1/1/1944. Magically, Germany is given 100 A-10's with enough

>>33292502
They don't have fuel, or spare parts, or the technical knowledge to maintain them.

The aircraft would be blown up on the runway, just like the actual Luftwaffe.

Congrats also on choosing the least effective aircraft you could have given them.

>>33292502
Kursk happened so probably not really, but it would help. It could help their jet program. Knowing germany though hitler would probably think they are for attacking bombers

>>33292502
A thread died for this. I hope you die, too.

Nazis still lose because Hitler was a retarded faggot.

>>33292553
At the time they still had slipping air superority over europe

I think that 100 A10's would stop the D-day.

>>33292502
Ban OP sage thread

You post the same fucking thing every day, with the same answers.

>>33292580
Yeah, slipping. Shot down every day, getting bombed on runways every day, already at a big numbers disadvantage.

Honestly the best weapon you gave them was AIM-9. Ginormous improvement over A2A armament at the time.

If it was a much smaller force of say F-16C or F/A-18C, with AIM-120s and all the same A2G armament available, that might make a difference.

>>33292580
They most certainly did not, they started losing the air war fast by the time 43 started, which is about the time the US shifted from tactical bombing to smoking German fighters in preparation to strategic bombing.

Given how shit armor and aircraft guns were at the time, it could probably put a big fucking dent in the opposition.

>>33292553
Way to not read the op you raging fucking retard

>>33292826
But honestly, they wouldn't have a good enough technical knowledge to fix the damn thing, or know how it works. OP never said they got tech manuals.

>>33292502
There's a movie with a very similiar idea: Philadelphia Experiment II, where Germany won the war with a single F117.

>>33292893

I gotta applaud the fact that someone thought up of this premise and actually cared enough to make a movie about it.

I think it would make a huge difference, possibly even win the war. Now, the max speed of the A-10 is actually just about on par with some of the fighters of the time, but I do think that the sheer amount of armaments that the A-10 can carry gives them a huge advantage.


One crucial thing to think about is how the Germans would use them. Obviously, there's a huge amount of ground support roles needed, but I think the A-10 would dominate even air to air engagements.

Another thing to consider is accuracy. Most bombing runs at the time were essentially guesses- a lot of the time, bombs went into fucking fields and didn't even effect the targets. So the accuracy Germany is going to get with the laser guided bombs is a fucking game changer.


Also, can you even imagine how much of a shitshow D-Day would have been if there were 3 or 4 A-10s ready to strafe the entire beach or shoot down the boats in the water? Honestly, with 100 A-10s, Germany probably would have had the overwhelming air superiority to finally invade Britain and put an end to the western Allies.


As for Russia- that's a different situation. Napalm runs would be spectacular at stopping those suicide rushes that the Russians loved so much. It's one thing to charge through machine gun fire. It's completely different to charge through a massive wall of flames.

Ivan ain't gonna do it.


Obviously, the Germans lost WW2 based on logistics. That was really their greatest flaw. I'm not sure how much the A-10 could help in that regard, but I would say that the tank shredding capabilities would come in handy. If I was #1 in Luftwaffe high command, the first thing I'd do is send 10-15 A-10s to Africa to regain control and create a protected oil train through the balkans and the Middle East up to Germany. With the oil needed, hopefully the war machine would start turning again.


At the end of the day, it would be rough. But I do think that they could change the outcome of the war.

>>33293755
Also, one of those A-10s would probably be sacrificed and torn apart by nazi scientists and designers and used to really advance aeronautics and especially jet turbine knowledge

You sound like a faggot. That said, it might have been enough to prevent the Normandy landings. Wouldn't do much to stop the Soviet Bear, though. The Russians at this point could afford to lose that many tanks and still push Germany's shit in. At best, it would give them leverage and they could maybe have settled the war on losing terms but nowhere near the devastation they faced in real life. Hitler would likely still be forced to step down and possible be executed, but Germany would not be dismantled and the United States and Russia would probably fight over who their new best friend would be to get access to that sweet sweet jet and laser-guided bomb technology.

>>33292502
100 modern aircraft flying 45,000 sorties with full combat load?

