What if you only had two aircraft to fight WWII with?

jmcalli2 · Nov 29, 2020

Shortround6 said:
Well then, there is only one possible bomber that can combine the jobs needed, of course the transport version is just a wee bit different than the bomber.
View attachment 603301
Boeing Stratoliner.
"It combined the wings, tail, rudder, landing gear, and engines from their production B-17C "
I would note that quote seems to be in error as the plane seems to be using the vertical stabilizer and rudder of the B-17E but perhaps the "E" used the vertical Stabilizer and rudder of the Stratoliner?
at the end of war 5 of them were rebuilt using B-17G wings and horizontal stabilizers and got newer Wright R-1820 engines so there is no reason the transport version could not have kept pace with the bombers as far as gross weight goes.

(British use Avro York and Lancaster?)

The US (and most countries) used at least three different levels of trainers before pilots got to combat/service aircraft. Multi engine pilots spent their first few hundred hours in single engine aircraft before moving to multi engine trainers, like the Anson or Oxford for the Commonwealth or Cessna Bobcats, Beech 18s or others for the Americans.

The Corsair trainer was to be a converted F4U fighter from depots using the original engine, it was pitched as being a transition trainer after training in low and medium powered trainers, not a replacement for the lower powered trainers.

The B-24 could do the cargo duties as well, and did as the C-87. There was also a 'passenger' version with a new fuselage of its own.

Of course, you could use the B-23, and get your cargo plane with a different fuselage as an over powered C-47.
I'm just a bit surprised no one picked a PB2Y Coronado or a PBM Mariner. That could give you a lot of versatility at the expense of some performance.
As for the lower-powered F4U, that was my idea for a trainer version. Sorry if I gave the impression it was intended for the 'real' trainer proposal.
Yeah, trainers would be tough with only two types, but that's the hand dealt in this 'what-if.'

GrauGeist · Nov 29, 2020

jmcalli2 said:
I wondered who'd pick a Soviet plane. The Pe-8 is an interesting choice.

The Pe-8 would be close to the B-17 in it's mission profile.

The Soviets had some good multi-engine types, like the Pe-2/3, Tu-2 and Ar-2, too.

Dimlee · Nov 29, 2020

GrauGeist said:
The Soviets had some good multi-engine types, like the Pe-2/3, Tu-2 and Ar-2, too.

I thought about Ar-2 as it fitted the time criteria. The only thing I "dislike" in Ar-2 is the limited potential for further development and modifications.

Dimlee · Nov 29, 2020

jmcalli2 said:
The P-47 is too late for the 1 June 1940 first flight; it first flew on 6 May 1941.

Interesting on the P-38 and Do 217; made me look up the 217 again.

I wondered who'd pick a Soviet plane. The Pe-8 is an interesting choice.

Sorry, my mistake with P-47.
Since P-38 (my other favourite) already "paired" with Dornier, let's add some Japanese flavour and assign A6M as the escort for Pe-8 initially and then for other roles eventually.

GrauGeist · Nov 29, 2020

Dimlee said:
I thought about Ar-2 as it fitted the time criteria. The only thing I "dislike" in Ar-2 is the limited potential for further development and modifications.

It seemed to have considerable potential:
It was relatively fast, it had a good service ceiling and was equipped with the Klimov M-105, which was used in the Pe-2/3 and other types.
I ruly feel that it was in the league of the Pe-2 and Tu-2 and much better than the Yer-2.

jmcalli2 · Nov 29, 2020

GrauGeist said:
The Pe-8 would be close to the B-17 in it's mission profile.

The Soviets had some good multi-engine types, like the Pe-2/3, Tu-2 and Ar-2, too.

I have been fascinated by the Pe-8 for a long time. I have to wonder of the original XB-32 nacelle turrets were inspired by the Pe-8.

jmcalli2 · Nov 29, 2020

Dimlee said:
Sorry, my mistake with P-47.
Since P-38 (my other favourite) already "paired" with Dornier, let's add some Japanese flavour and assign A6M as the escort for Pe-8 initially and then for other roles eventually.

The A6M is an interesting choice; long range and unsurpassed low speed maneuverability. What turned me away from it was:
1. its performance never really increased even with a lot more power;
2. its lack of protection and 'robustness;'
3. controls became hard to work above 280mph.
It is still a very tempting choice, especially for long range missions.

GrauGeist · Nov 29, 2020

jmcalli2 said:
I have been fascinated by the Pe-8 for a long time. I have to wonder of the original XB-32 nacelle turrets were inspired by the Pe-8.

There may be similarities, but the turrets on the B-32 were designed and manufactured by Sperry and Martin.
Sperry's ball turret designs were well known. It may be possible that Petlyakov was inspired by their design.

taly01 · Nov 30, 2020

First flight 1940 is not service ready, eg. Corsair flew 1940 but not in combat until Feb 1943, and they were really wanting it. Also cost/resources is a real factor.

Using my own limits of in service warplanes 1940, and saving money,
Mitsubishi Zero A6M2 (argueably best fighter in world 1940 + long range)
Vickers Wellington II (large enough and adapatable enough for all bomber/transport roles + tail turret)

A.G. Williams · Nov 30, 2020

taly01 said:
Mitsubishi Zero A6M2 (argueably best fighter in world 1940 + long range)
Vickers Wellington II (large enough and adapatable enough for all bomber/transport roles + tail turret)

An interesting choice, although it's hard to see how the night fighter or naval strike missions could be conducted.

