# 1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

fighter spitfire mk1
bomber ju88a
ground support fokker g.1
coastal patrol pby4
transport c-47
primary trainer dh 82 tiger moth
advanced trainer at 6 harvard (texan)
carrier fighter mitsubishi a5m4 claude












0
carrier fighter


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2005)

Good choices.
I would add:

heavy bomber B17


----------



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

are you kidding me! in 1939 the B-17 was a peace of junk!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2005)

Well, it was the only heavy bomber in the world in 1939. Better to have something than nothing. Even if it would have been the worlds first night bomber.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 26, 2005)

The Lanc didn't even exist - you got to start somewhere.

The choices were limited.

Bf-110
Hurricane
B-17
Bf-109
Ju-88
Spitfire
Ki-27
He-111
Whitworth
Wellington
G3M
P-35
Vega

Like Lanc pointed out they wern't all quite ready yet either. The B-17 needed epenage redesign, There were no P-38s, B-25s, F4Us, F-4Fs even most of the early British bombers were mere prototypes. All the planes mentioned above, in this para., were begining production to meet the light of day in '40.

Hard list to make since it is right on the line where more capable aircraft are about to come out and nobody was quite ready for the war just starting.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

there always the stirling


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 26, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The Lanc didn't even exist - you got to start somewhere.
> 
> The choices were limited.
> 
> ...


I agree with your comments. I would also agree with the list that you have chosen, it is a good list.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

lots of choices polish belgian french dutch russian yugoslovia romania


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 26, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> there always the stirling



The Sterling entered service in '40 along with the Halifax and the Pe-8

I had to cheat some, my reference is right beside me.  

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2005)

pbfoot = "lead foot"?


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

si senor.... the lanc was doing laps over head on saturday


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

7 squadron raf was using stirlings fall 39 according to raf website


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 26, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> lots of choices polish belgian french dutch russian yugoslovia romania



The reference I have is pretty comprehensive but is limited to planes that made an impact so it is primarily French (the D.520 was '40), US, British, Italian, Russian and Japanese through the war years.

My reference is the Rand McNally Ency. of Military Aircraft ISBN0 517 05655-0.

BTW: I recomend that reference to any aviation buff, it contains charts of entry into service, color plates of both insignia and aircraft to the same scale and by major model complete with Spec blurbs on that model. The book also contains a good description of its history with a three view drawing.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2005)

Which country was the dominate force in 1939???? The Japanese??? The Germans???

I would go with the German Luftwaffe and all that they had in thier inventory... They were almost unstoppable in 1939...


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 26, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Which country was the dominate force in 1939???? The Japanese??? The Germans???
> 
> I would go with the German Luftwaffe and all that they had in thier inventory... They were almost unstoppable in 1939...



Air Force wise the Germans were ahead of everyone but the Japanese had already captured most of SE Aisa by then, making them about equal overall. The Japanese had started and the Germans just starting their war.

Mostly it was a matter of where you were.  
wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2005)

Fighter Spitfire
Heavy Fighter Me110
Support Bomber Ju88
Heavy Bomber Wellington
Anti Submarine Sunderland

Serious Alternatives
109 for Spitfire. Went with the Spit due to guns and Speed
Fokker G1 for Me110. G1 lost due to speed. It wasn't that fast and a 110 could run from anything in 1939 apart from a Spitfire. plus had devistating firepower for the period.
He111 for Wellington. The Wellington was a better all round plane.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

but 1n 39 the 110 was a fighter whereas the g1 was fighter/ ground support with heavy weapons 8 x 7.9 mm and 2 x23 mm cannon plus bombs as opposed to 4 x 7.9 and 2 x 20mm


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2005)

I am afraid that I cannot find my notes on this plane but from memory the G1 didn't carry 2 x 23 plus 8 x LMG, it was either 2 x 23 or 8 x LMG and most if not all of them carried the 8 x LMG. That said 8 LMG in the nose in 1939 was an impressive amount of firepower remembering that few if any aircraft had Armour or self sealing fuel tanks..
The G1 was very agile and capable of taking on the single engined fighters of the day. I can only say that what made me select the 110 was the speed, dive and additional power of the Cannon. Its a choice


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2005)

your right i missed the comma in my reference it was 2 lmg and 2 cannon or 8 lmg well ithought i was perfect but am mistaken wheres all the guys with p36


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 26, 2005)

Fighter-Bf-109
Heavy Fighter-Bf-110
Ground support-Breda Ba-65
Main bomber-Mitsubishi G3M
Carrier fighter-A5M4 Claude
trainer-AT6
Coastal defence/torpedoe bomber-SIAI SM.79
Coastal patrol or bomber-CANT Z.506
Fighter/bomber-Ki-27


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2005)

Glider said:


> Anti Submarine Sunderland



Excellent pick. I had forgotten about that plane.

We could make a whole new thread..."Catalina vs Sunderland".


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2005)

Oh God no........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 27, 2005)

Fighter- Supermarine Spitfire Mk 1

Fighter 2- Messerschmitt Bf-109E4

Fighter Bomber- Curtiss Hawk 75A

Heavy Fighter Bomber/Night Fighter- Messerschmitt Bf-110C4

Carrier Fighter- Brewster F2A1

STOL/Liasion- Westland Lysander

Seaplane- Short Sunderland

Attack Bomber- Bloch 174

Dive Bomber- Junkers Ju-87B

Medium Bomber- Douglas DB-7 Boston II

Medium Bomber2- Junkers Ju-88

Heavy Bomber- B-17B

Maratime Bomber- Cant Z.1007bis Alcione

Torpeedo Bomber- Douglas TDB Devestator

Glider- D.F.S. 230

Transport- Converted Wellington III

Probably gone a little overboard here with 16 different types, but it did get me thinking.  

Other types that I couldn't really find a place for but wanted include: Bristol Beaufort Mk I, Dewointe D.520, He-111H, PBY Catalina, Feisler Storcj, Polikarpof Po-2, and the HK6 Emily.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

Well this would be my list for 1939, It would drasticallychange though later in the war.

Fighter - Bf-109E
Heavy Fighter - Bf-110
Ground Support/Dive Bomber - Ju-87 Stuka
Heavy Bomber - B-17 (yeah it was crap but it was still probably the best one out there at the time)
Trainer - T-6 Texan
Medium Bomber - He-111
All Purpose Bomber - Ju-88


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 27, 2005)

Nice lists Jabberwocky and Alder!


----------



## JCS (Sep 27, 2005)

Bf109
Ki27
Hurricane
Ju88
He111
Ju87
Bf110
Z.1007

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

Nice list there also.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 28, 2005)

If I could choose anything from the get go, these would be my choices:

Recon/Patrol: Catalina PBY5
Attack/Close-support: Hurricane IV/IID, Il-2
Naval Fighter/Fighter bomber: F4F3/F4F4
Fighter/Interceptor: P38 
Fighter/Fighter bomber: P40, Airacobra
Nightfighter: P-70
Bomber: B-29


----------



## Glider (Sep 28, 2005)

MacArther. Suggest you check the heading of the thread, in particular the bit that says 1939.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 28, 2005)

MacArther said:


> If I could choose anything from the get go, these would be my choices:
> 
> Recon/Patrol: Catalina PBY5
> Attack/Close-support: Hurricane IV/IID, Il-2
> ...


MacArther this list is 1939 *only*.

Nice list JCS.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 28, 2005)

ohhhh, thought it meant that if you could go back to 1939 with anything what it would be    My bad.

P.S. I do have a better sig, but I need to get its source.


----------



## RAGMAN (Sep 29, 2005)

I was watching Discovery's Weekday Wings about the P38 and on the show they said that the P38 was the only fighter in production when WW2 started and when it ended. (I don't know how truthful this show was)


----------



## RAGMAN (Sep 29, 2005)

Sorry guys I meant AMERICAN fighter! sorry for the snafu.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 29, 2005)

fighter: Me109E

bomber: B17 (heavy) He-111 or Wellington (tactical) Stuka (dive)

ground support: Hurricane 

NB: Last 2 could be replaced by Ju88?

Fast recon: Me110 or Me109 sans armament

coastal patrol/maritime bomber: Fw Condor

transport: Ju290

primary trainer: dh 82 tiger moth 

advanced trainer: Hurricane and/or Me109

carrier fighter: Zeke (was it available in '39?)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2005)

RAGMAN I think that might be true.


----------



## RAGMAN (Sep 30, 2005)

I'm just going to write two of each main type of plane. fighter spitfire,bf109 heavy fighter-P38,Fokker g1 ground attack/dive bomber-JU87,BF110 light bomber-A20,the Blenheim, medium bomber-JU88,the Wellington, heavy bomber-B17,Short Stirling, maritime-short sunderland,the catalina(dont know if it was around in 1939 recon-p38,JU86( high altitude type don't know if it was around in 1939) carrier-the zero,the swordfish. I thought of putting the zero as a escort due to its long range,but being fireprone I'm having second thoughts.(but it was manueverable) I figured these planes would make a decent airforce. 8)


----------



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

although i believe that bit about the -38 is only for the length of time america was involved in the war as the prototype -38 only flew 1st in '39 anyway........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

Yes that is quite correct...


----------



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

RAGMAN also makes a good point about the zero being used as an escort, her range cirtainly allowed it i wonder how well she'd be able to fly long range escort for heavy bombers of the kind we saw -51s do in europe??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I would not rate the P-38 over the Bf-110. The Bf-110 was not the best heavy fighter ever made but the P-38 just dissapoints me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not rate the P-38 over the Bf-110. The Bf-110 was not the best heavy fighter ever made but the P-38 just dissapoints me.



My bad, I fucked up on this post here. In my mind I thought we were talking about the P-39 no the P-38. The P-38 was deffinatly better than the Bf-110. Sorry about that guys.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 2, 2005)

alternative list
fighter bf109e
transport ju 52
medium bomber ju 88
maritime recce h6k1 mavis
carrier fighter a5m claude 
carrier attack b5n kate
ground attack ju87 b
recce spit mk 1
heavy bomber shorts stirling
light bomber le0 45
basic trainer dh 82 tiger moth
advancrd trainer at6 harvard (texan)
twin Trainer beech 18
heavy fighter bf110


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Interesting list there. I do like you trainer the tiger moth. I would love to fly one. I believe they made them after the war for a while as private planes. I know that quite a few are still flying.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 2, 2005)

yeah tiger moth is pretty had a couple of flips in one the alternative would be the bucker jungmeister l think its called and just apoint of info the pby5 canso(catalina) was not available til later and the pby 4 was major visible difference was lack of bubble positions on fuselage


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Yeah I like Bucher Jungmeister also.


----------



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

ah but remember adler in 1939 the bf-110 was better than the -38, principly becuase the -38 had only just flown as a prototype...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Yeah but the prototype was still probably better....


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah but the prototype was still probably better....


Probably


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.


I'd agree with that Alder. The British were more afraid of it that the 109 before the Battle of Britain but it never was a good heavy fighter but it was an excellent night fighter. It was not manouverable enough to combat single engined fighters but it was fine against bombers at night.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

DerAdler said:


> I do like you trainer the tiger moth. I would love to fly one.



You can (or could recently?) book a flight in the Argos catalogue!


On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks. Allowing the Me109's to give top-cover, what would've happened?

Then after the bombers headed home, a bit of optional ground strafing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.
> ...



My thoughts on it exactly.


----------



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

> On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks



having un-manouverable fighters at the head of a bomber formation won't stop head on attacks, if you see a fighter coming at you firing at you and approaching with a closing speed of 500mph you're gonna move outta it's way no matter what you're in, but i do agree the -110 shouldda made more ground attacks in the BoB.........


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks
> 
> 
> 
> having un-manouverable fighters at the head of a bomber formation won't stop head on attacks, if you see a fighter coming at you firing at you and approaching with a closing speed of 500mph you're gonna move outta it's way no matter what you're in, but i do agree the -110 shouldda made more ground attacks in the BoB.........


Agreed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2005)

A Schnellbomber...Bf-162 style...


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2005)

Can I suggest that the key word is operational and that suggested airforces exclude prototypes. There were lots of planes in the Prototype phase in 1939.
Apologies for those who want to pick the P38, but if you want the P38 can I have the Fw190? The Whirlwind would be a good choice for a twin engined fighter.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

Being British - 

Interceptor: Spitfire
Ground Attack/Fighter: Hawk-75
Maritime Patrol: PBY

And that's it. They can come to me. I'm not wasting resources on building bombers.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 6, 2005)

Ive put more thought into this since i last posted, and came to this conclusion. 

Fighter-Me-109
Bomber-SM.79
Ground support-Cr.42
Fighter bomber-Ba.65
Transport-Ju/52
Carrier fighter-A5m4
Interceptor-Spitfire
Recon/battlefield observer-Fi-56 storch
Flying boat-sunderland
coastal bomber/recon- If the Fw-200 condor was then in service, then the condor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Being British -
> 
> Interceptor: Spitfire
> Ground Attack/Fighter: Hawk-75
> ...



Neither did Germany.....


----------



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

carp the Ba.65 struggled to fly with warload........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

What do you mean, Adler, neither did Germany? Germany built the Ju-52, He-111, Ju-87, Do-17 and Ju-88 as bombers.


----------



## toffigd (Oct 7, 2005)

Compare range of a He-111 with B-17 and you'll have the answer. 
Germany had almost no "heavies". 
As the He-111, Do-17 or Ju-88 was able to bomb British industry, as when Russians evacuated almost all their industry to Ural it was rather impossible...


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

But I said I wouldn't waste resources on a bomber. Bomber does not refer directly to heavy bombers, it refers to anything that bombs. The He-111 was a bomber, no matter the range or payload. 

If I was more specific and said "I wouldn't waste resources building heavy bombers." then that would be a viable answer. And the odds are Adler probably means that but still I said bombers, He-111 (and all the others) are bombers. 

And I think this is a perfect moment to go; So there. Nah, nah, nah, nah.


----------



## toffigd (Oct 7, 2005)

ok ok


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Okay Plan_D if you say so and then my airforce will just bomb the shit out of you country and then invade!


----------



## Mosin (Nov 28, 2005)

Well i was here a llooooong time ago. I got busy and jsut now got back. I still probably wont get back for awhile. But this is my list.
P-40 warhawk. Fighter
Junker 87 Dive Bomber
Texan .trainer
SM 79. Light bomber.
Heinkell 111. Bomber
Arado. Anti sub warfare plane. Coastel bomber
Junker 52. Transport
Messerschmitt 110. Fighter bomber


----------



## book1182 (Nov 28, 2005)

Zero Escort Fighter
Hurrican Fighter
Val Dive Bomber
Wellington Bomber
C-47 Transport
Me-110 Fighter Bomber


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

Interesting you put down for a dive bomber, the "Val". 

Id have ranked the Stuka as better than that.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 29, 2005)

Book and Mosin:

Neither the P-40 nor the Zero were available in 1939. 

The first production P-40 was flown in April 1940 and deliveries to USAAF pursuit squadrons began in June.

The first Zeros were flown in 1939, but they were then reengined with Sakae 12 engines in December. The first production Zeros didn't arrive in service units until July, 1940.


----------



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

right, i've realised i haven't made a list yet, i've looked back and there doesn't seem to be any limit to the number of planes or what roles they have to have so it's free choice yeah?? and yeah, my airforce has a high liklihood of looking rather similar to the RAF


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2005)

In the same way that mine would look suspisciously like the RA


----------



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

God can't you pick a superior nation to be patriotic too


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2005)

Superior to the Italians? Not possible.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2005)

Lanc. CC, the French were (almost) superior to the Italians... and the British, we are in a different league completely (higher obvisiously)


----------



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

we're superior to all nations


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2005)

But translated, RA means the same as RAF, making them more efficient and energy saving because its on less letter to abbreviate a phrase meaning identical to the RAF, making them superior 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we're superior to all nations



Yeah Uh HUH okay.


----------



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

want a nettle eating comptition about that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2005)

If I know how to eat a nettle im sure Adler does


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 29, 2005)

Interceptor-Messerschmitt-109
Fighter- Ki-43
Fighter-bomber- Messerchmitt-110
Bomber- G3M
Attack aircraft - Fiat Cr.42/Hs-123
Dive Bomber- D3A Val
Transport- Ju/52
Shipboard recon- Ar-196
Coastal Bomber/Torperdoe Bomber/Recon- SM.79
Carrier Fighter - Mitsibishi A5M
Carrier Bomber- D3A Val
Carrier Torpedoe Plane- B5N

Yeah i know i kinda went over board with all of the aircaft, all of them really werent needed, but sitting here doing nothing, i find myself scrutinizing what would normally be quick decisions. 

For starters, the KI-43 as my standard fighter, yes i know not heavily armed or too fast, no armor or self sealing tanks, but in range it was far superior to my interceptor, the Me-109, therefore, it could be used as an escort as well as a general purpose fighter. Also the Val as both dive bomber, and carrier dive bomber was just to simplify production. The G3M as my bomber, i just thought it all around superior to anything in 1939. Fiat Cr.42's were used in the attack role in north africa, and by the germans in 1944.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 29, 2005)

I wonder why you thought the Ju52 was superior to the C47.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 29, 2005)

As do I...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 30, 2005)

Looks like an all Axis list to me. I would have taken a C-47 over the Ju-52 any day of the week.


----------



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

if the prototypes flew in 1939 but entered service in '41 that doesn't count does it?


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2005)

I think you will find that the Ki43 only entered production in 1941 which came as a surprise to me.

Fighter Spitfire
8 x MG was a heavy armament at the time and the speed second to none.

Heavy Fighter 110
Has to be. Few fighters at the time had its speed and 2 x 20 against bombers without Armour or self sealing fuel tanks was more than sufficient.

Bomber JU 88
An all round plane way ahead of its time

Transport C47
Just had to be

Attack Bloch 152
Radial engine, good low down speed and 2 x 20 in 1939. I know there are no bombs but planes that did in 1939 tended to be shot down in droves.

Carrier Fighter Wildcat OK if were picky about dates Buffalo
The only alternative is the A5 but I don't like planes with 2xLMG. If they used speed and dive even the Buffalo stands a chance.

Carrier Bomber Blackburn Skua
Dauntless is the obvious choice but I feel the Skua was one of those planes that was never given a chance.

Carrier Torpedo A5
Always liked this plane and for its time a good performer


----------



## V-1710 (Dec 1, 2005)

Fighter, Spitfire Mk. I, dive bomber SBD, light bomber A-20, medium bomber the He-111 or the Wellington, heavy bomber the B-17, transport C-39 (a C-47 forerunner).


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 2, 2005)

Air superiorority fighter-F-80 Shooting Star,A6M-ZERO/Spitfire
Bomber Intercepter-Hurricane
Recon-P-38, Mosquito,
Bomber-Mosquito,B-24,and the Halifax.

Carrier planes would be Multi-roles so Instead of three classes of aircraft it would be 2, fighter/bomber and torpedo planes on their own.

NAVY/Fighter/bomber-F4U-Corsair
Navy/Torpedo/ Swordfish, or the Devestator.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2005)

And how many of those were in service in 1939?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 2, 2005)

Not all of them, but hey, thats what mine would look like.


----------



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

the title said:


> 1939





hussars said:


> Air superiorority fighter-F-80 Shooting Star


 


well, we can allow him the spitfire, swordfish and hurricane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Looks like an all Axis list to me. I would have taken a C-47 over the Ju-52 any day of the week.



