Switch the Axis and Allies planes during WW2 (1943 Western Front)

[B-17engineer]

Would you say

The Allied aircraft in the pacific (fighters at least) were better suited for defending Japan than Japanese fighters at the time?

 

[GrauGeist]

What would be the best option for the allies in terms of Italian bombers?

Sorry H, but I am not well versed on Italian bombers, perhaps one of the other guys can jump in and offer some suitable types.

 

[parsifal]

Its a hard question. The doctrines adopoted by each country was in large measure a function of the aircraft they had in their inventory, and this related back to the technologies they had available. For example, the Americans would have a long range escort in the form of the Zeke fighter. but with their advanced engine techs, the Zeke may well have been modified to increase its strenth and firepower.

Conversly, the Germans, with the Mosquito, B-24 and the Mustang, may well have been tempted to undertake long range interdiction by air of Allied sea communications in the North Atlantic.

It would have resulted in some remarkable and unexpected outcomes.

 

[drgondog]

The Allies had the financial resources to be working out the bugs of the Me 162 in late 1942, and the He 177 and the Fw 190D-9/Ta 152..

 

[GrauGeist]

...Conversly, the Germans, with the Mosquito, B-24 and the Mustang, may well have been tempted to undertake long range interdiction by air of Allied sea communications in the North Atlantic.

It would have resulted in some remarkable and unexpected outcomes.

Completely agree!

Even though the Luftwaffe had 4 engine heavy bombers, they didn't exploit that opportunity in favor of building up a medium force. Had they committed to a heavy, long range bombing strategy, it could have forced some very different Allied reactions.

So in this scenario, it would be interesting to see if they exploited thier arsenal of heavies (Lanc, B-17, B-24) or would they instead turn to the broad range of mediums, like the A-20, B-25, B-26, etc...

 

[altsym]

To the east is the barrier of the Ural Mountains.. 3500km from Berlin. No amount of German B-17s etc will break that wall to stop Russian resupply.

And numbers yes, eventually Attrition catches up with you no matter how good ones air force is. Just look at German fighter pilot missions, 200/400/600/800/1000 missions.. how long can you go before your number is called?

 

[GrauGeist]

And look how many extreme long-range missions that were carried out by B-24 and B-17 in the Med and southern Europe during the war...why would the eastern front be any different?

The territory held at the height of the Axis advance into the Soviet Union would allow for a serious threat to Stalin's manufacturing, rear bases and Moscow itself...

 

[altsym]

And on the way how many fighter intercepts, flak, etc are those 17's gonna face? Plus the extreme time involved, + fatigue. Then, how effective will the bombings be? Then the return trip facing all those dangers again. At what point are the P-51 or P-47 escorts forced to turn back?

 

[GrauGeist]

Instead of assuming the Germans weren't capable of effectively operating Allied equipment, let's instead consider the territory held by Germany in 1942, for example.

The bombers wouldn't be operating from Berlin, but would instead be operating from forward bases (as was much the case during the war). Within the effective range of the escort, there will be a target rich environment for the Axis bombers to strike within Soviet territory...

As far as flak is concerned, you do realize it was encountered everywhere and not just in this scenario...like the Ploesti raids, for example, that proved deadly to the B-24 force that flew from Libya to hit the Romanian oilfields or the daylight raids over Germany that the 8th AF had to deal with...

 

[stug3]

Even during 1945 the USA had nothing which could take out a bridge, bunker or artillery emplacement as well as Ju-87 and Ju-88 dive bombers.

What a ridiculous statement.

 

[parsifal]

I am doubtful that the Axis would derive much benefit fom a purely strategic campaign in the East. I say that for two reasons

1) Successful strategic bombing requires the attacker to still possess markedly superior resources. Strategic bombing offers the ability to hit back at the enemy when nothing else is possible, it doesnt confer huge economies of force application.

2) Because bombing involves a substantial investment of numbers, this in turn requires a substantial investment in fuel supply. This wqas basically the reason that killed off the Germans own four engined progrms....lack of fuel. Using allied bombers would not alter that dynamic.

