Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAAF 1945 VS USAF 1991. Who win? What would be your plan?
RedParadize    10/18/2009 5:24:39 PM
USAAF 1945 VS USAF 1991. Or the alternative scenario: USAAF 1945 VS USAF 20XX. Scenario is Battle of Britain alike. The 2 side have all the pilot, Ammo and infrastructure needed to support all fighter available, AA gun and SAM not allowed! You can keep or remove production capability. the alternative scenario: USAF 20XX is the same. But its more about F-22 and F-35 but without the plane that F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II will replace. Fleet at their maximum in regard of current procurement Plan Who win? What would be your plan? I admit it. It is completely irrational. But it is so hilarious when you look at the number. I have some Link that might be useful: United States Army Air Forces 1945: link United States Air Force 1991: link
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Beryoza       10/26/2009 7:57:53 AM

Thanks for your response StobieWan.

 


At start, my goal was to find a winning scenario for the two side. But I didn't expect that everyone would elaborate plan for modern side only. I realized on page 2 that I should not have said "Who win?" in the title lol. I should have ask for a plan for ww2 side only...








I reiterate the fact that I don't claim the superiority of the WW2 side. It might not have been very clear, But I did notice of the technical points that have been said, I just didn't contest them. I fact. What i did contest, was the fact thats was impossible to the WW2 side to win. I recognize that it need a damn improbable scenario and very specific condition to be possible. I can understand that saying ww2 still have a chance to win probably left the impression that i know zero about the military and technology.


 

If someone have a plan that is less improbable then mine, let me know.

 




RedParadize, for all practical purposes, it is impossible for the USAAF to win. The only chance it has is dramatic incompetence on the part of the USAF, and even then it needs a shitload of luck. So if Regan had a Stalinesque outburst and decided, and somehow managed to, liquidate eighty five percent of the USAF officer corps a couple of years before the hypothetical campaign...and the American equivalent of the Greens party got into power and completely cut off all funding to the USAF, then maybe, the USAAF might have a slight chance.
 
Barring these kind of completely absurd pre-conditions, USAAF has NO (read 0.00%) chance of success, and a very slight (read 0.01%) chance of remaining a cohesive, organized fighting force for longer than twenty four hours.
 
It's not enough for the USAAF to know the locations of the enemy air bases before hostilities commence. Given the extreme disparity in effective combat power, the major operating centres (the air-warfare version of the Schwerpunkt) has to be identified. Sure, spies can discover several key air bases. That's not anywhere near enough information for a decisive attack:
 
Where in the twenty five square kilometre (or possibly more) base are the ammunition, fuel, personnel, command bunkers (etc etc) located? What about th
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/26/2009 10:56:55 AM
Hahaha... you are kind off expeditive. Now i am really done
 
To be honest when i started this topic, I was not expecting it to go in such details. 
 
I realise it now that in my inital "Battle of Britain alike" scenario was impossible for the USAAF. I started to realise it when I first calculated the average distance between airfeild. So i said the WW2 victory was only possible if the plane was already in the air before the initial attack. At that point I was still beleiving it was possible.
 
But when Sentinel28  pointed me that 3 sortie was possible in the elapsed time. It become more hard to keep an winnable ratio, they would have to be 1 hours away from their target before USAF start to engage them. thats mean on the border of  modern side airspace. USAF would have to be sleeping on the wheel to let an operation of that scale getting that close. thats for sure. Even with politic limitation. Modern side would be able to quickly react. At the best USAAF would gain what? one hours? two hours? at that point a big and decisive strike start to be less then possible. I should have drop, but I didn't.
 
I admit my defeat... the gap is to high.
 
PS to gf0012-aust.
I must admit at the end i was irritated by the way you were writing. But you clearly know what you talk about.
I had some doubt about that at some point, I had the feeling that you where saying that number was not important at all.

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       10/26/2009 4:00:48 PM
The 1945 USAAF could contaminate the entire United States with nuclear bombs between 1945 and 1955 so there would not be a future 1991 USAF.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/26/2009 9:41:20 PM

The 1945 USAAF could contaminate the entire United States with nuclear bombs between 1945 and 1955 so there would not be a future 1991 USAF.

 welcome to the "grandfather theory" :)

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/27/2009 3:32:00 AM

gf0012-aust.

I am sure you can find some battle where a side was outnumbered by 1/87 and still won. but they are kind of epic and rare. On the other hand, there is plenty of example where 87/1 have been won.


 

To win a 1/87, decision making must be REALY tight. any mistake could be catastrophic. Fighting in numeric superiority is much more forgiving.

 

More you are outnumbered, more battlespace management will be difficult. so ya number still matter.


 



Just a few off the top of my head (for the mental exercise: I realize RP has admitted an honorable defeat):
 
American Indian Wars
Adobe Walls
Beecher's Island
Haystack Fight
 
American Revolution
Fort Ticonderoga
 
Crimean War
Balaclava (Thin Red Line)
 
Natal War
Rorke's Drift
 
World War II
Avranches (Mortain Counterattack)
Arracourt
Alligator Creek (Guadalcanal)
Samar
 
Vietnam
Khe Sanh
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/27/2009 4:29:57 AM
senty, that prev quote referencing me might make it look as though I was extolling and supporting mass in warfighting.. when I was on the other side.  (as all your examples show) :)
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/27/2009 1:36:11 PM
Actually, I misattributed that post to RedParadize, so it's all good.  I think we're all on the same page.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       10/27/2009 6:44:08 PM

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

 

Total of 39192 poten
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy