1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like - Page 4 - Aircraft of World War II

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-04-2005, 02:29 PM

ah but remember adler in 1939 the bf-110 was better than the -38, principly becuase the -38 had only just flown as a prototype...........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-04-2005, 06:07 PM

Yeah but the prototype was still probably better....

Gnomey · 10-04-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yeah but the prototype was still probably better....

Probably

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-04-2005, 06:19 PM

The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.

Gnomey · 10-04-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.

I'd agree with that Alder. The British were more afraid of it that the 109 before the Battle of Britain but it never was a good heavy fighter but it was an excellent night fighter. It was not manouverable enough to combat single engined fighters but it was fine against bombers at night.

schwarzpanzer · 10-05-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdler

I do like you trainer the tiger moth. I would love to fly one.

You can (or could recently?) book a flight in the Argos catalogue!

On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks. Allowing the Me109's to give top-cover, what would've happened?

Then after the bombers headed home, a bit of optional ground strafing?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-05-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though.

I'd agree with that Alder. The British were more afraid of it that the 109 before the Battle of Britain but it never was a good heavy fighter but it was an excellent night fighter. It was not manouverable enough to combat single engined fighters but it was fine against bombers at night.

My thoughts on it exactly.

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-05-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks

having un-manouverable fighters at the head of a bomber formation won't stop head on attacks, if you see a fighter coming at you firing at you and approaching with a closing speed of 500mph you're gonna move outta it's way no matter what you're in, but i do agree the -110 shouldda made more ground attacks in the BoB.........

Gnomey · 10-05-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

Quote:

On the Me110; I wonder if it had provided close escorts to the bombers in the BoB, to prevent head-on attacks

having un-manouverable fighters at the head of a bomber formation won't stop head on attacks, if you see a fighter coming at you firing at you and approaching with a closing speed of 500mph you're gonna move outta it's way no matter what you're in, but i do agree the -110 shouldda made more ground attacks in the BoB.........

Agreed.

cheddar cheese · 10-05-2005, 03:44 PM

A Schnellbomber...Bf-162 style...

Glider · 10-05-2005, 04:47 PM

Can I suggest that the key word is operational and that suggested airforces exclude prototypes. There were lots of planes in the Prototype phase in 1939.
Apologies for those who want to pick the P38, but if you want the P38 can I have the Fw190? The Whirlwind would be a good choice for a twin engined fighter.

plan_D · 10-05-2005, 07:14 PM

Being British -

Interceptor: Spitfire
Ground Attack/Fighter: Hawk-75
Maritime Patrol: PBY

And that's it. They can come to me. I'm not wasting resources on building bombers.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-06-2005, 01:20 AM

Ive put more thought into this since i last posted, and came to this conclusion.

Fighter-Me-109
Bomber-SM.79
Ground support-Cr.42
Fighter bomber-Ba.65
Transport-Ju/52
Carrier fighter-A5m4
Interceptor-Spitfire
Recon/battlefield observer-Fi-56 storch
Flying boat-sunderland
coastal bomber/recon- If the Fw-200 condor was then in service, then the condor.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-06-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Being British -

Interceptor: Spitfire
Ground Attack/Fighter: Hawk-75
Maritime Patrol: PBY

And that's it. They can come to me. I'm not wasting resources on building bombers.

Neither did Germany.....

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-06-2005, 02:46 PM

carp the Ba.65 struggled to fly with warload........

10-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#46
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	ah but remember adler in 1939 the bf-110 was better than the -38, principly becuase the -38 had only just flown as a prototype........... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

10-04-2005, 06:07 PM	#47
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,152	Yeah but the prototype was still probably better.... __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-04-2005, 06:19 PM	#49
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,152	The Bf-110 was a good idea and design that flopped in my opinion. It never really became what the Germans wanted it to be. It was a really great night fighter though. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-05-2005, 07:14 PM	#57
plan_D Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,978	Being British - Interceptor: Spitfire Ground Attack/Fighter: Hawk-75 Maritime Patrol: PBY And that's it. They can come to me. I'm not wasting resources on building bombers. __________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club.

10-06-2005, 02:46 PM	#60
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	carp the Ba.65 struggled to fly with warload........ __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

10-05-2005, 03:44 PM	#55
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	A Schnellbomber...Bf-162 style...

10-05-2005, 04:47 PM	#56
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	Can I suggest that the key word is operational and that suggested airforces exclude prototypes. There were lots of planes in the Prototype phase in 1939. Apologies for those who want to pick the P38, but if you want the P38 can I have the Fw190? The Whirlwind would be a good choice for a twin engined fighter.

10-06-2005, 01:20 AM	#58
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	Ive put more thought into this since i last posted, and came to this conclusion. Fighter-Me-109 Bomber-SM.79 Ground support-Cr.42 Fighter bomber-Ba.65 Transport-Ju/52 Carrier fighter-A5m4 Interceptor-Spitfire Recon/battlefield observer-Fi-56 storch Flying boat-sunderland coastal bomber/recon- If the Fw-200 condor was then in service, then the condor.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode