Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't apply recip engine tactics to a fighter with nearly 2X speed of the fighters you wish to kill. Sweep and destroy and let the bombers follow. As far as bombers - why not 'Be the bomber" and let your opponents try to stop you. In 1939 your max tactical radius is probably 200-250 miles with a 1 KG bomb load. Do you think two years of development yields tip tanks, external mid air refueling options and other variations to extend range another 100 miles by 1941? Maybe/Maybe not - but France based airfields give the 262 to range to go to most important British targets from 1940 onward.
Because your Me 262s are based in France for the BoB they are within range of my Spitfire XIVs and/or Tempest Vs. Using our rapidly organised system of French informants we will get forewarning of attacks and send our fighters to destroy the Me 262s on the ground or taking off. Later our reserves will return to catch any that got away as they return to base....
But would France fall if the RAF or the French Air force had the Me 262?
If France doesn't fall it reduces the need of a long range escort, in the ETO at least.
[Any fighter from the post #1 can destroy the RAF in 1940]
True, if the RAF doesn't have any of those aircraft in the list.
So, the question is - would you place the P-47N at the top of your list for Germany in 1939?
Because your Me 262s are based in France for the BoB they are within range of my Spitfire XIVs and/or Tempest Vs. Using our rapidly organised system of French informants we will get forewarning of attacks and send our fighters to destroy the Me 262s on the ground or taking off. Later our reserves will return to catch any that got away as they return to base....
Me 262s could have got across the Channel fast enough to defeat the British radar and fighter control system. That might cause some serious problems for your interceptors. By the time the fighters were scrambled the Me 262s would be arriving. Even conventional aircraft managed this on occasion.
Cheers
Steve
Dave - I have no problem picking the P-47N except that it has zero growth potential from 1939 forward, nor would I personally choose it over the Me 262 as the only strategic footprint that matters in 1939 and 1940 is Britain.
Just me. This is why I pose the question - and want folks to frame their choice based on the potential force leverage.
For me, I pick the P-51H because the US entered the war with the infrastructure and commitment to support Strategic airpower and the most important role for 'the fighter' of choice was escort of medium and heavy bombers to project force across the widest of footprints. What the 51H will not do (nor the P-47N and really not the F4U) is become a top night fighter. It will also suffer more CAS losses than the P-47N.. but will go the necessary distance with same or greater performance at 2/3 the operating expense and 2/3 the cost.
For Japan I am awfully tempted to pick F7F because it was not only so capable as a fighter, but perhaps the most versatile of all the fighters developed for WWII. From land bases it is a better anti shipping weapon than the Betty, a far better performing fighter than any Japanese counterpart fighter. There are a few better day fighters on the list above - but only the jets offer a significant edge due to their speed.
How the Spit XIV will force the P-47Ns to come down?
What is the P-47N going to do at higher altitude except fly around?
The bombers certainly won't be up there, so no real need for the Spitfire to go up.
What is the P-47N going to do at higher altitude except fly around?
The bombers certainly won't be up there, so no real need for the Spitfire to go up.
Since it was optimized for 1945, I am not sure zero growth is a problem. And I think Britain could certainly come up with uses for a very fast, very long range aircraft with a huge weapon carrying capacity like deep interdiction flights into Germany like the British P-51s in '42. And how about continuous CAP over the English Channel just waiting for the Germans to show up and then disrupt their formations early.Dave - I have no problem picking the P-47N except that it has zero growth potential from 1939 forward, nor would I personally choose it over the Me 262 as the only strategic footprint that matters in 1939 and 1940 is Britain.
Just me. This is why I pose the question - and want folks to frame their choice based on the potential force leverage.
For me, I pick the P-51H because the US entered the war with the infrastructure and commitment to support Strategic airpower and the most important role for 'the fighter' of choice was escort of medium and heavy bombers to project force across the widest of footprints. What the 51H will not do (nor the P-47N and really not the F4U) is become a top night fighter. It will also suffer more CAS losses than the P-47N.. but will go the necessary distance with same or greater performance at 2/3 the operating expense and 2/3 the cost.
My XIVs will sweep your P-47Ns from the sky. They will force you to fight at an altitude that suits me (20-25k ft) rather than you (>30k ft).
The Spitfire XIV is indeed a very capable aircraft but with limited internalfuel would not provide the long range escort need in '43-44. It is never a good thing to cede the high ground, especially if that aircraft has around 1000 hp more available and is faster at 20-25k although not by much. The Spit will out turn the P-47 though.