Fantasy air force
Discussion
Suppose you were minister of defence for a small but wealthy European country in late 1938, and decided to create an air force from scratch, what would you want to buy?
Fighters:
Between the Spitfire and the BF109. The Swiss in the same situation went for the 109 because it was expected to be more reliable, but I think considering development potential the Spitfire might be preferable.
Transports:
DC3 or JU52?
Everybody had DC3s, including Germany, so seems a sensible choice.
Bombers:
Stukas were pretty effective given air superiority.
For the next size up the JU88 seems versatile, always seems significantly more modern than the Blenheim. But of course the Blenheim was developed into the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
How would the Wellington compare with the German bombers?
Fighters:
Between the Spitfire and the BF109. The Swiss in the same situation went for the 109 because it was expected to be more reliable, but I think considering development potential the Spitfire might be preferable.
Transports:
DC3 or JU52?
Everybody had DC3s, including Germany, so seems a sensible choice.
Bombers:
Stukas were pretty effective given air superiority.
For the next size up the JU88 seems versatile, always seems significantly more modern than the Blenheim. But of course the Blenheim was developed into the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
How would the Wellington compare with the German bombers?
I'd certainly rate the Wellington over its German rivals (Heinkel He111 and Dornier 17/215).
The Whitley was also half decent. It had the longest range of the British trio of "heavy bombers" with which it entered the war (Wellington, Whitley and Hampden).
It's hard to chose which is best between the Spitfire and the 109 as at 1938. There wasn't much to chose between the early Spitfire I and early 109s. Early 109s had some advantages in that by 1938 they had been combat tested, had better armament and the 109E was probably a more advanced aircraft than the very first Spitfires. I can see why the Swiss would have chosen it over the Spitfire.
However, as you say, we know that the Spitfire had better development potential than the 109 - not that the 109 wasn't developed.
As far as exports were doing, the Hurricane was actually selling quite well in 1938.
The Whitley was also half decent. It had the longest range of the British trio of "heavy bombers" with which it entered the war (Wellington, Whitley and Hampden).
It's hard to chose which is best between the Spitfire and the 109 as at 1938. There wasn't much to chose between the early Spitfire I and early 109s. Early 109s had some advantages in that by 1938 they had been combat tested, had better armament and the 109E was probably a more advanced aircraft than the very first Spitfires. I can see why the Swiss would have chosen it over the Spitfire.
However, as you say, we know that the Spitfire had better development potential than the 109 - not that the 109 wasn't developed.
As far as exports were doing, the Hurricane was actually selling quite well in 1938.
Fighter
Lightning, Mig25! F22. F14
Attack.
A10, Mirage 1vP, B1B, Tu22, TU60.
Recce EF111, SR71,
TRansport, Dollar 30, AN124,
Tanker Victor.
Bomber B52, Vulcan.
TRainer, Hawk, Magister, A37.
Transport Helo, Chinook, Bell 212, Sea King
Attack helo MD500 Hughes, Mil Mi24, UH1.
This would be expensive!!
Lightning, Mig25! F22. F14
Attack.
A10, Mirage 1vP, B1B, Tu22, TU60.
Recce EF111, SR71,
TRansport, Dollar 30, AN124,
Tanker Victor.
Bomber B52, Vulcan.
TRainer, Hawk, Magister, A37.
Transport Helo, Chinook, Bell 212, Sea King
Attack helo MD500 Hughes, Mil Mi24, UH1.
This would be expensive!!
chunder27 said:
Fighter
Lightning, Mig25! F22. F14
Attack.
A10, Mirage 1vP, B1B, Tu22, TU60.
Recce EF111, SR71,
TRansport, Dollar 30, AN124,
Tanker Victor.
Bomber B52, Vulcan.
TRainer, Hawk, Magister, A37.
Transport Helo, Chinook, Bell 212, Sea King
Attack helo MD500 Hughes, Mil Mi24, UH1.
This would be expensive!!
Try re-reading the first line of the OP Lightning, Mig25! F22. F14
Attack.
A10, Mirage 1vP, B1B, Tu22, TU60.
Recce EF111, SR71,
TRansport, Dollar 30, AN124,
Tanker Victor.
Bomber B52, Vulcan.
TRainer, Hawk, Magister, A37.
Transport Helo, Chinook, Bell 212, Sea King
Attack helo MD500 Hughes, Mil Mi24, UH1.
This would be expensive!!
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose you were minister of defence for a small but wealthy European country in late 1938, and decided to create an air force from scratch, what would you want to buy?
Fighters:
Between the Spitfire and the BF109. The Swiss in the same situation went for the 109 because it was expected to be more reliable, but I think considering development potential the Spitfire might be preferable.
Transports:
DC3 or JU52?
Everybody had DC3s, including Germany, so seems a sensible choice.
Bombers:
Stukas were pretty effective given air superiority.
For the next size up the JU88 seems versatile, always seems significantly more modern than the Blenheim. But of course the Blenheim was developed into the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
How would the Wellington compare with the German bombers?
Buy pilots.Fighters:
Between the Spitfire and the BF109. The Swiss in the same situation went for the 109 because it was expected to be more reliable, but I think considering development potential the Spitfire might be preferable.
Transports:
DC3 or JU52?
Everybody had DC3s, including Germany, so seems a sensible choice.
Bombers:
Stukas were pretty effective given air superiority.
For the next size up the JU88 seems versatile, always seems significantly more modern than the Blenheim. But of course the Blenheim was developed into the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
How would the Wellington compare with the German bombers?
Equipment is useless without the personnel trained to fly them. A good pilot in a bad plane can shoot down a mediocre pilot in a good plane, hence the CAC Wirraway (Australian built trainer) has 1 Japanses Zero kill despite the aircraft being completely outmatched.
The best plane for the job is the one you have right now.
Given that none of the aircraft introduced before 1939 were current by 1944, every one had to go through major revisions. its a bit pointless buying lots of aircraft that will be obsolete in a few years (in hindsight of course), technology progressed extremely rapidly in WWII. Better off investing in manufacturing, being able to produce current designs, even if they aren't the best, is better than having obsolete aircraft in storage that could be destroyed on the ground.
Beyond that, upgrading radar and communications, investing in intelligence assets, Britain won the battle of Britain, not through superior equipment or martial might, but being immensely smarter than the Germans with more limited resources. The RAF knew exactly where the Germans were and where they were going, so could be engaged on our terms.
Also forget about bombers, you'll need more fighters and ground attack aircraft. But if you insist, the B17, no question about it. First started production in 1938.
The French certainly ordered Hawk 75s
On the whole it was outclassed by the 109, Spitfire and even the Hurricane - which is why Curtiss were already developing the P-40.
Britain also ordered a number of them, but immediately transferred them to the far east as they realised they wouldn't cut it in Europe.
On the whole it was outclassed by the 109, Spitfire and even the Hurricane - which is why Curtiss were already developing the P-40.
Britain also ordered a number of them, but immediately transferred them to the far east as they realised they wouldn't cut it in Europe.
captain_cynic said:
Lots of valid points
But the scenario is that rightly or wrongly you have decided to shop for off the shelf aircraft. It's about how the various aircraft compare with each other. Not about how to devise an air defence system (which could be an interesting discussion in itself).The RAF did try early B17s but found that (as I believe Boeing had warned) they were vulnerable over enemy territory and were switched to maritime roles.
The RAF did indeed have early B-17s. Even though they could fly faster and higher than any British bomber of the time, the RAF found that they didn't really fit in with their bombing philosophy - namely, area bombing at night at no higher than 15,000 feet.
The B-17 was optimised for daylight bombing from altitudes up to and above 30,000 feet Another factor was that the Americans would not fit the sophisticated Norden bomb sight to the British aircraft - which made bombing from altitude even less accurate than it turned out to be even fitted with the Norden sight.
The B-17 was optimised for daylight bombing from altitudes up to and above 30,000 feet Another factor was that the Americans would not fit the sophisticated Norden bomb sight to the British aircraft - which made bombing from altitude even less accurate than it turned out to be even fitted with the Norden sight.
