Pick 6 a/c to build your AF at beginning WWII

[GrauGeist]

When I said 1942, I was referring to the movie with Belushi in it, since most history these days comes from Hollywood........

Just having a little fun, actually

The reality is, the U.S. does take a little heat for Hollywood's portrayal of events, but it's a matter of Hollywood's wide distribution that gives the world this view. I have seen Soviet era movies about WWII and you get the impression that they saved the world single-handedly. The difference is that those movies weren't box office hits!

What I would truly like to see, is movies that show the bravery of the Poles, Belgians or even the Netherlands during the German's advance. These stories need to be shared.

 

[parsifal]

7th December 1941...what happened that was important that day, oh, now i remember. That was the day Zhukov unleashed his Siberian Army on the German spearheads trying to envelope Moscow. A date that many regard as the true tunring event of WWII

Thanks for reminding me....

 

[drgondog]

Could have been - but maybe not if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and US doesn't enter the war. Mother Russia has to alter its production strategies, the Commonwealth has to fight a two front war without US support, there is only passive support to go after U-Boats in Atlantic, etc etc.

Does the Commonwealth stop Japan at Guadalcanal or destroy Japanese naval superiority at Midway? Can Aussies stop Japan from taking Australia or India?

Does Great Britain stop U-Boat incursion on time to prevent starvation or defeat Germany forces enough to take control of Med and ensure flow of oil from east Indies and Middle East without US oil to replace sources? Does GB retain control of Suez without US forces to augment advantage over Rommel after El Alemain?

Does Russia get enough trucks and light bombers and fighters to start an offensive in 1942? and how does that change the war in the east when there is no threat from Britain in Italy or an invasion of France? Does GB/Commonwealth ever get control of air in the Med?

Maybe December 7 is more important than just to US?

 

[parsifal]

I dont know about the other guys DG, but my coment was very much tongue in cheek. A bit of fun more than anything. For the record, US entry into the war and its performance after that date was critical to the outcome.

But in response to the specific issues you raise, you might 9or might not) want to hear how other nations view the operations you mention.

Could have been - but maybe not if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and US doesn't enter the war. Mother Russia has to alter its production strategies, the Commonwealth has to fight a two front war without US support, there is only passive support to go after U-Boats in Atlantic, etc etc.

Of course. Minor point, the US contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic was not the committment of naval resources per se. They were significant, but for the most part played a supporting role in parts of the Atalantic other than the Western Aproaches. And it was the Western Approaches where the critical battle was fought. This part of the battle was almost exclusivley undertaken by the British and Commonwealt forces.

What the US did do, was provide the shipbuilding capacity to absorb the massive shipping losses of 1942 and still bounce back in strength. mind you, about 80% of those losses, that came as close as any other event in WWII to losing the war, was the mismanagement of the convoys by the US in the convoy wars. So, even though they ultimately led to an allied victory, in the short term, the US very nearly caused us to lose that war.

Does the Commonwealth stop Japan at Guadalcanal or destroy Japanese naval superiority at Midway? Can Aussies stop Japan from taking Australia or India?

Err actually, yes. Midway was a battle that broke the Japanese offensive sword but it was not a battle that "saved Australia" or anywhere else (except Midway). with or without carriers, by May 1942, the Japanese were reaching the very limits of their shipping capacity and could advance no furtrher. logistics, not battles, were what defeated the japanese ofensive. The destruction of their carrier fleet only served to unstick their offensive capability, but biot their ability to take and hold ground. There was never the slightest hope of the Japanese attacking Australia, whilst they remained stuck in China and facing off the Russians in Manchuria. Same in Burma.

The US efforts in the Pacific for the first two years of the war, in terms of the ground effort and to a lesser extent in the air, were relatively minor. The equivalent of about two divs, and something less than 50% of the air effort. at sea they were critical, but even here it was nearly a year before the USN was able to take to the field of battle on a 1 for 1 basis with the Japanese

Does Great Britain stop U-Boat incursion on time to prevent starvation or defeat Germany forces enough to take control of Med and ensure flow of oil from east Indies and Middle East without US oil to replace sources? Does GB retain control of Suez without US forces to augment advantage over Rommel after El Alemain?

