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

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: leftyman
what about spare parts, maintenance, specific fuel, pilot training? All you need to do to ground the F22's is bomb the concrete runways that they would need.

Sure, because they were so accurate with bombing back then and runway repair is so difficult...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
unfortunately, the gun on the F22 doesn't have enough rounds to make it very good against massive bomber formations. an F15 would be better. heck, an F86 or a MiG-15 would be better. although, the F15 could probably drop a bomber in 4 or 5 shots.

[Looks like Demon-Xanth beat me to it ] Actually, the best aircraft would probably be an A-10 because of the amount of stores it could carry and the 30mm GAU-8 which would shred bombers like tissue paper. Mount craploads of rockets on the wings, and it would tear up those formations plus it has enough armor to withstand the defensive armament.

Of course, one thing we're forgetting is that AAMs have sizeable warheads, and the WWII bomber formations were tightly compacted for protection from fighters. Detonate a missile in the middle, and you probably could take out 2 or more with one missile. Might take some monkeying with the proximity fuses though to get the separation right.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: lupi

Fixed.

Not really. Unless I'm remembering something incorrectly the P-51s allowed the bomber wings to have escort over most if not all of their runs while it was the 47's acting as FBs that began the devastation of axis military infastructure and locations in france.

The US had very few tactical P-51 wings due to those on escort and lend lease to the brits.

Read the accounts of bomber crews flying to Germany before the P-51s were around. P-47s were great airplanes, but they weren't doing anything that say, Corsairs, Hellcats, Spitfires Tempests, or even P-38s couldn't have done approximately as well. Only the P-51 could fly to Berlin, take on 190s and 109s, and fly back.

 

[lupi]

I think a lot of those heat-seeking missiles would have trouble locking onto a piston engine. They depend on the very hot exhaust from a jet engine.

Even if those jets scored a 100% kill ratio, there would still be hundreds of bombers left in the sky.

I'm thinking the latest generation sidewinders would do fairly well. Besides I think the current F-22 load is 6 AAMs and 4 sidewinders.

That makes over 200 planes splashed before getting in gun range. Not many bombing runs will contain much more than double that and tell me how many would not turn around.

 

[jdoggg12]

I think they'd be better off with Airwolf

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: ElFenix
unfortunately, the gun on the F22 doesn't have enough rounds to make it very good against massive bomber formations. an F15 would be better. heck, an F86 or a MiG-15 would be better. although, the F15 could probably drop a bomber in 4 or 5 shots.

[Looks like Demon-Xanth beat me to it ] Actually, the best aircraft would probably be an A-10 because of the amount of stores it could carry and the 30mm GAU-8 which would shred bombers like tissue paper. Mount craploads of rockets on the wings, and it would tear up those formations plus it has enough armor to withstand the defensive armament.

Of course, one thing we're forgetting is that AAMs have sizeable warheads, and the WWII bomber formations were tightly compacted for protection from fighters. Detonate a missile in the middle, and you probably could take out 2 or more with one missile. Might take some monkeying with the proximity fuses though to get the separation right.

i don't think the A10 is suitable because it isn't fast enough to be basically invulnerable to fighters or the bombers themselves. P51s could hang on its tail with the nitrous injection that was incorporated later (as a counter to the Me262). the A10 also presents a large, easily visible target to the bomber gun crews. yes, the A10 could probably survive a lot of hits from the .50 cal machine guns the mustang packed, but a swarm of mustangs chasing the handful of A10s wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: ElFenix
unfortunately, the gun on the F22 doesn't have enough rounds to make it very good against massive bomber formations. an F15 would be better. heck, an F86 or a MiG-15 would be better. although, the F15 could probably drop a bomber in 4 or 5 shots.

[Looks like Demon-Xanth beat me to it ] Actually, the best aircraft would probably be an A-10 because of the amount of stores it could carry and the 30mm GAU-8 which would shred bombers like tissue paper. Mount craploads of rockets on the wings, and it would tear up those formations plus it has enough armor to withstand the defensive armament.

Of course, one thing we're forgetting is that AAMs have sizeable warheads, and the WWII bomber formations were tightly compacted for protection from fighters. Detonate a missile in the middle, and you probably could take out 2 or more with one missile. Might take some monkeying with the proximity fuses though to get the separation right.

