Which plane(s) would have been most missed?

Germany: The 109.
UK: Hurricane.
US: Dunno, all I know is that the US *did* have planes during WW2.
Same goes with Russia, Japan and the other participating countries in WW2.

Japan-A6M, without which their early Pacific strategy would not work.
Germany- 109, without which their early war strategy would not work nearly as well.
Britain-Lancaster, without which their bombing campaign would have been severely hampered.
United States-P51, without which their domination of the air over Europe would have taken much longer to achieve. Without the F4F, the Pacific war would have been lengthened but since Germany was more lethal, I go with the P51. The F6F was important but the F4U would have done almost as well early and even better late. The F4U was important but the F6F would have done just as well or better early and almost as well later.

Maria, *did* have planes! Them is "fighten words"
At 4:15 on the morning of 9 April 1940, German forces crossed the border into neutral Denmark, in direct violation of a German–Danish treaty of non-aggression signed the previous year. In a coordinated operation, German ships began disembarking troops at the docks in Copenhagen. As a result of the rapid turn of events, the Danish government did not have enough time to officially declare war on Germany. Sixteen Danish soldiers died in the invasion, but after two hours the Danish government surrendered, believing that resistance was useless and hoping to work out an advantageous agreement with Germany. The German forces were technologically sophisticated and numerous; the Danish forces comparatively tiny and used obsolete equipment; partially a result of a pre-war policy of trying to avoid antagonizing Germany by supplying the army with modern equipment. Even stiff resistance from the Danes would not have lasted long. Querulously the German forces did not seem to expect any resistance as they invaded with unarmored ships and vehicles.

davebender said:

There won't be a Schwinfurt-Regensburg mission if Japan runs wild in the Pacific through the end of 1942.

Click to expand...

The example of Schwinfurt-Regensburg was to show that the US was not "managing" the fight in Europe without the P-51, at least the strategic bombing effort.

8th Air Force will be concentrated in the Pacific in an effort to contain the Japanese Navy.

Click to expand...

Considering that the AF still was still under the illusion that high altitude bombers would be effective against warships, they certainly would have deployed to the Pacific. The deployment to Europe would most likely be delayed but the overall mission would not have changed nor the outcome in Europe be different, except possibly delayed. When they eventually deployed they would already be trained and experienced in wartime ops, so organization establishments and ops training would not have to be performed making the transitions more efficient.

tyrodtom said:

Suppose America clearly lost some of the early battles in the Pacific .
Would the Europe first policy have endured ?

Click to expand...

Yes it would. Let's assume that both the Battle of Coral Sea and Midway were tragic failures and all carriers were lost. By May 1942, the US had twelve operational battleships, nine of which were reasonably modern. Of these, eight modern ones could be deployed to the Pacific, four on the west coast and four at Hawaii. In addition, the US had over 7000 modern fighters, P-38s, P-39s, P-40s, P-51As, and F4Fs. 600 of these were the effective (in the Pacific) and long ranged P-38. A significant number of these fighters (especially the P-38s) could be transferred to the Pacific. Three carrier task forces would still be available (there would now be none in the Atlantic) the Wasp, Ranger, and Saratoga for raids and defensive support.

With a 800 fighters on Hawaii and 1200 fighters on the west coasts protecting four battle fleets in Hawaii and four battle fleets on the west coast, there would be no concern of the Japanese threatening the US. Australia and the Aleutians would be at risk (no problem with the Aleutians, the weather there is so nice) and certainly Guadalcanal would be risky if tried.

The Japanese would run wild for a good year, but I think that would have been acceptable and was possibly already planned for post Pearl Harbor.

Although the Finns did very well with their Buffalos, the B-239 delivered to them was quite a bit lighter than the F2A flown by the Navy and Marines. The Finns had different tactics and faced different opponents than the Allies in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

Still, the speed and climb performance of the F2A, would probably be equal to or better than the F4F-3 all altitudes if the engines were the same, ditto with the F4F-4 all with equal equipment. It did have problems, as did many aircraft, but there is no reason to doubt that the Navy and Marine pilots, as they learned how to fight the Japanese, would have been equally effective in the F2A. Again, I have no insight on the ruggedness of the F2A versus the well documented ruggedness of the F4F. The flying characteristics of the F2A seem to be quite good and it is reported that the pilots loved flying it.


Drgondog, well stated.

renrich said:

Britain-Lancaster, without which their bombing campaign would have been severely hampered.

Click to expand...

Good assessment. I still have the feeling that if the Brits did not have the Spitfire the early years of the war would have been much worse. As far as the Lanc is concerned, could the US have provided B-24s or B-17s to England in quantities sufficient to replace them?

I see your point, If the Marines and Navy only had the F2a, they would soon saw it's good points, ( it must of had a few) it's bad points, and adjusted their tactics. Necessity breeds invention.

But I just not so sure that more early reverses wouldn't have resulted in a different policy.

