1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like - Page 6 - Aircraft of World War II

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-29-2005, 12:51 PM

we're superior to all nations

cheddar cheese · 11-29-2005, 12:52 PM

But translated, RA means the same as RAF, making them more efficient and energy saving because its on less letter to abbreviate a phrase meaning identical to the RAF, making them superior

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-29-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

we're superior to all nations

Yeah Uh HUH okay. :P

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-29-2005, 01:02 PM

want a nettle eating comptition about that

cheddar cheese · 11-29-2005, 01:07 PM

If I know how to eat a nettle im sure Adler does

carpenoctem1689 · 11-29-2005, 07:22 PM

Interceptor-Messerschmitt-109
Fighter- Ki-43
Fighter-bomber- Messerchmitt-110
Bomber- G3M
Attack aircraft - Fiat Cr.42/Hs-123
Dive Bomber- D3A Val
Transport- Ju/52
Shipboard recon- Ar-196
Coastal Bomber/Torperdoe Bomber/Recon- SM.79
Carrier Fighter - Mitsibishi A5M
Carrier Bomber- D3A Val
Carrier Torpedoe Plane- B5N

Yeah i know i kinda went over board with all of the aircaft, all of them really werent needed, but sitting here doing nothing, i find myself scrutinizing what would normally be quick decisions.

For starters, the KI-43 as my standard fighter, yes i know not heavily armed or too fast, no armor or self sealing tanks, but in range it was far superior to my interceptor, the Me-109, therefore, it could be used as an escort as well as a general purpose fighter. Also the Val as both dive bomber, and carrier dive bomber was just to simplify production. The G3M as my bomber, i just thought it all around superior to anything in 1939. Fiat Cr.42's were used in the attack role in north africa, and by the germans in 1944.

syscom3 · 11-29-2005, 09:15 PM

I wonder why you thought the Ju52 was superior to the C47.

lesofprimus · 11-29-2005, 09:53 PM

As do I...

evangilder · 11-30-2005, 10:06 AM

Looks like an all Axis list to me. I would have taken a C-47 over the Ju-52 any day of the week.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-30-2005, 11:53 AM

if the prototypes flew in 1939 but entered service in '41 that doesn't count does it?

Glider · 11-30-2005, 07:58 PM

I think you will find that the Ki43 only entered production in 1941 which came as a surprise to me.

Fighter Spitfire
8 x MG was a heavy armament at the time and the speed second to none.

Heavy Fighter 110
Has to be. Few fighters at the time had its speed and 2 x 20 against bombers without Armour or self sealing fuel tanks was more than sufficient.

Bomber JU 88
An all round plane way ahead of its time

Transport C47
Just had to be

Attack Bloch 152
Radial engine, good low down speed and 2 x 20 in 1939. I know there are no bombs but planes that did in 1939 tended to be shot down in droves.

Carrier Fighter Wildcat OK if were picky about dates Buffalo
The only alternative is the A5 but I don't like planes with 2xLMG. If they used speed and dive even the Buffalo stands a chance.

Carrier Bomber Blackburn Skua
Dauntless is the obvious choice but I feel the Skua was one of those planes that was never given a chance.

Carrier Torpedo A5
Always liked this plane and for its time a good performer

V-1710 · 12-02-2005, 12:16 AM

Fighter, Spitfire Mk. I, dive bomber SBD, light bomber A-20, medium bomber the He-111 or the Wellington, heavy bomber the B-17, transport C-39 (a C-47 forerunner).

102first_hussars · 12-02-2005, 02:08 AM

Air superiorority fighter-F-80 Shooting Star,A6M-ZERO/Spitfire
Bomber Intercepter-Hurricane
Recon-P-38, Mosquito,
Bomber-Mosquito,B-24,and the Halifax.

Carrier planes would be Multi-roles so Instead of three classes of aircraft it would be 2, fighter/bomber and torpedo planes on their own.

NAVY/Fighter/bomber-F4U-Corsair
Navy/Torpedo/ Swordfish, or the Devestator.

cheddar cheese · 12-02-2005, 10:24 AM

And how many of those were in service in 1939?

102first_hussars · 12-02-2005, 11:33 AM

Not all of them, but hey, thats what mine would look like.

11-29-2005, 12:51 PM	#76
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	we're superior to all nations __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-29-2005, 01:02 PM	#79
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	want a nettle eating comptition about that __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-29-2005, 09:15 PM	#82
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,281	I wonder why you thought the Ju52 was superior to the C47. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

11-29-2005, 09:53 PM	#83
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,501	As do I... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

11-30-2005, 10:06 AM	#84
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,809	Looks like an all Axis list to me. I would have taken a C-47 over the Ju-52 any day of the week. __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

11-29-2005, 12:52 PM	#77
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	But translated, RA means the same as RAF, making them more efficient and energy saving because its on less letter to abbreviate a phrase meaning identical to the RAF, making them superior

11-29-2005, 01:07 PM	#80
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	If I know how to eat a nettle im sure Adler does

11-29-2005, 07:22 PM	#81
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	Interceptor-Messerschmitt-109 Fighter- Ki-43 Fighter-bomber- Messerchmitt-110 Bomber- G3M Attack aircraft - Fiat Cr.42/Hs-123 Dive Bomber- D3A Val Transport- Ju/52 Shipboard recon- Ar-196 Coastal Bomber/Torperdoe Bomber/Recon- SM.79 Carrier Fighter - Mitsibishi A5M Carrier Bomber- D3A Val Carrier Torpedoe Plane- B5N Yeah i know i kinda went over board with all of the aircaft, all of them really werent needed, but sitting here doing nothing, i find myself scrutinizing what would normally be quick decisions. For starters, the KI-43 as my standard fighter, yes i know not heavily armed or too fast, no armor or self sealing tanks, but in range it was far superior to my interceptor, the Me-109, therefore, it could be used as an escort as well as a general purpose fighter. Also the Val as both dive bomber, and carrier dive bomber was just to simplify production. The G3M as my bomber, i just thought it all around superior to anything in 1939. Fiat Cr.42's were used in the attack role in north africa, and by the germans in 1944.

11-30-2005, 11:53 AM	#85
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	if the prototypes flew in 1939 but entered service in '41 that doesn't count does it? __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-30-2005, 07:58 PM	#86
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	I think you will find that the Ki43 only entered production in 1941 which came as a surprise to me. Fighter Spitfire 8 x MG was a heavy armament at the time and the speed second to none. Heavy Fighter 110 Has to be. Few fighters at the time had its speed and 2 x 20 against bombers without Armour or self sealing fuel tanks was more than sufficient. Bomber JU 88 An all round plane way ahead of its time Transport C47 Just had to be Attack Bloch 152 Radial engine, good low down speed and 2 x 20 in 1939. I know there are no bombs but planes that did in 1939 tended to be shot down in droves. Carrier Fighter Wildcat OK if were picky about dates Buffalo The only alternative is the A5 but I don't like planes with 2xLMG. If they used speed and dive even the Buffalo stands a chance. Carrier Bomber Blackburn Skua Dauntless is the obvious choice but I feel the Skua was one of those planes that was never given a chance. Carrier Torpedo A5 Always liked this plane and for its time a good performer

12-02-2005, 12:16 AM	#87
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 163	Fighter, Spitfire Mk. I, dive bomber SBD, light bomber A-20, medium bomber the He-111 or the Wellington, heavy bomber the B-17, transport C-39 (a C-47 forerunner).

12-02-2005, 02:08 AM	#88
102first_hussars Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Edmonton,Alberta Posts: 2,259	Air superiorority fighter-F-80 Shooting Star,A6M-ZERO/Spitfire Bomber Intercepter-Hurricane Recon-P-38, Mosquito, Bomber-Mosquito,B-24,and the Halifax. Carrier planes would be Multi-roles so Instead of three classes of aircraft it would be 2, fighter/bomber and torpedo planes on their own. NAVY/Fighter/bomber-F4U-Corsair Navy/Torpedo/ Swordfish, or the Devestator. __________________ Hello me...meet the real me. And my misfits way of life. A dark black past is my Most valued possession. Hindsight is always 20-20, But looking back its still a bit fuzzy. Speak of mutually assured destruction? Nice story...tell it to readers digest!!!

12-02-2005, 10:24 AM	#89
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	And how many of those were in service in 1939?

12-02-2005, 11:33 AM	#90
102first_hussars Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Edmonton,Alberta Posts: 2,259	Not all of them, but hey, thats what mine would look like. __________________ Hello me...meet the real me. And my misfits way of life. A dark black past is my Most valued possession. Hindsight is always 20-20, But looking back its still a bit fuzzy. Speak of mutually assured destruction? Nice story...tell it to readers digest!!!

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