I think your A-10 eventually gets shot down. Some tail gunner is going to put several .50 cals through one of your engines and take it out. Every Mustang in sight will be on your (smoking and highly visible) tail then and I doubt you out run them with only one engine. They'll eventually hose you with enough .50 to take you down.

 

[lupi]

Read the accounts of bomber crews flying to Germany before the P-51s were around. P-47s were great airplanes, but they weren't doing anything that say, Corsairs, Hellcats, Spitfires Tempests, or even P-38s couldn't have done approximately as well. Only the P-51 could fly to Berlin, take on 190s and 109s, and fly back.

Corsiars and hellcats were't an ETO plane. The spits and tempest only had (at best) 55-65% of the range of the 47's. When you're rolling up france to the westwall, range isn't as important for the tactical fighters but until then only the 38's and 47's could do much more than hit targets along the coast. And the 47 is better in ther air to air and air to ground role.

 

[Tiamat]

if the germans flew across the international date line, we'd still be fine.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
if the germans flew across the international date line, we'd still be fine.

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[everman]

You'd just need enough to spit out enough ammo to take down the required number of aircraft. The F22 would effectively be invisible and invincible, so it's just a matter of ammo numbers and fuel. We're talking about taking down a lot of planes, so we'd need quite a few F22s.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Nazi's were superior in airpower at the time.

They had 2 jets, ME-262 and HE-162. The ME-262 had air-to-air rockets. However, the problem wasn't the technology. The problems was there was too many allies swarming airbases. They couldnt' keep the planes up in the air forever, they'd eventually have to land to be rearmed, and the allies would pounce on them as they were landing/taking off. Once in the air they were lethal as is. But even the strongest juggernaught has to have its downtime. The allies were able to conquer them through tactics, not firepower.

The F-22 would have the same fate. Sure, they'd kick the crap out of Allies while in the air, but the F-22 would have to land/rearm/refuel, and thats when the old Allied fighters would pounce and wipe them out.

The F-22 would make little difference if in the inventory of the Nazi's, just like their own jets at the time.

Jet-powered aircraft suffered from three fatal flaws in Germany. First, when Germany needed fighters more than anything Hitler and Goering pushed through the development of jet-powered bombers. This came at the expense of fighters. Secondly, by the time the Germans started rolling jet-powered aircraft out they had a huge deficit of qualified pilots. Sure, the ME-262 could kick the crap out of most of the Allied air fleet at the time with a qualified pilot, but most of those were already dead in Germany. Finally (related to #1), the Germans had lost most of the war for air superiority by the time the jet fighter rolled out. The Allies simply had too many aircraft in the air at any given time for the Germans to effectively counter them.

Back the original question: you would need a lot of F-22s. They loss rates on them would be extraordinarily low, but face it, some would be unlucky and get shot down. Plus, fighting 1,500+ fighters with one or two planes would be impossible.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
I think they'd be better off with Airwolf

With or without the drunk wife beating pilot?

 

[silverpig]

None. Cause the Yanks could just go forward in time themselves and bring back the starship enterprise.

 

[jammur21]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
how many treadmills are involved?

Classic

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: halik
This has to be the dumbest thread yet...

even by Braznor standards...

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: lupi

Read the accounts of bomber crews flying to Germany before the P-51s were around. P-47s were great airplanes, but they weren't doing anything that say, Corsairs, Hellcats, Spitfires Tempests, or even P-38s couldn't have done approximately as well. Only the P-51 could fly to Berlin, take on 190s and 109s, and fly back.

Corsiars and hellcats were't an ETO plane. The spits and tempest only had (at best) 55-65% of the range of the 47's. When you're rolling up france to the westwall, range isn't as important for the tactical fighters but until then only the 38's and 47's could do much more than hit targets along the coast. And the 47 is better in ther air to air and air to ground role.

Actually, technically they were... the Brits used each in a small numbers.

Anyway, the point is, if we hadn't had P-47s, there were other airframes that could've done the same thing. Corsairs or Hellcats could've easily done the same job if they'd simply been sent there. Its range wasn't hugely greater than the Tempest or some models of Spitfire - usually you'll see about 900 miles for a P-47 vs. 800 for a Tempest/Spit, though some Spit models were notoriously short legged. Sure it's an advantage, but not a gaping one. The P-47 was a great airplane, but it didn't do anything that other airframes couldn't.

