We faced an enemy during the Cold War that outnumbered us and whose technology was equal or nearly equal to ours.  If we felt we could defeat them, how do we lose to the USAF of 1945? 

 

To add to GF's post:

 

and thats the thrust of all my previous.  this is a battlespace managment issue before its a platform issue.
control and direct the battlespace and you manage the fight.  systems vs platforms

 

In a war between peers, the enemy can contest or possibly deny your ISR efforts.  How does the USAF of 1945 do that?  They have no concept of satellites and any recon aircraft we use can fly higher and faster.  How do they gather intel regarding our intentions?

Why on earth would they sit there and let the opposing force form up neatly and proceed to target? 

I blame Command and Conquer - and the whole 3D strategy battle gaming industry.

 

I think it's giving the impression that all wars can be fought by just building up lots of resource and chucking it at the enemy, withouht respect for casualties, weather effects, ECM etc - just lasso a pile of units, click where you want them to go and off they hurtle. They always find the target, never flinch in the face of massive casualties or back off in any circumstances.

 

Because that's exactly the battle of attrition the OP is describing here.

 

Back in the real world, the B17's aren't getting off the ground, because their fuel supplies, bomb dumps and hangars are all on fire, and their taxi ways are littered with burning aircraft and bomblets from cluster bomb strikes.

 

It's a silly scenario and what little amusement to be had kicking it around has been wiped out by by the Op insisting that if the 1945 guys can just somehow launch, then stack then commit their entire force, find the target (always problematic in Europe ) then the 1995 guys are toast.

 

As has been said, this is the airforce that went into the teeth of one of the densest air defense grids in the world, equipped with modern SAM and radar from both former Pact and western manufacturers and took it all apart in a very well planned and aggressive campaign.

 

 

All the silk scarves in the world won't save you from that.

 

 

Ian

 

PS  - everyones talked about hanging 4 winders and 4 AIM-7's off an F15 - anyone ever for a giggle calculated how many they can actually carry, using pylons etc?

 

 

I think eight missiles is the max.  The centerline hardpoint on the F-15 isn't wired for A2A missiles, and I don't believe the center wing pylon (between the Sidewinder rails) is either.  Eight is pretty much it for the F-15.

 

Now the F-14, F-16 or F-18...different story.  The F-18 might be able to carry eight Sparrows and two Sidewinders (or ten AMRAAMs) and the F-16 the same; the F-14 could carry eight Phoenix or six Sparrows and two Sidewinders.  A Phoenix would be deadly against a close-packed B-17 formation; you might could get two with one shot. 

 

If you really want to get silly--throw in F-106s with nuclear-tipped Genies.

 

 

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.

 

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

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.

PS: Don't blame Command and Conquer, Numeric superiority have been one of the key to victory since the apparition of life on earth!

The Allies may have suffered heavy losses but they also inflicted heavier losses on the Germans.  How are they supposed to do that to the 1991 USAF?  Their weapons are vastly outranged.  They have to be WVR to kill while the modern USAF doesn't.

 

Numerical superiority isn't the key anymore.  We proved that in GW1 and GW2.

 

 

 

Phoenix wise, I'd aim for one of the bottom of a box so the missile would coast straight through the formation above - it might pull the wing off one on the way down before detonating, and then there's that big warhead when it does go boom.

Can't bring myself to invite Genies as that's outside the time period really...

Ian

Well. how did Germany, 1939 manage to conquer most of Europe, including France, a country with more tanks and aircraft in hand? Superior tactics and better use of communications perhaps? 

Agincourt ? How'd we pull that one off? Tiny English army facing the massed might of the French nobles, armed and armoured for war, on foreign soil? GW1 and 2? 

It's been explained how difficult it would be for the 1945 guys to fight, or even take off, how hard it would be for them to communicate and to make any meaningful headway. You're not listening, or paying any attention because you're probably just staring at the numbers and not seeing the units as things you have to funnel through points - they start off at dispersal areas and have to be fueled and armed before flight, then funneled through taxi ways and into runways. The other guys can watch all these preparations and interfere with them *at will*. Unless you start your scenario as a meeting engagement in clear weather at 1 mile distance with all units airborne, and no reserves, the 1945 guys are toast.

Ian

 Numeric superiority have been one of the key to victory since the apparition of life on earth!