Hitler dies in 1942 and you are his successor. Space aliens

>>32079926
migs imo, air superiority is bretty important right?

>how to use them

send out 2 150 plane groups :^)

>>32079926
Planes, with out superiority allies can't bomb your factories so you can build more tanks easier.

Also T-64 tanks would become priority target number one for all allied sides and strategies to defeat them would be quickly developed.

>>32079926
In '42 I would take the mig 21st for sure. I would use them to wipe out the RAF and air raid staging points in britain. Then eliminate the threat of the B17s. I would send a few air wings to dominate the skies in Russia while holding onto the eastern front until 46' when I would kill myself in a bunker same as hitler because I was overrun by Russians.

>>32079940
>Planes, with out superiority allies can't bomb your factories so you can build more tanks easier.

addendum: you can't get the migs and then start building 64s on your own; you wouldn't have the tech needed to build them.

>>32079926
> all these faggots choosing planes over tanks

It says unlimited fuel and ammo, not spare parts
Try making bits for a modern jet engine in the 40's
At least with tanks engines are still much the same and most other required bits will be makeable

The planes you dumb fucker

You can totally dominate the air with those puppies and do whatever the fuck you like on the ground.

>>32079989
I'm pretty sure he meant build more of the standard German tanks of the era.

>>32080019
well ok then, just wanted to make sure.

>>32080003
german engineers are the best in the world. they'll have the planes reverse engineered and be mass producing them within a month

>>32080003
You could win the war with those planes in a week.

>put pilots on meth
>pull trigger all day every day
>everything becomes fire everywhere you want it to be fire

>>32080039
>You could win the war with those planes in a week.

I made a similar thread a few weeka back only saying

>you are now Hitler, you get 300 Migs + endless ammo and fuel, what do?

People were saying it wouldn't make a difference.

>>32080043
They must have never played video games with cheats on.

>>32080003
The Germans could probably nigger rig something, MiG-21 is pretty rugged and not too high tech.

>>32080049
you could make the Atlantic Wall impenetrable by building airfields there and thus keep he US/UK out of the war. the real war would be happening with the Russians

>>32080029
>german engineer are the best in the world
So that's why they make everything unnecessarily complicated?

>>32080070
yes, they do that to showcase their skill

The Migs would give me 100% arial dominance, so I'll go with those.

>>32080078
I wonder, maybe they are too fast? maybe the IR weapons can't really lock on olden tymes propeller machines?

>>32080077
They really aren't, at all.

File: trumpclassbattleship.jpg (606KB, 1624x1748px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1624x1748px

>>32079926
Just one T-51b

>>32080082
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-pdk_FWh0

vid related

>>32080089
then who are the best?

File: glock perfection.gif (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>32080102
Often copied, never duplicated.

>>32080070
They build perfect Machines for an imperfect world.
Just kidding.
They make it complicated so you have to pay them to fix it too. Admit it, burger, they outcapitalismed you.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (85KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x768px

So Mig it is?

How well do you think T-64BVs would do though?

File: tmp_12833-14761646980621287291116.jpg (34KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x532px

>>32080103
Besides pic related, they are Austrians.

File: 1911cf3.jpg (21KB, 440x330px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 440x330px

>>32080139

File: What it feels firing a Glock.jpg (16KB, 314x229px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 314x229px

>>32080144
Didn't explode

>>32080139
>>32080161
fuck off, this thread is about cold war tech used in ww2. contribute or off yourself. Also, Glock>Alle and especially 1911 shitstains.

I take the Migs, give Polan, France etc. back, say I'm sorry for what the fag did, and ally with the West to steamroll the commies and curb the Japs. The world is free of commies by 1950 and it's a much better place.

if you traveled back to 1940 and gave hiter a gameboy color and a copy of pokemon yellow do you think they could somehow use it to win the war?

File: 1439042744358.png (10KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x500px

>>32080169
>don't shitpost in the designated shitpost thread waaaaaahh

>>32080169
Somebody is a little too attached to his polymer dildo

>>32080182
it would probably jump start transistor radio shit and you'd have IBMs in the 60s.

>>32080184
said the 1911-sexual

>>32080138
They would kill everything. Even with its inferior nightvision compared to a M1 abrams it will still kill everything since nothing in world war 2 can see another tank at 800-1000 meters in the night.

>>32080203
which tanks/at weapons do ahve a chance to penetrate a T-64 though?

File: LiveLeak-dot-com-0402ebc27a91-vlcsnap-00013.jpg (70KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1920x1080px

yfw you'll enver see the god of war, the T-72, roll on the eastern front. why even live?

>>32080256
answer me pls

>>32080256
>>32080281

None from its 60 degree frontal arch. There are very small weakpoints but those may be impossible to penetrate for the allies, even around the gun barrel the armor is 180-300mm thick.

The lower hull glacis is 80mm thick but it is at a angle of 62 degrees which gives it LOS thickness of 180-190mm. The armor gets thin near the drivers vision port to as low as 80mm thick RHA with a 30mm high hardness plate welded on the 80mm RHA plate or only 60mm RHA depending if the T-64BV was built after 1982 or before but the whole upper glacis is at a angle of 68 degrees which would prove to be almost impossible to penetrate even at point blank range.

You would need to get flanking shots at close range to penerate semi-reliable the sides of the T-64 if you are using T-34's and M4 shermans. Or you would rely on artillery guns in direct fire mode to destroy the T-64 with pure kinetic power from very heavy AP rounds or HE rounds.

Like the SU-122 or SU-152 firing HE rounds or other artillery guns/ large caliber. There are some guns that the allies have that might have a chance from the front.

But your chance would be none if the germans are supporting the T-64's with everything they got to turn your chance to get a flanking shot to 0%.

You would have no chance at all if the german T-64's attack at night.

>>32080287
what about rpg HEAT type weapons?

>>32080298
Mostly useless since they have so little power to even penetrate Tiger 1's and panthers from the front and the few that does would not be able to penetrate anyway thanks to the ERA everywhere and the composite armor used in the T-64.

The frontal protection against HEAT is rated to be somewhere 400-600 for the T-64BV if we dissregard the ERA which would render the HEAT warheads ineffective

>>32080308
Unless at the side and there is no ERA in the path.

The Rear would be mostly free of ERA unless its the turret since the ERA on the T-64BV is really everywhere.

File: t-64_28_of_62.jpg (926KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 2560x1920px

Well maybe not really the rear of the turret but you get the point.

File: t-64_39_of_62.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>32080339
The bigger question is how do you get close enough to hit the sides or rear in the first place?

Only way is ambush or pure luck and getting past flank security that the germans would have to make sure they WOULD NOT lose their most valuable piece of equipment they have ever had.

File: t-64_35_of_62.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>32080287
>The armor gets thin near the drivers vision port to as low as 80mm thick RHA with a 30mm high hardness plate welded on the 80mm RHA plate

Can I have the NATO equivalents instead?

>>32079926
Also depends on what you mean by unlimited.

Unlimited in the unit ala cheat codes or just magical unlimited fuel/ammo reserves at base?

Because either way it's the MiG but if it's A then MiG-21PFs with S-8 rocket pods using the FAE rockets just being used from outside ANY response range of Allied equipment? Yeah you ded.

It'd kill any WW2 tank short of a Maus and no plane in WW2 is surviving magical regenerating S-8 rockets being used instead of the main gun that each can kill you. Just hold down the trigger and strafe everything.

>>32080256
IEDs, mines, arty

File: propperly welded t-72 turret, welded byy sovjet elfs.jpg (133KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x600px

>>32080370
which would be what?

> In general combat conditions I was always confident of a kill over a F-4 Phantom when flying a MiG-21."[30][31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Vietnam

File: implying it does not.png (707KB, 1359x638px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 1359x638px

>>32080367
But yeah I forgot to mention that I was not counting the LOS thickness and this "weakness" is only relavent when you are fighting leopards and M1 Abrams.

Have you never seen a T-64B updated to the T-64BV standard?

But while we are at it, when you said "unlimited fuel and ammo" Does that mean that its 28 round autoloader will never be needed to be reloaded since every round you fire will be respawned back to the autoloader?

>>32080082

Why would you even use the IR stuff? The 23mm would kill anything in the air and probably kill 90% of shit on the ground.

Rocket pods in the 60s were capable of 400mm of RHA penetration for fucks sake.

The MiGs are the best REGARDLESS of how much the T-64s offer.

If they have infinite ammo ala cheat codes? Have them loiter forever in the air over allied air fields. Too fast for the allies to respond to and with it's rocket pods could kill anything the allies attempt to launch.

With infinite ammo at base?

You now have a Mach 2 jet with 3x the range of any comparative fighter and 4 times the speed with WAY better armaments.

The MiG wouldn't even need to operate at max speed. It could go slightly above stall speed and still outpace nearly non-jet aircraft in WW2 and the acceleration alone would make it untouchable.

The differences in airframe tech from 1940 - 1966 were so fucking extreme that there's no comparison.

File: 1424098975001.jpg (520KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1280x960px

>>32080383
>>32080383
I wasn't disagreeing mate, I just had this pic of the area so I posted it.

>But while we are at it, when you said "unlimited fuel and ammo" Does that mean that its 28 round autoloader will never be needed to be reloaded since every round you fire will be respawned back to the autoloader?

No, it means that your ammo and fuel production and logistics runs perfectly and you are never running short. every tank/mig that returns to base can be reloaded and refueld without delay.

File: 1344550881393.gif (2MB, 347x306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 347x306px

>>32080386
>>32080386
>Why would you even use the IR stuff?

because bombers have MGs too? I'd rather not be taken out by a tailgunner, even on the off chance...

>The 23mm would kill anything in the air and probably kill 90% of shit on the ground.

Hmn, I didn't really think about using it fo CAS like a BRRRTTTT.... would it really work (well)?

>Rocket pods in the 60s were capable of 400mm of RHA penetration for fucks sake.

So?

>The MiGs are the best REGARDLESS of how much the T-64s offer.

I tend to agree.

>If they have infinite ammo ala cheat codes?

No. You ahve to refuel and reload on base. No magic here.

>With infinite ammo at base?
>You now have a Mach 2 jet with 3x the range of any comparative fighter and 4 times the speed with WAY better armaments.

Yes. Atlantic wall with runway bases 150km apart - nothing from the US/UK could ever hope to enter Reich airspace.

>>32080053
they had shitty jet engines, rockets.wouldn't of been too much of a stretch at reverse engineering or making a more limited design

>>32080445

Bombers have M2s and their max range is roughly 2km in air.

23mm has double that. That's the logic the US air-force used when facing Germany and Germany just stuck cannons on shit and forced the rapid roll out of fighter support.

>would 23mm work well?

God fucking yes it would. WW2 tanks had shitty top armour because realistically noone would be firing top down. This was a trend until the late 60s when tanks started getting top down armour to prevent aircraft with 30mms just outright killing them.

>so?

400mm RHA is nearly 3x what ANY ww2 armour had. A single rocket being fired outside of response range of any potential reply is going to win.

The tech leap was too extreme.

Even if you said it about the Me-262 being 5 years early under the same conditions? Germany wins. The pure advantage a jet fighter provides over prop planes is impossible to offset and the only major disadvantage is loiter time which would be offset by the jets being deployed in time staggered deployments.

That's IF you don't want to allow reverse engineering ofc. If you allow reverse engineering? Suddenly you end up with rocket tanks that can out penetrate any WW2 tank gun and potentially hand held AT weapons of the same deployment value.

If not? Then you still have a massive tech advantage and the Allies have no response because even WW2 jets can't touch a MiG-21 which would be able to use it's A2A missiles.

File: 106522__tu-22m3-backfire-tupolev-tu-22m3_p.jpg (77KB, 918x606px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 918x606px

>>32080478
>That's IF you don't want to allow reverse engineering ofc. If you allow reverse engineering? Suddenly you end up with rocket tanks that can out penetrate any WW2 tank gun and potentially hand held AT weapons of the same deployment value.


Sorry, I don't follow?

>>32079926
I beg the spess aliums for proper logistical trucks in stead.

>>32080541
give an example of what truck that might be?

The amount of difference between a jet plane and a WWII fighter is greater than the difference between a modern tank and an old one.

File: 5806374812_a3bb73bb54_b.jpg (145KB, 700x387px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 700x387px

>>32079926
so it seems the general consensus is the Rech could win with the Migs while the T-64 would not be enough. However, what if they got both? Would that be a guaranteed win?

File: oxygino_mig21_04.jpg (115KB, 1024x734px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x734px

bump

File: 140425-russia-exercise-515a_a4f2c6e15e62e67dbeadb4bc36093457.jpg (246KB, 2500x1107px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 2500x1107px

>>32080628

>>32080029
>what is materials science: the post

>>32080256
Anything which can penetrate 80mm of steel (side armor), 40mm (rear), 20-30mm (roof) and various iron bombs which can wreck shit.
Even 152mm HE can disable modern tanks.

>>32080566
Any truck with enough fuel. Most of germanys logistics were still horse drawn

>>32080753
give a specific example of what would be viable in 1942 Germany and onwards.

>>32080029
If they're so good, why are the aliens giving them Russian tanks and planes? Checkmate, Teutonic fucking shits.

>>32080096
>giving us back San Diego
>giving us back that whole bottom portion of Texas
>building a wall for us
Burger you are my best ally.

>>32079926
>Hitler dies in 1942 and you are his successor.

Good, It is early and I can secure a victory. Do not need those tanks or planes.

>>32080932
>It is early and I can secure a victory.
pray tell....

>>32079926
Take the migs and start bombing russia europe and usa hell even give some to the japs so war in the pasific could be over

Also get my supirior german scientists to back word enginer the thing and make tanks with unlimited ammo and fuel

>>32080070
For a non aryan it is complicated but for the homo suprior it is normal

>>32080820
A clone of any american or british heavy haul truck?

>>32080669

Materials science did not Develop THAT much in the 15 years between 42 and mig21 engine develpment

>>32080386

>mig21
>loitering

>>32080499

I believe hes implying that germany would reverse engineer the mig's A2G rocket pods and stick them on tank chassis a la ISIS/FSA

>>32081138
aha, ok, thx. makes sense.

>>32080587
Outright massacre of any assault, it would give the nazis such a technologically strategic advantage that nothing would stand in their way.

These jetfighters in the provided numbers would wreak absolute havoc on in their air superiority role, decimating wave upon wave of bombers, provide an extremely potent CAS-platform in that day and age and would be virtually impervious to any conventional attacks.

The tanks would be an even greater shock to any ground combat units encountering them, you'd introduce something so woefully powerful that no conventional ground assets could stop it's advance in any reliable way.

>>32079926
People forget how ridiculous numbers got in WW2.

There were already 492 tiger 2s built. It did not make a difference.

There were 1,400 Me 262s built. It did not make a difference.

Both those figures (including those in the OP) need at least two extra zeroes added to the end before it can alter the course of the war as it were.

>>32081174
Oh, this is before remembering that all downed aircrafts and tanks will contribute significantly to soviet and american research and development. Total war.

>>32081178

mig21's would be literally impervious to allied efforts to down them as long as they stayed over friendly territory and used proper tactics.

so does the perfect logistics also include the communications and radar tech required to manage all this airpower?

>>32081202
the proper facilities for proper Ground-controlled interception are provided.

>>32081174
>1,400 Me 262s
the me is closer to the spitfire than it is to the Mig really. Migs are like 3 generations after that...

Would a 60s-era Atoll even be able to lock on to heat signature of a piston powered bomber. It's a rear aspect only jet exhaust chaser. Thing's useless if you can't get a tone.

Also, stall speed on a Mig-21at bomber altitude with load is about twice the crusing speed of a B-17. You'd want to be going faster to have any significant maneuverability so you wouldn't have *that* much time to line up the shot and engage before coming into the gun envelope of the defending bomber.

To make matters worse, and this was undiscovered until the 1970s, violent maneuvering would throw the MiG-21's cannon pod out off bore.

So what you'd have after a while would be a fleet of fast planes with ineffective missiles and wonky off sight aiming. Not as useful as you might think.

>>32080138

Rape everything on the ground, but will be slowly destroyed through allied air power.

>>32081281
wouldn't you want like be 3000 feet above them, dive down, shoot them from above and then go up again? me thinks making use of the service ceiling advantage is just as important?

Service ceiling mig: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Service ceiling Boeing B-29 Superfortress: 31850 ft [26] (9,710 m)

Also, you could literally bomb bombers with dumb (barrel) bombs.

Migs. With the t-62 they can still take a pretty good portion of territory out from you, but migs would hornet everywhere
Plus I want a mother fucking mig-21

>>32081132
The idea was that if they have infinite fuel and ammo like game cheat codes, IE magically replenished while in the air, they can loiter and destroy anything in view.

>>32080861
Dude, You could have all of California and New Mexico too.

>>32081198
>impervious as long as they didn't get cocky and fuck up
They'd get cocky and fuck up. A stray bit if flak? Down it goes. Malfunction? Down it goes. Pilots who would be utterly and totally unfamiliar with a Mach 2 herewith everything written in Russian shorthand using systems none if then have seen before? Bunch of them would go down.

T-52 is not significantly better than a Tiger II, gun and armor is about the same. And 400 tanks is not enough tanks to make a significant difference considering the amount of russian tank production (there were a 1000 Tiger II's produced). Much of the reason that Germany lost the war on the eastern front is simply lack of trucks to transport troops and supplies. The reason that it took 3 months to invade russia is that most German troops were walking.

Mig-21's are actually not going to make a huge difference, I think the Mig-21 only had one 23mm gun compared to the 30mm carried by a Me-109. The Mig-21 would not be able to turn as well as a Me-262 so it cant dogfight, it can only make fly-by slashing attacks. 300 Mig-21's are not enough to make a difference, production of the Me-109 got up to 4000 a month by 1944. Germany would have done better to put the He-280 in production in 1940.

>>32081331
>WW2 airpower
>actually hitting tanks

>>32081281
Early Sidewinders were tested on piston engined targets, so I reckon it'd manage fine

>>32079926
the migs...im assuming we know what happens post 1942? I would station 50 migs in france 30 in norway and use the other 220 on a push through southern russia to the Bakku oil fields.

>>32082146
I think that would not be enough to stop the US and UK from eroding your defense and reaching Germany. I'd say splitting them up 200 for atlantic wall defense and 100 for the invasion of russia would be better - also I hope Mig21 can be fitted to sink ships....

>>32079926
>fuel and ammo
>no spare parts or technicians

File: 7Pl1eZa2M4k.jpg (251KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1200x900px

Bamp

>>32082422
can't they at least buy tarps for those poor tonks to shield them from the elements? fuck.

I'll take the tanks to blunt the commie Zerg rush. And seeing as I'm now the boss I can streamline aviation production and drop the retarded dive bombing fetish.

File: Tupolev Tu-22M.jpg (198KB, 1024x780px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x780px

>>32079926

hardmode:

what if the Migs in OP were

>400 Tupolev Tu-22M with unlimited fuel and ammo