With these plus some brains Germany could force the capitulation of Allied powers and possibly keep captured territories. If air power is employed effectively they could potentially take over one of the major European players (USSR or Britain), but completely conquering Europe isn't likely.

>>33293755
> the Germans lost WW2 based on logistics.
Love this Wehraboo meme. By 1943, Germany was pretty much outclassed in every possible area. The Allies had better small arms, better small-unit tactics, better aircraft and air superiority, better tanks, better anti-submarine and convoy tactics, and even better quality materials like steel and tungsten.

Germany had smart generals and some early innovations in the war, but as shit got more desperate for Germany they couldn't really devote the time and resources needed to keep up with technological advancements, something the Allies COULD afford. Germans were using inferior tanks made of shit-tier steel, bolt-action service rifles, and those garbage Stukkas by the time the war turned against them.

And this is coming from a literal Nazi btw. Germans really wasn't this innovative, genius war machine that everyone makes them out to be.

>>33292502
>Is this enough to turn the war?
probably not since they still can't produce anything or plan anything effectively, and have no pilots trained on the things anyway

there were plenty of EBIN LE WUNDERWAFFNS :^) that didnt do jack shit because A) wars aren't won through violence alone and B) they came too late to be widely deployed just because it would take so long to train people on all this radical stuff like jet fighters and TOW missiles

>>33293824
The reason they had shitty steel and time constraints was the lack of good planning.

And I agree- their small arms game was pretty weak.

And their tanks were a shit show. But don't forget the specialty of the A-10. I think with those tank busting capabilities, it would really change the game on the ground.

>>33293755
It didn't say they get targeting pods or training on how to employ guid3d munitions. They probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to make the gun go in enough time to matter. More importantly, an A-10 is not a great dogfifhter by any means and lacks any detection advantage over WWII fighters. In fact, night fighters with radars would have an advantage over the A-10. Theyre far from invincible anf would be shot down quite easily, and even if they were nit destoyef the damage would be unrepairable.

File: Tornado IDS with MW-1 munitions dispenser.webm (544KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 480x360px

>>33292502
>Magically, Germany is given 100 A-10's with enough fuel and ammo to fly 5 sorties per day during 3 months.
I don't see why you need magic for this but okay.
>Is this enough to turn the war?
What war? Germany isn't at war.

>>33293915
>1/1/1944

>>33293915
>I Don't Read Things Before Talking Out of My Ass: The Post

>>33293885

It takes a day to learn a ATGM and maybe a week to absolutely master it.

>>33292502
the gun, the speed, the range and the service ceiling would make short work of Allied bombers
otoh some would be lost to return fire and pilot error, magical titanium bathtub notwithstanding
I'd say they could possibly be enough to force a truce with the Western Powers, if employed on D-day and immediately thereafter.
Russia would just eat the losses and keep on keeping on.
the proposed (sustained) sortie rate is impossible, btw.

>>33292563
Yeah, instead of a "bring back battleships" thread we got this. Whoop de fucking do.

OP here. Yes, they have trained pilots and enough spare parts (and the knowledge of how maintain it) for the 3 months. Also laser pods fot the LGB.

Could they carry decapitation strikes with the Warthogs?

>>33292502
It would mean the first atomic bomb would have it them.

File: su-25 over 1944 Normandy.jpg (263KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1920x1080px

>>33292502
>you'll actually be able to simulate this in DCS soon

>>33293755
>Now, the max speed of the A-10 is actually just about on par with some of the fighters of the time

Not only is this NOT true, the A-10 in no way shape or form flies or behaves the same as a true fighter.

You could actually learn how to fly one if you were really interested, instead of ignorantly shit posting about what dont know here

>>33295243
Warthogs can totally cross oceans

>>33295736
>Not only is this NOT true, the A-10 in no way shape or form flies or behaves the same as a true fighter.
This. The max speed of an A-10 is somewhat on par with fighters of that age but it does not sustain energy or even have a smaller turn radius to defeat WW2 fighters. Tried it on DCS once with my buddy flying a P-51 and me in the A-10, got absolutely wrecked no matter what I did even though I am much better than my friend in everything else. Tried 2 circle, 1 circle, vertical, didn't matter and it was an easy win for the P-51. Yes, it is just a flight sim, but it is the only way to really be able to test A-10 vs WW2 that we have.

>>33292553
>They don't have fuel,
Pretty sure kerosene was a relatively easy commodity to come buy even back then.

>>33295916
A-10s have no ability to transverse into the verical, they don't have the T/W needed to point their nose upright at will, and they're basically stalling after one 180 turn. It's amazing how many people, for no real reason really, think it is somehow some kind of fighter plane, a match for WW2 prop fighters that were nearing the limits of prop based engine and airframe... At least you learned the hardway.

Even with AIM-9s, an A-10 is basically a sitting duck against real prop fighters.

>>33295916
boom and zoom, all day erry day
also git gud skrub

>>33296085
Boom and zoom would be the only possible tactic the A-10 could use but it would have to be against an unaware P-51 pilot. An aware P-51 would be able to defeat the initial attack and quickly make the A-10 react to him.

>>33296085
>boom and zoom
>in an aircraft that has trouble climbing even when clean, and who stalls at a single pull back of the stick

>>33292566
/thread

>>33292891
Tru tbqh

They could have attacked Soviet/anglo/american supply lines with near impunity. So yes, they would have won. They wouldn't even need an A-10. A jet aircraft that could fly high with precision laser guided weapons would have won the war easily for either side.

>>33293755
If the Avenger's cartridge was changed to the MK103 30mm, that would be even better, keeping the rotary cannon of course.

>>33296244
it helps that it can climb at least 1km higher than the P-51...

>>33292502
*Masturbates to thought of 30mm GAU-8 slaughtering Ivans whilst having kickass markings and camo*

>>33296383
Not only can it not actually do that, it wouldn't help at all.

Hi, I'm physics and the 3 Dimensional art of aerial combat, have we met?

>>33296383
WW2 prop fighters can literally climb higher, at a faster speed, than the A-10.... you're not very good at this

>>33296504
I'm sorry, but no. the P-51 D/K has a 42 kft service ceiling while the A-10 has a 45 kft service ceiling
the Mustang can do 437 kts at 25kft (after which performance drops drastically), while the A-10 can do... wait for it... 490 on the ceiling

>>33296488
> it wouldn't help at all
are you stupid, or just faking it? because I can't tell
if you can climb higher and go faster than your opponent, he literally can't reach you, but you can descend upon him at a place and time of your choosing
this is aerial combat 101. energy management, maneuvrability and shit like that only comes in if you're closely matched in these basic aspects

>>33296654
>if you can climb higher and go faster than your opponent...

>the A-10 cannot do this

>>33296756
you keep saying that, but you don't provide any proofs
where are your proofs?

>>33296551
Actually it cant, and few A-10 pilots have ever taken their aircraft past 22,000ft, the A-10 does not fair well in thin air. WW2 prop fighters neared 40,000ft on the reg.

File: 1467341306527.jpg (157KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1920x1080px

>>33296776
>WW2 prop fighters neared 40,000ft on the reg.

>>33296774
>the actual performance of the A-10 itself.

Hey, I have an idea, go fly one for yourself, then report back, your ability to do so is much closer than you think

File: 1487030804392.jpg (181KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1600x800px

>>33292502
>Is this enough to turn the war?

Yeah. Assuming by 'turn the war' you mean from defeat to a standstill where they could negotiate something like a return to pre-war borders at least.

What you described would have been enough to shred Normandy and stop the Russian advance simultaneously.

>>33296756
It literally can.

see >>33296551

>>33296790
>I've never read a single history book, memoir or autobiography from a late Western front pilot

>>33296825
It cant, wikipedia will not help you here

File: A-10-vs-fighters-wwii-korea.png (57KB, 602x339px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 602x339px

>>33296848
Dude there was enough technological advance between the late WWII era stuff and the A10 that even though it's a low altitude ground attack plane it could still outclimb fighters from that period. It's just a fact. There's no reason to cry.

>>33295932
Not in Nazi Germany in 1944.

File: ernst and herman.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>33292566
Okay then, they get no bombs except a limited number of dumb bombs, but on the other hand, Hitler is replaced with Göring, unless this post is dubs, then Ernest Röhm comes back as a zombie.

>>33296833
A lot of WWII fighters had service ceilings of 40,000 ft but if you actually think they normally operated that high you're certifiably retarded. Bombers, yes, but not fighters.

Not even the guy you're responding to btw

>>33297072
Actually reaching your service ceiling can be difficult for a skilled pilot. The reasons should be obvious. That's the point you literally, physically cannot push the plane beyond (assuming standard temperature moisture etc.) And there's no magical line where suddenly the air gets a lot thinner, it just slowly gets thinner and thinner. So the closer you get to it the harder it is to coax another foot out of her. It's still a fair comparison because they're all affected by that in about the same way.

>>33296973
>outclimb

It literally can't.

>>33297072
Fighters literally flew top cover ABOVE the bombers, with German fighters flying even higher than that to get the bounce on the escort fighters

>>33297395
It literally has a climb rate nearly twice that of most WWII fighters. What kind of weapons grade autism is this that you can't even read?

>>33297433
see
>>33297376

You don't know shit about actually flying. Reaching an aircraft's actual service ceiling is incredibly fucking difficult. Most bombers flew formation at 20,000-30,000 feet. And most of them were much closer to 20,000 feet. And by the way, that is for actual DEDICATED high-altitude bombers. Most tactical bombers did their runs at like 15,000 feet. The B-17's service ceiling, which again is a THEORETICAL MAXIMUM for that airframe, was only 35,000 feet.

Dude, you're wrong. Just fucking admit it and go read a book. Most dogfights would never go above 15,000-20,000 feet and even then that would be against initial interceptor and escort waves.

File: Defeated German soldier in front of burning Reichstag. Berlin, 1945.jpg (129KB, 500x681px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 500x681px

>>33292502
No, simply no. First and foremost, Hitler would still have overall command, with a bloated and inefficient chain of command that intersect almost to the point of being self-sabotage.

Even if eliminated from that scenario, the competitive streak and disdain among German field officers for their fellow officer, would have fucked up any concerted efforts by such a group.

This is just taking command philosophy into account. Not to mention how fucked Germany was looking going into 44. That applies largely in regards to a cable force, in sufficient numbers, with an efficient command network that is able to act independently of any other force.

Whether stormfags like it or not, German supremacy through feet of arms during WWII was fucked from the beginning.

File: The shell of the German Reichstag in Berlin, 1945.jpg (385KB, 1657x1250px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1657x1250px

>>33297589
Shit, also forgot war-resources at the point of 44.

Hell, Germany had to invade and conquer Poland in 39 just to subside their own failure to support their own economic military production domestically, a model that repeated itself. Until, losses started to become more than the value of previously obtained gains.

>>33297437
b--b-b-ut muh p51

File: Screen_170313_213649.jpg (641KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1920x1080px

>over 400mph, and getting faster, while climbing

File: Screen_170313_211906.jpg (898KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 1920x1080px

>barely 30,000ft, and now stalling...

>>33297919
>or FW-190D9
>or Ta-152

>>33297589
Agreed, by 1944 the situation was almost completely hopeless.

If the scenario was 1939, I wonder the the technology would have been enough to win devastatingly decisive battles and force any nation they chose to the negotiating table.

File: hahahaha.gif (385KB, 1200x787px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1200x787px

>>33292502
Why don't we actually make this INTERESTING?

Canada gets a few dozen avro arrows.

The fatherland gets a few dozen tornado bombers.

Sweden gets half a dozen Grippens.

Soviet Russia gets a dozen Su-47 and another dozen Frogfoots. Ббббббpppppppppppppppттт!

China gets a handful of J-20s.

And America gets a handful of F-32s.

>>33298109
>F-32s
gashunk?

File: YF-23_Black_Widow_II_2.jpg (24KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x450px

>>33298124
What, you think america should get F-23s? That would be rather unbalanced, and would make for a pretty unfair scenario.

>>33293904
Youve obviously never seen how fucked an A-10 cam get and survive. Its the stuff of legend. Besides any critically damaged planes would go into the parts machine.

File: zx.jpg (3MB, 1280x4586px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x4586px

>>33297481

File: a10damage.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>33298280
Praise be unto indestructible BRRRRRT.

File: 20170313_233807.jpg (1MB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1707px

>>33297481

>>33292893
>Philadelphia Experiment II,
>>33292935
>make a movie

>MFW I realize I can't get back those two wasted moments for sitting through the stupid trailer for the waste of film movie....

>>33297072
how the fuck would the bombers have fighter cover if they flew higher than the fighters

>>33299652
He doesn't know, he's probably some warthunder fag

>>33292502
>Is this enough to turn the war?

Extends it by 3 months

>>33292502

Fuck an A-10. Instead of 100 A-10's, give me a couple of B2 bombers. You don't even have to give me a nuclear payload.

I guarantee you the goddamn war is over as fast as the fucking surrender can come over the wire.

>>33298280
>>33298867
Many A-10s have been shot down. But that is also because we send them straight into hostile areas.

They are far from invincible.

File: 1488315529724.jpg (166KB, 2100x1400px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 2100x1400px

>>33300159
I think a supersonic low pass over Allied HQ in a B-1B would get their attention. Especially since the speed of sound was still unattainable at the time.

>>33296186
How would the P51 shoot the 'flying tank' down? I mean it was made to survive 23mm soviet AA and we all know what kind of guns the P51 uses...

>>33296186
>not just taking it out with a sidewinder from several miles away

>>33300285
Not him and perhaps dumb question: but would the heat of a V12 engine be strong enough for the Sidewinder to lock on?

>>33297022
>Not in Nazi Germany in 1944.
Then what were all their Messerschmidt running on, hopes and dreams? Airplane fuel is essentially just kerosene.

>>33300182
A p51 could do it but only just

>>33292560
If you think about it, an A-10 could push a bomber's shit all the way in. A WWII bomber, anyways.

>faster than them
>mounts a fuckhuge gun for making bomber confetti
>more maneuverable then them

Give it some HE 30mm, it'll turn bomber formations into bomber confetti. Probably could take out WWII tanks with 30mm HE from the upper areas and sides, too.

>>33300319
They also came apart when they hit the sound barrier, anon.

Straight wings were incapable of being built strong enough to break mach 1.

>>33300344
Is that why the X1 broke the sound barrier three years later with straight wings?

>>33300361
>three years later

Notice the part where I said WERE. During and immediately after WWII, we made a fuckton of advances, both in metallurgy and in aerospace science.

Hell, half the problem with the P51s and such hitting the sound barrier was that they would do it in a near vertical dive from max altitude, and the airframes just couldn't handle maneuvering at those speeds.

>>33294104
>the range
They have terrible range once loaded up for a a mission.

>>33295243
>250 nautical mile combat radius fully loaded for a mission
No, they wouldn't be able to carry out decapitation strikes.

>>33295916
A warthog will do over 500mph, it's going to shit all over everything in world war two in terms of speed numnuts.

>>33300319
No it can't.

In a dive it could approach the speed of sound but not break it. The prop by definition is moving faster than the aircraft since it has all the forward movement of the aircraft PLUS it's rotational velocity. Therefore the prop always goes supersonic before the airframe does. The prop drastically loses thrust when it goes supersonic.

A prop driven aircraft can't go supersonic. The prop can go trans sonic and it sounds awesome. But there sill be no sonic boom like jet.

The B1 could shatter every window in a building by buzzing it supersonic at low level. It would scare the shit out of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swSt8WcVBG8

>>33298867
For some world war two bombers that's just a scratch. I'd love to see it survive a flak burst up the ass.

>>33300276
>made to survive
If .50 projectiles get into the air intakes it's fucked, if they rip off anwing it's fucked too. Plenty of ways to fuck it with .50's.
The 23mm proof part is the pilot, the rest of the plane isn't.

>>33300309
Yeah, they were running on hopes and dreams. Germany had a big oil problem.

>>33300309
Doesn't mean it was easy to come by though does it, fucko.
>>33300324
Everything you said applies you later world war two fighters in comparison to bombers as well.
Faster, more manouverable and with large cannon armament. Didn't do the Germans any good though did it.

File: luftwaffea10.jpg (427KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1728x1152px

>>33292502
it couldn't hurt

File: 65dd376e0e8c2bd2b4ad57e2808767d8.jpg (335KB, 1024x750px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1024x750px

>>33300276
>>33298867

> made to survive
Bitch please!