Without US aid, the Allies were stuffed, unquestionably, but the actual fighting in all of those campaigns was done by Commonwealt and British Empire forces. US forces proved rather inneffective until well into 1943. One could argue that anybody with enough time and resources to prepre with, can eventually win battles. How long was it again before the US committed substantial land forces to battle. how long was it before they committed substantial air asets to the battle in Euope. How many fighter squadrons were their deployed in the ETO as at December 1942 for example. The US was so inexperienced, so lacking in combat experience that it can be argued with eaqual force that they were needed for their material resources, that they also needed the Commonwealth forces to nursemaid them whilst they learnt how to fight properly. It cuts both ways. We needed you guys, and you guys needed us, simple as that.

Does Russia get enough trucks and light bombers and fighters to start an offensive in 1942? and how does that change the war in the east when there is no threat from Britain in Italy or an invasion of France? Does GB/Commonwealth ever get control of air in the Med?

In the same way that the russians were needed to make possible operations in the west,, or the british were needed to undertake all manner of operations in the west 9and south) to keep up the pressure on the Germans, whilst the US ever so slowly got their act together. As far as resources are concerned, whilst eventually these resources did make a huge difference, in 1942, such aid was rather limited. in 1941, for example, US aid to Russia, tonnage wise, amopunted to less than 10% of the total shipped in 1942 it was around 50%. But in terms of total tonnages shipped, the amounts in both 1941 and 1942 were quite minor compared to the amounts shiped from 1943 onward.

Maybe December 7 is more important than just to US?

of course. And being the great power that she is, one has to give the US credit for the lions share of the war winning strategy that eventually ran down the Germans. But it is so easy to draw an erroneous conclusion from that....."the US was critical to the eventual victory, therefore their dates in history should be viewed as the most important of the war, at the expense of all others".

 

[drgondog]

Parsifal - I agree the points about all the invasion of Australia being a stretch for the Japanese, but absent the US entry Australia and NZ would cease to be an effective offensive force in the SW pacific because of necessity of ensuring that Japan did not invade Australia (IMO). I don't know how dependent Australia/New Zealand were dependent on outside sources for oil but suspect that would be a crippling factor. Further, speculatively the Japanese had the resources to take Melbourne and Sydney. How would that have affected Australia?

As to the 'ineffectiveness' in the campaigns in North Africa - no question that US forces were everywhere on a learning curve. Having said that, the mere presence significantly diluted the German forces in the west, and rookies or not, blunt then inexorably push the Japanese back while pouring resources to Commonwealth and Chinese forces

IMO, absent US the Germans can ignore (or not) defense of Italy in the context of the allocations Kesslering had - with an eye toward the East at a critical time in 1942.

My comments were made not in the context of 'we won the war', but in the context that most of the Allies including Russia should 'remember Pearl Harbor' as Roosevelt absolutely was not going to move Congress into declaring war absent the attack.

My singular and only point was not that 'we won the war', but absent our commitment who knows how the Japanese think about supporting Germany to hit Russia and go for Siberia, or how the Germans allocate their resources in a different way to not only buy time for a nuclear weapon but maybe even prevail at the end of the war.

History says that we (US) should be glad in retrospect, for our own self preservation, that the Japanese made a colossal blunder and Germany followed up with an even bigger one by declaring war on US.

 

[R Pope]

A Russian friend told me that the schools over there teach about the "Great Patriotic War" and don't even mention that anybody else was involved..........

 

[futuredogfight]

My turn Country: Finland Purpose: Defense and short range offense.
Fighter: Bf-109G-6
Bomber: B-26
Ground Attack-47
Trainer: T-6
Transport: C-47
Costal Defense Aircraft: Swordfish

 

[parsifal]

A Russian friend told me that the schools over there teach about the "Great Patriotic War" and don't even mention that anybody else was involved..........