Germany might derive benefit from the high endurance fighters like the P-51, but except for the surgical attacks like those on Allied convoys, I dont see a lot of benefit for them in terms of mounting a strategic bomber offensive

 

[parsifal]

What a ridiculous statement.

It certainly is, but then Dave does that a lot.

 

[stug3]

If Hitler had been given a potentially war winning fighter program like the Mustang, Im sure he would have found plenty of ways to screw it up like ordering the RLM to turn it into a bomber or something.

 

[GrauGeist]

If Hitler had been given a potentially war winning fighter program like the Mustang, Im sure he would have found plenty of ways to screw it up like ordering the RLM to turn it into a bomber or something.

That or mandate that the B-17 be used for dive bombing...

 

[wuzak]

So, do we swap engines and equipment over?

Or will the LW Spitfire be DB601/605 powered?

Will the Fw 190D-9 get the Griffon. Or a turbocharged Allison?

Jumo 213 powered P-51?

The He 177 might ditch the DB606/610s in favour of Allison V-3420s.

 

[A4K]

Short and simple: Cool! Give me an Fw190!!!

 

[Dogwalker]

If the two sides would simply exchange the planes, the Axis would have no 100/130 octane gasoline for flying Allied planes.
Having the gasoline they would have not enough of it to carry out a strategic bombing campaign.
Having enough of it, attempting to carry out a campaign of strategic bombing with the number of heavy bombers and escort fighters allowed by the production capacity of the Axis (and without being able to reach the USA anyway), counter the mass of interceptors, night fighters, etc ... made possible by the Allied production capacity, the result would be obvious (we have already seen in the Battle of Britain, when the numbers were much more in favor of the Axis than in 1943).
Given the respective production capacities, we would see the two sides fight about the same war they historically fought, using the closest equivalent of the other side. We would see the Germans using, in addition to the single-engine fighters, large amounts of twin-engine Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-25... for close tactical support, and trying to stop the Allied bombing campaigns carried out by masses of Piaggio P.108 (to name one). Reggiane 2001OR and Junkers Ju87 C-0 taking off from from British carriers, and so on.

 

[Civettone]

If the two sides would simply exchange the planes, the Axis would have no 100/130 octane gasoline for flying Allied planes.
Having the gasoline they would have not enough of it to carry out a strategic bombing campaign.

That is new to me.

German 97 octane avgas was equal to Allied 100/130 octane avgas.

In 1943-1944, the Germans were producing more avgas than needed. They were actually stockpiling fuel until the chemical industry was attacked.

Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

The Allies had the financial resources to be working out the bugs of the Me 162 in late 1942, and the He 177 and the Fw 190D-9/Ta 152..

They might at that.
But why would they develope the Me163, it didn't fufill a need that the allies had.
Then the He177 combined some fatal design flaws i'd doubt many designers would repeat. Inverted V engines, side by side, common or close inside exhause manifolds, close to the dirtiest area of any aircraft, the bottom of the cowling. Then combine that with no firewall between the engine and mainspar. Those combine to make a aircraft that's fireprone, and if it does catch fire, you got to extinguish the fire quick or lose a wing.
Then all the added weight that the dive bombing requirement added to the He177 might not be repeated in allied hands.
The 2 engines in one cowling isn't a bad idea, the German execution of it was bad.

 

[Dogwalker]

German 97 octane avgas was equal to Allied 100/130 octane avgas.

In 1943-1944, the Germans were producing more avgas than needed. They were actually stockpiling fuel until the chemical industry was attacked.

In that case, it seems to me strange enough that the Germans, more or less to the ends of the war, remained stuck to B4 fuel and engines capale to burn it, when they are stockpiling large amounts of C3 fuel with which they did not know what to do (see for example the mass production of the Jumo 213E instead of the much more powerful B and C versions). Since switching from a B4 capable to a C3 dedicate version of an engine, seems to give around 20-30% more power, not using it, while they could produce as much as they want of it, seems a suicide decision.