How many squadrons of F22 jets would it take to win WW2's air theatre?

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: sdifox
Also, I doubt pilots of that time can handle a jet. It takes a lot of training to fly those suckers.

Um, you know who Chuck Yeager is, right? He was a double ace in the Mustang. Broke the sound barrier a few years later. Was still flying top line jets at least into the 80's.
A good pilot is a good pilot. Sure, they wouldn't just sit in a modern jet and fly the wings off of it, but they'd pick it up pretty quickly.

Yeah, but that is a few years later, after test piloting the suckers they were coming up with. Flying propellers is very different from flying a jet.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: sdifox
Also, I doubt pilots of that time can handle a jet. It takes a lot of training to fly those suckers.

Um, you know who Chuck Yeager is, right? He was a double ace in the Mustang. Broke the sound barrier a few years later. Was still flying top line jets at least into the 80's.
A good pilot is a good pilot. Sure, they wouldn't just sit in a modern jet and fly the wings off of it, but they'd pick it up pretty quickly.

Yeah, but that is a few years later, after test piloting the suckers they were coming up with. Flying propellers is very different from flying a jet.

WWII ended in 1945. Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947. Two years. And that was with brand new technology.
If you took today's planes and gave them to the WWII pilots, they wouldn't have to do all the research and test-flying that took place before going supersonic became common.....all that is already worked out in today's jet. All they'd have to do is learn how to fly, and learn some of the avionics.
They won't need to be as proficient as today's pilots are in the same plane.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: sdifox
Also, I doubt pilots of that time can handle a jet. It takes a lot of training to fly those suckers.

Um, you know who Chuck Yeager is, right? He was a double ace in the Mustang. Broke the sound barrier a few years later. Was still flying top line jets at least into the 80's.
A good pilot is a good pilot. Sure, they wouldn't just sit in a modern jet and fly the wings off of it, but they'd pick it up pretty quickly.

Yeah, but that is a few years later, after test piloting the suckers they were coming up with. Flying propellers is very different from flying a jet.

WWII ended in 1945. Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947. Two years. And that was with brand new technology.
If you took today's planes and gave them to the WWII pilots, they wouldn't have to do all the research and test-flying that took place before going supersonic became common.....all that is already worked out in today's jet. All they'd have to do is learn how to fly, and learn some of the avionics.
They won't need to be as proficient as today's pilots are in the same plane.

Lol, breaking sound barrier is hardly the same as flying the plane in a combat situation. Granted, it is probably more dangerous due to its experimental nature, but you are not dodging anything or even trying to fly aggressively. Just turning on the damn thing would be a challenge, the instrumentation in a jet is more complicated than the bridge of a carrier of Second world war.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: sdifox
Also, I doubt pilots of that time can handle a jet. It takes a lot of training to fly those suckers.

Um, you know who Chuck Yeager is, right? He was a double ace in the Mustang. Broke the sound barrier a few years later. Was still flying top line jets at least into the 80's.
A good pilot is a good pilot. Sure, they wouldn't just sit in a modern jet and fly the wings off of it, but they'd pick it up pretty quickly.

Agreed. A pilot with skill would pick it up in no time.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: sdifox


Lol, breaking sound barrier is hardly the same as flying the plane in a combat situation. Granted, it is probably more dangerous due to its experimental nature, but you are not dodging anything or even trying to fly aggressively. Just turning on the damn thing would be a challenge, the instrumentation in a jet is more complicated than the bridge of a carrier of Second world war.

You know, people back then were capable of learning just like people now. The only reason they didn't learn how to fly the F-22 is because it didn't exist then. But you can't be serious in thinking that the WW2 pilots wouldn't be capable of learning how to fly a F-22.

From what I hear, flying the old warbirds is harder than flying a modern jet. The older planes often lacked the stability that the newer aircraft have with their computer control.

A pilot from back then would need to be trained, but they'd have no problem flying the newer aircraft. In fact, many of them did. The Korean war was not long after WW2, so many of the Sabre pilots were WW2 pilots.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Lol, breaking sound barrier is hardly the same as flying the plane in a combat situation. Granted, it is probably more dangerous due to its experimental nature, but you are not dodging anything or even trying to fly aggressively. Just turning on the damn thing would be a challenge, the instrumentation in a jet is more complicated than the bridge of a carrier of Second world war.

Just what do you think a pilot of an F-22, F-15, F-16, or even an F-4 would be dodging vs. WWII fighters?

Again, they would not need to learn every single in and out of the newer plane's electronics....they'd only need to know how to take off, land, go fast, target, and shoot.
They wouldn't be dogfighting.
Sure, if you time-traveled a pilot from WWII to today, gave him a month or two crash course in how to fly a modern jet, then put him in the air against a completely trained modern pilot, then of course he wouldn't win.
But that wouldn't be the case in this scenario.
Teach 'em how to use the radar, teach 'em how to fly this particular plane, and they'd be good to go.
They can stand off and shoot up their missiles, then creep up behind the Allied prop fighters and shoot them from long range....then blow by them and it won't matter if the Allied planes shoot at them or not.

Remember: The F-22, and all other modern fighters probably fly faster than the bullets that the WWII planes would be shooting at them.

 

[Braznor]

Oh my god, I should stop drinking!!!

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: sdifox


Lol, breaking sound barrier is hardly the same as flying the plane in a combat situation. Granted, it is probably more dangerous due to its experimental nature, but you are not dodging anything or even trying to fly aggressively. Just turning on the damn thing would be a challenge, the instrumentation in a jet is more complicated than the bridge of a carrier of Second world war.

You know, people back then were capable of learning just like people now. The only reason they didn't learn how to fly the F-22 is because it didn't exist then. But you can't be serious in thinking that the WW2 pilots wouldn't be capable of learning how to fly a F-22.

From what I hear, flying the old warbirds is harder than flying a modern jet. The older planes often lacked the stability that the newer aircraft have with their computer control.

A pilot from back then would need to be trained, but they'd have no problem flying the newer aircraft. In fact, many of them did. The Korean war was not long after WW2, so many of the Sabre pilots were WW2 pilots.

I didn't say they were not capable. OP stated stealing the plane, not the whole support structure. Ignoring ammo and fuel problems, training is the biggest obstacle. Learning on the job (without trainer) with modern avionics has suicide mission written all over it.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Just what do you think a pilot of an F-22, F-15, F-16, or even an F-4 would be dodging vs. WWII fighters?

Again, they would not need to learn every single in and out of the newer plane's electronics....they'd only need to know how to take off, land, go fast, target, and shoot.
They wouldn't be dogfighting.
Sure, if you time-traveled a pilot from WWII to today, gave him a month or two crash course in how to fly a modern jet, then put him in the air against a completely trained modern pilot, then of course he wouldn't win.
But that wouldn't be the case in this scenario.
Teach 'em how to use the radar, teach 'em how to fly this particular plane, and they'd be good to go.
They can stand off and shoot up their missiles, then creep up behind the Allied prop fighters and shoot them from long range....then blow by them and it won't matter if the Allied planes shoot at them or not.

Remember: The F-22, and all other modern fighters probably fly faster than the bullets that the WWII planes would be shooting at them.

It's a numbers game, there is simply more of the WW II planes than F22's. First sortie is going to be a massacre, with huge losses for the Allies. But they will simply swarm.

 

[soydios]

There's still the problem that B-17s could take a lot of damage (a missile hit the engine? no problem! keep going!), and I doubt that a single squadron could take out 300 B-17s in the time it would take for them to fly to the F-22's home airfield. And I doubt that they could build missiles back in WWII.

 

[Kelvrick]

Why wouldn't they just fly over to the US and start bombing DC, NY, etc? Internet wasn't around, I figure all the big buildings in america suddenly blowing up will hinder the war effort more then some bombers going down on the other side of hte world.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: sdifox
It's a numbers game, there is simply more of the WW II planes than F22's. First sortie is going to be a massacre, with huge losses for the Allies. But they will simply swarm.

I doubt it. If the first sortie gets massacred, the Allied commanders won't just simply send more and more.
They'll stop and analyze the new threat, and probably come to the conclusion that they can't send any more planes and pilots to be slaughtered like that.
At the very least, I think Germany could get the war stopped before getting defeated.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: soydios
There's still the problem that B-17s could take a lot of damage (a missile hit the engine? no problem! keep going!), and I doubt that a single squadron could take out 300 B-17s in the time it would take for them to fly to the F-22's home airfield. And I doubt that they could build missiles back in WWII.

If you are going to time transport the fighters, I'd assume that you would also time-transport the logistics, too.

And a missle would cause much more damage than a few bullets could. I'd say very few B-17's could withstand a missile hit.

 

[jtvang125]

Originally posted by: soydios
There's still the problem that B-17s could take a lot of damage (a missile hit the engine? no problem! keep going!), and I doubt that a single squadron could take out 300 B-17s in the time it would take for them to fly to the F-22's home airfield. And I doubt that they could build missiles back in WWII.

A AIM-120 AMRAAM should have no problem bringing down a B-17. Yes these bombers were hard to bring down but back then the fighter planes were only armed with small caliber machine guns. It took many hits of these rounds to bring the 4 engine bombers down. The 20 mm cannons with armor piercing or high explosive incendiary rounds on today's fighter jets can rip apart wings and fuselage easily.

 

[Falloutboy]

I would take a b52 loaded with as many of the best anti aircraft missiles we have as possible with 2 f22s to protect it and spam death from 100miles away

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb



Remember: The F-22, and all other modern fighters probably fly faster than the bullets that the WWII planes would be shooting at them.

Woah, daddy, I don't think so.


WWII 30 cal= 4000 feet per second.

50 Cal Browning from WWII has a muzzle velocity of 3000 feet per second.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jtvang125


A AIM-120 AMRAAM should have no problem bringing down a B-17. Yes these bombers were hard to bring down but back then the fighter planes were only armed with small caliber machine guns. It took many hits of these rounds to bring the 4 engine bombers down. The 20 mm cannons with armor piercing or high explosive incendiary rounds on today's fighter jets can rip apart wings and fuselage easily.

Have you ever seen a WW2 bomber up close or been inside one? The reason that they're hard to bring down isn't because the were built like tanks, it was because they were built so lightly that most bullets simply pass right through them. There was hardly any armor at all. The tail of a bomber that I saw at an airshow was made of fabric. You could push a pencil through it. And the sides were thin sheet aluminum that dented easily. If you shot it with a pistol, the bullet would pass through the plane unless it hit a rib or something solid. The only things that really required a large bullet were the engines and bit structural members.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb



Remember: The F-22, and all other modern fighters probably fly faster than the bullets that the WWII planes would be shooting at them.

Woah, daddy, I don't think so.


WWII 30 cal= 4000 feet per second.

50 Cal Browning from WWII has a muzzle velocity of 3000 feet per second.

In addition, the aircraft firing those shots is moving also. So add them up.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb



Remember: The F-22, and all other modern fighters probably fly faster than the bullets that the WWII planes would be shooting at them.

Woah, daddy, I don't think so.


WWII 30 cal= 4000 feet per second.

50 Cal Browning from WWII has a muzzle velocity of 3000 feet per second.

That's at the muzzle, and on the ground without any wind rushing by the barrel while the plane is flying. When that bullet gets to its target which would be at least 100 yds away I'd think, it won't be traveling anywhere near that fast.
2930 fps for the heavy barrel Browning 50. Then, the pilots and gunners have to manually aim and hit a target that could easily be running over 1000mph as it passes the WWII plane. So the bullet leaves the old fighter running at 1900 mph. The F-22, assuming it's just simply running straight away and not juking at all, will be accelerating towards its top speed of 1600 mph.
So the bullet starts off at 1900, and steadily loses speed from there. It's max range is 4 miles, and that's with a huge ballistic arc, I'm sure.
I'm guessing that the bullet would have a very short time to actually catch up with the F-22 before it loses too much of its velocity and the F-22 runs away from it.

WWII pilots are used to their 50 caliber bullets having approximately a 1600 mph speed advantage over their targets...plus, they are traveling at 3-400 mph inside the gun already, so I'd guess they have to overcome the shooting plane's speed just to get out of the barrel. I don't think you'd add the shooting plane's speed to that of the bullet.

I'd love to see someone do the math on this just out of curiousity, but the bottom line is, I don't think anyone would have much success at manually aiming and hitting a supersonic F-22 with a machine gun, especially from another moving craft.
Could be done, I guess, but not with any regularity.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

2930 fps for the heavy barrel Browning 50. Then, the pilots and gunners have to manually aim and hit a target that could easily be running over 1000mph as it passes the WWII plane. So the bullet leaves the old fighter running at 1900 mph. The F-22, assuming it's just simply running straight away and not juking at all, will be accelerating towards its top speed of 1600 mph.
So the bullet starts off at 1900, and steadily loses speed from there. It's max range is 4 miles, and that's with a huge ballistic arc, I'm sure.
I'm guessing that the bullet would have a very short time to actually catch up with the F-22 before it loses too much of its velocity and the F-22 runs away from it.

WWII pilots are used to their 50 caliber bullets having approximately a 1600 mph speed advantage over their targets...plus, they are traveling at 3-400 mph inside the gun already, so I'd guess they have to overcome the shooting plane's speed just to get out of the barrel. I don't think you'd add the shooting plane's speed to that of the bullet.

I'd love to see someone do the math on this just out of curiousity, but the bottom line is, I don't think anyone would have much success at manually aiming and hitting a supersonic F-22 with a machine gun, especially from another moving craft.
Could be done, I guess, but not with any regularity.

1. You do add the muzzle velocity to the plane's speed. 2930 fps is about 2000 mph. Add that to the 400 mph that the fighter is traveling, so you have 2400 mph when it leaves the barrel.

2. Jets rarely ever fly at their top speed. You usually won't see a jet flying mach 2 in combat, since it wastes a tremendous amount of fuel.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

2930 fps for the heavy barrel Browning 50. Then, the pilots and gunners have to manually aim and hit a target that could easily be running over 1000mph as it passes the WWII plane. So the bullet leaves the old fighter running at 1900 mph. The F-22, assuming it's just simply running straight away and not juking at all, will be accelerating towards its top speed of 1600 mph.
So the bullet starts off at 1900, and steadily loses speed from there. It's max range is 4 miles, and that's with a huge ballistic arc, I'm sure.
I'm guessing that the bullet would have a very short time to actually catch up with the F-22 before it loses too much of its velocity and the F-22 runs away from it.

WWII pilots are used to their 50 caliber bullets having approximately a 1600 mph speed advantage over their targets...plus, they are traveling at 3-400 mph inside the gun already, so I'd guess they have to overcome the shooting plane's speed just to get out of the barrel. I don't think you'd add the shooting plane's speed to that of the bullet.

I'd love to see someone do the math on this just out of curiousity, but the bottom line is, I don't think anyone would have much success at manually aiming and hitting a supersonic F-22 with a machine gun, especially from another moving craft.
Could be done, I guess, but not with any regularity.

1. You do add the muzzle velocity to the plane's speed. 2930 fps is about 2000 mph. Add that to the 400 mph that the fighter is traveling, so you have 2400 mph when it leaves the barrel.

2. Jets rarely ever fly at their top speed. You usually won't see a jet flying mach 2 in combat, since it wastes a tremendous amount of fuel.

F-22 + supercruise, baby!

Personally, I think the A10 opening up with the antitank gun on the bomber formation from above would be pretty, well, impressive. Just walking the spent uranium across it...

 

[LordMorpheus]

The F-22 would be untouchable. However, it'd only be able to knock down 6-10 bombers without re-arming, unless it closed to cannon range and made itself vulnerable to a lucky hit by a defensive gunner.

The Nazis would be better off investing in more AA guns.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
The F-22 would be untouchable. However, it'd only be able to knock down 6-10 bombers without re-arming, unless it closed to cannon range and made itself vulnerable to a lucky hit by a defensive gunner.

The Nazis would be better off investing in more AA guns.

That's not how they planned to win the war - superweapons FTW!

Lucky for many, that is the route they took...

 

[judasmachine]

would this involve crossing the international date line?