What if?

Jank · 12-09-2005, 01:57 PM

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 · 12-09-2005, 02:13 PM

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 · 12-09-2005, 05:52 PM

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

DaveB.inVa · 12-09-2005, 07:55 PM

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 · 12-09-2005, 07:56 PM

i think the key word is pretend

Jabberwocky · 12-09-2005, 08:16 PM

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 · 12-09-2005, 08:29 PM

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 · 12-10-2005, 02:59 AM

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 · 12-10-2005, 07:15 AM

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 · 12-10-2005, 08:47 AM

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 · 12-10-2005, 11:14 AM

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

Glider · 12-10-2005, 11:57 AM

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 · 12-10-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-10-2005, 12:35 PM

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

d_bader · 12-10-2005, 01:36 PM

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