor visibilty over the nose on landing (like the F4U) which would have been a Ta 152H negative for USN evaluators. I'm pretty sure the USN's last 'long nose' fighter was the F4U

So, I gotta throw the penalty flag for sneaking a very pretty 'ringer' into the equation. If you want carrier air you'll have to go in another direction?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yes I fly pbfoot, do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeap I did but I learned not to be cocky about challenging gravity


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

Bill,
 
The long nose of the Ta-152H would be a problem just like it was with the F4U, however the lower stall speed would be a welcome improvement. 

As to the FW-190 being carrier capable, absolutely! Ofcourse it needed a number of modifications, just like the Spitfire did, but it was already a much stronger airframe.

Pbfoot,

Did you crash? Hopefully not too badly.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2008)

I would have serious concerns about using any two seat version of a Fighter, be it a Spit, 109, 190, P51 as a trainer.
Conversion trainer and tactical trainer certainly, but not as a trainer to teach someone to fly.

They tend to be hot aircraft and often the view from the rear seat is very poor.

Sounds like a good way to lose a lot of aircraft, pupils and more importantly Instructors


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

Well the a/c doesn't have to be run at full power you know, and as long as the instructor in the back can control the aircraft as-well there shouldn't be too many problems. But yeah a plane like the Go-145 AT-6 would be better as trainers, no doubt about it.

The Ar-232 would be a good trainer as-well.

Why can't we pick 7 a/c ?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

magnocain said:


> I might be stretching the rules just a bit...
> 
> BV 222 Wiking: transport and long range recon (3787 miles)
> Ju 390: all-around bomber including trans continental, marine patrol, atomic, strategic, tactical, recon, and night bomber... also inland transport
> ...



Was the Ju 390 in production before VE day (EOW for Germany)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The long nose of the Ta-152H would be a problem just like it was with the F4U, however the lower stall speed would be a welcome improvement.
> 
> ...



Soren - lol - you don't get to 'modify' or take and entire series as one choice. That's why I took only the twin seat night fighter version of the Me 262. So, you have to have a Fw 190 vesrion that passed carrier trails as your only one for all Fw 190 roles.. Ditto Ta 152H-1, for example.

I'm wondering if that is the designation of the Fw 190 two seater my father flew before trying the Dora at Gablingen? I'll post a pic (but think I already have in the 355th Photo post I put up)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well the a/c doesn't have to be run at full power you know, and as long as the instructor in the back can control the aircraft as-well there shouldn't be too many problems. But yeah a plane like the Go-145 AT-6 would be better as trainers, no doubt about it.
> 
> The Ar-232 would be a good trainer as-well.
> 
> Why can't we pick 7 a/c ?


Hell I originally wanted only 5.. I do think trainer is a problem. I'm uncomfortable with the AT-6 as primary and Basic.. it is a hot little bird that you HAVE to fly- no attention deficit disorder on take off and landing!

A C-47 may actually be more forgiving in most ways.

I can not comprehend the difficulty of putting a student in a 51 from day one but the careful mentoring may get the instructor out alive with perhaps 70-100 hours of dual time gradually extending the complexity.. probably the same for the Fw but i'm more in Pb's camp on this one.


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

Agreed.

However I stand by my statement that the FW-190 S-5/8 would be sufficient most of the time. Like your point about the C-47 it would perhas be best having the first ever flights in an a/c be in the Ar-232, it being such a docile and forgiving a/c. (The millipede landing gear will for sure save lives material in an accident!)


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2008)

Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

Glider said:


> Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
> Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
> Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.


absolutely correct


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting to go wrong very early on. A good instructor usually knows from the onset of a maneuver if it's going to go wrong.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting going wrong very early on.


Yes but a student pilot should be allowed to dig himself a hole and blunder his way out that s how you learn about flying abd using a 190 won't allow that as things occur to fast for a student. one reason the LW had success was the use of gliders it taught pilots how to fly well


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Yes but a student pilot should be allowed to dig himself a hole
> 
> *(preferably not using the cowling or spinner as the proimary digging instrument!)*
> 
> and blunder his way out that s how you learn about flying abd using a 190 won't allow that as things occur to fast for a student. one reason the LW had success was the use of gliders it taught pilots how to fly well



I thought more on my own experience and decided that you might not get through put and compress the training cycle as well as graduate a sufficient percentage of students without at least one no kidding trainer.. I would re-think the AT-6 as my choice and go with the BT-13. Easier to fly, less demanding but still plenty of hp to lead you into feel of power on take off, etc.

Then I might substitute the F4U-4 with a TF51D if I got latitude on carrier capability by modifying it to landing hook. 

That means the TF51D with two pilots as Advanced trainer to replace AT-6, and a more vulnerable ground attack a/c. TFf1D as long range escort minus the 85 gallon tank, so shorter max escort range with 75 gallon externals, but long enough for Leipzig/Berlin, a stretch for Munich - have to use 110 tanks. 

Good news here is no cg problem- better dog fighter. This would be ideal for another conversion, namely night fighter with radar operator in back.

I would still keep F7F as my (now) sole naval air asset for my carriers. Less space, long range, good payload, flexible payload, awesome performance air to air, multi role, fewer aircrew memebrs to put up more a/c... less deck and hanger space than SBD, SB2C and close or better than F4U.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Glider said:


> Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
> Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
> Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.



Double absolutely correct.. I have no idea how a Fw flies but a 51 goes almost where you 'look'. It is not 'squirrely' but demands a light to medium touch on the stick and likes to be trimmed properly for the speed and altitude you are flying. 

You can 'drive' a J-3 or Cessna 150 with a heavy hand.

I remember distinctly the oscillation issue until I learned the 'aha' of keeping my eyes on the horizon, then leading me back to 'feel' w/o using horizon as reference, only instruments.. needle and ball was another learning experience because of lag time before a slow manuever is displayed.

Excellent points Glider. I forgot what it was like the first time(s)


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting to go wrong very early on. A good instructor usually knows from the onset of a maneuver if it's going to go wrong.



One of methods when teaching pilots, is to let them make some mistakes and help/teach them to sort things out. In a fighter things would happen quickly and the instructor would have to step in quickly. This slows down the learning process, as the instructor dare not let the pupil make a mistake anywhere near the ground.
Also we come back to the visibility question. If you cannot see well then your ability to step in and save the day is very limited.


----------



## magnocain (Feb 7, 2008)

> Was the Ju 390 in production before VE day (EOW for Germany)


Mabey not production, but there was at least 2 aircraft made by early 1944. Produced but not in production.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

magnocain said:


> Mabey not production, but there was at least 2 aircraft made by early 1944. Produced but not in production.



There weren't that many Ta 152H-1s either so why should I quibble, just have to take them in the operational (i.e all bugs that haven't been ironed out) state they were in. God knows the B-29 with 3350's were buggy. 

So, assuming it worked the bugs out it was a very long range bomber (nearly 2x as B-29) same speed, but less payload (I think) for a 3,000 mile mission and had a ceiling of 19,000 feet.

Which country are you picking for mission profiles? And why pick an a/c that will be twice as vulnerable to heavy flak, particularly with the quality of proximity fuses, at 19,000 vs 33,000 ft? Or take 40% less time for interceptors to get to you - giving them more fuel to harass you?

Still a good choice for Germany if it had an atomic bomb


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

> This slows down the learning process, as the instructor dare not let the pupil make a mistake anywhere near the ground.



Agreed completely, however with time comes experience, even though the process is slowed down. 

The intructor would let the student have control at altitude and have him learn some of the basics there (You don't do that close to the ground), and after a certain amount of collected hours in the air plus an evaluation by the instructor it is decided whether or not to move on. This continues until the pilot gets permission to his first solo flight. Now this might very well take longer than if the Go-145 was the selected trainer.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 31, 2013)

ALLIED:
P-40N - Air Support for troops
P-51D - Bomber Escort/ air superiority fighter
B-25 - Bomber
F4U Corsair - Carrier-borne fighter
SBD-3 - Dive Bomber, doubles as trainer using the radio operator's seat.
Spitfire - Interceptor

AXIS:
BF-109: Escort/Interceptor
FW-190: Air Superiority Fighter
BF-110: Nightfighter/ Attack Fighter/ Doubles as trainer using radio ops' seat
Me-262: Bomber killer
Zero: Carrier Fighter
He-111: Bomber


----------



## Procrastintor (May 31, 2013)

And yea, I know it's an old thread but I thought it was a fun concept so yeah.


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

BF 109K ~ Primary fighter/interceptor - short/medium range bomber escort ME 262 escort stick to that roll!
FW 190D-13 ~ Primary fighter/interceptor - bomber escorts
Me 210 ~ Ground attack/ Ground support/ strategic bombing
Me 262 ~ heavy Bomber killer
Me 264 ~ extreame long range tactical bomber Maximum speed: 560 km/h, Cruise speed: 350 km/h, Range: 15,000 km, Bomb load 3,000 kg, 8000m ceiling.
Me 323 Gigant ~ transport

That should assure victory in Europa, and put a massive hurt on Russia.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2013)

altsym said:


> BF 109K ~ Primary fighter/interceptor - short/medium range bomber escort ME 262 escort stick to that roll!
> FW 190D-13 ~ Primary fighter/interceptor - bomber escorts
> JU 88 ~ Ground attack/ Ground support
> Me 262 ~ heavy Bomber killer
> ...


Begining of the War ?


----------



## altsym (May 31, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Pick 6 and only 6 aircraft - any choice of truly operational aircraft built during WWII as your five choices to produce for entire war. Whatever model and version you pick, you stick with.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> ALLIED:
> P-40N - Air Support for troops
> P-51D - Bomber Escort/ air superiority fighter
> B-25 - Bomber
> ...



The 109 was better suited as an interceptor. Its range was pretty poor to be an escort.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2013)

Going back to the theory that we are talking about the start of the war late 1939

Interceptor - Spitfire
Heavy Bomber - Wellington
Long Range Maritime - Condor
Light Medium Bomber - Ju88
Long Range Escort - Me110
Carrier - Buffalo


----------



## stug3 (Jun 3, 2013)

C-47
Mosquito
P-51D
F6F5
Avenger
B-29


----------



## BlackSheepTwoOneFour (Jun 5, 2013)

F4U-1 Corsair - Fighter Attack Navy
P-51 Mustang - Fighter/Escort
B-17 Flying Fortress - Heavy Bomber
B-25 Mitchell - Medium Bomber
C-47 Transport
T-6 Texan Trainer


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2013)

I suppose pilot and crew training handled by RC models and logistics solved by truck rail freight and ship only


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2013)

B-29
P-51
Mosquito (medium bomber, night intruder, recon, night fighter)
PT-19 
C-46
AT-6 (do all bombardier, navigation and aerial gunnery training on B-29)

If you have to include USN - add F7F for torpedo, night fighter, day fighter, fighter bomber, recon and air superiority, and yank the Mosquito.,


----------



## B-17engineer (Jun 5, 2013)

I'll take a go...pretend I'm Germany and I'm trying to take the war to the England/France/Allis

Il-2 (Ground attack light bombing)
P-47D (Ground attack, short escort)
B-29 (Heavy bombing, long range)
Ta-152 (Escort, Interceptor)
C-46 (Transport)
Fw 58 (trainer)


----------



## merlin (Sep 28, 2013)

I'll pick Australia - rather than just '39 - I think I can stretch it to '39 - '41. And rather then as some have picking aircraft from different periods e.g. time hopping. I'll try and confine it to aircraft that were or could have been available in that period!

Flying-Boat recon - Short Sunderland,

Medium-torpedo/bomber - Bristol Buckfast (or with local manufacture - Brisbane) - derived from Bristol P.13/36

Army-Co-operation - Westland Lysander - IMO would have been a useful aircraft in the terrain the RAAF operated in.

Fighter - Gloster f.5/34 (P W 1830) - IMHO this and above, a better combination than the Wirraway the Boomerang.

Trainer - Harvard

Twin-engine fighter/attack Bristol Blenheim ( though I'd like to work in a version of the Gloster f.9/37)


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 29, 2013)

Okay then. Here's my list - bear with me. It covers all three of the armed forces' air assets in six airframes for each of the three services; the distinctive role air power plays within each service being easily discernable. The aircraft are selected based on their _entering service_ by the end of 1940 at the very latest, but following the original stipulation that each type must be chosen for service throughout the rest of the war.

Air Force:

Spitfire: interceptor, strategic photo recon. Tough choice between the Spit and Bf 109, but the Griffon engine tipped the scales in favour of the Spit.
Wellington: heavy bomber, HCU/navigation trainer prior to 1940; after then the Manchester, which led directly to the Lancaster.
Ju 88: medium bomber, pathfinder, night fighter. Either Ju 88 or He 111 equipped with Knickebein/X Gerat/Y Gerat. The accuracy offered by this equipment was second to none in 1939 - 1940.
Beaufighter: close support, maritime strike, tactical recon, night fighter. Touch choice between Bf 110 and Beaufighter; the former had better performance, but the latter had a better weapon load for maritime strike and a better observer's position.
Hurricane: close support/anti-tank, night fighter.
AT-6: trainer, liaison.

Navy:

Kawanishi H6K: long range maritime patrol flying boat.
LB-30 Liberator: land based maritime patrol, transport.
Arado Ar 196: ship based recon.
Mitsubishi A6M: carrier based fighter.
Nakajima B5N: carrier based torpedo bomber, recon.
SBD: dive bomber, recon.

Army:

Bf 108: liaison, transport.
Mitsubishi Ki-46: recon, medium transport.
C-47: heavy transport, glider tug.
Fw 200, long range passenger transport.
Fi 156: aerial observation, liaison.
DFS 230: assault glider.


----------



## HBPencil (Sep 29, 2013)

Six aircraft types for the RNZAF serving in the PTO and working with the idea that NZ's small population doesn't really allow for the creation of a strategic bomber force that would be large enough to have an effect. My list is tactical rather than strategic although the potential tracking and attacking of IJN vessels could have strategic value.

PBYa - SAR, anti-sub, maritime patrol, night time attacks if need be.

C-47 - transport, multi-engine trainer.

Tigermoth - basic trainer, liason.

AT-6 - advanced trainer, liason, light ground attack if things got real bad.

F4U-1D - all round fighter, ground attack and (if they're in range) anti-shipping... 2,000 pounders and Tiny Tim rockets should work against larger warships? (I nearly chose the P-51 due to its greater range and speed but went with the F4U as I feel it's a better all-rounder and more suited to the harsh conditions of the PTO).

Mosquito - Recon, night-fighter, intruder, ground attack, maritime attack, maritime patrol, light bomber. I'd operate a mixed bag of variants using as many common parts (e.g. engines) as possible (I nearly went with the PBJ instead).


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2013)

Nobody has atempted to arm one of the minor nations. And unfortunately that kinda means I have to break one of the thread parameters , being that the types be fully operational. In many cases for minor nations, there were no technological reasons why a given type was not operational, just that overseas types were there, and in the case of the allies usually available for "free" (you just had to do what you were told). Im going to ignore that. if a type was technologically ready, but simply was not initiated into production, for a minor nation, like Australia, I would argue that it was available. If minor nations are equipped from domestic sources, this also really limits what they would have available.

For Australia we had a real problem early on with the British embargo on engine techs. Im going to also assume the short sighted and highly disruptive policy was not applied as historical. i hope DG will forgive me these transgressions of the thread parameters, based on the fact that Im arming a minor from completely domestic sources. 

Australia

Fighter (all roles) CAC CA15 (late). If there is dispute about this type, I would employ the turbocharged CA14
Long Range recce, strike and fighter - Mosquito (domestic)
Purpose Bomber: CA11 Woomera
Trainer (Basic) Wackett
Trainer (OTU) Wirraway 
Transport: Beaufort


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 29, 2013)

> Six aircraft types for the RNZAF serving in the PTO and working with the idea that NZ's small population doesn't really allow for the creation of a strategic bomber force that would be large enough to have an effect.



Not much of a difference between you list and reality there, HBPencil. No General Recon types like the Hudson and Ventura. I think to add to your list I would like to suggest a land based long range maritime patrol/strike type, such as the Liberator. I would also be tempted to add the Beaufighter as a maritime strike aircraft instead of the Mossie, but that's just me.


----------



## HBPencil (Sep 29, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Not much of a difference between you list and reality there, HBPencil.



Indeed. I feel we eventually had a good mix of aircraft during the war.



nuuumannn said:


> I think to add to your list I would like to suggest a land based long range maritime patrol/strike type, such as the Liberator.



The B-24/PB4Y idea is a good one but not sure what I'd remove from my list to make room for it.



nuuumannn said:


> No General Recon types like the Hudson and Ventura... I would also be tempted to add the Beaufighter as a maritime strike aircraft instead of the Mossie, but that's just me.



I was thinking of using the Mossie for the BR squadrons. Maybe not the best choice for that role (less range than the Hudson and Ventura for starters) but then it could out run Zeros and was more multi-role. I did consider the Beaufighter (better range and maybe more durable?) but again the Mossie's speed and multi-role abilities won out.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 29, 2013)

Good choices. I was thinking the Beaufighter for NZ bases primarily because of the fact that it liked the maritime role beter than the Mossie did. This wasn't a reflection of the construction or ruggedness of the Mosquito, but more its weapons carrying and its performance. The Beaufighter was slower, therefore easier to position for launching rockets and torpedoes at a vessel under way - the rockets were wildly inaccurate and careful positioning was required to get a successful strike, also the clean aerodynamics of the Mossie meant it did not like carrying a torpedo and I've read of at least one RAF unit that replaced its Mosquitoes with Beaufighters as a result, after receiving Mossies to replace its Beaufighters.

I read somewhere that there was a rumour that the RNZAF was consdiering purchasing B-25 Mitchells instead of Venturas, but I'm not certain whether this is fact or not. As for adding the Liberator, perhaps you could concentrate on combat types and leave the obvious Tiger Moth/Harvard out, maybe?


----------



## HBPencil (Sep 30, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I read somewhere that there was a rumour that the RNZAF was consdiering purchasing B-25 Mitchells instead of Venturas, but I'm not certain whether this is fact or not. As for adding the Liberator, perhaps you could concentrate on combat types and leave the obvious Tiger Moth/Harvard out, maybe?



I have read the same, possibly in Alex Horn's book or maybe one of Bryan Cox's. From what I remember reading the RNZAF wanted B-25s to replace the Hudsons but due to US Army/Navy politics we got the PV-1, although on the plus side serving under the Navy/Marines is what got us the Corsairs.

I'll leave my list as it is (original poster's rules) but maybe I could've got the Tigermoth off my list by not having it in 'production' but rather by requisitioning light civil aircraft.


----------



## R Pope (Sep 30, 2013)

Lots of reaching into the future for planes to start the war with! If that's allowed, I would reach a little further and take 6 F-22's! No need for trainers, bring back the pilots too. Enlist them in the Newfoundland Army, or Botswana, or whichever country you can get cheap, and in a week you own the world.
My point being, cloud-cuckoo land is one thing, but most of these choices relied on several years of hard-won experience to come to reality, that just wasn't there in 1939. (unless you are a Yank, and think the war started in 1942...)


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 4, 2013)

I suspect you might be missing the point of the thread, R Pope. It's just a bit of fun and doesn't bear much resemblance of reality, although HBPencil's choice of aircraft for the RNZAF are very close to what that air force actually operated.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 5, 2013)

R Pope said:


> (unless you are a Yank, and think the war started in 1942...)


It sure did and we saved the world...would have been nice if the rest of the Allies helped a little... 

Honestly though, we know better


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 5, 2013)

> unless you are a Yank, and think the war started in 1942...



I thought it was 1941! Revisionists...


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I thought it was 1941! Revisionists...


Seems to me it was...wait, let me think a moment here...ahh yes, now I recall the obscure date:

The 7th of December, 1941

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 5, 2013)

> The 7th of December, 1941



What happened on that date again? Not being from America I don't know what else was going on...


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> What happened on that date again? Not being from America I don't know what else was going on...


Ahh right, well...you see, there were these two guys, they were friends...but one was in love with a nurse, but she was in love with his buddy, so he goes to England to join the RAF and fight the Germans. But he comes back and ends up in this backwater place called Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, well...the Japanese attack and he and his buddy jump in a couple P-40's and shoot down most of the Japanese in their pajamas and then...wait, what was the question again?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Pope (Oct 6, 2013)

When I said 1942, I was referring to the movie with Belushi in it, since most history these days comes from Hollywood........


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 6, 2013)

R Pope said:


> When I said 1942, I was referring to the movie with Belushi in it, since most history these days comes from Hollywood........


Just having a little fun, actually 

The reality is, the U.S. does take a little heat for Hollywood's portrayal of events, but it's a matter of Hollywood's wide distribution that gives the world this view. I have seen Soviet era movies about WWII and you get the impression that they saved the world single-handedly. The difference is that those movies weren't box office hits!

What I would truly like to see, is movies that show the bravery of the Poles, Belgians or even the Netherlands during the German's advance. These stories need to be shared.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 7, 2013)

7th December 1941...what happened that was important that day, oh, now i remember. That was the day Zhukov unleashed his Siberian Army on the German spearheads trying to envelope Moscow. A date that many regard as the true tunring event of WWII

Thanks for reminding me....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2013)

Could have been - but maybe not if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and US doesn't enter the war. Mother Russia has to alter its production strategies, the Commonwealth has to fight a two front war without US support, there is only passive support to go after U-Boats in Atlantic, etc etc.

Does the Commonwealth stop Japan at Guadalcanal or destroy Japanese naval superiority at Midway? Can Aussies stop Japan from taking Australia or India? 

Does Great Britain stop U-Boat incursion on time to prevent starvation or defeat Germany forces enough to take control of Med and ensure flow of oil from east Indies and Middle East without US oil to replace sources? Does GB retain control of Suez without US forces to augment advantage over Rommel after El Alemain?

Does Russia get enough trucks and light bombers and fighters to start an offensive in 1942? and how does that change the war in the east when there is no threat from Britain in Italy or an invasion of France? Does GB/Commonwealth ever get control of air in the Med?

Maybe December 7 is more important than just to US?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 7, 2013)

I dont know about the other guys DG, but my coment was very much tongue in cheek. A bit of fun more than anything. For the record, US entry into the war and its performance after that date was critical to the outcome. 

But in response to the specific issues you raise, you might 9or might not) want to hear how other nations view the operations you mention. 



> Could have been - but maybe not if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and US doesn't enter the war. Mother Russia has to alter its production strategies, the Commonwealth has to fight a two front war without US support, there is only passive support to go after U-Boats in Atlantic, etc etc.



Of course. Minor point, the US contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic was not the committment of naval resources per se. They were significant, but for the most part played a supporting role in parts of the Atalantic other than the Western Aproaches. And it was the Western Approaches where the critical battle was fought. This part of the battle was almost exclusivley undertaken by the British and Commonwealt forces. 

What the US did do, was provide the shipbuilding capacity to absorb the massive shipping losses of 1942 and still bounce back in strength. mind you, about 80% of those losses, that came as close as any other event in WWII to losing the war, was the mismanagement of the convoys by the US in the convoy wars. So, even though they ultimately led to an allied victory, in the short term, the US very nearly caused us to lose that war. 



> Does the Commonwealth stop Japan at Guadalcanal or destroy Japanese naval superiority at Midway? Can Aussies stop Japan from taking Australia or India?



Err actually, yes. Midway was a battle that broke the Japanese offensive sword but it was not a battle that "saved Australia" or anywhere else (except Midway). with or without carriers, by May 1942, the Japanese were reaching the very limits of their shipping capacity and could advance no furtrher. logistics, not battles, were what defeated the japanese ofensive. The destruction of their carrier fleet only served to unstick their offensive capability, but biot their ability to take and hold ground. There was never the slightest hope of the Japanese attacking Australia, whilst they remained stuck in China and facing off the Russians in Manchuria. Same in Burma.

The US efforts in the Pacific for the first two years of the war, in terms of the ground effort and to a lesser extent in the air, were relatively minor. The equivalent of about two divs, and something less than 50% of the air effort. at sea they were critical, but even here it was nearly a year before the USN was able to take to the field of battle on a 1 for 1 basis with the Japanese 




> Does Great Britain stop U-Boat incursion on time to prevent starvation or defeat Germany forces enough to take control of Med and ensure flow of oil from east Indies and Middle East without US oil to replace sources? Does GB retain control of Suez without US forces to augment advantage over Rommel after El Alemain?



Without US aid, the Allies were stuffed, unquestionably, but the actual fighting in all of those campaigns was done by Commonwealt and British Empire forces. US forces proved rather inneffective until well into 1943. One could argue that anybody with enough time and resources to prepre with, can eventually win battles. How long was it again before the US committed substantial land forces to battle. how long was it before they committed substantial air asets to the battle in Euope. How many fighter squadrons were their deployed in the ETO as at December 1942 for example. The US was so inexperienced, so lacking in combat experience that it can be argued with eaqual force that they were needed for their material resources, that they also needed the Commonwealth forces to nursemaid them whilst they learnt how to fight properly. It cuts both ways. We needed you guys, and you guys needed us, simple as that. 



> Does Russia get enough trucks and light bombers and fighters to start an offensive in 1942? and how does that change the war in the east when there is no threat from Britain in Italy or an invasion of France? Does GB/Commonwealth ever get control of air in the Med?



In the same way that the russians were needed to make possible operations in the west,, or the british were needed to undertake all manner of operations in the west 9and south) to keep up the pressure on the Germans, whilst the US ever so slowly got their act together. As far as resources are concerned, whilst eventually these resources did make a huge difference, in 1942, such aid was rather limited. in 1941, for example, US aid to Russia, tonnage wise, amopunted to less than 10% of the total shipped in 1942 it was around 50%. But in terms of total tonnages shipped, the amounts in both 1941 and 1942 were quite minor compared to the amounts shiped from 1943 onward. 



> Maybe December 7 is more important than just to US?



of course. And being the great power that she is, one has to give the US credit for the lions share of the war winning strategy that eventually ran down the Germans. But it is so easy to draw an erroneous conclusion from that....."the US was critical to the eventual victory, therefore their dates in history should be viewed as the most important of the war, at the expense of all others".


----------



## drgondog (Oct 8, 2013)

Parsifal - I agree the points about all the invasion of Australia being a stretch for the Japanese, but absent the US entry Australia and NZ would cease to be an effective offensive force in the SW pacific because of necessity of ensuring that Japan did not invade Australia (IMO). I don't know how dependent Australia/New Zealand were dependent on outside sources for oil but suspect that would be a crippling factor. Further, speculatively the Japanese had the resources to take Melbourne and Sydney. How would that have affected Australia?

As to the 'ineffectiveness' in the campaigns in North Africa - no question that US forces were everywhere on a learning curve. Having said that, the mere presence significantly diluted the German forces in the west, and rookies or not, blunt then inexorably push the Japanese back while pouring resources to Commonwealth and Chinese forces

IMO, absent US the Germans can ignore (or not) defense of Italy in the context of the allocations Kesslering had - with an eye toward the East at a critical time in 1942.

My comments were made not in the context of 'we won the war', but in the context that most of the Allies including Russia should 'remember Pearl Harbor' as Roosevelt absolutely was not going to move Congress into declaring war absent the attack. 

My singular and only point was not that 'we won the war', but absent our commitment who knows how the Japanese think about supporting Germany to hit Russia and go for Siberia, or how the Germans allocate their resources in a different way to not only buy time for a nuclear weapon but maybe even prevail at the end of the war. 

History says that we (US) should be glad in retrospect, for our own self preservation, that the Japanese made a colossal blunder and Germany followed up with an even bigger one by declaring war on US.


----------



## R Pope (Oct 8, 2013)

A Russian friend told me that the schools over there teach about the "Great Patriotic War" and don't even mention that anybody else was involved..........


----------



## futuredogfight (Oct 14, 2013)

My turn Country: Finland Purpose: Defense and short range offense.
Fighter: Bf-109G-6 
Bomber: B-26
Ground Attack-47
Trainer: T-6
Transport: C-47
Costal Defense Aircraft: Swordfish


----------



## parsifal (Oct 15, 2013)

R Pope said:


> A Russian friend told me that the schools over there teach about the "Great Patriotic War" and don't even mention that anybody else was involved..........



Whats being taught in Russian schools is largely correct, from their point of view. the "Great Patriotic War" is not the whole of WWII, its the conflict between the Axis powers and Soviet Uniohn 1941-5, on the E#astern Front. 

The official Soviet histories give some grudging acknowledgement of lend lease, and thats about it.


----------



## Glider (Oct 17, 2013)

You can be sure they don't mention the Joint German/Russian invasion of Poland


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2013)

even today, its really hard to find any Soviet acknowledgement of that travesty.


----------



## futuredogfight (Oct 24, 2013)

Probably don't even mention the kicking they got from Finland.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 25, 2013)

futuredogfight said:


> Probably don't even mention the kicking they got from Finland.



In Russia you need to generally be higher than grade school to know about the war with Finland. However, the books written do vary. ive got a Soviet era book on the great Patriotic war that does mention the war, and doesnt really try to say either way who was responsible. thats about as near as you get for the Soviets to admit it was they who caused the war.

The book does go on to say they won, which is true, albeit in a meatgrinder kinda way

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Oct 25, 2013)

My wife is Russian, I will ask her about what she was taught when I get a chance. Interesting topic.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Nov 2, 2013)

Well I had a chance and asked my wife about that conflict. She says she was taught about it and that the Soviets started it and even though they won, they got hurt badly. She also told me that the Soviets getting their lunch handed to them when fighting an opponent was typical during the time around the Patriotic War.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

NFN, thats pretty much what my wife (also Russian) told me.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

B-29 Strategic bomber
PB4Y ASW/ASV
F4U Multirole fighter
A-26 Strike/Interdiction
C-54 Transport
T-6 Trainer/Observation


----------



## wlewisiii (Oct 20, 2016)

Just for the fun of it.. 

P-47
P-80
B-29
A-20
C-54
AT-6


----------



## Frankenerd (Oct 20, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Pick 6 and only 6 aircraft - any choice of truly operational aircraft built during WWII as your five choices to produce for entire war. Whatever model and version you pick, you stick with.
> 
> You pick your group based on what you believe best serves the country of choice in the strategic and tactical doctrine of the military leaders of that country.
> 
> ...



1A. Any cheap trainer? But why not pick a combat plane and farm this mission out to one or more/many "Civilian Contractors"?
1B. Alternate choice = Contra Prop XP-72? or Boeing F-8B?
2. P-38K.
3. XB-42.
4. B-29D/B-50 Also as a transport with "Double Bubble Fuselage" as a minor variation of type?
5. Boeing Lone Ranger Seaplane, nomenclature unk? Also as a transport?
6. C-54, or Lockheed Coni?


----------



## METTATON6662 (Mar 14, 2021)

p-38 all round good fighter
la-7 low altitude dogfighter
b 17 high alt bomber (b 29 would be too expensive)
tu-2 frontline/dive bomber
PBY recon and other marine duties


----------



## Tempest109 (Oct 21, 2021)

Night fighter + medium bomber : Ju 88 series
Fighter : Either Bf109 or Fw190D or Ta 152 series (depending on the condition)
Fighter bomber : Fw190F/G or radial engined Tempest (they could be used for carrier attack)
Heavy bomber : B29D (for transport & maritime also)
Flying boat /floatplane= H8K , Arado 196
Carrier plane AD 1 skyraider, F8F


----------



## DBII (Oct 21, 2021)

Now that I have thought about this for years, I will play. I chose the Panamal Canal Zone. Protect the locks from sub's, raiders and carrier planes. 

C47 transport.
Sterman basic trainer. 

Priority is multiple use craft for the rear area. All purpose long range fighter and fighter bomber, P38.

Primary fighter and ground attack, F4U. 

Long range patrol, SAR, heavy bomber, PBM Mariner

For medium range coverage PV Ventura/Harpoon. Can also use as ground attack.


----------



## GreenMottling29 (Oct 22, 2022)

Interesting and amusing thread ! I'm going with 2 fighters, 2 bombers and 2 trainers.

Fighters : 
- Fw-190 A : low to med altitude day fight. Other possible roles : fighter/bomber, night fighter, ground support and even torpedo-bomber haha
- P-38 : high altitude day fight. Other possible roles : interceptor, fighter/bomber, night fighter, ground support, escort fighter, reco 

Bombers : 
- Ar 234 : light/medium bomber. Could also be used as a reco aircraft
- B-24 : heavy bomber. Could also be used as a coastal patrol aircraft and a transport. 

Trainers : 
- T-6 : training for single-engined aircraft
- Avro Anson : training for multi-engined aircraft. Other roles : rescue, service, liaison aircraft

The main logic behind these choices is linked with flexibility. Many roles can be performed by many aircrafts, I don't want to have a specific plane for one particular task at the beginning. Considering the evolution of the conflict it'll be possible to assign an aircraft to a more specific role or make a few modifications to adapt it a bit better to a certain task. 

The 2 fighters aren't the very best of their category but still tough opponents. They are quite complementary performance-wise but both can be used for a large variety of missions if needed. 
I've chosen the Arado obviously for its speed and low chances of being intercepted, pretty interesting for a bomber that can carry 1800-2000 kg of bombs. Strategical and long range missions would be assigned to the Liberator. 
I pick 2 trainers because a large majority of my air force is composed by multi-engined aircrafts, more complex to fly. I'd like to limitate the accident rate during the learning phase and at the beginning of a pilot's operationnal life.

Few drawbacks I can see to this "set-up" : 
- Not the cheapest air force to maintain and produce in quantity. Needs more ressources than other ones stated below to be fully operationnal. 
- No career-based aircraft. A problematic point if the context is like in the PTO. However, I think the P-38 and the B-24 have the potential to cause some serious troubles at long range, that kind of compensate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

