1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like

[CurzonDax]

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]

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]

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]

Italy, obviously.

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

Sure is

 

[ChuckW]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's just possibly the worst air force yet

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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]

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

 

[ChuckW]

I meant to say:

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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

 

[CurzonDax]

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]

speed is not everything

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

 

[CurzonDax]

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]

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

 

[CurzonDax]

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]

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]

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.