One minor point concerning the A6M2 - fit it with the 20 mm Type 99-2 cannon instead of the Type 99-1. The main difference was that the muzzle velocity went up from 600 to 750 m/s, significantly improving the hit probability and matching the MV of the .303 MGs. This isn't cheating, as the two versions of the cannon were developed (and bought by Japan) at the same time, it's just that the IJN were initially satisfied by the 99-1.

Dimlee · Nov 30, 2020

GrauGeist said:
It seemed to have considerable potential:
It was relatively fast, it had a good service ceiling and was equipped with the Klimov M-105, which was used in the Pe-2/3 and other types.
I ruly feel that it was in the league of the Pe-2 and Tu-2 and much better than the Yer-2.

I doubt its potential only because it was, with all improvements just a modification of the old SB bomber.
Same airframe except for the nose part, mostly the same wing. Weak defensive armament. Probably it could be improved further with more powerful engines, but Tu-2 was already well tested in 1942 and was, in my opinion, better in all respects, except the diving capability.
Saying all that, I think it was a grave mistake to choose Pe-2 instead of Ar-2 as the main new frontline bomber in 1941.
Ar-2 could do everything that Pe-2 could (except the aerobatics) but better. Higher payload, larger bomb bay, easier to fly, more forgiving at landings, probably more stable in diving, higher rate of climb. Yes, higher ceiling. Faster training for SB pilots. I really like Ar-2.

jmcalli2 · Nov 30, 2020

GrauGeist said:
There may be similarities, but the turrets on the B-32 were designed and manufactured by Sperry and Martin.
Sperry's ball turret designs were well known. It may be possible that Petlyakov was inspired by their design.

Oh, I understand the XB-32 turrets were a level of technology different from the Pe-8. I was just wondering if the Pe-8 was an inspiration for the placement of turrets on the nacelles of the XB-32. It is also entirely possible that Consolidated was not aware of the Pe-8.

GrauGeist · Nov 30, 2020

By nacelle, do you mean the nose and/or tail turrets?

jmcalli2 · Nov 30, 2020

GrauGeist said:
By nacelle, do you mean the nose and/or tail turrets?

The XB-24 had a different armament arrangement: retractable dorsal and ventral turrets (4 x .50cal each) and a remote controlled turret (2 x .50cal + 1 x 20mm) at the aft end of each of the two outboard engine nacelles. It also had two forward firing .50cals, one in each wing; I believe these were moveable as well.

Some more on it here:
Consolidated B-32 Dominator

GrauGeist · Nov 30, 2020

Ahh, ok...the remote Martin turrets in the engine nacelles.
The Pe-8's defensive positions in the engine nacelles weren't turrets, they were manned flexible-mount weapons - sort of like the Bell YFM, except in reverse.

Shortround6 · Dec 1, 2020

Not sure why the Consolidated guys had to copy the PE-8, Perhaps the PE-8 copied the Curtiss Condor XB-2

I rather doubt that Curtiss was the first to use this arrangement, either.

jmcalli2 · Dec 1, 2020

GrauGeist said:
Ahh, ok...the remote Martin turrets in the engine nacelles.
The Pe-8's defensive positions in the engine nacelles weren't turrets, they were manned flexible-mount weapons - sort of like the Bell YFM, except in reverse.

Yes, I know that. Thanks.

jmcalli2 · Dec 1, 2020

Shortround6 said:
Not sure why the Consolidated guys had to copy the PE-8, Perhaps the PE-8 copied the Curtiss Condor XB-2
View attachment 603475

I rather doubt that Curtiss was the first to use this arrangement, either.

I don't know that they did copy the Pe-8, just an "I wonder."
Cool pic though! Are those round things on the outside of the nacelle and on the fuselage mirrors?

Dimlee · Dec 1, 2020

jmcalli2 said:
The A6M is an interesting choice; long range and unsurpassed low speed maneuverability. What turned me away from it was:
1. its performance never really increased even with a lot more power;
2. its lack of protection and 'robustness;'
3. controls became hard to work above 280mph.
It is still a very tempting choice, especially for long range missions.

Regarding long range missions...
From the book I read now:
"In early 1943 P 5016 was flown to Karachi, India, from Kunming, China, for shipment on to the US. The Zero-sen was provided with an escort of 23rd FG P-40Ks for the long flight, and one by one all the Warhawks aborted their mission with a series of mechanical failures, leaving the Zero-sen to arrive in Karachi alone." (from "Wings of the Rising Sun: Uncovering the Secrets of Japanese Fighters and Bombers of World War II" by Mark Chambers)
P 5016 was A6M2 (#3372, tail code V-172) captured by Cninese in November 1941 and repaired at Kunming airfield.

jmcalli2 · Dec 1, 2020

Dimlee said:
Regarding long range missions...
From the book I read now:
"In early 1943 P 5016 was flown to Karachi, India, from Kunming, China, for shipment on to the US. The Zero-sen was provided with an escort of 23rd FG P-40Ks for the long flight, and one by one all the Warhawks aborted their mission with a series of mechanical failures, leaving the Zero-sen to arrive in Karachi alone." (from "Wings of the Rising Sun: Uncovering the Secrets of Japanese Fighters and Bombers of World War II" by Mark Chambers)
P 5016 was A6M2 (#3372, tail code V-172) captured by Cninese in November 1941 and repaired at Kunming airfield.

Well, that's 2,200+ 'as the bird flies,' and the P-40K had a 1,600 mile ferry range and the A6M2 had a 1,920 mile ferry range, so either there was a stopover not mentioned or someone didn't do the math! LOL

The Zero had the best combat radius (4-600 miles depending on source) of any early war fighter, unmatched until the P-38F model (500 mile combat radius) in 1942.

What if you only had two aircraft to fight WWII with?

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major General

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads