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.

[shoopy]

They could be used for recon or busting tanks or something. Things that we use helicopters or drones for. Not for fighting other planes though.

[someone]

,,i made a thread about ww2 tanks being viable today,,
you knew this was coming..
*cough cough sturmpanzer II VS m1 abrams side lmfao,,
(im sry for the ded war thunder memes)

[Mossy Snake]

There are still some cargo and transport planes that are used, but nobody in their right mind is going to use a combat plane from that era

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

MossyRathalos の投稿を引用：

There are still some cargo and transport planes that are used, but nobody in their right mind is going to use a combat plane from that era

This is true, the C-47 is still being used by countries such as South Africa, but for very limited uses.

[RRW359]

I just remembered that a few months ago, I was interested in the Meteor and found from one scource (I forget which website) that the RAF still has a couple in service for towing gliders. That's probably the closest thing to active service any WW2 fighters will see in the modern day.

[Mythic]

Perhaps a mig-9 but i think that was made in 1946.

[Nine-ball]

It rather depends on what role you intend to use them in. A single P61 Black Widow (amongst many others) operating in a fighter-bomber role could destroy Jamaica's air force and navy, which consist of a few civilian craft. I think their most advanced planes are the Beechcraft Bonanza or the Cessna-172 or something like that. They aren't even new civilian planes. Obviously, that's before considering that Jamaica is an ally of the US and Britain.

Still, there are a couple of aircraft that could hold their own against modern nations with a few modifications. The Horten Ho-229, known as the flying wing, is one such craft, a design far ahead of its time. Many know its successor, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. Wood-composite construction, high speed, and small radar profile would make it deadly against nations that have difficulty maintaining simple radio networks, much less obsolete centimetric radar warning systems.

The Focke-Wulf Ta-183 or Messerschmidt 262 would be excellent matches against any country fielding ancient Mig-15s and 17s that were actually built from German tech. The orignial designs were more efficient, more maneuverable, dumbed down so the semi-skilled Soviet workers could reproduce them. It takes a lot of engineering skill to make a near-perfect cylinder and the fanblades to fit them. The Soviets didn't have much of that, and their export markets even less, which brings us to another point.

Backwards, third-world nations are often hopelessly outclassed by WW2 tech because they can't maintain, much less build or design their own. In a supreme irony, people from developed nations who claim to care about these countries keep importing all the labor which is industrious enough to simply move elsewhere, exacerbating the problem. They don't cure poverty and dependence, they actively help create it.

Regardless, these nations cannot afford defense in any reasonable capacity, or even maintain much modern infrastructure for servicing something as complex as an aircraft. This puts them in a particularly threatened strategic situation, as there are only points of ingress and egress to target, not millions of acres of commercial infrastructure. You bomb Madagascar's six "major" ports and they have no way to get fuel, not on a strategic scale. A WW2 air force could easily overcome their pathetic defenses, as they don't even provide their own weather radar. What else would you expect from nations like that, which can't feed their own people or generate a semi-respectable economy? No excuses, Singapore is a string of rocks with no natural resources, and it boasts a strong military for the region, along with its own stock market. Great Britain has fewer natural resources and dominated world trade for over two centuries. Neither needed the resources, only people to send them raw materials to make into good products.

But when you have a poor economy, horribly mismanaged and unsustainable, you are utterly dependent on the rest of the world, which puts one in a natural state of siege. What's that saying? Humanity is twelve days away from chaos? That's certainly true if you can't defend yourself whilst producing nearly nothing per capita. You have nothing to bargain with, nothing to sustain a war with. In those circumstances, properly-directed military force doesn't need to do much in order to win.

We have seen this with many PMCs, and Executive Outcomes is a prime example. In Angola and Sierra Leone, they forced negotiations with a few hundred troops. Not even planes, just guys with small arms and training. If that can be done, a few WW2 aircraft added to the mix could only help. Hell, a few WW1 aircraft are better than what these countries have a couple of days after trade is cut off.

It all about using the right tool for the right job. WW2 aircraft have no place against modern war machines on the cutting edge. They'll be tracked easily, and shot down with less than contempt by modern nations. Not so for those that haven't developed. To them the aircraft remains a real threat, a miracle of engineering that they cannot hope to counter.

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

harmony の投稿を引用：

Perhaps a mig-9 but i think that was made in 1946.

There are no Mig-9s in service today, all of the first generation jets have been retired and the only ones flying are pretty much reproduction models owned by civilians. One man in particular owns a Me-262 reproduction model.

The rest are museum pieces, used as 'guards' to the entrances of bases or have been scrapped for scrap metal (the latter being the most common fate). This goes for the third generation of jets as well, being common fates.

Some second generation jets such as the Mig-21 are still in service.

Forth gen jets such as the F-16 and so on, are the most common generation of jets flying today.

slandy の投稿を引用：

They could be used for recon or busting tanks or something. Things that we use helicopters or drones for. Not for fighting other planes though.

Prop planes are the kind of hardware that are obsolete for the modern battlefield.

Recon and CAS are better suited for jet aircraft in today's war.

Recon: jets have faster speed and collect data much quicker and get out much quicker without much risk of being shot down.

CAS: prop-planes do not have the speed nor the mass needed to carry such weaponry and armor to fulfill their role in today's battlefield. To put it into perspective, the A-10 has a titanium cockpit and carries a gatling gun the length of it's fuselage. It can withstand 23 mm cannon rounds.

They are however being used in civilian activities such as racing and so on. A niche slot that has been filled.

[Pizmo]

Nobody loves ww2 era aircraft more then me. The B17 is my all time favorite airplane.

With that said; ww2 era aircraft just are not viable in modern warfare. In comparison to any war plane that is remotely modern; the ww2 era planes are slow, short ranged, inaccurate munitions platforms. You have to remember that this is 80 year old technology we are talking about.

The maitenece levels required on these old aircraft are astonishing even by modern day standard. You have to take into account that these airplanes were made before there was anything that even remotely resembles modern electronics. Virtually every single system on these aircraft are mechanical and anyone who has ever owned a car that was pre 1980s can tell you just how temperamental old mechanical machinery can be.

Like I said; I love this era of aircraft, but in a modern war zone these planes would be nothing but expensive, inefficient, slow easy targets.

They are very cool pieces of history but like the battleship their day has come and gone

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Pizmo の投稿を引用：

Nobody loves ww2 era aircraft more then me. The B17 is my all time favorite airplane.

With that said; ww2 era aircraft just are not viable in modern warfare. In comparison to any war plane that is remotely modern; the ww2 era planes are slow, short ranged, inaccurate munitions platforms. You have to remember that this is 80 year old technology we are talking about.

The maitenece levels required on these old aircraft are astonishing even by modern day standard. You have to take into account that these airplanes were made before there was anything that even remotely resembles modern electronics. Virtually every single system on these aircraft are mechanical and anyone who has ever owned a car that was pre 1980s can tell you just how temperamental old mechanical machinery can be.

Like I said; I love this era of aircraft, but in a modern war zone these planes would be nothing but expensive, inefficient, slow easy targets.

They are very cool pieces of history but like the battleship their day has come and gone

With that said, in the field of airplanes: it's far different than the field of tanks or ships. Aircraft are much more streamlined and easier to determine which are and arne't obsolete.

Tanks on the other hand, some could be considered to be viable in certain instances regardless of era for example.

Anyways, I love it as well, the P-40 Warhawk and BF-109 are a couple of my favorites. As far as bombers, the B-29 is very unique for me and I also like the B-24.

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

a1 skyraider

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

ㅇㅅㅇ の投稿を引用：

a1 skyraider

It's retired, it was only used during the Vietnam and Korean war. The A-10 has taken over it's role as CAS and so on.

[Pizmo]

Emissary Kane's Will の投稿を引用：

Pizmo の投稿を引用：

Nobody loves ww2 era aircraft more then me. The B17 is my all time favorite airplane.

With that said; ww2 era aircraft just are not viable in modern warfare. In comparison to any war plane that is remotely modern; the ww2 era planes are slow, short ranged, inaccurate munitions platforms. You have to remember that this is 80 year old technology we are talking about.

The maitenece levels required on these old aircraft are astonishing even by modern day standard. You have to take into account that these airplanes were made before there was anything that even remotely resembles modern electronics. Virtually every single system on these aircraft are mechanical and anyone who has ever owned a car that was pre 1980s can tell you just how temperamental old mechanical machinery can be.

Like I said; I love this era of aircraft, but in a modern war zone these planes would be nothing but expensive, inefficient, slow easy targets.

They are very cool pieces of history but like the battleship their day has come and gone

With that said, in the field of airplanes: it's far different than the field of tanks or ships. Aircraft are much more streamlined and easier to determine which are and arne't obsolete.

Tanks on the other hand, some could be considered to be viable in certain instances regardless of era for example.

Anyways, I love it as well, the P-40 Warhawk and BF-109 are a couple of my favorites. As far as bombers, the B-29 is very unique for me and I also like the B-24.

I could see the use of old tanks as some sort of artillery platform. Sort of a long the same lines that the U.S.S. Missouri was used as a missle platform during the Gulf War.

But like you said; planes are a totally different story.

Anyone that finds these types of what if scenario's provoking should watch a movie from the 80s called The Final Countdown. The plot is about a modern aircraft carrier (at least it was a modern carrier in the 80s when this movie was made) that gets caught in some kind of electrical storm and is sent back in time to a few days before the Japanese attack on pearl harbor. That single aircraft carrier was capable of defeating the entire Japanese navy single handedly. Hell, they could have knocked all the Japanese planes out of the air without even firing a shot. All they would have to do is fly past the Japanese airplanes at super sonic speed, and the turbulence and jet wash would knock the Japanese out of the air. It's an interesting perspective on things. It's also worth noting that ww2 was as far in the past from the 1980s as the 1980s are from today. Now look how far our aircraft have advanced since the 80s

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Pizmo の投稿を引用：

Emissary Kane's Will の投稿を引用：

With that said, in the field of airplanes: it's far different than the field of tanks or ships. Aircraft are much more streamlined and easier to determine which are and arne't obsolete.

Tanks on the other hand, some could be considered to be viable in certain instances regardless of era for example.

Anyways, I love it as well, the P-40 Warhawk and BF-109 are a couple of my favorites. As far as bombers, the B-29 is very unique for me and I also like the B-24.

I could see the use of old tanks as some sort of artillery platform. Sort of a long the same lines that the U.S.S. Missouri was used as a missle platform during the Gulf War.

But like you said; planes are a totally different story.

Anyone that finds these types of what if scenario's provoking should watch a movie from the 80s called The Final Countdown. The plot is about a modern aircraft carrier (at least it was a modern carrier in the 80s when this movie was made) that gets caught in some kind of electrical storm and is sent back in time to a few days before the Japanese attack on pearl harbor. That single aircraft carrier was capable of defeating the entire Japanese navy single handedly. Hell, they wouldnt even could have knocked all the Japanese planes out of the air without even firing a shot. All they would have to do is fly past the Japanese airplanes at super sonic speed, and the turbulence and jet wash would knock the Japanese out of the air. It's an interesting perspective on things. It's also worth noting that ww2 was as far in the past from the 1980s as the 1980s are from today. Now look how far our aircraft have advanced since the 80s

Yep, once you get a platform and put a jet engine on it. That's it, it outclasses the prop plane.

Tanks on the other hand are more or less similar to each other. An older tank with a well trained crew has more of a fighting chance than some well trained pilot in a prop fighter does. With the plane, you have the pilot but not the hardware...

Tanks can catch other tanks off guard and so on, hiding in particular spots etc. Many variables here to consider, compared to planes, where it's much more simpler.

They can have so many uses, like as you said, for artillery support or... alternatively in low conflict intensity zones certain old tanks can still be used as infantry support vehicles where the enemy armor is just as old or non-existent. The Middle East is great for old hardware such as tanks. It also does depend on what area of the world we're talking about here with that said.

Great movie by the way, truly is an interesting concept. One such concept I think about often, when two different eras collide. The possibilities are fascinating to ponder about. I love alternative history.

[WhiteKnight77]

Wolfey の投稿を引用：

They're utterly obsolete, they were designed for a kind of warfare that no longer exists. The only way to make them viable would be to modify them so comprehensively that you would have nothing left of the original aircraft.

All modern air warfare is BVR: Beyond-Visual-Range. A modern jet like an F35 can fire over the horizon; it doesn't need to engage in a dogfight or even maneuver. Fighters like the F22 are stealth snipers, prowling far from the battlefield and at high altitude, picking off target from over the horizon using guided missiles.

Against that a P51 Mustang would be totally useless. Your only option would be to deply so many P51s that all your opponent's aircraft ran out of ammo. And even then, you're going to lose dozens if not hundreds of planes.

Attack planes like the Stuka and Sturmovic would stand more of a chance, but only against third-world opponents who didn't have Surface/Air missiles or MANPADs. And even against '50s anti-air guns you would take major losses for very little effect. Dive Bombers are comically vulnerable to semi-modern automatic cannons. To say nothing of RPGs.

Bombers would suffer the worst. Agonizingly slow and painful visible, they would be spotted and slaughtered shortly after take-off. Their bombs would be impotent against anything bar civilian targets. As they were even in WWII. The Allied bombing campaign achieved very little then, it would achieve nothing now.

The reason why bombs were ineffective in WWII has to do with the sights used, and not the bombs themselves necessarily. Altitude played a part as well. While the Norden Bombsight was the most accurate instrument of the day, there were B-25s that had them taken out and instead, a simple gauge was installed for the bombardier to use for attacks on shipping at low level in the PTO. They also devised skip bombing techniques that the Japanese were hard pressed to counter, especially ships in port such as Rabal.

The US bombing campaign also was better than the one Bomber Command ran. Albert Speer always stated that if the Allies had concentrated on petroleum facilities and transportation earlier, the war would have ended sooner.