1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like

[Bachgyn Bach]

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]

Your list is interesting. To each there own man.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

the stuka wasnt bad till like 1941-43 not sure

 

[Gnomey]

Stuka's were mauled by the RAF in the Battle of Britain and they were withdrawn from frontline service.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[plan_D]

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The Ju-87 was withdrawn from front-line service in the ETO.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[joy17782]

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]

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

 

[magnocain]

But if I post 2 after another...

It counts double

ok i wont do it again.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

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]

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