What ifs!

That's the beauty of "what if's" and normally only found in RAM under "F-111 v Sopwith Camel ?"

Richard.

snipped-for-privacy@spam.spam (Martin) wrote in :

Had that happened, the repercussions would still have been noticeable today. Had Britain been a leader in postwar aviation technology, their aircraft industry might not have been is such a sorry state these days.

The US could have had supersonic aircraft during WW2 as well:

If you're interested in exploring this subject, visit . Alternate history (and building the models to match) is fun.

if anyone had listened to winnie, no world war 2.

---snippage---

This is the UK SIG? If so, I met you guys in Telford last year and had a great time. I'm from Seattle where our last big 'what if' was the 1949 Schneider event. The organizer, Tim Nelson, wrote the article and i took most of the pictures in there. It was a great deal of fun!

Right now in the early stages of April Fool's planning. It's becoming a tradition here to do a spoof model for April Fool's day.

Have fun!!

--- Tontoni

Mine would be: What if any of the major combatants had mastered air-to-air refueling and employed it on a significant scale?

WmB

The UK SIG is part of it, but there are quite a few people on the forum who aren't in the SIG.

Cool. I was there too. We didn't meet, AFAIK (I was probably wandering around).

if the germans had it for the bob, it could have gone very differently. likewise if they had it in russia for bombers going beyond the urals. even africa could have been different. cool one to think about. both sides could have built a system of one sort or another.

The US Army made some record endurance flights through in-flight refuelling long before the war. And of course, the Navy's rigid airships also count.

The real problem would be designing a tanker aircraft of sufficient size and efficiency. Granted, a converted bomber would work, as done with B-24s in the CBI theater (supplying forward bases, not in-flight as such). That and protecting the airborne tankers from counterair. I don't think there has ever been an instance of tankers in modern wars being directly targeted, but the option is often given in field exercizes such as Red Flag.

Stephen Bierce

yes, i basically agree. all the side could have come up with some sort of in flight, but i think no one really thought it through in the press of other busines. the rooshuns had their trapeze set-up, that sort of helped.

USN hose-reel types modified from TBFs as carrier-based tankers could make for an interesting wrinkle in Pacfic carrier ops. Something like that would have been useful on the Doolittle Raid and the returning flights forced to ditch during the Marianas operations. Probably need JATO to get the beasties into the sky though.

Useful in the Battle of the Atlantic too, utilizing conversions of big land based planes like the B-24/PB4Y. Maybe even scrape out another mission for the Mariner and Coronado flying boats. While the late war hunter-killer ASW groups are the way to go, max avail. air coverage over the Atlantic would have still been desirable - especially early on in the war. The Mid Atlantic gaps in air cover might have been plugged sooner and more effectively with AAR.

Over Germany, AAR *might* have allowed for heavier bomb loads on smaller raids. But I would think even the USAAF would have been hard pressed to efficiently manage the AAR logistics of a 1,000 plane raid. Whether AAR would have made a significant contribution with the bombers is questionable, but if it reduces the number of missions flown against a particular target it would seem to be worthwhile when measured against equipment losses and casualties suffered on repeat missions. As for refuelling the escort fighters that clearly would have been something worth pursuing. Extending the range was always a concern, even after the P-51s arrived on the scene and took over escort chores. Even so, AAR missions over Europe would have been far more problematic than over the Atlantic. Over land the Germans had so much more to throw up into the sky at your tankers.

As for the Axis, AAR in the hands of the Germans may have breathed life into some of those fanciful and ambitious plans to strike at NY and North America, late in the war. The Japanese, no telling what they might have cooked up.

WmB

I finally got my copy of FSM (and I can see what the discussion centered on as to the cover plane) but I loved that Schneider Cup exercise. There were some very good models shown.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

Britain was a leader in postwar aviation technology but it's own government failed to understand that. Hence the cancellation of the TSR.2 and similar projects and their replacement by inferior, less reliable and more costly imported alternatives. The US governemnt and aircraft industry knew all too well and did their combined utmost to sabotage Britain's adanced avaition projects leaving western europe at the mercy of Soviet air power for years to come.

This very scenario was explored in the TV programme "Planes That Never Flew" (which is also available on DVD and which is where I first saw it). The programme presents a computer animated sequence in which Lockheed's L133's flying bomber escort duties go after the Me262 leaving other allied fighters to deal with slower German intercerptors.

(kim)

Huh? What about all the USAFE units deployed in support of NATO??

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (kim) wrote in :

I think it started with the cancellation of the Miles M.52. That cost Britain the lead in supersonic research. It went downhill from there.

There are even more what-ifs not considering Whittle.

There were several groups in the US working on turbojet engines. This was at a low level for lack of funding, but at SOME level nonetheless. These groups made inquiries at Wright field in the late thirties and

1940. In fact, a joint army/navy program did issue three contracts to US firms in 1941 prior to the letting of the Whittle copy contract.

What if US would have been farsighted enough to take up GE and Lockheed on these projects? The main reason they didn't was the short range/high fuel consumption of turbojets. AAF had strategy of projection of airpower at a distance, and aimed their development on long range aviation. They saw no need for high speed but short range interceptors. They changed their minds, fortunately, and did decide to develop jets once it was clear Germans were developing them. They would have to develop big drop tanks and other means of extending range, but they did go ahead with the effort. P-80s were in England by VE day, but not soon enough to see action. Six months earlier development and we could have seen jet vs jet dogfights in Europe.

Two points here. One is that prior to the deployment of the F-15 in europe, NATO had absolutely no way of countering reconnaissance missions by Soviet Foxbats that were able to overfly western europe with total impunity. The other is that the US adminstration was haranguing europe to do more to defend itself whilst at the same time doing it's level best to put europe's indigenous defence industries out of business.

You can't have it both ways. You either have a europe which is strong and can defend itself or you have a europe which is totally dependent on US military aid. US industry of course would prefer the latter as it creates more business for them.

(kim)

What if? What if the IPMS/USA was ran by competent people who really gave a shit? What if the IPMS/USA wasnt populated with has been old fools who cant build anymore? What if there was no IPMS/USA? Well the last one will happen soon!

HA HA HA

Evil is as evill does and the world will soon be a hot ember after Isreal Nukes Iran!

Build them if ya have them!

How does that equate to "...leaving western europe (sic) at the mercy of Soviet air power for years to come."?

There was only one US administration during the entire Cold War?

Instead of riding on the coattails of US defense expenditures to pour its money into social programs. Seems to me Europe got a pretty good deal, and it *still* has neither the will nor the means to defend itself.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!

snipped-for-privacy@earthdome.com wrote: