Silly Theoretical Question
Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:10 pm
Hi everyone,
here's a question that is kind of silly, but can be very interesting as long is it doesn't turn into a heated debate.
My question is:
If during WWII the aircraft used by the allies had been switched with that of the axis, how would you have expected the outcome of the war to change?
What I mean is, what if the Luftwaffe and Japanese operated Lancasters, Spits, Mustangs, B-17's, p-38's, etc and the RAF/USAAF/etc. operated HE-111's, FW-190's, Zero's, Vals, Kate's ME-109's.
And for more detail, we'll assume that the technology would have adapted at the exact same rate as it did in the real world.
Give reasons to back up your responses, too.
Cheers,
David
here's a question that is kind of silly, but can be very interesting as long is it doesn't turn into a heated debate.
My question is:
If during WWII the aircraft used by the allies had been switched with that of the axis, how would you have expected the outcome of the war to change?
What I mean is, what if the Luftwaffe and Japanese operated Lancasters, Spits, Mustangs, B-17's, p-38's, etc and the RAF/USAAF/etc. operated HE-111's, FW-190's, Zero's, Vals, Kate's ME-109's.
And for more detail, we'll assume that the technology would have adapted at the exact same rate as it did in the real world.
Give reasons to back up your responses, too.
Cheers,
David
Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:36 pm
If you gave them all our Corsairs were done, if it was one for one.
Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:37 pm
Davey,
I don't believe it is just a matter of switching aircraft.
The sheer number of aircraf produced by the Allies, plus the training program, that's what brought the Germans down. In addition, you must remember that internal politics within the German High Command and the Luftwaffe, dictated that many promising projects, would be sidelined or mis-used.
Case in hand, the use of the Me-262 as a bomber, when as a fighter it would have had much more impact.
So, if it is just simply switching aircraft, but the other factors (tactics, strategy, production, etc.) remained the same, I think that the outcome would have been the same.
Saludos,
Tulio
I don't believe it is just a matter of switching aircraft.
The sheer number of aircraf produced by the Allies, plus the training program, that's what brought the Germans down. In addition, you must remember that internal politics within the German High Command and the Luftwaffe, dictated that many promising projects, would be sidelined or mis-used.
Case in hand, the use of the Me-262 as a bomber, when as a fighter it would have had much more impact.
So, if it is just simply switching aircraft, but the other factors (tactics, strategy, production, etc.) remained the same, I think that the outcome would have been the same.
Saludos,
Tulio
Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:46 pm
Just to throw an absurd side note of humor in here, I heard an amusing little commentary yesterday, based on an illustration on a reenactors site...
Do you know the REAL reason the Allies won the war?
Because SCISSORS(V for Victory, Churchill gesture) beats PAPER(Hitler's "Heil" outstretched arm salute)...
Told ya it was absurd. But you laughed, didn't ya?
Robbie
Do you know the REAL reason the Allies won the war?
Because SCISSORS(V for Victory, Churchill gesture) beats PAPER(Hitler's "Heil" outstretched arm salute)...
Told ya it was absurd. But you laughed, didn't ya?
Robbie
Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:59 pm
l did only when you asked 
Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:00 pm
And what about ROCK?! 
Robbie Roberts wrote:Just to throw an absurd side note of humor in here, I heard an amusing little commentary yesterday, based on an illustration on a reenactors site...
Do you know the REAL reason the Allies won the war?
Because SCISSORS(V for Victory, Churchill gesture) beats PAPER(Hitler's "Heil" outstretched arm salute)...
Told ya it was absurd. But you laughed, didn't ya?
Robbie
Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:04 pm
I think "Rock" was Il Duce, and he was wrapped by Paper!
Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:49 pm
I heard about that... lol...
Robbie
Robbie
???
Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:59 pm
Do you know the REAL reason the Allies won the war?
Because SCISSORS(V for Victory, Churchill gesture) beats PAPER(Hitler's "Heil" outstretched arm salute)...
Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:09 am
It could have made a difference:
If the Germans had P-51's during the Battle of Britain, they would have had all the range the 109 lacked and the bombers would have been escorted everywhere. Plus the Spits and Hurricanes would have been outperformed.
If the Germans had P-51's during the Battle of Britain, they would have had all the range the 109 lacked and the bombers would have been escorted everywhere. Plus the Spits and Hurricanes would have been outperformed.
????
Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:18 am
Yeah, but the Brits would have flown FW-190s, Georges, Franks & Jacks 
Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:06 am
Saville wrote:It could have made a difference:
If the Germans had P-51's during the Battle of Britain, they would have had all the range the 109 lacked and the bombers would have been escorted everywhere. Plus the Spits and Hurricanes would have been outperformed.
I believe that in order to "accept" the swap of aircraft, timelines should also be kept, and thus, the Germans could not have had Mustangs during the Battle of Britain, since they had not yet entered full squadron service anywhere...
Saludos,
Tulio
Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:39 am
I'm with Tulio,
Production kills. Ask the Soviets about that one. Not very much talent, and facing superior aircraft even at 50 to 1, they still win. And, the allies didn't have some of the corporal general leader dudes with wierd tactical/strategic weapon biases and super messed up service rivalrys.
Lanc's, B17's, ect, mean bumpkus if you ain't bombing the place the Soviets moved their stuff to east of the mountains. They're not very good tactical weapons.
An interesting thought is swarms of 262's and D-9's going wild over the continent.
Production kills. Ask the Soviets about that one. Not very much talent, and facing superior aircraft even at 50 to 1, they still win. And, the allies didn't have some of the corporal general leader dudes with wierd tactical/strategic weapon biases and super messed up service rivalrys.
Lanc's, B17's, ect, mean bumpkus if you ain't bombing the place the Soviets moved their stuff to east of the mountains. They're not very good tactical weapons.
An interesting thought is swarms of 262's and D-9's going wild over the continent.
Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:20 am
Interesting image - Me262s with long range drop tanks...
Problem is there's no German long range bombers to work with though some of the late model Ju-88/188/288/388s might have been useful.
The Fw200, He177 and Me264 pretty well aren't worth the metal they were made of if used in a strategic bombing campaign.
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Problem is there's no German long range bombers to work with though some of the late model Ju-88/188/288/388s might have been useful.
The Fw200, He177 and Me264 pretty well aren't worth the metal they were made of if used in a strategic bombing campaign.
Enjoy the Day! Mark