Clever - but nobody ever really wanted them.
There is a write up on the company in this month's "Aeroplane". At one point they were bought by Rolls Royce who thought owning an airframe manufacturer would be a good thing. However, they decided to get out of that and concentrate on engine manufacturing.
What kept Miles going was the order for Miles Masters and Martinets.
There is a write up on the company in this month's "Aeroplane". At one point they were bought by Rolls Royce who thought owning an airframe manufacturer would be a good thing. However, they decided to get out of that and concentrate on engine manufacturing.
What kept Miles going was the order for Miles Masters and Martinets.
Eric Mc said:
The RAF did indeed have early B-17s. Even though they could fly faster and higher than any British bomber of the time, the RAF found that they didn't really fit in with their bombing philosophy - namely, area bombing at night at no higher than 15,000 feet.
The B-17 was optimised for daylight bombing from altitudes up to and above 30,000 feet...
Why can't you take an aeroplane designed to fly at 30,000 feet in daytime and fly it at 15,000 feet at night? Engines no good at only 15,000 feet? Throw out some guns...The B-17 was optimised for daylight bombing from altitudes up to and above 30,000 feet...
Assuming small but wealthy means Western Europe.
Buy German planes with German markings and attack the USSR.
Buy Soviet planes with Soviet markings and attack Germany simultaneously.
If that "what if" is not permitted, JU88s to stop the Wehrmacht crossing France and more JU88s to wreck the U-boats.
Buy German planes with German markings and attack the USSR.
Buy Soviet planes with Soviet markings and attack Germany simultaneously.
If that "what if" is not permitted, JU88s to stop the Wehrmacht crossing France and more JU88s to wreck the U-boats.
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose you were minister of defence for a small but wealthy European country in late 1938, and decided to create an air force from scratch, what would you want to buy?
How about fleets of luxury airliners? Fly the population to somewhere nice for a few years and come back when it's all over...Simpo Two said:
Why can't you take an aeroplane designed to fly at 30,000 feet in daytime and fly it at 15,000 feet at night? Engines no good at only 15,000 feet? Throw out some guns...
The B-17 sacrificed performance for bomb load. The RAF felt better with a Wellington 15,000 feet closer to its target rather than a B-17 at 30,000 feet - six miles up without the bomb sight the Americans felt was crucial to operate the aeroplane properly.The Norden bomb-sight never lived up to its promise, proving in action, no more accurate than the non vector sights such as the RAF's Mk XIV. Hence why the USAAF switched to area bombing fairly early on.
The only effective vector bomb-sight during WWII was the RAF's SABS (Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight) used by initially by the Path-Finder Force and latterly by 617 Sqn.
The only effective vector bomb-sight during WWII was the RAF's SABS (Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight) used by initially by the Path-Finder Force and latterly by 617 Sqn.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 7th June 18:32
Simpo Two said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Suppose you were minister of defence for a small but wealthy European country in late 1938, and decided to create an air force from scratch, what would you want to buy?
How about fleets of luxury airliners? Fly the population to somewhere nice for a few years and come back when it's all over...Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
Why can't you take an aeroplane designed to fly at 30,000 feet in daytime and fly it at 15,000 feet at night? Engines no good at only 15,000 feet? Throw out some guns...
The B-17 sacrificed performance for bomb load.V8 Fettler said:
Flying boats with refueling depots worldwide. And supplies of gin.
Perfect!Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
Why can't you take an aeroplane designed to fly at 30,000 feet in daytime and fly it at 15,000 feet at night? Engines no good at only 15,000 feet? Throw out some guns...
The B-17 sacrificed performance for bomb load.V8 Fettler said:
Flying boats with refueling depots worldwide. And supplies of gin.
Perfect!As as Ginetta said, the Norden turned out to be not as great as the Yanks had hoped it would be.
In the end, the RAF didn't really need the B-17 as a bomber, as they were building some pretty good ones of their own. It did do sterling work for RAF Coastal Command and 100 Group though.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff