[quote=@Keyguyperson]
<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I think you mean mid-WWII. WWI was the bit where we all used biplanes made out of canvas. But yeah, it definitely isn't too far-fetched to have jet engines be developed. I doubt that anyone would have invented them yet, though.
[/quote]Not quite. The first "turbine" was developed by Hero of Alexandria back in the ancient age. The first turbine useful for something was made in the 18th century. Fast forward to the 19th century and the creation of steam turbines as we know them. Gas turbines which are the basis of jet engines made practical about a decade before WW1. And then during mid-WW1 they already had plans for using jets (including a ramjet propelled artillery shell).
What they lacked was materials and further study of jet engines (as well a few technicalities developed in 1929). Even then a Hungarian inventor actually made both turbojet and turboprop engine plans as far as back in 1926. And again, if machinery and material science is at a level to allow mechs I wouldn't be surprised if the concerns preventing jets to be fielded in 1916 would be nonexistent here.

Overall jets/turbines are just another form of propulsion. Jets are only convenient once standard propeller engines reach close to their practical limits. Granted, turbofans can be considered the mix of a turbojet and a ducted fan engine so they are kinda the best of both worlds. So considering this I am more likely to field a high-performance turbine-powered prop engine than actual jets.