What If You Only Had Two Aircraft To Fight WWII Remix

[jmcalli2]

USSR
1939 to 1941
Winter War... tactics and organization of VVS is so poor that even superior equipment can hardly help...
So let's stick with what available.
I-16
DB-3.

1941 to 1943
Soviet leaders and designers try to catch up with Willy Messerschmitt. OK, let's give them the Messerschmitt.
In the heavy department, we look for something rugged to withstand the elements and with multirole capabilities, as we still believe in massive airborne assaults and we need torpedo bomber to oppose the British in the Baltics and Italians in the Black Sea (as a part of Navy doctrine).
Bf 109E/F
Wellington

1943 to 1945
Party decides to send Comrade Yakovlev to the sanatorium for the next 2 years. We return the production lines and manpower to Polikarpov. He should try to marry his latest fighter airframes with US engines if Yankees agree to deliver.
Strategic bombings and paratroop ops... oops, we tried and we failed. Transport needs can be satisfied with lend leased trucks and locomotives. A lighter bomber will suffice. It should be fast, carry more bombs than poor Il-2, have a range for other jobs besides CAS. And it's nice to have a night fighter to prevent LW from destroying our factories and oil stocks in Povolzhye. So, what to choose... In real life, Moscow pestered London with requests for Mosquito.
I-185 - with lend leased engine if possible.
Mosquito - FB Mk VI for a start and other variants after, as many as stingy capitalists agree to deliver.

I was wondering when someone would pick the USSR. Well thought out.
However, if you're going to rely on Lend Lease for the 41-43 time frame, why not pick the fighter the Russians used to beat the Me-109, the P-39? In this exercise you don't have to wait for negotiations, it just goes by first flight.

 

[Hairog]

1939-41. P-38 (Fighter, medium bomber, Photo Recon, NIGHT Fighter, ground attack, Interceptor, Long and short range escort, and assassin (Yamamoto))
#2

 

[Dimlee]

I was wondering when someone would pick the USSR. Well thought out.
However, if you're going to rely on Lend Lease for the 41-43 time frame, why not pick the fighter the Russians used to beat the Me-109, the P-39? In this exercise you don't have to wait for negotiations, it just goes by first flight.

In 1941 we take Bf 109 as a fighter.
in 1943 we have I-185. Lend leased engines are nice to have but not a must. We can install M-82 (ASh-82) or M-71.

 

[jmcalli2]

1939-41. P-38 (Fighter, medium bomber, Photo Recon, NIGHT Fighter, ground attack, Interceptor, Long and short range escort, and assassin (Yamamoto))
#2

The P-38 was very versatile. However, its first flight was well past the June 1938 cutoff for the 39-41 time slot.

 

[Dimlee]

Italy
(I split in sub-periods where appropriate and in two services in late war)

1939- end 1940
All is going well so far. We saved Spain from Bolshevism, we crushed powerful empires of Ethiopia and Albania,
we brought French on their knees (with some help of German amici), we'll finish mighty Greeks soon. Small issues in Africa are being dealt with.
We hold most of the aeronautics records in the world. Our beautiful air machines are impeccable.
CR.42
Cant Z.1007 (SM.79?)

1941-1942
Life is hard and beauty has to give way to efficiency.
Time is over for multi-role assignments but antishipping ops are very important.
Bf 109
Ju 88

1942- mid 1943
We need to stop the bomber assault of Anglo Saxon barbarians and to hit them hard in Mare Nostrum before they land in mass.
German comrades should help us with the state of art weapons.
FW 190
Do 217

end 1943-1945
ACI
Let's finish the job as soon as possible. Give us the tools from your great Supermarket of Democracy, pass the catalogue, please.
No, not the P-39, she is nice looking but widow making. Anything fast but not as huge and ugly as that Tan-der-bolt mostro?
We are requested not to fight over our homeland but there are many operations to get involved over Balkans and East Mediterranean.
Interdiction, anti-shipping, transport, recon, etc. Speed of aeromobili multiruolo is irrelevant as the skies belong to us, I mean us and our new friends.
Let me browse that catalogue again...
P-51
B-24 (in various modifications)

ANR
Hold the line until fresh German armies and wonder weapons turn the tide.
More cannons, speed, better pilot protection is all we need to fight Allied bomber menace.
As for our bombers... Germans cut the production, let's ask Japanese. They have good torpedoes, by the way.
FW-190
G4M

 

[fastmongrel]

1939-41. P-38 (Fighter, medium bomber,

A real versatile aircraft but surely a light bomber. No one ever says a Mosquito was a medium and that carried a bigger bomb.

 

[jmcalli2]

Italy
(I split in sub-periods where appropriate and in two services in late war)

1939- end 1940
All is going well so far. We saved Spain from Bolshevism, we crushed powerful empires of Ethiopia and Albania,
we brought French on their knees (with some help of German amici), we'll finish mighty Greeks soon. Small issues in Africa are being dealt with.
We hold most of the aeronautics records in the world. Our beautiful air machines are impeccable.
CR.42
Cant Z.1007 (SM.79?)

1941-1942
Life is hard and beauty has to give way to efficiency.
Time is over for multi-role assignments but antishipping ops are very important.
Bf 109
Ju 88

1942- mid 1943
We need to stop the bomber assault of Anglo Saxon barbarians and to hit them hard in Mare Nostrum before they land in mass.
German comrades should help us with the state of art weapons.
FW 190
Do 217

end 1943-1945
ACI
Let's finish the job as soon as possible. Give us the tools from your great Supermarket of Democracy, pass the catalogue, please.
No, not the P-39, she is nice looking but widow making. Anything fast but not as huge and ugly as that Tan-der-bolt mostro?
We are requested not to fight over our homeland but there are many operations to get involved over Balkans and East Mediterranean.
Interdiction, anti-shipping, transport, recon, etc. Speed of aeromobili multiruolo is irrelevant as the skies belong to us, I mean us and our new friends.
Let me browse that catalogue again...
P-51
B-24 (in various modifications)

ANR
Hold the line until fresh German armies and wonder weapons turn the tide.
More cannons, speed, better pilot protection is all we need to fight Allied bomber menace.
As for our bombers... Germans cut the production, let's ask Japanese. They have good torpedoes, by the way.
FW-190
G4M

Well thought out!

 

[Reluctant Poster]

1939-41. P-38 (Fighter, medium bomber, Photo Recon, NIGHT Fighter, ground attack, Interceptor, Long and short range escort, and assassin (Yamamoto))
#2

The P 38 was not a success as a night fighter. The medium bomber role is also a stretch .

 

[davparlr]

I'm going to cheat a bit here with the P-40,
1939 to 1941
P-40 no letter*
With only two aircraft, adaptability is important because each aircraft must address different threats and missions. Both the Spitfire and Bf 109 with small fuel tanks were basically point defense fighters with very limited power projection footprint and poor load carrying ability. The P-40, with over 50% more internal fuel capacity than the Spitfire and 40% more internal fuel capacity of the Bf 109 has a much better power projection footprint and has a better load flexibility. In addition, the airspeed of the P-40 at 15k using 1050 hp was 352 mph, the Spitfire Mark II (Merlin XII) with 1140 hp would do 345 mph, and the Bf-109E (DB 601A) with 1020 hp, would do 348 mph. Climb was similar. In airspeed and climb It is apparent that the P-40 is quite capable of holding its own with its European counterparts at the lower altitudes and that would translate to higher altitudes if it just had the engines. The P-40 had a much better roll rate than the Spitfire and Bf 109. U.S. pilots stated that the P-40 was responsive, predictable, and could turn inside all other US fighters, which is apparently true except for late model P-38s.
My selection for this period, although it is a few months out of the range, is the P-40 with a caveat, install the latest Merlin engines*. The P-40 has performance equivalent to contemporary fighters on a per horsepower basis. P-40 has a significantly larger combat footprint and has a more flexible and capable air-to-ground performance. With a similar stall speed as the F4F, it should not be difficult to make carrier compatible.
B-17
I don't think there is a better bomber out there for this period. Could be modified to carry torpedoes but wouldn't want to. Quite flexible but poor cargo carrying ability.
1941 to '43
F4U-1
This decision was much more difficult. Because long range escort was needed even at this early stage, European fighters were basically eliminated. This left only the F4U-1 and the P-38. Both were excellent aircraft and were being built at the end of the war. Both had the range to provide a large combat footprint and long range escorts. Both had good ground attack capability, the F4U had a more rugged engine but the P-38 had two. P-38 could control the high ground but I don't think it could ever be made into a carrier capable aircraft.
B-24
Better range than the B-17. Not as good service ceiling, though. Can be easily converted into a cargo plane (C-87, though problematic was useful).
43-45
P-51
Huge combat footprint. Formidable fighter to the end.
B-24

