It's 1940 in the Reich, H. dies and you are the new Führer

File: 1888286.jpg (362KB, 1100x790px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1100x790px

>>32243810

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

115KB, 1024x734px

>>32243810
more

>>32243810
>Tu-22M3
Easy choice. Blitz would actually be successful. Go supersonic and laugh at all the fighters. No escort required except for landing and takeoff. Stack flak guns at strategic bomber airbase(s).

>>32243810
How many times are you going to make this exact same thread?

>>32243810
>>150 units of Tu-22M3 with unlimited ammo and fuel (every plane that lands on a base can be refuel and reloaded without delays)
Anyone that does not choose this is an absolute retard.

You can fly all the way to moscow and bomb it with no chance to get shot down. You can destroy any naval ship from the USA that trys to get close to Great Britain.

Fucking nuclear tipped anti ship missiles. You may even use those missiles against cities if you try hard enough to understand how it works.

>>32243810
MiGs would solve the issue of air raids completely, poor range still an issue.

T-64's useful but will not solve any crucial strategic deficiencies, most likely to be captured.

Tu-22m3 means that you cannot lose the battle of Britain and if you allow cruise missiles will allow uncontested control of the seas. Its radar would allow for easy detection of convoys and they can be engaged from a great distance.

Tu-22m3 hands down, you can both bomb the Brits into the stone age while you sink all of their vital convoys. If the British are out, then all resources can be directed towards the Soviet Union in 1941.

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

77KB, 918x606px

>>32243872
>How many times are you going to make this exact same thread?

Added the Tu this time, also it's only the second time I made this thread. How much do you lurk?

>>32243881

>You can fly all the way to moscow and bomb it with no chance to get shot down.

OK.

>You can destroy any naval ship from the USA that trys to get close to Great Britain.

To be fair, the Migs could do that too though.

>Fucking nuclear tipped anti ship missiles.

You have not been given nukes and the Reich does not believe in jewish physics. Also, use of nuklear weapons is not an option because the radiation would destroy your most valuable commodity: Your genes.

>You may even use those missiles against cities if you try hard enough to understand how it works.

Ok.

>>32243919
MiG-21s would not be ideal for convoy attacks, the Tu-22m3 was designed for anti-surface attacks. You don't need nukes just Kh-22 with a conventional warhead.

>>32243950

plus the Backfire has very long range unlike the MiG's stubby little legs

>>32243950
>Kh-22M/MA - new variants with almost 600 km range. Weight ~12 000 lbs, speed ~mach 5, contain 1000 kg of RDX.

>1000 kg of RDX

Bye bye Iowa, nice to have known you!

>>32244029
>plus the Backfire has very long range unlike the MiG's stubby little legs

if you made airstrips and bases at proper intervalls along the atlantic wall, you could intercept any naval ur airborn threat long before they could pose a danger even with the Mig's range.

>>32243810
So I guess everybody agrees on the Tu then? Can the Tu provide CAS too?

>>32244052

yes but good luck reaching a convoy in the western approaches(let alone finding it with a vodka cooled radar designed mostly for air to air) or attacking the british fleet at anchor in Orkney

>>32244125
B-but MiG has ASM?

Last thread had the MiG provide CAS with it's machine guns against tanks on the eastern front.

>>32244116
MEIN FÛRRER WE NEED AIR SUPPORT

HOLD ON SOLDATEN, HELP IS ON THE WAY

>Tu-22M3 drops hordes of bomb on the enemy bases far inside russia thus destroying all supply lines

>enemy resistance is non-existent since all their bases are gone.


>>32243919
>To be fair, the Migs could do that too though.
No they cant, they cant launch a missile miles away that will penetrate the mightiest battleship.

>Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3][4] Soviet Tests showed that Kh-22MA equipped with 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) RDX warhead and with approach speed of 800 m/s (Mach 2.4), used against aircraft carrier warship, will make hole with resulting diameter of 22 m2 (240 sq ft), and warhead cumulative jet will burned through internal compartments of ship to the depth of 12 m.[5][6][7][8]

>>32243810
Only one correct answer.

>Tu-22M3

Remove one from service and have it examined thoroughly by all of our aircraft manufacturers to advance their knowledge.

The remaining 149..


