Can 5 F22 with pilots send back in 1940s defeat the entire

>>1556934
Is that assuming you've sent the shitload of logistics, technical staff and industrial power needed to support them? Maintenance of modern aircraft is fuckhuge. If any of this is missing they're as good as scrap

With such gargantuan disparity of technology I'd guess the WWII era pilots would resort to flying with huge nets attached to bring the F-22's down, there simply is no chance for the outdated plane. WWII planes might win because there's only 5 F-22's, but resorting to non conventional methods.

>>1556934
An F22 carries 8 air to air missiles and has a 20mm cannon with I think 500 rounds.

5 planes means 40 missiles, all of which are likely to hit and kill. Harder to guess how much the cannons could do, even a ww2 plane can twist and dodge and you won't hit every shot with the gun, nor will every shot kill.

Assume each Raptor can kill 12 planes. The Luftwaffe can absorb 60 planes lost in 1940. The answer is no.

They'd probably be pretty hard to bring down with the AA of the day. If you knew where Hitler was sitting on a certain day you could easily cut the serpent's head.

No.

File: images.png (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>1556934
No. After the 5 jets run out of fuel and munitions the nazis build more planes.

>>1557037
>this is not a same
Huh?

A-10 warthog would be a better choice

Wasn't there an actual problem with early jets that they went too fast to actually hit slower moving planes reliably?

Also no, they wouldn't be able to anyway. They'd probably have a lot of tactical utility but 5 is too small to make a real strategic difference.

>>1557231
>Fly to Hitler's bunker
>Drop all the bombs you have
>End war

>>1557260

First off, OP didn't ask if 5 jets could assassinate Hitler, he asked if they could defeat the Luftwaffe.

Secondly, the allies didn't magically know exactly where Hitler was at any given time. He didn't just sit in "Hitler's Bunker" with a big sign over it saying "Fuhrer below please don't bomb."

>>1557231

>Wasn't there an actual problem with early jets that they went too fast to actually hit slower moving planes reliably?

Yes, but modern planes have targeting computers, eliminating most of the problem.

>>1557260

>Implying you know where Hitler's Bunker is
>Implying killing Hitler would end the war
>Implying you carry a payload powerful enough to destroy a hardened fortification on an air to air fighter.
>Implying your mother and father weren't brother and sister.

>>1557273
Pretty sure F-22s have seen more use in air-to-ground action than air-to-air. Some /k/ommando can feel free to tell me otherwise though.

>>1556934
Watch Zipang.

File: melon.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>>1557260
>Kill Hitler
>Hitler becomes martyr
>"THE JEWS DID THIS WITH STOLEN DEUTSCHE TECHNOLOGY"
>New leader is put into power
>New leader is a better tactician
>Nazis use resources more efficiently
>Nazis make Silverbird, bomb New York, Detriot, DC, London, and Moscow
>Lose war
Idiot.

>>1558531
>New leader is a better tactician
>Goring.

>>1556955
This. Modern fighters rely on missiles, they aren't meant to knock everything out of the sky. They're meant to win engagements with reasonable amounts of foes. So you have a small number of very potent armaments to take them out before they can take you out.

>>1557311
Only because there are no air to air threats for them to eliminate. They're the most lethal dogfighters ever built.

>>1556934
No, not enough