Any ww2 planes that is viable to the modern day?

[Leavee]

Now if you remember me,i made a thread about ww2 tanks being viable today and i got some good answers on them being now just used as infantry support and all SHT's just better off not being a good choice.

But after that whole thing i just thought if ww2 planes like the BF109,p51 mustang,spitfires and the russian YAK-9t would still do well in the art of modern war.Or bombers like the flying and super fortress (B-17 and B-29).

Now normally an F22 would just come in and take a dive to a whole bunch of em and just shred them to pieces but i would like to see what they would fair now being used other than just being in a museum collecting dust rather than flying high up in the skies like they used to.

[WhiteKnight77]

Escrito originalmente por Wolfey:

Escrito originalmente por WhiteKnight77:

The Isrealis love gun kills. You should study up on them. It's more personal.

Although let's be fair; nine days out of ten the Israelis are dealing with Floggers, Frogfoots and other obsolete Soviet trash.

This article is enlightening. Israel Prefers Old F-15s to F-35s[www.popularmechanics.com]. One needs to remember that the Israelis were the first to use the F-15 in combat, and it was a gun kill.

[likkhai]

Escrito originalmente por Nymrain:

Any of the German Jets

me 262 maybe

[Doctor Go-Go]

The Wright Flyer is still viable, even for for aggressive combat.. TOP GUN dog fights? No problem.

[628]

Obviously modern fighter jets have their own air-to-air radar, if not there will be AWACS support to track the location of target and share that to each jets.
And most of all "the missile knows where it is" and WW2 jets have no maneuverability enough to dodge that. Absolutely no chance on old warbirds.

[secuda]

Wouldent make sense to me? Better to uppdate your anti aircraft system then waste your military resources and presius manpower unless we are talking about cold war era then i can see smaller/poorer countries still using them but not now. Allso damn necros.

[Arya]

For military purposes all WWII aircraft are obsolete. The only aircraft that comes close is the DC3/C47. But it's lack of speed, lack of range, lack of navigational equipment, finnicky engines and lack of cargo capacity mean it too is functionally obsolete.

As for the German jet fighters, you need to understand that there's a huge difference between a cool idea and a practical weapon. Germany's jet-fighter programme came about because the Luftwaffe high command doubted the war could be won, and was getting desperate knowing they would probably all be executed after the war. So they forced a technology that just wasn't ready into action.

And they did as terribly as you would expect.

Ignoring the fact Germany had virtually no jet fuel reserves, they just weren't combat-effective. They could outrun Allied fighters in level flight, but their weight and poor acceleration meant many were lost to "inferior" aircraft like the P-51 Mustang.

They were obsolete even before WWII ended. Jet technology evolved rapidly, and within a few years the lack of raw thrust and horrifying unreliability(a number of Me262s crashed because they suffered two engine failures due to seperate, indepent problems) were solved. Creating the F-86 Sabre, the oldest plane I can think of that might be combat-viable in 2020.

[cs8492]

They still may be useful but not in the role that they were designed for. Prop planes are great for Forward Observer/JTAC and CAS just because they have incredible loiter time. Something that the A-10 has going for it. They would be terrible in a contested airspace though. That's why we use the F-22 and F-35 to "kick down the door" so to speak.

[Silverkite]

turn radius of WW2 aircraft rules over turn radius of modern fighter jets on the other hand BWR is the king for modern fighters

[Silverkite]

Escrito originalmente por Sgt. Sylviboye:

This thread went from ww2 planes to the a10

A-10 fanboys can't be dealt as easily as others.
A-10 was tested against a static column of Patton tanks, it flew using evasive tactics, raise its altitude strafed the targets and retired.
Experiment was repeated multiple times against a column of static T-62 or T-55 can't remember sold/stolen from Egypt.
30mm rounds (DU core) failed to make serious damage against a freaking column of static tanks

Official (manipulated) reports said out of 12? tanks two were killed how I don't know while others had mobility kills because the round glanced and did this and that in a War Thunder bias manner.
Real report said it failed to satisfy the requirements.
Now during that time the defense tried to shut down the A-10 project for a reason, the reason was that in a war against the Soviet Union the A-10 could only act as missile truck, maybe strafe and damage some light armored columns, then get shot down or return to base with heavy damage, if the damage was severe and the depot could not fix it in time then the airframe was to be written off and used as spare parts.

People thinks that the GAU can brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt through evertyhing, gun as a range of about 5km, there is no fire control stabilization the pilot needs around 3 to 5 seconds to align and fire his gun, once he fires 5 to 10 rounds have a chance to hit the target, other 10 rounds will possibly make a nice holed up frame around the target, past that will miss the target.
Soviet armored columns had around 2 to 3 Shilka every 6/8 tanks, plus BRDM armed with Strela/Igla launchers, plus dedicated BMP IFV which AA infantry had its own share of love, other wheeled and tracked IFVs also were equipped with 23-2 guns on top, other than that there were Kub and Buk AAA systems on the field either static or mobile, any A-10 caught inside the net was in the need of something better than fancy maneuvers.
There were no IR guided missiles, Maverick missile was TV guided missile, IR and laser variants showed up at latter time, A-10 had nothing but a mere Pave Penny pod with a vision field of 32km, but with an effective range of 15~ish to 20km, pilot had to recognized its targets with his own eyes through smoke, a volley of bullets and missiles all of that while doing fancy stuff at low altitude then zoom up, align, get painted by radars and smaked by AA missiles, maybe survive, fire 100 rounds, miss everything, and return back to base.

Fanboys do not accept facts

[Arya]

Ironically the A10 is quite effective against enemy aircraft.

BVR combat IRL is very different to BVR in video games. Real tech is much less reliable, especially RADAR and Heatseekers. Locking onto a cold-target like an A10 is difficult, especially when it's at very low altitude. Naturally you could get in close and use your cannon, but think about it.

A10s are slow aircraft and don't climb well, but they're heavily armoured and have a 30mm cannon with a longer range that the 20mm used on most fighters. You're probably not going to win that fight, especially with the A10's tiny turning circle when compared to a modern Energy Fighter. A10s often rack up many kills this way in training operations. So do helicopters, which are even colder targets at even lower altitude. Many of whom carry IR guided AAMs.

[76561198315424152]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LVmyrLK1yDw&t=2s#searching
Anyone else play this? Can recommend if one is into ww2 planes. Dont have german jets myself yet, just japanese, swedish and some uk so far... Maybe one american and soviet jet plane but barely tried em.
Lmk if u maybe wanna fly some day on teams.

[highfivingbears]

Escrito originalmente por Wolfey:

Ironically the A10 is quite effective against enemy aircraft.

BVR combat IRL is very different to BVR in video games. Real tech is much less reliable, especially RADAR and Heatseekers. Locking onto a cold-target like an A10 is difficult, especially when it's at very low altitude. Naturally you could get in close and use your cannon, but think about it.

A10s are slow aircraft and don't climb well, but they're heavily armoured and have a 30mm cannon with a longer range that the 20mm used on most fighters. You're probably not going to win that fight, especially with the A10's tiny turning circle when compared to a modern Energy Fighter. A10s often rack up many kills this way in training operations. So do helicopters, which are even colder targets at even lower altitude. Many of whom carry IR guided AAMs.

The A10 is not effective against enemy aircraft at all. Sure, the gun can do a heck of a lot of damage to a plane --if it ever manages to set the sights on one. That's the problem. It could do a whoooole lotta damage, easily destroying the plane itself, but dogfights just aren't a thing anymore.

The A10 is going to get destroyed by a plane it never physically sees, because a missile that can go faster than Mach 2 just hit it and shredded the plane to scrap metal.

You can cite every fact you want about how "but they put air-to-air missiles on the A10!" or "but the turning circle!" but the cold, hard, truth is that if the A10 were to get into any aerial engagement at all, don't expect the aircraft to make it back to base.

[Silverkite]

Escrito originalmente por highfivingbears:

Escrito originalmente por Wolfey:

Ironically the A10 is quite effective against enemy aircraft.

BVR combat IRL is very different to BVR in video games. Real tech is much less reliable, especially RADAR and Heatseekers. Locking onto a cold-target like an A10 is difficult, especially when it's at very low altitude. Naturally you could get in close and use your cannon, but think about it.

A10s are slow aircraft and don't climb well, but they're heavily armoured and have a 30mm cannon with a longer range that the 20mm used on most fighters. You're probably not going to win that fight, especially with the A10's tiny turning circle when compared to a modern Energy Fighter. A10s often rack up many kills this way in training operations. So do helicopters, which are even colder targets at even lower altitude. Many of whom carry IR guided AAMs.

The A10 is not effective against enemy aircraft at all. Sure, the gun can do a heck of a lot of damage to a plane --if it ever manages to set the sights on one. That's the problem. It could do a whoooole lotta damage, easily destroying the plane itself, but dogfights just aren't a thing anymore.

The A10 is going to get destroyed by a plane it never physically sees, because a missile that can go faster than Mach 2 just hit it and shredded the plane to scrap metal.

You can cite every fact you want about how "but they put air-to-air missiles on the A10!" or "but the turning circle!" but the cold, hard, truth is that if the A10 were to get into any aerial engagement at all, don't expect the aircraft to make it back to base.

A-10 can out-turn fighter aircrafts

I think around whelp 36 years ago FRS1 Harrier flew by Falkland aces did mock up fights against AMI F-104G here in Sardinia, at the end of the excercises as it was not something so official or approved as they did them around Capo Frasca Capo Teulada instead of the aerial testing range of Capo San Lorenzo and Perdas de Fogu, they ended in a draw, an F-104 pilot described the fight, their boom and zoom could not work properly on Harriers as they could fly low, pivot/jink to avoid gun strafes and missiles but the Harrier could lock the F-104s when they zoomed over, multiple approaches and tries all ended up in a draw.
I don't remember were I read this could be either an Airdoc publications or another magazine, but since my uncle worked as an ATC on both Decimo and Elmas airports he confirmed the happening.

Now you have the A-10 flying low, ground cluttering is a problem, I think heat signature is also a biggie, AESA/PESA radars have they cons and pros, if you are in a fighter jet and want to shot down the A-10 before it starts to jink is to use AIM-120 or evertyhing with a passive lock, since A-10 have plum detectors and AWR equipment you want to end it quickly, if you miss you are not going to fight him, not alone, not on a altitude on which he has the upper hand
The lower you fly the more drag you get, this is a problem for your fighter jet and a big problem for any kind of missile, one jink and the missile has to correct its trajectory once and lose energy, two jinks and a notch and your missile goes cold and misses
If you manage to get a lock on an A-10, fire a missile and he dives or notches it you have to ignore him, if you say whelp I'm going high, then get a nice lock from afar and shot him down then your doing it wrong, as long he's aware of your doings it will not allow you to do so

On the other hand ambushing A-10 with helicopters and SAM missiles does work wonders, there are also some cons especially for SAM missiles as some do not lock on certain altitudes but if you saturate the air space the A-10 it's just a target.

[crgzero]

Well I guess it's already been dug up after 2 years in the grave

I'm a definite p38 Fanboi, but no, it's not viable against the most basic armed drone we have today much less an actual fighter jet.

[Electric Cupcake]

The P-38 is still tied with the A-10 for sexiest aircraft ever devised.

Though the Sr-71 is still a close runner-up.