Matrix Games Forums

It's amusing to compare the stats of the Brigand and the Mitchell, which I should have done first. The British aircraft is indeed larger than the B-25, but able to carry a lot less firepower.

What no Washington B.1s in the list

Actually,

Thinking about it and I still wish I had a copy of what the invasion of Japan would have looked like. The US was going to accept the Tiger Force and the BPF but was looking more help from the Aussies, Canadians and the New Zealanders more. So I think the list would probably look like this:

Firefly Mk IV
MB Mk. 5
Supermarine Spiteful
Supermarine Attacker
Mustang Mk.X
Fairey Spearfish
Short Sturgeon
Short Shetland
Westland Wyvern

I would also hazard that F2G's, F7F's, F8F's, BTM Mauler, BT2D and some other immediate post war US aircraft into RCAF, RAAF, RANAF, RNZAF, RANZAF aircraft as well.

The Vampire might be a problem... None of the data I could find covers the Mk I very well; also, as Dixie said, these early jets were not good for tropic climates.

Vampire Mk. I is not covered well, indeed..but something like barebone stats are here:
 
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/3-UK/01-Fighters/DeHavilland-DH100Vampire/DH100Vampire-Mk1.htm
 

Also, precious little sense in the USAAF allocating B-29s to the RAF; and the USN/USMC would not be giving their newest types to minor Commonwealth air forces. Not a chance.

The RAF would not have got Washingtons during the war.  They were only a stopgap whilst Bomber Command waited for the new jets to enter service, if the Lincoln had had sufficient range then the B-29 would probably not have seen RAF service at all.

As for the jets, the performance figures available would be for 'ideal' conditions above NW Europe for British jets.  It'll be difficult (or impossible) to find figures that pertain to tropical conditions even for later jets.  As a compromise if someone is desperate to see Vampires and Meteors in the game then the max range and load capacities should be reduced to represent the engines struggling to lift the aircraft off the deck.  This would mean that the early marks of jets would have a range of almost 5 yards [:D]  IMO, nothing before the MkIV Meteor and the Derwent V would be worth sending out for combat.

I know that the B-29's wouldn't have made it into RAF hands at all during the war. I was just being tongue in cheek.

As to the late war US aircraft making it to Canucks, Kiwis, Ozzies and a few others might have been on the recieving end of a few of the newer US aircraft that were coming out near the end of 45 and into early 46. It was just a suggestion as to possible aircraft and it might be interesting to see an F8F, F7F, F-82, in Canadian or New Zealand color scheme as a what-if.

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I know that the B-29's wouldn't have made it into RAF hands at all during the war. I was just being tongue in cheek.

As to the late war US aircraft making it to Canucks, Kiwis, Ozzies and a few others might have been on the recieving end of a few of the newer US aircraft that were coming out near the end of 45 and into early 46. It was just a suggestion as to possible aircraft and it might be interesting to see an F8F, F7F, F-82, in Canadian or New Zealand color scheme as a what-if.

But they would likely have been export versions, with older avionics. Sort of like the difference between the Brewster F2A Buffalo and the B.339 Buffalo...same airframe, but the B.339 wasn't quite as good.

The US would not allow planes like Bearcat, Tigercat or Super Corsair to go anywhere except frontline USN/USMC squadrons. If anything, they'd give away the planes that were replaced by them, i.e. older model Corsair and Hellcat. The others? Not a chance in hell.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The US would not allow planes like Bearcat, Tigercat or Super Corsair to go anywhere except frontline USN/USMC squadrons. If anything, they'd give away the planes that were replaced by them, i.e. older model Corsair and Hellcat. The others? Not a chance in hell.

Exactly, at best a very stripped down export version, which in truth wouldn't have been as good as the hand me down older aircraft. But cutting edge front line aircraft like the 3 you mentioned, no way they'd even sell an export version (until something newer came along).

@Terminus: The Max.Altitude of the Seafang is wrong. Acording to my notes is 37.000..[8D]

It's missing a zero. Max altitude was 41000 feet.

Danke !!!!

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The US would not allow planes like Bearcat, Tigercat or Super Corsair to go anywhere except frontline USN/USMC squadrons. If anything, they'd give away the planes that were replaced by them, i.e. older model Corsair and Hellcat. The others? Not a chance in hell.

Exactly, at best a very stripped down export version, which in truth wouldn't have been as good as the hand me down older aircraft. But cutting edge front line aircraft like the 3 you mentioned, no way they'd even sell an export version (until something newer came along).

?
I would assume given that the war had gone so badly for the USA to be fighting at this point, that much of the political reasoning for not using Commonwealth forces to their fullest would have been squashed. I cant see the US public accepting that their untrained pilots were being sacrificed while well trained and experienced RAF, RAAF or RNZAF pilots patrolled the rear. Same arguement for better use of the Australian Army and any "Tiger Force" units.

Given that US manufacturing would still be ramped up, there should be plenty of P51H, P47N, F8F, F7F or FG1 made available (RNZAF got FG1D in Sept 1945 IRL) Similar arguement could be made for giving the RAF some B29, they (and the RAAF) had been flying latest model B24J since 6/44.

(I think you have to write your story as to why the war is still being foughht)

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The US would not allow planes like Bearcat, Tigercat or Super Corsair to go anywhere except frontline USN/USMC squadrons. If anything, they'd give away the planes that were replaced by them, i.e. older model Corsair and Hellcat. The others? Not a chance in hell.

Exactly, at best a very stripped down export version, which in truth wouldn't have been as good as the hand me down older aircraft. But cutting edge front line aircraft like the 3 you mentioned, no way they'd even sell an export version (until something newer came along).

?
I would assume given that the war had gone so badly for the USA to be fighting at this point, that much of the political reasoning for not using Commonwealth forces to their fullest would have been squashed. I cant see the US public accepting that their untrained pilots were being sacrificed while well trained and experienced RAF, RAAF or RNZAF pilots patrolled the rear. Same arguement for better use of the Australian Army and any "Tiger Force" units.

Given that US manufacturing would still be ramped up, there should be plenty of P51H, P47N, F8F, F7F or FG1 made available (RNZAF got FG1D in Sept 1945 IRL) Similar arguement could be made for giving the RAF some B29, they (and the RAAF) had been flying latest model B24J since 6/44.

(I think you have to write your story as to why the war is still being foughht)

While I'm not arguing that it would (I'm assuming the war ended realistically), there are a few factors that could have extended the time line, if only by a little.

1. Japan wins the battle of Midway
2. Germany doesn't fall victim to the Russian winter
3. Vichy France doesn't lose control of its colonies (meaning no Free French, the Mediterranean is unsecured, and having to fight for control of North Africa and Palestine to secure the Suez Canal; it also means no major Allied base at New Caledonia).

Probably more...are they plausible? I'm not saying they are, just giving you a few examples of things that could have changed the course of the war, not things that had a chance of actually happening.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

While I'm not arguing that it would (I'm assuming the war ended realistically), there are a few factors that could have extended the time line, if only by a little.

1. Japan wins the battle of Midway
2. Germany doesn't fall victim to the Russian winter
3. Vichy France doesn't lose control of its colonies (meaning no Free French, the Mediterranean is unsecured, and having to fight for control of North Africa and Palestine to secure the Suez Canal; it also means no major Allied base at New Caledonia).

Probably more...are they plausible? I'm not saying they are, just giving you a few examples of things that could have changed the course of the war, not things that had a chance of actually happening.

A couple of other possibilities for your counter-factual

1. The initial shipment of the Atomic Bomb is lost at sea due to a storm or lost of the USS Indianapolis disappears out to sea

2. Kyûjô Incident succeeds and the new military government tells the Allies to go and stick it.

3. If you want to start the counter factual earlier, Manchuria is more built up with factories for Japan by 1942/43 time frame and that is where most of the industrial base has gone during the war after the Doolittle Raid. So you could have the J7W, or Japanese copies of the Fw 190-A-5, or Kikkas showing up over the home islands by 1945 and dealing the US Airpower over the islands by 1945 issues.

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

ORIGINAL: Shark7

While I'm not arguing that it would (I'm assuming the war ended realistically), there are a few factors that could have extended the time line, if only by a little.

1. Japan wins the battle of Midway
2. Germany doesn't fall victim to the Russian winter
3. Vichy France doesn't lose control of its colonies (meaning no Free French, the Mediterranean is unsecured, and having to fight for control of North Africa and Palestine to secure the Suez Canal; it also means no major Allied base at New Caledonia).

Probably more...are they plausible? I'm not saying they are, just giving you a few examples of things that could have changed the course of the war, not things that had a chance of actually happening.

A couple of other possibilities for your counter-factual

1. The initial shipment of the Atomic Bomb is lost at sea due to a storm or lost of the USS Indianapolis disappears out to sea

2. Kyûjô Incident succeeds and the new military government tells the Allies to go and stick it.

3. If you want to start the counter factual earlier, Manchuria is more built up with factories for Japan by 1942/43 time frame and that is where most of the industrial base has gone during the war after the Doolittle Raid. So you could have the J7W, or Japanese copies of the Fw 190-A-5, or Kikkas showing up over the home islands by 1945 and dealing the US Airpower over the islands by 1945 issues.

Like I said, not arguring for or against it, because any of these possibilities is way out in fantasy land.[;)]

Like I said, not arguring for or against it, because any of these possibilities is way out in fantasy land.

I don't see the loss of one of the only two A-bombs the U.S. had made as out in fantasy land. But there is an even more realistic possibility. There are two ways of detonating an atom bomb: the Hiroshima bomb used the simpler and more reliable way, and the Nagasaki bomb used the more sophisticated way. Strangely, the Trinity test in New Mexico used the second way.

What if the test had been a failure (as North Korea's first attempt was) and set back the Manhattan Project by a year or so?

Then Downfall would have gone ahead, and the chance of advanced US aircraft going anywhere but to US units would have dropped to negative percentiles...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Then Downfall would have gone ahead, and the chance of advanced US aircraft going anywhere but to US units would have dropped to negative percentiles...

Agree. If anything additional B-29 Production would have gone to the redeployed 8th AF