Same here, was a better aircraft than the Ju-52. I still love the old Tante Ju though. She is to me also an aircraft synonimous with WW2. I just saw a good show on the Ju-52/3m that Lufthansa is still flying for nostalgia. Would love to fly in one just say I did.



102first_hussars said:


> Air superiorority fighter-F-80 Shooting Star,A6M-ZERO/Spitfire
> Bomber Intercepter-Hurricane
> Recon-P-38, Mosquito,
> Bomber-Mosquito,B-24,and the Halifax.
> ...



Either you do not read the titles of threads or you just post whatever the hell you want and dont care about the title, or you have no clue. Which one is it?

Lets see dates that these aircraft first flew:

F-80: 8 January *1944*
Zero: 1 April 1939 (Did not enter full service until *1940* though)
Spitfire: 5 March 1936
Hurricane: November 1935
P-38: 27 January 1939 (Did not enter full service until atleast *1940*)
Mosquito: 25 November *1940*
B-24: 29 December 1939 (this was only the first prototype though, the rest of the prototypes were not even ready until *1940* though)
Halifax: 24 September 1939 (Did not enter service until *1940* though)
F4U: 29 May *1940*
Swordfish: 17 April 1934
Devastator: 1935

So lets see out of the ones you picked 7 of the 11 were not even used in 1939, hell on was not until 1944!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 2, 2005)

So what if some werent used in 1939 they still existed, this would be my airforce of 1939, I would have contracted the company's and order the production of the planes, 

Oh Im sorry I added the F80- Shooting Star, just trying to add some creativity didnt realise people would act as if I just massacred their entire family.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 2, 2005)

LoL  .

Hussars, the basics of the question runs something like this:

"If you could choose any aicraft operational in 1939 to create a fictional ulitmate airforce, what would they be?"

So that excludes anything that wasn't in regular squadron service before December 31st, 1939. So you can't include planes that had flow but weren't in service yet, planes that were only in prototype form or planes that hadn't even been designed yet.

Excuse us for calling you on mis-interpreting the question


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 2, 2005)

Ok let me try again,


Naval Aircraft
Fighter/bomber-Spitfire/two 20mm cannons, 2 500 pounders
Torpedo Bomber-Spitfire also- long wings enables steady low flight.


Army Air Force

Air superiority-Ki 43, Spitfire,He-100,He-178
Bomber Intercept-Hawker Hurricane
Bomber-was the B-24 liberator around back then?
Trainer- Harvard 
Transport-C-47,Ju-90


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 3, 2005)

Spitfires didn't see regular service with 20mm cannons until late-ish 1940, although cannon fittings were trialed earlier in the year. Even then the cannon installation was somewhat unreliable, and really wasn't perfected until the Mk VB which began service around March/April, 1941. 

Spitfires never carried a 2 x 500 lb bomb loadout. The limit for the Spitfire VB/C was 1 500 lb bomb on the centerline or 2 250 lb bombs on the wings (i.e. 500 lbs maximum). All versions after the Mk. IX could carry 2 x 250 lb bombs on the wings and 1 x 500 lb on the centreline, for a maximum load of 1000 lbs. None of these loadouts were used until after 1940. 

The Ki-43 didn't see service until 1941. True, it was flown in 1939, but that was only the prototype. There were only 10 airframes produced between 1939 and September 1940, all of which were used for trials and testing.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

Thats my airforce, full of prototypes, stop correcting me or I just say my 1939 AF consisted of , F-18,F-16s,F-22's,X-Wing and Tie Fighters.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 3, 2005)

Sorry about the Ki-43 mis-information as a choice for me, i was naive to the fact that it didnt enter service until 1941. As for the Ju52 over the C-47, i dont know why i would choose that, but i just liked the Ju52, seeing some with floats, and the fixed landing gear and tri-motor construciton, just so cool to me. I think i chose it for looks more than anything, cause it reminds me of italian aircraft with the triple engine layout.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Could the Spitfire even carry torpedos?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Could the Spitfire even carry torpedos?


Not as far as I know. I have not read anything about them doing it, I will have a look around and see what I can find when I have the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

That was my point, thanks Gnomey.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 4, 2005)

OK here is a list of every Spitfire varient: http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/spitfire_variants.html. Not one of them can carry a torpedo according to the site. Here is a run down of every mark: http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/marks.html. List of armaments and numbers built: http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/production.html.
As I said nowhere I have read lists the Spitfire as capable of carrying a torpedo, just bombs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Yeap that is what I allways though, thanks for proving my point. You know since Hussars is going to go ahead and make Spitfire torpedo bombers I think I will make the Fiesler Storch my torpedo bomber.


----------



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

holy crap that's bad  i seem to remember CC made a sharkmouth storch dropping a grand slam from 40,000ft once?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Yeah that was a crappy making of a torpedo Storch. That is why I apologized for it, but I think it gets my point across. Then again maybe I should use CC's grand slam dropping Storch and make it a heavy bomber, its about the same as a torpedo dropping Spitfire.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 4, 2005)

> You know since Hussars is going to go ahead and make Spitfire torpedo bombers I think I will make the Fiesler Storch my torpedo bomber.


 
It was just a creative Idea,I know it had never been done, I was just looking at the wing design of the plane and thought that it could do the job quite nicely considering the need for steady flight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Yes but that is getting away from what this thread was made for. If you want to discuss stuff like that, that is fine, make a thread for it.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 4, 2005)

The Spitfire is too light a frame to carry a torpedo. 

And I'll keep my original list;

Interceptor: Spitfire
Fighter/Ground Attack: Hawk-75
Maritime Patrol: PBY


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> holy crap that's bad  i seem to remember CC made a sharkmouth storch dropping a grand slam from 40,000ft once?



Yes I did. Who votes a repost? 

For me I think...

Fighter: CR.42
Torp Bomber: SM.79
Transport: SM.81
Bomber: P.108
Ground Attack: Ba-65
Recon: Ca-311
Maritime: Z.501

Ok so what if its basically the RA


----------



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

i vote a re-post!

and so far i've got the spit, hurricane and wimpy, possibly the whitley as my heavy bomber ..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

I go with this, not sure if it is the same or not from my last list:

Fighter - Bf-109E
Intercepter - Hurricane
Ground Attack - Ju-87
Transport - C-47
Bomber - Ju-88


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2005)

Mine would be:

Fighter: Spitfire
Interceptor: BF-109E
Ground Attack: JU-87
Bomber: JU-88/Wellington
Transport: C-47


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Interesting list. Ours are almost the same. I almost went with the same list as yours but figured that I would shake it up.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 5, 2005)

Fighter: Fiat Cr.42
Interceptor: Spitfire
Fighter bomber: Me-110
Attack: Ki-27 (could carry a small bombload, had two machine guns, was lightweight and had good range).
Bomber: G3M
Torpedoe bomber/coastal patrol: SM.79
Transport: C-47 (even though the Ju52/3m is cooler)


I know i recently did a list, but this one is revised and im trying to mix it up a little bit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Interesting list, especially the Bf-110 part.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2005)

Yep. Im liking the CR.42 and SM.79 8)


----------



## MacArther (Dec 6, 2005)

Fighter: Polikarpov I-16 Type 24
More on the way


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Okay very interesting, especially since it was an aircraft that was outclassed in 1939 and slaughtered by the Luftwaffe. The ones Type 5/6 used by the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War were completly outclassed the Bf-109B, C, D, and E's used by the Condor Legion there.

In fact I might be wrong the Type 24 were not introduced until 1940.


----------



## Pisis (Dec 6, 2005)

Czechoslovak Air Force........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

What about the Czech airforce.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

I pick the HE177.............WAIT forget that!

Instead I'll pick;
Carrier Fighter = F3F Wildcat
Dive Bomber = Dauntless
Medium Bomber = Boston (not sure about this one)
Heavy Bomber = B17 (duh)
Fighter = P40...no, ME109
Anti-shipping/Recon. = Catalina
Transport = C47 (I think they were around as a civilian craft)
8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

blue swede said:


> I pick the HE177.............WAIT forget that!



Thats not funny anymore.



blue swede said:


> Instead I'll pick;
> Carrier Fighter = F3F Wildcat
> Dive Bomber = Dauntless
> Medium Bomber = Boston (not sure about this one)
> ...



Its F4F Wildcat not F3F.
The Dauntless prototype first flew in 1939 but did not enter production and service until 1940.
The Boston did not enter service until January 10, 1941.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 7, 2005)

No it really isnt funny, i mean its ok to make corrections, serious ones on another post, i myself have done this, and changed my list mulitiple times, and yeah i have messed up a few times with aircraft that werent into production yet, but come on, that HE-177 thing was just too much, not to mention that it wasnt really that great of an aircraft anyhow.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 8, 2005)

Im' sorry mein Herr.
I didn't know that humor was verbotten.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Humor is allowed and encouraged, however since I was discussing it with you in the Best Bomber thread, it was no longer funny.


----------



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

alright, hands up, who wants me and CC to give a demonstration of real humour 

and why's no one listing the whitley as their heavy bombers!


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes please


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> alright, hands up, who wants me and CC to give a demonstration of real humour
> 
> and why's no one listing the whitley as their heavy bombers!



Maybe I dont wanna give a demonstration of humour...Maybe im wearing my sensible trousers...Thats not likely though, I never wear trousers. Express yourself! go on, do it. Imagine me expressing my self not wearing any trousers. You dont want to imagine it but you are arent you? Ha, I laugh in your face for thinking of me wearing no trousers against your will. You sick perverts!


----------



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

what if we just genuinely aren't wearing any trousers ...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 11, 2005)

Then we have diahorrea with no toilet paper


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 11, 2005)




----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 17, 2005)

Just cause i love to do this particular post, im gonna give it another go, must be somewhere near six or seven now. Oh well, here it goes. 

Interceptor: Messerschmitt Bf.109E-1
Fighter: Spitfire Mk.1
Attack: Potez 631
Bomber: G3M2
Transport: C-47/Ju-52/3M < doesnt matter which to me, like em both
Dive Bomber: Ju-87
Torpedo Bomber/coastal Bomber/recon: Sm.79


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 20, 2005)

Bomber Interceptor: bf109
Fighter: Spitfire...
Ground support: ju87 <- very propaganda-ish
fighter bomber: bf110
many-purpose bomber: sm79
coastal patrol: sm79 and maybe the fw200
carrier: a5m, im waiting for the a6m lol


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

Not a bad list there actually.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 21, 2005)

Anyone ever think of a 1940-41 list? i mean it would really open it up to some discussion, cause alot of new aircraft came into service and production in those two years (A6M, D3A, VG33, Ki-43) just some examples, though a bunch more did. I mean the lists could get longer and more detailed, and people could get into it. Not knowing if it has been done before, ill hesitate to post it myself, but would be more than happy to participate in it.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not a bad list there actually.



kool i thought u would contradict what i said like what u usually do.

i would like that 1940 post, hate the date restrictions.
maybe ill post my 1940 stuff right here:

Interceptor: He100
Fighter: Bf109, cos of the F model coming soon
Ground Support: ill put bombs and more armor on a Bf110 and 
assign it to a Schlactgeschwader
Transport: S.M 81
Heavy Bomber: Stirling
Medium-Light Bomber: Boston
Coastal Recon: SM79/FW200
Carrier Fighter/Escort: A6M, Finally


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2005)

_"kool i thought u would contradict what i said like what u usually do. "_

You've made eleven posts, there's no "usually" concerning you and the regulars here. 

I suppose you could set up a new thread and have every year in the war. Basically, my airforce would resemble the RAF throughout the war. It was an extremely well-rounded airforce, with only one major flaw (in my opinion) which was the complete lack of an effective daylight escort fighter. The U.S took up the daylight raids - so the need for large numbers of Mustang IVs in the RAF wasn't really there, I guess.


----------



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

you could always say you'd continue development of the whirlybird and say you'd use that?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

What's the point? The Mustang was a British order anyway, had the U.S not been the primary daylight bombers then the RAF would have used the Mustang as the daylight escort.


----------



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

yeah but not in 1940............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

But I don't care about 1940 - we were in no good situation to go off on a massive strategic bomber campaign. We were still reeling from the Blitzkrieg!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> kool i thought u would contradict what i said like what u usually do.




??????? Um Okay, I think pD pretty much covered it for me. Thanks pD.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2005)

No problem


----------



## RAGMAN (Jan 1, 2006)

i always wondered if the BF 110 was modified to use the radial bmw engines of the fw 190 how the 110's performance would have been?It could have strong engines for ground attack too...i figured the speed would have been upgraded at least 30 mph,maybe even 50...My computer is crashed and unuseable so I have to use me sisters now  i'll check on the forum sporadically now....boo hoo for me...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

I dont know if the Bf-110s structure could handle the BMW-801's. With structural modifications maybe.


----------



## R988 (Jan 4, 2006)

I would go for the BF 109E or whatever the latest model was by 1939, they were ahead of the British at that stage, Spitfires and Hurricanes were mostly still with two bladed props and no armour and so on, and they suffered fuel starvation with negative G compared to the 109. I assume the 109s also come with experienced German trainers as well to give a few pointers. The 109 also has cannons that would be a heck of lot better at bringing down a bomber than the .303s, which just aerated them.

I'd probably have a few TB3s and I-16s in Zveno configuration as well, worked well enough the few times it was tried anyway, even if only through shock value.  

Maybe a Ju-88 or Wimpy as a medium bomber.

Beaufort or Blenheim as an light bomber/antiship torpedo carrier.

DC3 as a transport (even the Japanese used them...)

I would have Beaufighters on order if not in training already
I'd also have the P-38 and P-39 on order, and P-39 in original form with turbocharger as well, that would be my bomber destroyer (37mm should make a mess of them...), same with the P-38 none of the limp wristed non turbo versions the yanks tried to give the British first  

I'd probably get some P-40s as well, for use as a close air support machine, they dont make the 1939 service introduction cut off though (hardly anything even half decent does, though plenty were testing by then).

Maybe a Halifax or B-24 on order as a heavy bomber.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 5, 2006)

Lets see, if I was Marshall in '39 I would be worried. USAAF would have early P-40s, P-39s, early P-38s, C-47s, P-35s, P-36s, B-17B and C (no where near enough of these), all the different versions of the Shrike, and CW-21 Demons (woo-hoo!). 

The Navy would have been a little better off with F2Fs, F3Fs, Buffalos (now here is a kickass piece of flying equipment!) and a small amount of F4Fs. Also there would have been SBC Helldiver biplanes, Devastators and PBYs.

Yes like Vanderbilt football, even though the US had some diamonds in the rough, we sucked.

:{(


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Yes like Vanderbilt football, even though the US had some diamonds in the rough, we sucked.
> 
> :{(


Oh yeah? Look north. 
At the outbreak of war, the RCAF had a grand total of approximately 270 aircraft of assorted types. It was like : "Holy shit, we're at war! Omigod, omigod, omigod, omigod! Ah...quick, build some more! A _lot_ more!  "

The Royal Canadian Naval Air Service had to be completely reactivated, as it had been disbanded in the inter-war years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

The US isolationism is what kept them from having the type of military that it had at the end of the war at the beginning of the war. The sleeping dragon however soon awakened though.....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 6, 2006)

y isnt anyone ordering a Pe-8 for 1940?


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 6, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> y isnt anyone ordering a Pe-8 for 1940?



Naw, I'll take the Peking duck. Pe-8 gives me gas. :{)


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2006)

R988 said:


> same with the P-38 none of the limp wristed non turbo versions the yanks tried to give the British first



The British ordered them that way against recomendations. They wanted the engine prop combination in the P-38 to be interchangeable with the P-40 Kittyhawks they were already getting. The British were also leery of the turbochargers and didn't want anything to do with them. The British got exactly what they ordered.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

i've always heard it was because the americans didn't want us getting our hands on the turbochargers.............


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've always heard it was because the americans didn't want us getting our hands on the turbochargers.............



I don't know where that came from but it has been out there a long time, it's just not true. It is true that the British didn't trust them and that at the time turbos were in short supply and that could have influenced their choice. The overiding point was interchangeability, even to the choice of the C (non turbo) type engine used on the P-40. Kelly Johnson confirmed this in one of his many conversations with Warren Bodie. Another point is that there never was a restriction on turbos to Britian.

One thing I don't understand is that they went to the P-40 set-up and then were dissapointed when it's high altitude performance was only marginaly better than the P-40s?

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2006)

As I understand it the decision to to go without turbochargers was because the concern was that this could cause delay in delivery as turbochargers were fairly new. As the aircraft was going to be used at low- medium altitude this wouldn't be a problem.
The decision that caused the most anguish was that the RAF planes didn't have handed engines. They both turned to the right giving the aircraft almost dangerous handling characteristics. This is the decision that caused the most objections from the Lockheed engineers.
After the order was rejected by the RAF I believe that they were completed with handed engines and used for a while by the USAAF to train new pilots. They still lacked the turbos but they were considered very fast at low altitude with goood handleing and helped with the training.
Blaming the performance sounds like a desk bound persons smokescreen for what was an appalling decision in the face of the experts advice. That however I cannot prove.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 6, 2006)

Glider said:


> As I understand it the decision to to go without turbochargers was because the concern was that this could cause delay in delivery as turbochargers were fairly new. As the aircraft was going to be used at low- medium altitude this wouldn't be a problem.
> The decision that caused the most anguish was that the RAF planes didn't have handed engines. They both turned to the right giving the aircraft almost dangerous handling characteristics. This is the decision that caused the most objections from the Lockheed engineers.
> After the order was rejected by the RAF I believe that they were completed with handed engines and used for a while by the USAAF to train new pilots. They still lacked the turbos but they were considered very fast at low altitude with goood handleing and helped with the training.
> Blaming the performance sounds like a desk bound persons smokescreen for what was an appalling decision in the face of the experts advice. That however I cannot prove.



As I mentioned above a possible shortage of turbos could have had some influence, however the order specificaly called for the type "C" engines and reduction gearing, for compatability with the P-40s. The project engineer with Lockheed was demoted after the acceptance of that contract, presumably because the 322s could not meet the requirements without even the standard "F" series engines of the P-38!

wmaxt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2006)

Interest wmaxt, I had certainly believed the myth up till now...Thanks for enlightening us...


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 7, 2006)

Good info wmaxt, I also didn't know that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I always figured it had to do with time to delivery or what not.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 9, 2006)

Still in '38 the US had all these kickin aircraft waiting in the wings in development such as the F-4U, B-25, A-20, SBD, P-47, and so on and so forth and some of these were the best at what they did in my opinion. It makes me wonder if Dec. 7th had never happened would some of these birds never flown.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

It still would have happened, some of those aircraft up there were still in developmental stage anyhow and with pre war US policy they would not have been made any quicker. Hell in the late 1920's the US was still using biplane fighters and bombers, the first real mono plane fighter did not enter service until 1934.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 9, 2006)

Still I wonder if WWII happened in '30-'35 I wonder who would have come out on top. Many AFs had some great bi-plane fighters.

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2006)

Italy, obviously.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 9, 2006)

Is this the same Italy that took over a year to defeat Abyssynia?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2006)

Sure is


----------



## ChuckW (Jan 9, 2006)

Bombers: B-10
Fighters: P-36's
Navy Bombers: SBD
Navy Fighters: Brewster Buffalo


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

that's just possibly the worst air force yet


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Still I wonder if WWII happened in '30-'35 I wonder who would have come out on top. Many AFs had some great bi-plane fighters.
> 
> :{)



Yeap and those biplane fighters proved to be obsolete to the early German mono plane fighters.



ChuckW said:


> Bombers: B-10
> Fighters: P-36's
> Navy Bombers: SBD
> Navy Fighters: Brewster Buffalo



I hope that is not your 1939 airforce? That would get chewed up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

don't forget the hurricane was around in 1935 too........


----------



## ChuckW (Jan 9, 2006)

I meant to say:

Bombers: B-18, not B-10 Let's remember that it is 1939 here, not 1942.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2006)

well that's slightly better but most people are going for the B-17 as their 1939 bomber, i'd go for the wellington though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2006)

B-18s, and P-36's would still get chewed up by 109's.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 10, 2006)

USN fighters, exept for Buffalos, were pretty nimble even the bi-planes and could, being a Grumman product, could withstand tremendous amount of damage. While I know they were slower compared to thier Euro land based cousins, speed is not everything.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2006)

> speed is not everything



it pretty much is, speed and altitude are the two greatest assets in a dogfight...........


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 10, 2006)

Yes but the ability to hit your target, especially if its a nimble but slower enemy is also crucial. Look at the Luftwaffe, if they tried to fight the I-16s in the beginning of BARBAROSSA in the terms of the I-16, they found themselves with a rear view mirror of a I-16. Speed is a lot, altitude is a lot, but being able to twist your way to a kill is also crucial. You can have the fastest fighter in the world but if can't manuever you will get flamed.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Yes but against a Bf-109E at the time they would have been chewed up. The 109 had superior maneuverability, speed, and armament.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 11, 2006)

Agreed that a fighter has to have all three. Still I would argue that if a '39 Bf-109 went up against an, and I will be generous here, a '39 Wildcat, the poor 109 pilot would have a fit because of the ability of the F4F to take damage and still may be able to turn around and flame the 109. Because I would also argue that the USN pilots were also as well trained as thier Luftwaffe cousins.

Just Arguing :{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Ill give you that. The Wildcats would have posed a bigger problem. You also have to look at the fact though that the 109 was better than the Zero. Atleast in my opinion.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ill give you that. The Wildcats would have posed a bigger problem. You also have to look at the fact though that the 109 was better than the Zero. Atleast in my opinion.


Agreed, it was tougher, faster though maybe not quite as manouverable. It did however have a range that was 1500 miles shorter than that of the Zero with a drop tank it also climbed slower.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You also have to look at the fact though that the 109 was better than the Zero. Atleast in my opinion.



You get no arguments from me on that. Still eventhough the Zero was comparativly unarmored, I think in a fight they may have been pretty evenly matached. Firepower was compariable and while the 109 may have been faster, the Zero was more manuverable. Also by '38, even with the Condor Legion, the JAF and IJN probably had a lot more combat veterans than the Luftwaffe. I would also dare say that many Luftwaffe pilots, in the beginning would have probably done the same mistate USAAF and RAF pilots did and try to turn on Zero. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

That is true Gnomey. Both had advantages and disadvantages over the other, I personally go with the 109 over th Zero though anyday.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > You also have to look at the fact though that the 109 was better than the Zero. Atleast in my opinion.
> ...



Ill agree.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is true Gnomey. Both had advantages and disadvantages over the other, I personally go with the 109 over th Zero though anyday.


So would I.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 13, 2006)

yeah, and a hacked up zero would waste alot of fuel, what japan lost to the end of the war, but it had great range, and pilots.

a pilot who can fly the 109 magnificently will bring down that wildcat in no time, but a *poor* 109 pilot... would be lucky to takeoff, without blowing it up

anyway this isnt the thread to discuss that.

about chuck's airfirce
P36s would make u end up kinda like the french, they had P-36s, but
still werent as good as 109s. then again, their fighter force wasnt all p-36s, unlike yours


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> but a *poor* 109 pilot... would be lucky to takeoff, without blowing it up



That is not true, why do you think that.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 14, 2006)

I also would take the 109 over the Zero/Zeke. Mostly because the 109 was a much more solidly built plane. It could stand up to much more damage than a Zero/Zeke would. Still you can't compete with the range of the Zero/Zeke. But I also would like to know why a novice pilot would be in danger of blowing up the 109 with its very well tested and reliable power plant. The only thing that I heard that was a danger to rookies was the its narrow gear, easy for a absent-minded rookie to ground loop. 109 engines were as safe and reliable as a Toyota (Unless the Toyota hit a Yukon).

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

The only real problem for a 109 was actually during landing. Yes it could be a little tricky on take off but not that bad.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 14, 2006)

oh, cos in every book ive read about it it says it's tricky on take off due to a swing.
im not talking about the bf109's engines, cos i agree that DB engines are great.

anyway, please end this discussion about the 109 there is a 109 thread for this


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Yes I started the 109 thread......


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

My list:
Fighters: a mix of Hurricanes and Spitfires simply because of the build time of the Spit
Ground attack:Ju87
Coastal Patrol: Sunderland
Medium bomber: Wimpey
"Heavy" bomber: Whitley


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Not a bad list.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2006)

Good list MM.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

thanks


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 19, 2006)

Speaking of early WWII air forces. I just saw on IMDb that Micheal Mann, the man who brought us Miami Vice, Heat, Collateral, etc, is going to executive produce a move called The Few, about a American flying Hurrricanes in the Battle of Britain. Figured this would be the best place to say this.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

While it might be interesting, I think focusing on only the Americans in the BoB is really a small story. There were only 7 Americans that were in the BoB! To focus on them alone does a disservice to the rest of the brave men of the RAF.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 19, 2006)

And the commonwealth countries, not to mention the Poles, Czechs and Free French that also fought...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

That's what I meant by the brave men of the RAF, all of the pilots. I should have made that clearer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2006)

While I think the American Pilots who flew should be recognized and are due there honors as well, I am afraid that this movie will be a typical Hollywood movie and place the emphasis too much on them and then all Americans will think that it was the US that saved the British in the BoB. 

England needs to keep there honor and credit, because they held on thorugh the toughest of times for them.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 19, 2006)

Hell, I'll go see it. Its based on the bio on the person that Cruise is playing. While I agree will y'alls statements, on the other hand there have not been many movies about Yanks in the BoB. I can only think of two, A Yank in the RAF ( |{p ) and a mini series on Masterpiece Theater called Piece of Cake. Pearl Harbor does NOT count! Still it will be a Micheal Mann movie and he tend when it comes to historical dramas such as Last of the Mohicans to be pretty good keeping the history good, not accurate, but good. 

Still, the character is supposed to fly Hurricanes, how many are there still flying world wide. Lastly I just hope that its not BoB meets Top Gun.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

I hear what you are saying, but I am with Adler on this one. The average American movie-goer is likely to think that if not for the Americans, Britain would have lost. That would be a real shame.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2006)

Slightly off the topic of the Battle of Britain specifically, but there were over 8000 Americans serving in the RCAF. It was faster and easier to sign up in Canada than travelling all the way over to the UK simply to join up. Maybe the American contribution to the BoB shouldn't be overblown, but at the same time the Americans who volunteered to fight even before America went to war should never be forgotten.

Just the same though, I hope this movie will be somewhat accurate at least.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

Yep, NS, and if you add Americans in the RCAF, I think there were 3 during that time. I am not discounting the fact that they volunteered and that is definitely honorable. I just fear how Hollywood might spin this one. I hope I am wrong on this, but after Pearl Harbor and U-571, I think Hollywood could use a little history lesson.

Although I have heard that "Flags of our fathers" is supposed to retain some real good historical accuracy. So I guess there is hope yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

Im with even on this. I will go and see the movie, but until I have seen it, I will not get my hopes up.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 20, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Slightly off the topic of the Battle of Britain specifically, but there were over 8000 Americans serving in the RCAF. It was faster and easier to sign up in Canada than travelling all the way over to the UK simply to join up. Maybe the American contribution to the BoB shouldn't be overblown, but at the same time the Americans who volunteered to fight even before America went to war should never be forgotten.
> 
> Just the same though, I hope this movie will be somewhat accurate at least.


I believe if you check it out most of the guys from thr US that joined the RCAF early ended up as instructors for the BCATP few managed to get to operational squadrons because of the need for new aircrew the RAF had switched over training for the most part to Canada because of better weather , more space , and more importantly freedom to train outside a combat zone I believe of the top of my head over 300000 aircrew were trained in Canada in WW2 not including those that washed out and were trained in the trades in fact the RCAF had offices in the Waldorf Astoria they used to recruit US pilots


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

They still joined up early though and did there part.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Yep, NS, and if you add Americans in the RCAF, I think there were 3 during that time. I am not discounting the fact that they volunteered and that is definitely honorable. I just fear how Hollywood might spin this one. I hope I am wrong on this, but after Pearl Harbor and U-571, I think Hollywood could use a little history lesson.



Upon further research I think Cruise is playing a RCAF dude. Also I quite enjoyed Pearl and U-571. I like the 40's and 50's shoot 'em up WWII movies and these two reminded me of that.

:{)


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Yep, NS, and if you add Americans in the RCAF, I think there were 3 during that time. I am not discounting the fact that they volunteered and that is definitely honorable. I just fear how Hollywood might spin this one. I hope I am wrong on this, but after Pearl Harbor and U-571, I think Hollywood could use a little history lesson.
> 
> Although I have heard that "Flags of our fathers" is supposed to retain some real good historical accuracy. So I guess there is hope yet.



After the hammering that Pearl Harbour and U-571 copped, you'd think that no director would be stupid enough to warp a historically based film ever again. But then again tis a strange world we live in!

BTW can't wait for Flags of our Fathers and the new BoB series!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Nonskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly off the topic of the Battle of Britain specifically, but there were over 8000 Americans serving in the RCAF. It was faster and easier to sign up in Canada than travelling all the way over to the UK simply to join up. Maybe the American contribution to the BoB shouldn't be overblown, but at the same time the Americans who volunteered to fight even before America went to war should never be forgotten.
> ...


