1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like

[CurzonDax]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

:{)

Ill agree.

 

[Gnomey]

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]

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]

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

That is not true, why do you think that.

 

[CurzonDax]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[mosquitoman]

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]

Not a bad list.

 

[Gnomey]

Good list MM.

 

[mosquitoman]

thanks

 

[CurzonDax]

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]

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]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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.

:{)