 

[jmcalli2]

I'm going to cheat a bit here with the P-40,
1939 to 1941
P-40 no letter*
With only two aircraft, adaptability is important because each aircraft must address different threats and missions. Both the Spitfire and Bf 109 with small fuel tanks were basically point defense fighters with very limited power projection footprint and poor load carrying ability. The P-40, with over 50% more internal fuel capacity than the Spitfire and 40% more internal fuel capacity of the Bf 109 has a much better power projection footprint and has a better load flexibility. In addition, the airspeed of the P-40 at 15k using 1050 hp was 352 mph, the Spitfire Mark II (Merlin XII) with 1140 hp would do 345 mph, and the Bf-109E (DB 601A) with 1020 hp, would do 348 mph. Climb was similar. In airspeed and climb It is apparent that the P-40 is quite capable of holding its own with its European counterparts at the lower altitudes and that would translate to higher altitudes if it just had the engines. The P-40 had a much better roll rate than the Spitfire and Bf 109. U.S. pilots stated that the P-40 was responsive, predictable, and could turn inside all other US fighters, which is apparently true except for late model P-38s.
My selection for this period, although it is a few months out of the range, is the P-40 with a caveat, install the latest Merlin engines*. The P-40 has performance equivalent to contemporary fighters on a per horsepower basis. P-40 has a significantly larger combat footprint and has a more flexible and capable air-to-ground performance. With a similar stall speed as the F4F, it should not be difficult to make carrier compatible.
B-17
I don't think there is a better bomber out there for this period. Could be modified to carry torpedoes but wouldn't want to. Quite flexible but poor cargo carrying ability.
1941 to '43
F4U-1
This decision was much more difficult. Because long range escort was needed even at this early stage, European fighters were basically eliminated. This left only the F4U-1 and the P-38. Both were excellent aircraft and were being built at the end of the war. Both had the range to provide a large combat footprint and long range escorts. Both had good ground attack capability, the F4U had a more rugged engine but the P-38 had two. P-38 could control the high ground but I don't think it could ever be made into a carrier capable aircraft.
B-24
Better range than the B-17. Not as good service ceiling, though. Can be easily converted into a cargo plane (C-87, though problematic was useful).
43-45
P-51
Huge combat footprint. Formidable fighter to the end.
B-24

Very similar to my thinking, with one addition: carrier operations put me into the F4U.
As for the P-40, I believe the P-39 was more maneuverable but I can't remember the source.
Here is an interesting comparison of various types: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
Note: one of the early paragraphs has an apparent typo; it lists the P-39C and then the P-39D, My opinion is it should have been P-38D, as the P-39D is nowhere else in the report, but the P-38D is.

If you're playing the Allied side, remember that range was not paramount early in the war since the Allies were playing defense through most of 42; range would be less of an issue. Also, most combat early in the war was around 20,000 ft, where early war Allisons dropped off around 15,000. Small point though. Aside from the P-40, your choices agree with mine. Makes me feel good!

It would be interesting if someone decided to play the Axis and picked the B-17 as one of their aircraft; it perhaps could have changed the Battle of Britain.

 

[davparlr]

Very similar to my thinking, with one addition: carrier operations put me into the F4U.

I assume you are talking about the 1943 to 1945 time line. No F4U model, -1,-1D could compete with its contemporary P-51B/D, and post May, 44 P-51B/D (75" boost), in speed or climb. The F4U-1 did have the range to provide deep penetration escort, but with less performance than the P-51. The F4U-1D and -4, did not have the range. The F4U-4 approached the performance of post May '51 P-51, but was not operational till May, '45, much too late to help much anywhere.

As for carrier operations, the P-51 was tested and found capable, but would need some alterations to make acceptable, just like the F4U did.
Mustang! - Documents

If you're playing the Allied side, remember that range was not paramount early in the war since the Allies were playing defense through most of 42; range would be less of an issue

Range and its first cousin endurance are always important. It allows one to loiter over the battlefield longer or stay in combat longer, and, for the British, would allow deeper penetration raids into occupied Europe threatening infrastructure.

. Also, most combat early in the war was around 20,000 ft, where early war Allisons dropped off around 15,000. Small point though.

And that is why I have caveat that the latest Merlin engines would be installed.