[quote=@Queen Raidne][@Willy Vereb] You said the word "jet" and I got worried, but if I recall correctly, what few jets existed in the late war were mostly too fast to be useful anyway. Since you mention it, what [i]are[/i] the ramifications of developing a jet engine in the 30's, anyway? I'm curious.
[/quote]Jets really weren't that fast, that's my point.
You won't see any jet designs breaking the sound barrier until after WW2.
The problem with jets wasn't really just that they were too fast, that's a relative issue. It isn't like they could not design or tune down the speed when needed.
The issues were:
1.) Fuel consumption due to compressor technology being kinda young, thus limiting the range.
2.) Inferior efficiency at sufficiently low speeds
3.) Less tested and proven compared to piston-driven propeller aircraft.
4.) Lack of heat-resistant materials which kinda impacted efficiency but also meant that until the late 50s the jet fighters needed engine overhaul 10 times more often.

Granted, I may solve some of these issues but in effect jet technology doesn't give me much edge in speed and it comes at the cost of range.
For example my fastest jet around this time would be the Tavr type interceptors with the top speed of 575 MPH.
While it's fast certain turboprop designs can nearly match this speed and even if they not those have much more bombs/cargo/weapons with multitudes the range.