From talking to my own parents years ago, they weren't so confident.
My dad was a Marine Sgt. at Guadalcanal, my mom had 4 brothers , Marines and Navy, all in the Pacific. To them the early war was scary times.

tyrodtom said:

From talking to my own parents years ago, they weren't so confident.
My dad was a Marine Sgt. at Guadalcanal, my mom had 4 brothers , Marines and Navy, all in the Pacific. To them the early war was scary times.

Click to expand...

I agree that for the people engaged in the war in the Pacific, including the people on the West Coast, it was an uncertain time. There was a real fear that the Japanese could show up any time with an invasion force, even if they could not. However, I think Roosevelt, on the East Coast, was already committed to Europe. Even after Pearl Harbor, the loss of the Philippines, and the loss of Singapore, his position never changed. I think a loss at the Coral Sea would not have changed his opinion and neither would a further loss at Midway. As long as the US had the resources noted in my previous entry, I do not think he would change his mind, but, some priority would change to increase resources in the Pacific.

The F2A had several problems that made it a less than desirable carrier fighter. It also had a few problems with the engine situation.

1. The landing gear didn't stand up to carrier landing very well. The struts bent or distorted which some times meant they wouldn't fully retract.
2. the wing was one piece from end to end and used a large box spar which also doubled as the fuel tank.
a. Repairs were difficult both of the wing and the fuel tank.
b. the wing didn't fold which meant fewer F2A's could be carried vs later F4Fs
c. late F2A's had self sealing tanks in front of the wing spars and a self sealing fuselage tank with one of the original in-spar tanks blocked off. Apparently making the existing tanks self sealing was neither quick or easy.
3. the high powered Cyclone 9 that offered close to the altitude performance of the 2 stage Wasp doesn't show up until fall of 1943. The earlier Cyclone engines are going to be deficient in altitude performance compared to the F4F-4s.
While swapping the Cyclone for the Wasp may not be that hard (most other planes seemed to be pretty much interchangeable) the Wasp is a heavier engine (add another 100lbs or so over the regular Wasp for the two stage supercharger, NOT including intercooler) and longer. There might not have been room in the short Brewster fuselage.
4. adding even more weight to the small (compared to the F4F) F2A may not have worked well. The above mentioned landing gear and the smaller wing may mean that by the time you get an F2A to perform like an F4F the entire airplane has been redesigned into an airframe much closer to the F4F.

In the Pacific the B29 would have been missed.

mikewint said:

Maria, *did* have planes! Them is "fighten words"
At 4:15 on the morning of 9 April 1940, German forces crossed the border into neutral Denmark, in direct violation of a German–Danish treaty of non-aggression signed the previous year. In a coordinated operation, German ships began disembarking troops at the docks in Copenhagen. As a result of the rapid turn of events, the Danish government did not have enough time to officially declare war on Germany. Sixteen Danish soldiers died in the invasion, but after two hours the Danish government surrendered, believing that resistance was useless and hoping to work out an advantageous agreement with Germany. The German forces were technologically sophisticated and numerous; the Danish forces comparatively tiny and used obsolete equipment; partially a result of a pre-war policy of trying to avoid antagonizing Germany by supplying the army with modern equipment. Even stiff resistance from the Danes would not have lasted long. Querulously the German forces did not seem to expect any resistance as they invaded with unarmored ships and vehicles.

Click to expand...

Yes, dear. Would you like some cake to that coffee?
Is it a comfort to you that many danes grumbled and complained a bit, then carried on with their everyday lives???

renrich said:

Japan-A6M, without which their early Pacific strategy would not work.
Germany- 109, without which their early war strategy would not work nearly as well.
Britain-Lancaster, without which their bombing campaign would have been severely hampered.
United States-P51, without which their domination of the air over Europe would have taken much longer to achieve. Without the F4F, the Pacific war would have been lengthened but since Germany was more lethal, I go with the P51. The F6F was important but the F4U would have done almost as well early and even better late. The F4U was important but the F6F would have done just as well or better early and almost as well later.

Click to expand...

The only bit I disagree on is the Lancaster. The RAF still had the Halifax which was a very capable bomber but is often overlooked.

Ju-87 for Germany.

Particularily on the Eastern Front, this plane was vital to the war effort there.

UK

Hurricane. It held the bulk of the line before Spit took the limelight. No Hurricane, potentially no Battle of Britian victory.

Russia:

Il-2/Yak 1 former similar to Germany, the latter was their only real star competitor at war's start. They didn't have enough of either of course.

Japan.

A6M/Ki-43 The former in particular made the Japanese operational plan possible. It's rep took away from the 43 which was often mistaken as a "Type 0" but also did sterling work.

US.

F4F/P-40

modest in overall performance but tough and well armed. Flown with skill they were line holders.

Maria just pulling your chain a bit my dear, especially after that *did*.