Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Avimimus" data-source="post: 296969" data-attributes="member: 981">Neither side would have a significant technical advantage in terms of fighter performance. Range would likely be a critical factor.Russia would have a strong strategic aviation with considerable range in the form of TB-3, the uninterceptable SB-2, and early production DB-3. In comparison the United States would have some early production B-17s and a few B-18s.The main U.S. advantage would be its carrier forces. However, the Yorktown and Enterprise couldn't be completed in time for such a war. This would mean that the U.S. would be dependent on the USS Ranger and the two ships of the 1920s era Lexington Class. This force would've been primarily Boeing P-12 and Grumman F2Fs (with maybe some SBU-1s from the Ranger? I'm not sure about its complement as comissioned). The carriers would've been more vulnerable than land bases and would've lacked the hitting power we're familiar with from WWII.American land bases would play a limited role without the Alaska highway. I'm not sure what the logistics would look like on the Russian side.P.S.Note that the record of level bombers vs. carriers is far from spectacular, suggesting multiple attacks would be needed, and the TB-3 would likely have been quite easy to intercept. The SB-2 could act as an escort fighter, but might have proven vulnerable to defensive gunners.</blockquote>