yep, somehow it's made "rushing" a legitimate warfighting concept which can apparently evolve because your enemy is asleep at the wheel. :) 

 

 

If you want to include the morale, look at WW2. Heavy lost didn't stop the allies on D-day or on east front. Allies didn't won because of superior technology and tactic, Allies have won mainly because of numeric superiority, mass production and courageous combatant. I am not sure we could support the same sacrifice today

then why try and pretend that this is serious analysis when you've tried to recreate the circumstances a few times to generate an outcome?  It's hilarious - but not because it's genuine analysis

Everyone know that current USAF his stronger. But if you think superior technology, Battlespace management and situational awareness is enough to win regardless of enemy number and conditions, thats is even more hilarious then this scenario is.

 

no they didn't it was about battlespace management.  it was logistics, it was the capacity to generate production offshore and outside the reach of the enemy. it was about force compression, it was about sealane dominance so that the enemy could reach back and threaten the production bases.  It was because the allies had geographic dispersion and were able to apply compressive force on multiple disparate fronts and the enemy was stuck in a mackinder model.  mass alone was not the answer, and its cute by half to argue that mass was the critical vehicle when the reasons for mass dominance being achieved were numerous - none of which can be achieved by a WW2 force in a temporal flux fighting a modern force.  In fact your attempt to load the bases by taking out ADS (guns/missles) makes it worse for the USAAF.

I still think WW2 sides have its chance. It might be very small chance but still, if they take off before the modern side take them on the ground.... they might win.

you're blithely stating that a fundamentally GCI managed force can contest and turn a 1991 force where the USAF can see 450km radius (min) with their E3's and where even the tankers and trucks have better local ISR than the USAAF does even over its own territory.  That just beggars belief and I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse or you are completely ignorant of how even a 1991 military operated.

 The RAF used to send up fighters in advance to run pre-emptive CAP.  They basically hoped that they could spot them coming in over the channel from a height advantage and then dump on top.  Plus they received alerts from the marquise etc....

it was pot luck the majority of the time

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.

 

 rubbish.  its about the systemic degradation and decapitation of the other other forces ability to mount a coherent response,  as soon as you dislocate their capacity to mount a structured attack, as soon as you disrupt their ability to be persistent and effective then you immediately start to delaminate that force.

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

that is just unmitigated rubbish.  for the last time make the effort.  I'm not going to get into a discussion if all you can do is a "so there" or some flippant throw away commentary that is unsupportable.

again, if you can see first, if you can see more then you can dictate how you respond.  there are no surprse 1000 bomber raids because the the modern force can see them over 450km away and can see them turn and break off at least 450km in advance - at any time.  the modern force can engage in strategic bombing once the USAAF is only 20mins out from their home base, that force is committed and unable to respond.  they're outranged on sensors by 50:1, they're outranged on weapons by anything from 2:1 to 200:1, they csn only apply defensive box screens which means that they will expend all their ammunition trying to take a hail mary shot.  USAF doesn't even contain, have to use weapons to disrupt the formations.  they have a top down advantage where they can come out of the sun at will.  every fighter in the CAP role in 1991 has look down radar capability - so on top of what the E3's bring to the party, each aircraft can manage its fight.  In 1991 it means that the Ravens and Rivets can totally render the USAAF comms dumb.

again, a ground control managed fleet rendered blind deaf and dumb cannot hope to let alone defeat a fully autonomous comms sympathetic force from 1991.  they don't have anything in 1945 which allows them to exercise the initiative.

they're dead.  period.  a reactive force has no hope of effecting and shaping a victory

instead of blathering about woulda coulda shoulda reinforce your argument with actual circumstances and see how long it takes for anyone with a modicum of awareness about how it can be countered and neutralised.

as for the silliness of fatman and littleboy, if you want the USAF to bring in their own nukes its all over before day 1 sees the sun go down.  nobody lets an enemy bring their advantages to the table.  the keyed up force will anticipate and act first.  hence why your blithe dismissive comments about battlespace management being countered by sheer force of numbers demonstrates a complete lack of appreciation of what the USAF had in 1991 - let alone issues of force planning where one side completely dominates across all the critical vectors.