What if?

[Jank]

What if the war against the Japanes and German had lasted a full year longer? What aircraft do you imagine would have been deployed by the Japanese, Germans, Brits and Americans in that final year of conflict in each theatre.?

(pretend that jet technology isn't there yet)

Just prop planes plese.

 

[syscom3]

USAAF:
Heavy Bombers - B29 and B32
Med Bombers - A26
Light Bombers- (none)
Fighters - P47N, P51K
Transports - C47/C46/C54

USN
Fighters - F8F, F7F and F4U-4
Torpedo/Dive bombers - A1 SKyraider
Patrol - PBM

 

[P38 Pilot]

To be honest, I think jets really would've come into play if the war had gone on 1 year longer...

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Jets wouldve come into play if the war had went on for just a few more weeks!!

30 P-80A's were shipped by aircraft carrier to Florida Blanca in the Phillipines in the Summer of 1945. They werent shipped with some equipment and sat around waiting for about a month before it arrived. From what I've read they werent shipped with their wing tip tanks and batteries.

I dont know how true it is but Ive read that from a couple sources, plus its cited on the Baugher site.

 

[pbfoot]

i think the key word is pretend

 

[Jabberwocky]

Just to get away from the typical USN/USAAF vs IJN/IJF scenario:

The RAF started operating the Spitfire FR. Mk. XIV in the CBI and would of transitioned to the type as its major air superiority fighter in theatre (two XIV squadrons transitioned to that theatre in May 1945, more were scheduled to follow, but the fall of Japan stopped their deployment). The slightly slower and heavier Mk XVIII would of followed in November/December. The XVIII had 175 imperial gallons internal tankage (210 Us gal), giving it 1/3 rd more range than most Spitfire marks. Designed primarily as a fighter/bomber, it had strengthened wings to handle 4 Mk II Hispanos, and could haul 1,500 lbs of bombs or up to 16 rockets in duplex mounts.

Both the standard Spitfire F. Mk. XIV and the later Mk. XXI were considered too short legged to operate effectively in the Pacific theatre. If airbases were established on Kyushu (as planned), they may of been shipped over as short range interceptors. Both types got extra rear tankage in the course of their service lives.

The F.22 and F.24, essentially refined versions of the Mk XXI, were ready by late 1945/early 1946. The Mk. 24 had 186 imperial gallons internal fuel (225 us gal), giving it the best range of any Spitfire mark. With the invasion of Japan, range would of been less of a concern, but the Mk 24 with 4 Mk V Hispanos and climb rates in excess of 5500 feet/minute would of made an excellent interceptor. If fighting had gone on until July/August 1946 both would of made appearance in theatre.

RN started operating Seafire XV from carriers in May 1945. Basically a Mk XII analouge, with strengthened landing gear and airframe for carrier operations , it was an excellent low level interceptor. The refined Mk XVII entered service in September 1945, with a new arrestor hook arrangement, 1/3 more fuel, bubble canopy, 24 V electrical system and a further revised and strengthened undercarriage design. These would of been one of the primary RN fighter types, supplementing the Corasairs and Hellcats that the RN operated.

The Tempest Mk II was also scheduled for deployment to the Pacific in mid-1945. Powered by a 2520 hp Bristol Centarus radial, in a FW-190 inspired close fitting, annularly cooled cowling, the Mk II could do 445 mph at just 15,000 feet and get to 20,000 feet in just over 5 minutes. It would of operated as the primary low altitude fighter bomber of the RAF.

The Fury and Sea-Fury are 'also rans' as production of the Fury was halted in favour of jets and the Sea-Fury did't reach operation squadrons until September 1946.

So a theoretical January 1946 RAF line up would look like this;

Spitfire FR. Mk. XIV (fighter)
Spitfire F. Mk. XVIII (fighter bomber)
Spitfire LF. Mk. VIII (fighter bomber)
Tempest II (fighter/ fighter-bomber)
Spitfire XIX (photo-recon)

RN:

Seafire XV
Seafire XVII

 

[pbfoot]

my choice for us would be
long rang ecort P 82 twin mustang
carrier fighter f8f bearcat
fighter p-51j
attack a/c A 26 invader or skyraider
heavy bomber b29
long range transport the connie
c47
asw boeing xpbb1

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well over europe and the pacific we'd have the fury/sea fury as fighter bomers, tempest Mk.II as long range escort, lincolns would be flying around freely but we'd still be using the tiger moth as our elimentary trainer

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yep, and thats the most depressing thing...

Italy would of course have freed itself from the reins of Allied occupation and start building the Re-2006, Fiat G.56, Ambrosini S.A.I 403, MC.205N and P.108 in huge numbers.

 

[P38 Pilot]

The Italians could've done some extreme damge if this had occured! Also dont forget that Germany could've massed produced the Me-262s.

The skies would've have a large number of these predators flying around!

 

[cheddar cheese]

Mmmm just imagining formations of Re-2006 patrolling the skies is making me dribble...

 

[Glider]

Jaber, your posting made a lot of sense to me. One addition to the RAF would I think have been the Hornet whoch would have given us a long range fighter second to none.

 

[lesofprimus]

Mmmm just imagining formations of Re-2006 patrolling the skies is making me dribble...

Well for Gods sake, DONT stand to close to the Lanc, otherwise, trouble will be a brewin...

 

[Jank]

How much better would the performance of the Re2006 have been over the Re2005?

 

[d_bader]

What about the La-9 Lavochkin? It was just to late for the war and would have been a good fighter.

 

[cheddar cheese]

How much better would the performance of the Re2006 have been over the Re2005?

Probably far superior. The Re-2005 was basically just an Re-2001 with a DB-605 and minor mods, but the Re-2006 was designed atround the DB-603 from scratch. I think 450mph+ was well within reach.

 

[delcyros]

....hard to say what the Luftwaffe would field without it´s jets...
ignoring them would bring something into the game:
The Do-335 would have come, definetely. Take it as a heavy fighter/ destroyer.
The Ta-152 H for hi alt and
the Ta- 152 C for low-medium alt fighter sorties
I estimate that the Bf-109 K4 would be still in use, probably alongside with the heavier armed -K6 subtype and a few K-14.
The Ju-388 J would become the nightfighter of choice , the Ju-388 K maybe a medium bomber for hi alts (hard to say, they simpley depended on jet tech for bombers: Hs-132, Ju-287, He-343, Ar-234).
I expect that some Fw-190 G´s with BMW 801TJ would still play a role in the ground support duties.
If the He-177 could develop to the He-277/274 is unprobable, the whole program was canceled in mid 44.
To ignore the jet´s is critcal, particularly for the Luftwaffe, which depended in such a high degree on this tech for it´s late projects. An additional year could slow down it´s entire jet program as well but it´s speculation.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Ok, moving away from the more famous fighter types.

The RN is probably going to play the major role for the British/Commonwealth forces in the late part of 1945. While the USN would obviously play the central role in Operation Olympic, the RN would have between 6-8 fleet carriers ready for operations (H.M. S Illustrious, Implacable, Victorious, Indefadgable, Indomidable, Formidable) and several CVEs.

As RN carriers don't carry as many aircraft, nor have the long term "on station" capabilities of their USN counterparts, we'll assign them two roles.
First as assault carriers. They get their airgroups in action for one large operation, see a lot of action, and then steam off to rearm-repair-refuel and replace. Sort of a pinch hitter role.
Second role is as support carriers. They piggyback off USN logistics trains (something both navies HATED the RN doing) and operate as rear area security for logistics operations. So, convoy protection, anti-sub warfare and the like.

Apart from the Spitfires I mentoined prviously, the RN flew several other carrier aircraft.

The Mk V Fairey Barracuda would of been the main torpedo bomber for the RN. Operational in late 1945 it was fitted with a 2020 hp Griffon 37, twin .50 cals for defence, a radar pod on the port wing and reinforced structure. It was quite a leap up from the previous Merlin engined marks, but thats really not saying much. It was ungainly, slow (260 mph) and not well liked, but could carry up to 2000lbs of bombs or a single 2700 lb torpedo.

The other Fairey aircraft onboard FAA carriers was the Firefly. It was primarily a long range fighter-bomber and reconnisance aircraftfirst seein s service in action against the Tripitz.. Powerplant was a 1990 hp Griffon XII. Like other Fairey aircraft, it was hampered by unusually thick wings, long fuselage, boxy undernose radiator and reqirement for a 2 man crew. It was slow at just 320 mph max speed, but could carry 2000lbs of bombs or 8 rockets and had good range and a heavy cannon armament. Mostly it would of been used as a dedicated strike platform, hitting costal defences and emplacements under the watchful eye of Seafires.

The Mk IV Firefly was a much improved variant, but it wouldn't of been service until very late 1945. It got an uprated two stage Griffon 74 of 2250 hp, moved the chin radiator to the wingroots and a revised and more aerodynamic nose fairing. Speed went up to about 355 mph, handling and manouverability were also improved.

Much in the same vein as the Firefly was the Blackburn Firebrand.
The Firebrand was originally designed as a naval fighter to specificationN.11/40. Designed as a carrier fighter powered by a Napier Sabre engine it was found that engine unreliability and poor handling made it unacceptable. It was then redesigned to become a fast strike aircraft carrying a large torpedo, and powered by a Bristol Centaurus radial.

Three protypes were built. The first prototype, DD804, was flown on 27 February, 1942 at Leconsfield. It was then sent to A Flight A&AEE, Boscombe Down in April 1942 and undertook its initial service trials in October 1942 at Machrihanish. The Firebrand undertook deck landing trials in February 1943 on HMS Illustrious. Unfortunately, the Firebrand was never much of a carrier aircraft. Its powerful Bristol Centaurus engine and thirteen-foot diameter propeller produced extreme torque swing on takeoff, which could only be countered by the abnormally large vertical tail fin and rudder. The Firebrand was also very difficult to deck land, since the pilot sat closer to the tail than the nose, with predictably poor visibility. While many of its pilots appreciated the fact that the aircraft was built like a battleship, particularly during landing accidents, they did not care for its bulky weight. Finally, the Naval Staff's concept of a torpedo-bomber/fighter combination to which the aircraft was designed was just too much of a compromise, with the end result that the Firebrand was never successful in either role.

Heavily armed and quite fast (355-360 mph with Centarus engine) it would of performed much the same strike type mission as the Firefly, relying on Seafires, Hellcats and Corsairs for protection.

 

[P38 Pilot]

Back to what CC was saying about the Re.2006, they really would've been a match for the Allies. I mean damn! Look at it! Its a pretty nice bird!

 

[Jank]

Some of those Itsalian birds were quite advanced. It's easy to forget that the Re-2005, Mc-205 and G.55 all saw service before Italy surrendered in sept. 1943.