Yeah, I did a little more reading last night on it and discovered that relatively few of those early ones even left Canada. Actually, I had known about the recruiting offices in the States, but I'd forgotten about them. Thanks for bringing that up, pb.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 20, 2006)

But see here, how many of us enjoy watching the classic WWII movies, everything from Battle of Britain to Airforce, from historically correct (or mostly correct) to the the classic black and white propaganda flicks of WWII. While I love the historically correct stuff from Piece of Cake to Band of Brothers, sometimes its also good to release facts for fantasy. Thats why I actually enjoyed Pearl Harbor and U-571 because the good guys always wear white and the bad guys are right out of a WWII propaganda poster. I love history in all its factual hard reality but sometimes its just fun to see the Spits coming out of the sun to vanquish the goddless Nazis or the gallant P-40 pilots, rounds flying all over the place, take off in thier P-40s to vanquish the equally goddless Japs. Even the Duke in his Corsair making the world safe for democracy. Sure some of these movies are just plain stoopid, but many are just plain fun. And that's why I go to the movies.

My two yen

:{)


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They still joined up early though and did there part.


no doubt without US instructors the supply of trained aircrew could have been critical for the commonwealth airforces a very important contribution indeed


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> But see here, how many of us enjoy watching the classic WWII movies, everything from Battle of Britain to Airforce, from historically correct (or mostly correct) to the the classic black and white propaganda flicks of WWII. While I love the historically correct stuff from Piece of Cake to Band of Brothers, sometimes its also good to release facts for fantasy. Thats why I actually enjoyed Pearl Harbor and U-571 because the good guys always wear white and the bad guys are right out of a WWII propaganda poster. I love history in all its factual hard reality but sometimes its just fun to see the Spits coming out of the sun to vanquish the goddless Nazis or the gallant P-40 pilots, rounds flying all over the place, take off in thier P-40s to vanquish the equally goddless Japs. Even the Duke in his Corsair making the world safe for democracy. Sure some of these movies are just plain stoopid, but many are just plain fun. And that's why I go to the movies.
> 
> My two yen
> 
> :{)



that's fair enough and it can be interesting, but what i hate the most is that other less informed people actually believe it! we know it's not true, they swallow it up as fact.............


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2006)

And then try to tell you it is fact because they saw it at the movies...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

but just possibly the most annoying and worst people for this are in my history group. they're quite loud so me and CC can hear them from where we sit, and they sit and talk to each other about military stuff, say they say it on a doccumantary and try to make it sound like they're experts on the subject, what i wouldn't give to be able to go up there and correct them on all their mistakes..............


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2006)

Do it then... It is normally great fun too see the reaction on their faces


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

no, i think i'll wait 'til they actually try and tell me this crock of shit to my face, then i will periodically and systematically correct each of their mistakes, listing sources for each of the corrections  that'd be much more fun!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2006)

Maybe but you may be waiting for a long time, normally I find you have to go and tell them rather than them tell you if you get what I mean.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2006)

yeah but to be upfront and to be the instigator of the first move is most un-British................


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2006)

Sometimes it is best to be upfront and the intisgator...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 21, 2006)

Is there a movie thread? It would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on thier fav airplane flicks and how good or bad they got it in our unquestionable side seat driving, monday night quarterbacking, chairborne ranger opinions.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Also I quite enjoyed Pearl and U-571. I like the 40's and 50's shoot 'em up WWII movies and these two reminded me of that.
> 
> :{)



How?

U-571 was completely wrong. It was the British that did that, not the US Navy and how the hell did you like Pearl Harbor. That movie was a catastrophe!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 22, 2006)

If one wants to read about the BCATP get

*Wings of Victory*
Spencer Dunmore
ISBN 0-7710-2918-7

From the book, 131,553 aircrew graduated from Oct 1940 to Mar 1945. The total does not include 5,296 RAF and FAA aircrew trained prier to July 1942 which at that period was not part of the BCATP.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 22, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> If one wants to read about the BCATP get
> 
> *Wings of Victory*
> Spencer Dunmore
> ...


 try reading Behind the Glory by Ted Barris I think it does a better job and is more factual in comparing some of the anecdotes


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 22, 2006)

How?

U-571 was completely wrong. It was the British that did that, not the US Navy and how the hell did you like Pearl Harbor. That movie was a catastrophe![/quote]

I thought it was along the lines of Crash Dive!, Operation Pacific, and Destination Tokyo. I was willing to for go fact, truth, and history for what was a fun flick. I knew the history behind it and I knew it was not going to be factual but who cares? If I want fact I I'll go see Das Boot, and end up depressed afterwards. U-571 was fun.

The same with Pearl Harbor. It was a nostalgia movie. So what again if it was not factual. It had great air-to-air shots and not to mention it had Kate Beckinsale. (Underworld: Evolution ROCKS!!!). 

I know these movies were wrong, my wife knew they were wrong, my friends knew they were wrong, hell even my pet cat knew they were wrong. But who cares, they were fun. Again if I wanted to see a factual Pearl movie I'll go see Tora Tora Tora and again be depressed. Sometimes its good to get lost in the fantasy and let the goodguys win as long as we stay grounded in facts and reality.

Even movies that we consider "real" have thier fiction for dramatic purposes and that includes movies like Das Boot and Saving Private Ryan.

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2006)

I agree with to to an extent CD, and see where youre coming from...I actually enjoyed U-571 the first time I saw it, but then again that was when I had no idea of its historical inaccuracy, but I probably would still like it. Pearl Harbor was just unforgivable in my opinion though...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> I thought it was along the lines of Crash Dive!, Operation Pacific, and Destination Tokyo. I was willing to for go fact, truth, and history for what was a fun flick. I knew the history behind it and I knew it was not going to be factual but who cares? If I want fact I I'll go see Das Boot, and end up depressed afterwards. U-571 was fun.



Okay Fair Eneogh. I will agree with you on that, as long as one knows that it is completly unreal.



CurzonDax said:


> The same with Pearl Harbor. It was a nostalgia movie. So what again if it was not factual. It had great air-to-air shots



This movie still sucked to me though, because to me it was not eneogh about Pearl Harbor and just about Ben Assflick!  



CurzonDax said:


> and not to mention it had Kate Beckinsale. (Underworld: Evolution ROCKS!!!).



Kate is deffinatly hot! I loved her in Underworld (mostly because I love the darkside of things and she made for a hot vampire!) I cant wait to see Underworld Evolution but I will have to wait a while till it hits the US theatres over here in Germany unless I want to see it in German which would not be that bad for me. 



CurzonDax said:


> I know these movies were wrong, my wife knew they were wrong, my friends knew they were wrong, hell even my pet cat knew they were wrong. But who cares, they were fun. Again if I wanted to see a factual Pearl movie I'll go see Tora Tora Tora and again be depressed. Sometimes its good to get lost in the fantasy and let the goodguys win as long as we stay grounded in facts and reality.



You see that is the problem with them. You understand that it is not truth and that is great. Others see movies like U-571 and take it for the complete truth and then they go and tell others about it and it just spreads like wild fire.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 22, 2006)

Look it does not matter how accurate or inaccurate the movie is there will always be people that see these movies as gospel, I meet them everyday in the Live Journal blogs I belong to about WWII. Look at al the idjits that thought the movie had been spoiled for them because people in line were talking about the boat sinking in Titanic (it actually happened to me and my wife). And it does not matter how accurate the movie is either, you will have unbelievers (every year I have students telling me that the Holocaust was sci-fi even after watching Shindler's List). 

BTW I DO NOT like Ben Afflicted! I just like the whole romantic fly-boy cult the movie had. Not to mention it was very well filmed.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Look it does not matter how accurate or inaccurate the movie is there will always be people that see these movies as gospel.




And thats the point I have been making all along, and that is very unfortunate and Hollywood is not helping.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 22, 2006)

Its for the money. Hell look at Disney (forever to be refered after this point as the evil empire) and thier doing of history. Cool fiction sells better than the hard facts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2006)

Sad but true.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 24, 2006)

ya, those hollywood films, like it made me feel that the axis was kool, cause i was curios what the frik were they doing? i mean they should have been as cunning


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

I really do not understand what you are trying to say. Someone translate please!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2006)

Something along the lines of Hollywood make them feel the axis powers were 'cool', they were then curious at what the axis were doing and thought they should have been cunning. Doesn't make much sense to me either...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh well thanks for the attempt.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 24, 2006)

I see what he means. In many circles there is a sort of lost cause syndrome towards the Whermacht and the Luftwaffe, sort of the same lost cause syndrome for the Confederacy in the US. This lost cause syndrome is not a pro-Nazi feeling but it wants to re-enact the trials of the grunts and pilots of the Whermacht and the Luftwaffe. In fact I think more people reenact the Whermacht than others here in the US (gotta admit the uniforms are cooler looking than that of the US Army and English army).

Look at the BoB movie, the Luftwaffe pilots were cheery and joking sort of guys while the RAF characters were stoic, stiff, and mechanical, the stereotype of the stoic RAF pilot defending the island. 

To me in movies like Stalingrad and Cross of Iron they seem to go out of thier way to make the Whermacht characters look human and like "the good guys". I am not trying to belittle the suffering the Germans went through in Russia (or for that matter in Falaise), but it seems that sometimes directors here and in Europe try to do this like trying to make the Confederates look the same way in Gettysburg.

I hope I made sense and did not insult ya Alder or others.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2006)

Nope no insults here.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 26, 2006)

i shouldnt go 2 this forum after seeing fireworks/party
i dont make sense after those stuff
well basically... I JUST DONT MAKE SENSE MMKAY?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

You watch a lot fo South Park dont you?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 28, 2006)

not alot.... TOO MUCH SOUTH PARK
too bad it only shows at Saturday 10pm at my country


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

I really can not stand the show. It was okay at first and then it just got dumb in my opinion. That is just my opinion though.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 31, 2006)

neither can i, but nevertheless the story is stupid... thats why i watch it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Okay then.


----------



## krupp (Feb 4, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> are you kidding me! in 1939 the B-17 was a peace of junk!


HA,Ha!!
Even a Chinese has know it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

welcome to the site krupp, any chance you can explain that a bit more i didn't really understand it ?


----------



## krupp (Feb 4, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> welcome to the site krupp, any chance you can explain that a bit more i didn't really understand it ?


i agree with you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

I think most would.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

most would what? i don't understand what he means by 



> Even a Chinese has know it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

His english is just not very well. He said even a Chinese would agree with you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

ah thanks, see, i'm cultured


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2006)




----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

More precisely, he meant "Even the Chinese know that [the B-17 was a pile of junk in 1939]" .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Aha!


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 5, 2006)

Didn't the British even dislike thier Fortress Is?

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

We hated them. The idea of a bomber being so heavily defended that it could bomb in daylight appealed to Bomber Command, after all the B-17 could fly higher and was more heavily armed than all other RAF bombers at the time. 

However, the idea was soon proved false. The B-17 could fly higher but the performance of German interceptors was remarkable at the altitude, and the B-17s could not defend themselves even in close formation. 

The idea of a self-defending fortress in the sky was hashed over once again when the USAAF began their campaign over European skies. Lessons learnt twice by the RAF did not have any effect on the brains of the USAAF - which cost many people's lives. Then, finally, in 1943 they realised a long-range escort fighter would be the only way the daylight offensive could continue.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 6, 2006)

But while in 39 the Fort was one of the planes in the world with the longest legs and biggest payload capability, there is a world of difference between the B/C/D models than there is with the E/F/G models. I would not fly into a mess of 109s in a C model fort but I would think about it in a F or a G model, but in 39 these versions were not even a twinkle in the eye in the Boeing designers eyes. Still for my operational AF in 39, the Fort still is a tempting thing.

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2006)

The YB-17A would have been blasted out of the sky just like all the RAF Bomber Command aircraft were in the same time period. The B-17 only became a formidable bomber in the F and G models. 

If you had produced the B-17A it would have been quite terrible. The B-17B was much better, but that still was not really anything special. 

Some basics:

B-17B:

Payload: 4,800 lbs (Maximum eight 600 lbs bombs)
Range: 3,100 miles
Ceiling: 24,620 ft







Image Source: http://www.airwar.ru

Wellington IC:

Payload: 4,500 lbs
Range: 2,200 miles
Ceiling: 22,000 ft






Image Source: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/billchurchley

Whitley IV:

Payload: 7000 lbs
Range: 2,400 miles
Ceiling: 26,600 ft






Image Source: http://www.ww2incolor.com


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 8, 2006)

u know, flying any B17/B24/B29 into a mess of 109s would most likely get u killed,


----------



## Bachgyn Bach (Feb 9, 2006)

My list
Fighter - Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I
Bomber - PZL-37 Łoś
Dive bomber?????? but not Stuka for sure
Basic trainer - RWD-8 (optionally Tiger Moth)
"2nd level trainer" - PWS-26
Advanced trainer - Harvard
Patrol - Short Sunderland
Transport - C-47
Maybe as ground attack DB-7 Havoc....I think it was in production and service in 1939


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Interesting


----------



## Bachgyn Bach (Feb 11, 2006)

What is interesting?
About the bombers
Polish main bomber in 1939 PZL 37 didn't have very long range (max. range was 1750 km) but its bombload was 2595 kg (approx. 5709 lbs).
Empty weight was (with equipment) was 4935 kg (10857 lbs) max take off weight was 9120 kg (20064 lbs). Top speed was 412 km/h with two engines Bristol Pegasus XXA or Pegasus XXB of 692 kW (max).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Your list is interesting. To each there own man.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 12, 2006)

the stuka wasnt bad till like 1941-43 not sure


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 12, 2006)

Stuka's were mauled by the RAF in the Battle of Britain and they were withdrawn from frontline service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

Stukas were only good when you had air supperiority which the Luftwaffe did not gain in the BoB.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 12, 2006)

I'd rather have the Whitley for my bomber in 1939. It could carry more than most, if not all "heavy" bombers of the time. 

The Ju-87 was withdrawn from front-line service in the ETO. It's worth had vanished. It was obvious that Britain would not give in because of bombing, and the RAF was a strength the Luftwaffe could not overwhelm. 
The Stuka was still in use in North Africa and Russia, to deadly effect. Not so much against the British and Commonwealth in North Africa, after all they knew what to expect. 
In Russia it was a deadly machine right up until the wars end. Even the most battle-hardened of Soviet troops could be shaken by the sirens of Stukas. I imagine in their high spirits an appearance of enemy bombers shocked them out of their skin. After all, weren't the VVS supposed to have air superiority by 1945? Most, if not all, Red Army troops would question that. 

The Stuka was not a bad aircraft, certainly not. But it could only operate in situations with air superiority. Isn't that true for all bombers save the greats?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2006)

You are correct pD, and if you look at the East Front I dont think you can say that the Russians had complete control of there skies even in 1945. The Luftwaffe desimated the VVS.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 13, 2006)

thats because it isnt a strategic bomber, what the Germans needed, they thought that u can use the stuka as a strategic bomber, the stuka is meant to support the army's advance/sink ships, etc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2006)

> I'd rather have the Whitley for my bomber in 1939. It could carry more than most, if not all "heavy" bombers of the time.



well until designs like the stirling came around the RAF did class her as a Heavy bomber..........


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 15, 2006)

Saw a movie this weekend called Dive Bomber with Eroll Flynn and Fred McMurry. What it has to do with this list is that it does show what the USN had available in 1939-40. It was also filmed in technicolor which also showed very well the peactime USN colors on thier planes. Also it was filmed on the Lex with its distinctive stacks. List of planes shown were Devastators, F2Fs , F3Fs, Vindicators, Buffalos, PBYs,a host of trainers, and so on.

What was also of interest was the field in San Diego, the largest paved piece of property in the world. A dozen planes could take off side by side. 

While I would not choose many of these aircraft as my '39 force, it was interesting to catch a glimpse into the pre-war USN filmed with pre-war USN equipment and personnel.

:{)


----------



## MacArther (Feb 18, 2006)

Another aircraft I would use, probably in the anti-bomber/ quick intercept is the Belgium made Hurrican Mk 1. The difference between this and the British model is the 4 13.2mm guns that replace all 8 7.7mm guns.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

I was actually refering to heavy bombers worldwide, lanc, like the B-17. I do realise that the Whitley was the heavy, but in view of World War II that we can see now ... no it wasn't.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 18, 2006)

I agree. Lancs and Halifaxes were heavies, not the Whitley. Also in '39 the 'Fort was the big bubba of mass production bombers in the world even with its shortcomings. 

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2006)

yeah i agree that she should have been a medium and when designs like the stirling did come around she was demoted to a medium............


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 25, 2008)

I like to see what additions or changes the newer members might suggest
The aircraft should be operational in 39 


pbfoot said:


> fighter spitfire mk1
> bomber ju88a
> ground support fokker g.1
> coastal patrol pby4
> ...


----------



## joy17782 (Jan 25, 2008)

good pics , i would go along with the b-17 too better then nothing at all, but for a all around bomber i would have picked the ju-88

i wonder what a brewster buffalo would have sirvived agianst a me-109 what do you guys think , i think it would have been shot 2 pieces


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2008)

Please use the edit button instead of making 2 different posts right after one another.


----------



## magnocain (Jan 25, 2008)

But if I post 2 after another...

It counts double

ok i wont do it again.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 25, 2008)

Well, just for the heck of it, I'll add my picks for my dream airforce in 1939.

Long range bomber: Farman F.222
Medium range bomber: LeO 451 
Dive bomber: Stuka
Ground attack: Breguet 691
Fighter: Spitfire Mk.1
Reconnaissance: Lockheed A-28 Hudson
Trainer: Bucker Bu.131 Jungmann
Liason: Lysander Mk.1
Transport: DC-3
Seaplane: Short Sunderland Mk.1


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2008)

This is not my dream but it's a real air force for september 1939.
fighters: Hurricane, Gladiator, Spitfire, Gauntlet
heavy fighter: Blenheim
carrier fighter: Sea Gladiator, Roc
heavy bombers: Whitley, Wellington, Harrow
bombers: Battle, Blenheim, Hampden, Wellesley, Vincent, Vildebeest, 
carrier torpedo bomber: Swordfish
carrier dive bomber: Skua
army cooperation: Audax, Hind, Lysander, Wapiti, Seal, Hardy, Gordon
sea patrol (not seaplane included) Anson, Hector, Hudson, 

p.s. cooperation and bombers for some planes it's my classification


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2008)

magnocain said:


> But if I post 2 after another...
> 
> It counts double
> 
> ok i wont do it again.



Being a smart ass even for a 5th grader is not going to get you very far.


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2008)

Personally My selections would be -
*fighter Me109*
Advantages over the Spitfire in 1939 being the engine and dive.

*Heavy Bomber Wellington*
I like the powered turrets and general range/payload. The LMG was sufficient against most fighters armed with LMG's witout armour or sealing tanks.

*Medium bomber ju88a*
Need I say anything?

ground support Stuka
coastal patrol pby4
transport c-47
primary trainer Miles Magister
advanced trainer at 6 harvard (texan)
carrier fighter Brewster Buffalo


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2008)

an other real air force(s) for september 1939:
fighters: P26, P35, P36
carrier fighters: F2F, F3F, F2A
heavy bombers: Y1B17, B18
bombers: B10, B12
attack: A12, A17, A18
carrier dive bombers: BT, BG, SBC, SB2U
carrier torpedo bomber:TBD
observation: O38, O46, O47, old Keystone bombers
carrier observation: SF, SU2, SU3, SU4


----------



## Marcel (Jan 27, 2008)

Glider said:


> Fokker G1 for Me110. G1 lost due to speed. It wasn't that fast and a 110 could run from anything in 1939 apart from a Spitfire. plus had devistating firepower for the period.



The Bf110C actually had a lower cruisespeed than the G.I plus the G.I seems to have been more manouverable according to dutch pilots.
As for firepower, the G.I original had 2 20MM and 2 7.62 MG's in the nose and 1 7.62 in the back, what I call quite heavy for the time.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2008)

a third example for september '39
fighters: Ki 10, Ki 27
carrier fighters: A4N, A5M
heavy bomber: Ki 20 (only six and unfit for war)
bombers: Ki 2, Ki 21, Ki 30, Ki 32, B.R. 20, G3M
support: Ki 36
carrier torpedo bombers: B4Y, B5M, B5N
carrier dive bomber: D1A
recce: C5M/Ki15, Ki 4, Type 88


----------



## fly boy (Jan 28, 2008)

i thought that lancs were around in 39


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2008)

a fourth example:
fighters: I 5, I 15, I 153, I 16, DI 6
long range bombers: TB 3, DB 3
bombers: SB
recce: R 5, R 10, R Z


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2008)

a fifth esample:
fighters: Bf 109 (D and E version)
carrier fighter: Bf 109B (but no carrier)
heavy fighter: Bf 110C
bombers: Do 17 (M and Z), He 111 (P and H), Ju 88A 
dive bomber: Ju 87B
carrier dive bomber: Ju 87B (no carrier)
recce: He 45, He 46, Hs 126, Do 17 (L and P), He 111J


----------



## Freebird (Jan 28, 2008)

Good list Jabberwocky, I would take them *{with a few exceptions}*



Jabberwocky said:


> Fighter- Supermarine Spitfire Mk 1
> 
> Fighter 2- Messerschmitt Bf-109E4
> 
> ...




I would take the Leo 451 over the Ju 88 though, it was faster, and had a better ceiling, range payload.

I think the B5N1 entered service in 1938, was it not a better TB than the Devastator?

Should the B-17B still be considered a heavy bomber even with it's limited payload? (4,800 lb?)


----------



## Flydude21 (Jan 29, 2008)

I would have a squade of F4U corsairs
and a small squade of SPITS to guard the B-25'S


----------



## magnocain (Jan 29, 2008)

Speaking of my air force...I have been working on a insignia to go with it.





What do you think

Fighter: bf 109
Bomber: B-17
Alternate Fighter: D.520
Alternate Bomber: ju88
Other: Fi 156 storch
Transport: c47
Flying Boat/Transport: Sunderland
Carrier Fighter:f4f (or the 109)
Carrier Bomber: SBD dauntless (or sea stuka)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

a 6th example of real air force in september 1939

fighters: SPAD 510, MB 151, MB 152, D 501, D 510, MS 406, H75A, NiD 622, NiD 629, D 371, LGL 32, Lo 46
carrier fighters: D 373, D 376
heavy fighters: Potez 630 and 631
heavy bombers: Farman 221 and 222
bombers: Amiot 143M, MB 200, MB 210, LeO 206, LeO 451, Potez 633
carrier bombers: PL 7, PL 101, PL 10, V156F
recce: ANF 113, ANF 115, ANF 117, MB 131, Breguet 270, Potez 25, Potez 390, Potez 540, Potez 542, Potez 637


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

a 7th example:

fighters: C.R. 30, C.R. 32, C.R. 42, G. 50, Ro. 41, M.C. 200
attack: AP.1, Ba. 64, Ba. 65, Ba. 88
observations: Ro. 37, Ro. 1, Ca. 309
bombers: Ca. 111, Ca. 133, Ca. 135, B.R. 20, S.M. 79, S.M. 81, Z. 1007, P. 32
dive bomber: S.M. 85


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> a 7th example:
> 
> fighters: C.R. 30, C.R. 32, C.R. 42, G. 50, Ro. 41, M.C. 200
> attack: AP.1, Ba. 64, Ba. 65, Ba. 88
> ...


Ok now pick one of each type from any nation fot your choice


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

too fast i need to post others, if i find info i want post also poland, nederland and romania, 
so remain out only a few of aircraft company (avia, letov, renard, and some other that not remember, 
obv telling only serviceable planes in sep '39)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

the 8th:
fighters: PZL P. 7, PZL P. 11
bombers: PZL 37, PZL 23
observation: R XIII, RWD 14


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

the 9th:
fighter: D XXI, D XVII
heavy fighter: G I
bomber: T V, Martin 139 and 166
attack: DB8A3N
recce: C V, C X, FK 51


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> the 9th:
> fighter: D XXI
> heavy fighter: G I
> bomber: T V
> ...


But the question is what would your Air Force look like in 1939 not whateverybody elses does


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2008)

i see many people that tell of aircraft post 1939, so all can done a idea what were the '39 aircrafts


----------



## Marcel (Jan 31, 2008)

Few changes:


Vincenzo said:


> the 9th:
> fighter: D XXI*, D.XVII, DB8A3N*
> heavy fighter: G I*, T.V*
> bomber: T V*, C.X*
> ...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 1, 2008)

magnocain said:


> Speaking of my air force...I have been working on a insignia to go with it.
> What do you think
> 
> Fighter: bf 109
> ...



Sorry, it's only aircraft available in 1939. The Dauntless, Wildcat D 520 were only operational in 1940


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 1, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Few changes:



for usual i give only a principal use for the planes.
for D XVII this is reported like a fighter training aircraft.

see you're nederlander i don't found planes in Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger in september 1939, but i think they have same of LV, only after they bought new types, this is true?


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 1, 2008)

i scrap romania from the list i don't find 1939 aircrafts, and therefore there aren't news type.
My choices:

fighter: The best fighters are surely Bf 109E and Spitfire I, only Bf 109E is on market, i choice this.

carrier fighter: F2A alone last generation on carrier and also on market this 
is a choice.

heavy fighter: Bf 110 (it's more fast af all other in this category (+70 km/h) and had heavy weaponry) 

dive bomber: Ju 87B

carrier dive bomber: SB2U

carrier torpedo bomber: B5N (unlucky this is not on market) my 2nd is TBD 

bombers: PZL 37 (light)

heavy bombers: none, afaik none of heavy bombers was on market, and i don't think that Y1B17s, more advanced design, were fitted for war.

late i'll edit for others category


----------



## Marcel (Feb 1, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> for usual i give only a principal use for the planes.
> for D XVII this is reported like a fighter training aircraft.
> 
> see you're nederlander i don't found planes in Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger in september 1939, but i think they have same of LV, only after they bought new types, this is true?



Hi Vincenzo, the D.XVII was the standard fighter before the D.XXI, so it was a fighter, not a trainer. T.V was initially designed to do the same job as the G.I, being a "luchtkruiser" or a "Kampfzerstoerer" as the germans named it. Later they recognised it would better be seen as a bomber instead of a fighter. Nevertheless with the overwhelming air superiority of the germans, the T.V had to be returned to their original roll as a heavy fighter and even shot down a few planes.

I'm not sure what you mean by your question, but the KNIL (Royal dutch indies army) had their own policy in airplane specification. For instance, the D.XXI was designed for the KNIL, but they refused it, after which the LVA bought them. The KNIL in 1940-1941 was manly equiped with US planes, like the Curtis fighters, Martin bombers etc. and a few geman ones like the dornier flyingboat.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2008)

i see orbat of LV for 1939 not D XVII was indicated for fighter units, is common for old fighter became training fighter. if you know in that unit D XVII was in service can you give me the info? yes for knil it's easy find 1940/1 aircrafts but for this topic need 1939 aircrafts


----------



## Marcel (Feb 2, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> i see orbat of LV for 1939 not D XVII was indicated for fighter units, is common for old fighter became training fighter. if you know in that unit D XVII was in service can you give me the info? yes for knil it's easy find 1940/1 aircrafts but for this topic need 1939 aircrafts



The D.XVII was on fighter strength until 3 rd of may 1940 in V-2-LvR, they were then withdrawn to fighter school, only to be transfered back to the LVA on the 11th of may for escorting duties.
As for the LV-KNIL in 1939, I'm not sure. I know they had Curtis Hawk 75 planes, but don't know when they were delivered, I believe in 1938 or '39 but not sure. Also on strength for sure were Martin 139 bombers, Dornier Wal flyingboats and Fokker C.V reconnaissance planes.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2008)

for hawk 75 wikipedia report order of october 1939 and shipped in '40.
for me is hard understand nederlander but i think that martin 139 were in service from april 1939. (Glenn Martin 139 en 166)


----------



## Marcel (Feb 2, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> for hawk 75 wikipedia report order of october 1939 and shipped in '40.
> for me is hard understand nederlander but i think that martin 139 were in service from april 1939. (Glenn Martin 139 en 166)



No, it says:


> Op 2 september 1936 werd de eerste WH-1, de M-501 met constructienummer 656 overgedragen. Half december arriveerde de M501 en de M-502 in Nederlands-Indië


 On september the 2nd *1936* the first WH-1, no. M-501, constructionnumber 656, was delivered, the M501 and M502 arrived in december in the dutch indies. 
(ed. the WH-1 was the dutch version of the Martin 139)

Further more it say. Later, the 139 was developed into the 166 and this model was ordered as the WH-3. The last of these came into service in April 1939. I guess this last line causes the confusion.

I saw that I confused the order date with the delivery date of the Hawk 75, thanks. The KNIL did have however Curtiss P-6 Hawk planes, from about 1930, I guess they were still on duty in 1939 but I cannot be sure at the moment. They were at least in 1936, when they wanted to replace them with D.XXI's. They finally descided to buy bombers instead of fighters.


----------