In contrast, no other airplane of the time could do what the P-51 did.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: halik
This has to be the dumbest thread yet...

Yet Hollywood made a movie with a similar concept in mind 27 years ago. Go figure...

IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN!

Not only an awesome song, it's an awesome movie too!

One of my favorite movies when I was a kid.

 

[TallBill]

Well no matter what you say, fuel and muntions would be a huge issue.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: ElFenix
unfortunately, the gun on the F22 doesn't have enough rounds to make it very good against massive bomber formations. an F15 would be better. heck, an F86 or a MiG-15 would be better. although, the F15 could probably drop a bomber in 4 or 5 shots.

[Looks like Demon-Xanth beat me to it ] Actually, the best aircraft would probably be an A-10 because of the amount of stores it could carry and the 30mm GAU-8 which would shred bombers like tissue paper. Mount craploads of rockets on the wings, and it would tear up those formations plus it has enough armor to withstand the defensive armament.

Of course, one thing we're forgetting is that AAMs have sizeable warheads, and the WWII bomber formations were tightly compacted for protection from fighters. Detonate a missile in the middle, and you probably could take out 2 or more with one missile. Might take some monkeying with the proximity fuses though to get the separation right.

i don't think the A10 is suitable because it isn't fast enough to be basically invulnerable to fighters or the bombers themselves. P51s could hang on its tail with the nitrous injection that was incorporated later (as a counter to the Me262). the A10 also presents a large, easily visible target to the bomber gun crews. yes, the A10 could probably survive a lot of hits from the .50 cal machine guns the mustang packed, but a swarm of mustangs chasing the handful of A10s wouldn't be pretty.

A-10 is as fast as the Me-262 and with the engine upgrade it's currently undergoing right now, probably faster. With its massive engines relative to the P-51, it could outmuscle that aircraft in every single way without too much bleeding of airspeed. From the accounts I read of the Me-262 (admittedly, it's been awhile), that plane was practically invincible given its speed.

How about we throw AIM-9X and JHMCS on the A-10 and see what happens to those P-51s?

 

[jdoggg12]

A-10s are not designed for AA combat, awesome as they are.... they're unwieldly in terms of fighter manueverability.

 

[Hammer]

pros - f22s ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously
cons - no mid-air refueling, no gps, ww2 era radar is better at detecting stealth than modern radar (according to a british study anyways)

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Forget a fighter jet....go forward in time and steal that modified 747-turned-ICBM-killer, plus a few turrets added here and there.

Game over.

 

[0roo0roo]

assuming they had very good location intelligence and could use the precision gps bombing they could cause havoc. strategic bombing during the war was rather sh*t because of accuracy was sh*t. you could try to bomb a vital factory and even with an assload of planes only graze the damn thing. but with precision bombs you could take down the enemies ability to build war machines rather systematically, and once thats started its all down hill from there for them.

as for the a10, yea it could kick ass, but eventually ground fire would get lucky.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: brandonb
Nazi's were superior in airpower at the time.

They had 2 jets, ME-262 and HE-162. The ME-262 had air-to-air rockets. However, the problem wasn't the technology. The problems was there was too many allies swarming airbases. They couldnt' keep the planes up in the air forever, they'd eventually have to land to be rearmed, and the allies would pounce on them as they were landing/taking off. Once in the air they were lethal as is. But even the strongest juggernaught has to have its downtime. The allies were able to conquer them through tactics, not firepower.

The F-22 would have the same fate. Sure, they'd kick the crap out of Allies while in the air, but the F-22 would have to land/rearm/refuel, and thats when the old Allied fighters would pounce and wipe them out.

The F-22 would make little difference if in the inventory of the Nazi's, just like their own jets at the time.

The germans didn't have their jets up in any real number till mid/late 44.

Until late 43/early 44 the allies suffered the same problem as the germans, no qyuality long range aircraft.
Sure a PBY could flow around half the world, but it would be lost in a dogfight against anything better than a swordfish.

Once the P-47s started to roll in then the allies were able to project air power onto the continent from across the channel.

/fixed