If you had an airforce...

[kool kitty89]

Sorry buzzard, I confused the posts (now fixed with edit) I meant to respond to:

let's avoid mixing apples oranges, so I'd divide the dream airforce in 2: those that are available in 1940, and ones from 1st jan. 1943.
So, the earlies:

-fighter: Spitfire
-ground attack: A-20
-medium bomber: Ju-88
-heavy bomber: ??
-transport: C-47
-night fighter: Bristol Blenheim

and the 'late' ones:
-fighter: F-4U
-ground attack: A-20G
-medium bomber: Mosquito (also the NF)
-heavy bomber: Avro Lancaster
-transport: Curtiss Commando

And I think you misunderstood, I meant it wasn't fair to select mid-late war a/c to build the entire airforce since there wouldn't be anything there at the beginning. I was agreeing that the early war a/c need to be adressed.
(and it's not my thread anyway, but in the previous thread I mentioned almost everyone was choosing late war a/c, which doesn't really work on a historical timeline even with exceptions)


Like with the Ta 152, it isn't going to be there in 1940 by any stretch.


But on that note there were alot of a/c that were close to early war or would have been if development was different. (F4U or P-38, and the Fw 190 wasn't there until after the BoB) And then a lot of mid war a/c entering late '42/early '43 that are a somewhat different category as well, but the longest competitive development life and versitile designs are still the most obviously desireable. Of course there's other considerations too. (cost, cost to operate, producabillity, ease of maintence, ease of training for and operating the type)

 

[tomo pauk]

No problems, kool kitty, i wasn't referring to your post, but i was more in a general sense

 

[kool kitty89]

I agree with your statement about dates too, I've been meaning to point that out as I said.

I did point out the B-17 though as a heavy bomber for your earlies.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, B-17 is a choice.

 

[pbfoot]

I think the Wellington would be a better one then the early 17's

 

[kool kitty89]

But is the Wellington is a medium bomber, the B-17 is the only true heavy bomber in the early war period. (except for old designs that were considered heavies at introduction like the Russian TB-3) likewise the Wellington, while conceived as a heavy bomber, was representative of a medium bomber by WWII standards.

However a long range medium bomber can be as useful as a heavy bomber (and probably more practical considering the cost of the B-17), granted you have more of them, but he left a ? for heavy bomber category, and the B-17 was the only one I can think of.

Possibly the Fw 200, but that doesn't quite fit either, since it's bombload wasn't very large (for it's size) and most had to be carried externally.

 

[kool kitty89]

Okay the Do 217 fits heavy bomber standards fairly well, and I forgot about the Halifax, both entered service near the end of 1940, so they should fit the 'earlies' time.

And I totally forgot the Pe-8 was introduced so early, not too bad just not very developed due to Soviet doctrine.

 

[Glider]

KK I wouldn't consider the B17 to be a viable Heavy bomber until the E version. The RAF had a dreadful time with the C version and there is no reason why the USAAF would have done any better than the RAF in action. Its also worth remembering that Production Sterlings and Halifax's were flying before the end of 1940.

 

[kool kitty89]

Weren't the major problems with the RAF use of the B-17 accuracy issues (as well as cold issues) from bombing at 30,000 ft. (though the C model wasn't ready for other reasons)

I think the D model was viable, albeit not as capable as the E.

And I mentioned the Halifax, I'd forgotten it was in service so early, also commented on the Pe-8.

And as mantioned, the cost of the B-17 would detract as well.


I also agree that long range medium bombers may be more practical, but I was initially just trying to adress the heavy bombers that were available in 1940.

 

[Glider]

The problems with the B17 were numerous. Its accuracy was very poor, the RAF took an American Bomb aimer on one mission and he couldn't hit Bremen. It lasked a viable defensive suite with problems with the guns at altitude. The Oxygen system had to be totally replaced, in operations the weather had a major factor and its range at 30,000ft was only 500 miles. On top of this its armour was deemed inadaquate, they tried improving this but the effect on performance was significant.
Daylight operations were stopped after 51 missions.

It worth remembering that the B17 as you pointed out was supposed to be operational in the USA, but with the above problems, you have to wonder how much operational testing was undertaken before it was accepted into US service.

 

[parsifal]

I decided to break my choices up by year, in the attached table. ive added a few categories that appear to be missing. Am not real boned up on Battlefield recce, but have always like the FW 189

 

[kool kitty89]

They solved a lot on the B-17D model and it was used operationally be the USAAF in WWII.




You chose the Zero over the Wildcat? (or Sea Hurricane) or other undeveloped, hypothetical choices like a navalized 190 or Bloch 157.

 

[fly boy]

my list
ground attack-47n
fighter-bomberp-51d
medium bomber:b-26
large bomber:b-29
carrier fighter: f4u
carrier bomber:sbd
carrier torpedo bomber:tbm
transport:c-47 of corse

 

[kool kitty89]

large bomber

fly boy, you do know that a fighter-bomber is a ground attack a/c right? And the P-51D wasn't a best fit for that role. Perhaps you mean Escort Fighter?

 

[KrazyKraut]

I decided to break my choices up by year, in the attached table. ive added a few categories that appear to be missing. Am not real boned up on Battlefield recce, but have always like the FW 189

While the list looks good it seems more of a "pick the best" for each year. I mean would you seriously need the Bloch for one year? Directly going from Spit (I, II, V) to Mustang seems more reasonable. And I think Ta-152 should be substituted by P-51 H (since you already have the P-51 in production).

 

[Mitya]

My list:
ground attack: IL-2 typ 3M over;
fighter-bomber: P-47;
medium bomber: Tu-2 (B-26 B-25 up to him it is far);
large bomber:b-29 (Competitors are not present);
carrier fighter: F6F (More reliable, than F4U);
carrier bomber: I don't know;
carrier torpedo bomber:I don't know;
transport:C-47 (Ли-47);
THE BEST FRONT FIGHTER IS La-5 La-7. Because he could operate in such conditions in which any western plane could not operate.
High altitude fighter: Ta-152;
High (more 5000 m) Interceptor fighter - Spitfire;
Escort (low) fighter: Yak;
Escort (high) fighter: P-51;

 

[parsifal]

Hi KKt

I agree that my yearly list is shopping list and not all that practical. I was trying to put together a list of planes which i thought were the best at any given year. In my selection, an aircraft had to be operational for most of the year it was selected (or, in the case of the french types, potentially available). I agree that that the list as a practical excercise is not viable because I have german and allied, and japanese all mixed up. As a logistic excercise, my choice would be a nightmare. But there are some pretty cool planes in there just the same

 

[parsifal]

They solved a lot on the B-17D model and it was used operationally be the USAAF in WWII.

Wasnt the b17D a 1941 edition, if so, I think the halibag was better, if it was a 1940 edition, I should have gone for the B17D



You chose the Zero over the Wildcat? (or Sea Hurricane) or other undeveloped, hypothetical choices like a navalized 190 or Bloch 157


At least the land based version of the Bloch was tested, I think the navalized version was only ever projected (correct if im wrong). Same applies to the 190.

As for the Wildcat and the Se Hurricane, I admit i did consider them, but for me the Zero was still a better choice. I say that knowing there has been a lot of debate in other threads, about the strengths and weaknesses of the Zero. I still think for that mid war period it was the best, if only by a nose

.

What would be your your yearly choices KK?

 

[Vincenzo]

i post my 1939 bought air force
fighter Bf 109E
heavy fighter Bf 110C
dive bomber Ju 87B
medium bomber S.M. 79
carrier fighter F2A
carrier dive bomber SB2U
carrier torpedo bomber TBD

 

[kool kitty89]

parsifal, the comments on the B-17 were for Glider, and the B-17D was first available in early 1941, the B-17E in late '41. And admitedly the D still had problems, and the E was the first really capable model, but the D was IMO at least combat capable. But anyway there were only some 50 B-17D's made (including conversions from B-17C's) so it wasn't really mass produced, and the much better E model came soon after.


I also agree on the Halifax, a more practical choice for the period. (and significantly cheaper to I think).

The Pe-8 is also somthing to consider, a capable a/c, though a bit underdeveloped and underutilized due to the Soviet doctrine. (or lack there of for long range strategic bombardment)


I'm not sure what I'd choose, particularly depending on alternate developments opposed to factual usage. (the F2A for example could have been developed a lot better, and could have been more reliable and available if it hadn't been for the lack of production capability and management problems)
Again even with the F2A-2 climb and maneuvering performance was dropping with the huge fuel load carried 242 us gallons! (compared to 162 gal for the F2A-1) That's about the same as the Corsair (w/out wing tanks) and Hellcat. It gave the F2A-2 a range (no drop tanks capable) of max 1,670 mi, ~300 mi more than the F4F with 2x 52 gal drop tanks (and about same total fual load as the F2A-2) and about equal to the A6M-2 (clean). Due to the extra weight though fuel consumption increased over the earlier model which had managed a max range of 1,545 mi on 2/3 the fuel, and both were well in excess of the F4F.

If the'd stayed with the origninal capacity and just improved armor etc it would have had better performance (which it already did in speed and altitude over the F2A-1 with the new 1,200 hp R-1820-40 engine with high alt carburetor) and would still have had exceptional range. (probably ~1,400 mi max range, clean) Plumbing for some small drop tanks may have been good too.


So it's hard to tell the context, considering alternate developments. (similar in choosing a/c like the Bloch 157)


So I'll keep thinking, but one other category to consider is escort fighters, the only ones with sufficient range and alt least decent performance early on are the P-40, F2A, and A6M. (and the early Zero lacked armor and, more seriously, fuel tank protection, and even the later models were still rather fragile in terms of damage resistance) The P-38 beng the next, though a bit epensive. and there were still quite a few bugs to work out.

With money and in the MTO, ETO, NA, or PTO (particularly) the P-38 would be a good choice for long range missions, and as an interceptor.

And I'm talking long range escort or pennetration missions (strafing or fighter sweeps) with a radius of ~600 mi.