If all we get is unlimited German WW2 era dumb bombs, we load those bitches up and destroy every airbase and airfield in the UK. Then begin working on the electrical, industrial and transportation hubs

If we're allowed the full complement of modern munitions, then we nail the power plants with cruise missiles, the Royal Navy, and they Airbases.

Then ask the UK & Empire to surrender, with the only condition being to stay out of our way (Non-Aggression to the whole Anglo-sphere).

I love these threads

Maybe make one with same timeline but with the choice being x amount of modern rifle of your choosing, or x amount of modern military vehicle of your choosing.

eg

1000 first generation LAVS vs 500,000 m4a1s+ your choice nonthermal optic

>>32244150

the Mig-21 has short range beam riding ASMs that can be used against tanks, airbases and ships(at very close range) but my previous points about why it isn't great against ships stand

>>32244312
>1000 first generation LAVS vs 500,000 m4a1s+ your choice nonthermal optic

LAV. Not even a contest. The GIs already have the Garand autoloaders.

>>32244439
this is the krauts though

m4 + acog would surely give the german infantry much better odds in every engagement

>>32244486
>this is the krauts though

OK.

>m4 + acog would surely give the german infantry much better odds in every engagement

They would have already had better odds if they just used the Stg44 better.

>>32243810
bump

>>32243810

>>Tu-22M3

And make Britain howl!
And then I'd bomb the fuck outta Stalin

>>32244486
>>32244439
>implying infantry weapons are what lost the war for Germany and not strategic mismanagement, overly ambitious timetables and goals, a lack of fuel, and a critical lack of armored vehicles compared to the combined might of the USSR/USA's production lines

Fucking LAVs any day. That's FOUR overpowered mechanized divisions right there with the German organizational table.

>>32245542
and don't forget that the LAV is basically a light tank in that era as far as protection and firepower goes.

>>32243810
Here's a better question: Why would I fight for facism when I can fight on the side of the United States?

File: the_man_in_the_high_castle_tv_series-160215254-large.jpg (116KB, 807x1200px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 807x1200px

>>32245857
>Here's a better question: Why would I fight for facism when I can fight on the side of the United States?

oh shut up you spineless piece of shit coward. even when they try to make more propagand bs like pic related they still aren't able to completely blck out how great it would really be it Nazis won.

So, Can I take the tanks set up a fuel dump just outside the base and run a bunch from base to dump, drain fuel and go back for a magic refill ad infinitum to solve my fuel logistics problem?

>>32246059
>So, Can I take the tanks set up a fuel dump just outside the base and run a bunch from base to dump, drain fuel and go back for a magic refill ad infinitum to solve my fuel logistics problem?


you are one of those guys who just plays to cheat right?

>>32246090
nope, but the third reich isn't famed for playing by other peoples rules.
The way I see it the scenario didn't promise repairs, training or trained crew so I can expect a high attrition rate on the aircraft (at least while training pilots for an operational squadron) and then further loses to accident, malfunction, sabotage and the occasional enemy action. The tanks on the other hand are fairly simple mechanically so can be deployed 'out of the box', gaining logistics win from them to allow better support while trying to knock Russia out (and can send freed up 'existing forces' to Afrika to tip the balance there might be enough to force Russia out of the war and split Britain off from the commonwealth by closing the canal - plan to 'defend' from the RAF rather than attack in the battle of Britain to conserve the luftwaffe and maybe it can be done.

>>32245967
>I literally support Hitler

What a fedora-wearing cuck. Neo-nazism is always promulgated by people who are fat beta failures because they're unable to handle personal responsibility and try to find honorability in bloodline because they have literally no merit as human beings otherwise.

Why would you support someone that would take away your guns and literally all of your individual liberties?It wouldn't just be your mom restricting your internet privileges. Also, wouldn't you be concerned about being euthanized under the eugenics program for your rather intense and debilitating form of autism?

>>32246347
interesting either way. you are the only one who picked the tonks. obviously, the aliens whould have to provide training for either weapons or they'd basically all be useless. A T-64's electronics are still well above what a 1940s soldier and engineer could figure out how to use alone.

File: me.jpg (124KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1280x720px

>>32246472
>Neo-nazism is always promulgated by people who are fat beta failures

>>32243810
>Which one do you pick
I pick not being a dumb faggot and accepting USSR alliance proposal, then I curb stomp anglo scum.

>>32243810
Are there free repairs too for the inevitable battle fatigue and possibky damage?

>Again with the fucking Russian weapons.