Whats being taught in Russian schools is largely correct, from their point of view. the "Great Patriotic War" is not the whole of WWII, its the conflict between the Axis powers and Soviet Uniohn 1941-5, on the E#astern Front.

The official Soviet histories give some grudging acknowledgement of lend lease, and thats about it.

 

[Glider]

You can be sure they don't mention the Joint German/Russian invasion of Poland

 

[parsifal]

even today, its really hard to find any Soviet acknowledgement of that travesty.

 

[futuredogfight]

Probably don't even mention the kicking they got from Finland.

 

[parsifal]

Probably don't even mention the kicking they got from Finland.

In Russia you need to generally be higher than grade school to know about the war with Finland. However, the books written do vary. ive got a Soviet era book on the great Patriotic war that does mention the war, and doesnt really try to say either way who was responsible. thats about as near as you get for the Soviets to admit it was they who caused the war.

The book does go on to say they won, which is true, albeit in a meatgrinder kinda way

 

[Night Fighter Nut]

My wife is Russian, I will ask her about what she was taught when I get a chance. Interesting topic.

 

[Night Fighter Nut]

Well I had a chance and asked my wife about that conflict. She says she was taught about it and that the Soviets started it and even though they won, they got hurt badly. She also told me that the Soviets getting their lunch handed to them when fighting an opponent was typical during the time around the Patriotic War.

 

[parsifal]

NFN, thats pretty much what my wife (also Russian) told me.

 

[BLine22]

B-29 Strategic bomber
PB4Y ASW/ASV
F4U Multirole fighter
A-26 Strike/Interdiction
C-54 Transport
T-6 Trainer/Observation

 

[wlewisiii]

Just for the fun of it..

P-47
P-80
B-29
A-20
C-54
AT-6

 

[Frankenerd]

Pick 6 and only 6 aircraft - any choice of truly operational aircraft built during WWII as your five choices to produce for entire war. Whatever model and version you pick, you stick with.

You pick your group based on what you believe best serves the country of choice in the strategic and tactical doctrine of the military leaders of that country.

Example - Seafire, Lancaster (or B-29A), C-47B, Mosquito MKXII, PT-17A (or AT-6) (whatever you pick you have to use for you entire airforce) and a carrier borne bomber of some type for your fleet if you are Britain.

F4U-4 would be another choice for Fighter if your country needed to populate Carrier Air and also provide for long range escort and TBF might be a choice instead of SB2C for example. If you don't pick a trainer state which of your choices you start your zero time student with?

Or pick Me 262, F4U-4, TBF, C-46, Mosquito XII, and PT-17 with no intention of any greater strategic capability than Mosquito (which ain't bad)

State the country and strategic tactical mission you believe you are picking for.[/

1A. Any cheap trainer? But why not pick a combat plane and farm this mission out to one or more/many "Civilian Contractors"?
1B. Alternate choice = Contra Prop XP-72? or Boeing F-8B?
2. P-38K.
3. XB-42.
4. B-29D/B-50 Also as a transport with "Double Bubble Fuselage" as a minor variation of type?
5. Boeing Lone Ranger Seaplane, nomenclature unk? Also as a transport?
6. C-54, or Lockheed Coni?

 

[METTATON6662]

p-38 all round good fighter
la-7 low altitude dogfighter
b 17 high alt bomber (b 29 would be too expensive)
tu-2 frontline/dive bomber
PBY recon and other marine duties

 

[Tempest109]

Night fighter + medium bomber : Ju 88 series
Fighter : Either Bf109 or Fw190D or Ta 152 series (depending on the condition)
Fighter bomber : Fw190F/G or radial engined Tempest (they could be used for carrier attack)
Heavy bomber : B29D (for transport & maritime also)
Flying boat /floatplane= H8K , Arado 196
Carrier plane AD 1 skyraider, F8F