Could 2 squadrons of P-51s take down two F-22s?
Could ten guys with swords take down 2 guys with M-134s?
Nope.
No, 2 squadrons of P51s couldn't even take down 2 F-4 Phantoms.
>>30954422
Could a group of cavemen take on a mg nest?
>>30954422
Yes. It's called strafing the runway.
>>30955344
If they had guns yes.
Yes, the P-51 has a smaller turning radius
>>30955344
well russians did in ww2
>>30955438
>what is boom and zoom
well, considering that a korean po-2 won an air duel vs a starfire once... starfire crashed trying to intercept it cos it moved slower than its stall speed
pic related, it's po-2
>>30955508
Didn't b52s get some manuevour kills in Vietnam?
>>30955508
>Using a stub winged interceptor to gun kill a 100mph biplane.
For real?
>>30955549
yeah
>The Po-2 is also the only biplane credited with a documented jet-kill, as one Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing down to 110 mph – below its stall speed – during an intercept in order to engage the low flying Po-2.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2
po-2 weren't harmless at all though, they were light night bombers and reconnaissance planes, also that article states how a couple of korean po-2 once destroyed a saber on the airfield and damaged a few others
>>30955549
You can't fix stupid.
>>30954422
>Could
yes but its very unlikely
>>30955524
i dunno, i know orion once collided with su-27 when they played whose stall speed was lower, both planes then landed safely
>>30955324
They could definitely do that, as the Phantom was not designed for TnB, nor did the the radar and Sparrows perform as well as they were thought to in Vietnam, hence the majority of the air kills being made up with heaters and guns. And F'4s being forced to mix it up with real fighters like the MiG-17
>>30955473
wew
>>30954422
If they now where base is located then yes. Camp there and shoot F-22 on landing and taxing. F-22 don't have ammo to kill all P-51s.
Only on landing.
>>30956206
You are objectively incorrect. The majority of kills were made by Sparrows.
>>30955473
kek
eke
kek
>>30959184
Nope, literally the majority of air kills made in the Vietnam War, by all air forces involved, including the US, including all the kills made by the F-4, were done with guns and ir missiles
>>30956206
How the is a P51 going to get close enough to a F4 to use its guns?
Stop spreading stupid.
>>30959516
Combining two values to beat a third isn't how it works you shit.
>>30954422
Nope. The F-22's higher speed would allow it to choose the engagements at will.
>>30959934
Sparrow kills by US in Vietnam: 60 (perhaps just 59)
Sidewinder kills: 80
Problem?
No. P-51s would never be able to fly high enough to intercept, nor could they ever catch up.
F-22s have 6 missiles each, with a pretty much 100% PK on a P-51, so thats 12 kills off the bat. With 480? rounds for the Vulcan, I think we can safely assume 4 kills max for each Raptor, bringing us up to 20 kills.
The P-51s could stand a chance at destroying the F-22s while they are being rearmed on the ground, but even those odds are low. If the ground crew is on the ball, they should have plenty of time to reload due to the Raptor's speed being three times that of the Mustang.
>>30961745
Now here's a guy who literally knows nothing about air combat, at all, yet posted anyways.
>typical /k/
>>30961602
And 43 gun kills from the USAF alone, note, it also, correctly, counts joint AIM-9/gun kills as one. As they are both used in conjuction with other. Hence, the stipulation and difference between radar kills, and close in gun/heater kills.
Learning is fun, heh?
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100921-010.pdf
F-22s would kill shit with impunity until they run out of ammo. As long as the F-22s don't fly straight back to their base like idiots when they need to rearm, they would win. And depending on their distance and fuel situation they might be able to fly straight back, rearm, and be back in the air ready to kill the remaining mustangs even if the mustangs know where the F-22 base is.