Sorry! i didn't wanted to create 3 time the same topic, When i created the it i got a error message instand of a confirmation. my mistake.

No sweat--it does that to me, too.

 

This is a pretty one-sided scenario.  My take would be:

 

1) Send up the F-15s.

2) Each F-15 is capable of eight kills.

3) Land and rearm the F-15s.  Send up the F-16s for grins.

4) Repeat.

 

World War II piston engined bombers and fighters against modern jets with missiles and AWACS support?  This isn't much of a fight.

 

would there not be some issue with modern missilies ability to lock on against older and cololer enginered piston engined fighters and bombers?

 

Also engagement speed and how much to lead a older slower target would also raise some issues i would assume...

 

Further consideration:

the 1945 USAAF bases in a lot of cases are no longer there... where would the USAAF be based from...

Ya, in Air to air fight, its pretty one-sided. the only hope for WW2 era plane is to attack the airfield. i think the only way to do it is a single wave.

 

I wonder if Amraam and AIM-9 are effective against WW2 era plane...  they where much more damage resistant then modern plane. end even the targeting could be a problem. specialy if you have 15 000 of them in range.

 

BTW decoy where already used in WW2 to cheat radar.  it was simple aluminium paper band droped trough the window lol

 

Lets do some math:

 

Modern:

740 F-15  X  9 missiles= 6480

927 F-16s  X  8 missiles= 7416

a total of  13896 missiles 

Plus the gatling of cource... but at that range they could get hit too. Lets exclude gun for now

 

WW2:

If you dont include recon, transport and other:

Very heavy bombers					2,865
Heavy bombers					11,065
Medium bombers					5,384
Light bombers					3,079
Fighters					16,799

If all plane where in flight before the first strike and if airfields are at an average range of 500 km. and with an slowest top speed of about 450 km/h for ww2 bomber,  its gona take about 66min to be on top of Modern Airfeild Its mean that Modern plane may not have the time to rearm and do a second attack. If they land they have good chance to get bombed. WW2 bomber where far from accurate. But with enough of them i guess its not unresonable to expect a high infrastructure damage. Alot of airfields would be destroyed. Some of the fighter may land on road, but cant operate from it. the rest of the plane would have to rearm from the remaning airbase.

 

Modern B-52, B-1B and B-2 would have nothing to fear once in flight, and are much more accurate. they could even shoot cruise missile from the top of their own airfeild. Alot of WW2 side airfields would be destroyed. But, unlike the modern conterpart, can land and operate on roughly prepared field.

From that point, its hard to tell who have the advantage. but i dont think its one sided. If you play with the distance between airbase, more far they are, more advantageous it is for modern side. And if Plane have to take off first, thats another story. 39192 plane would thake forever to take off! exept if you have a very large number of airstrip and prepared field.

I forgot,

 

Hamilcar:

 Thar would be an issue for guns. Missiles, you would have to adjust for your  closure rates and approach aspects. Chase would be a good option. 

 

I just want to point out something:

Trying to get behind a WW2 fighter that go at 700km/h with a F-16 hornet that go at 1200km/h seem be a bit difficult.

Your assumption is incorrect. Killed by a Sparrow from an F-15.

 

Data. 

 

This is a Hughes 500:

 

 

 

This is an F-15.

 

 

 

It used a bomb for that air to air kill.

 

 

 

 My point was more about WW2 fighter can easily out-turn modern plane because of its lower speed. so at some extent its will be difficult to get behind and chace it.

 

 

Allot of WW2 Fighter where armored, and AIM-9 use fragmentation warhead. But ya, in most case scenario ww2 fighter go down.

 

Against Bomber, some of them did survive a direct hit from a 88m artillery shell.

Hamilcar       10/19/2009 12:22:03 AM

 

Its funny you mention it cause think that too.

I will try to enjoy it, thank you.

And i did learn something:

Hotlinking from designation-system.net is not allowed

If the F-15 pilot is dumb enough to get slow with a P-51, he deserves to get shot down.

 

Sidewinders are sensitive to a lit cigarette.  In Vietnam, a few guys fired them at trucks for grins and scored kills.  A Sidewinder would have no trouble homing in on any WWII aircraft, especially since by 1944 the USAAF was going all bare metal, which reflects the sun rather nicely.

 

If old German radars with about one-tenth the sensitivity of modern radars could pick up aircraft, how do you think a F-15 would do?

 

Sorry, but the only thing such an engagement like this would accomplish is some enterprising USAF pilot breaking Dick Bong's record in 24 hours or less.  It reminds me of that Dos Gringos song, where they talk about only using heat seekers on Tuesdays, and on Wednesdays manuever only.

 

 

 

About the mythic combat between F-15 and P-51, I completely agree.

 

But for the sidewinder, even if the event you mention is plausible,  It had a very bad reputation in Vietnam.

 

Sparrow and sidewinder were expected to have a very good hit probability. Some optimistic general and engineer even stated it would be as high as 95%. For those reason, The New fighter of the time was designed for dash speed and without internal gun.(F-4 phantom). however, In the Vietnam war, all that turn out to be completely untrue, Sparrow and sidewinder were unreliable and had a very low hit/kill ratio, Pilot often had to use multiple missiles just to hit one target. it even become a "standard" to lunch 2 missiles at the time.

 

When you look at the current doctrine, its funny to see how story tend to repeat itself isn't it?

The idea that a Mustang or Thunderbolt would present an especially difficult target for a modern fighter using guns is false. Something like 65-75% of all aircraft shot down in aerial combat in the World Wars never knew their attacker was there until the first bursts were fired.

 

Modern aircraft like the F-15 or F-16 could use their overwhelming advantages in situational awareness and performance to neatly position themselves behind and below a flight of Mustangs. Their radars would easily provide a firing solution for a closure velocity of around 3-400km/h or so, and the Vulcans would tear the fighters to shreads in less than a second. After the initial burst they could disengage, without having to maneouvre especially hard.

Red Paradize wrote "Against Bomber, some of them did survive a direct hit from a 88m artillery shell. "

 

The only way any aircraft could take a direct hit from such a large calibre weapon and live to tell about it is if the shell failed to explode. I'm with sentinel28 all the way on this, Second World War aircraft would be a snack for modern day AAMs.