File: 43-38172-3O-P_19441015_JBkb.jpg (134KB, 864x519px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 864x519px

>>33298867
>>33300276

File: cf8f34567a26b0107fb919c5c056baf9.jpg (153KB, 700x920px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 700x920px

>>33298867
>>33300276
a real flying tank

>>33293824
small unit tactics dont do shit if you dont have proper logisticsto back it up, which the allies had.

>>33292502
assuming the pilots were good enough to use them porperly and the command was smart enough to employ them tactically, 100 is a large number. i suppose if they applied them to the russian front, and used them to stop the allied bomber campaign, they could maybe prolong the war to the point where D-Day would have been postponed and Berlin got nuked with atomic weapons.

1944 was too late to turn the tide, the german airforce and army had already lost WAY too many experienced men, and the german production was fucking rubble. they had no resources. they would still lose based on war of attrition. they had no fighters, no submarines, no navy, and a dwindling armor and army.

i guess anything is possible but i dont know the stats of the A-10 well enough. can the A-10 fly high enough to intercept B-29s? i dont know how the germans would stop from getting nuked otherwise

>>33293755
>Also, can you even imagine how much of a shitshow D-Day would have been if there were 3 or 4 A-10s ready to strafe the entire beach or shoot down the boats in the water? Honestly, with 100 A-10s, Germany probably would have had the overwhelming air superiority to finally invade Britain and put an end t
>>33293755
did you forget that the D-Day armada was covered in anti air zepplins with steel cables and the allies had total air superiority with fighters and bombers flying all day

>>33300729
>>33300739
i think while novel, OPs premise has a problem with the date. you picked too late in the war and i dont think A10s would make a difference because they still need air support like fighters to back them up

>>33297926>>33297947
It looks like you are pulling way higher AOA in the A10. Unless its just the external camera angle

>>33298847
What book is this it looks fucking awesome

File: IMG_3763.gif (622KB, 375x211px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 375x211px

>>33295243
No because jet engines weren't that prevalent yet and it's a modern aircraft with modern technology so again no

>>33300294
you'd have to re-program it, and it would have trouble locking on, but it's doable

>>33300475
I intend to use them as high-altitude interceptors. they would fly with the gun loaded and MAYBE with two Sidewinders

>>33293824
Germans had automatic rifles a plenty. STFU you autist.

>>33300487
note that the combat radius on the A-10 includes NO LESS THAN 1 HOUR of loiter time. you could cross the Manche with it, but yes, it's not a strategic bomber by any means.

File: 1489213075111.jpg (23KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x375px

>>33295736
Just bought a proper stick/throttle. TM 16k.

I want to be a glorious DCS combatant like senpai.

I'd trade the 100 A-10's for ((almost any platform)) and an armament of ASMs.

Goodbye, carrier fleet. Goodbye, escorts.

>>33293824
>The Allies had better small arms, better small-unit tactics, better aircraft and air superiority, better tanks, better anti-submarine and convoy tactics, and even better quality materials like steel and tungsten.

Then how come the germans had a crushing K/D ratio in almost all battles ?

>>33292502
what fags think will happen:
>AIRSTRIKELAND HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE ON THE RECEIVING END MURIKA
what will actually happen:
>furher we got advanced weaponry! out of nowhere!
>vhe must make more of these vunderous machines vith german steel
>all 100 planes dissected for schematics and parts
>project rushed through testing because "WE MUST HASTEN EFFORT FOR MEN IN FRONT"
>august, 1944
>first plane rolls out the factory
>can't take off
>2nd plane rolls out of factory
>crash lands due to malfunction
>3rd plane rolls out of factory
>factory is out of fuel

That's 45,000 sorties, minus losses due to AA fire and accidents.

The Hog's service ceiling is higher than that of the P-51D. Shooting them down would be very hard.

If each sortie destroys one tank that's it for the Red Army. Realistic numbers are probably greater than that - I would imagine that they would be used as a sort of interdiction aircraft. 100 Soviet tanks heading for some town? A four-ship of Hogs would fuck them up to kingdom come and back. CBU-87/97s would fucking wreck shit. Not to mention the effect of a GAU-8 on WWII armor.

In addition, the ability to fly higher than the P-51D would be a significant asset.

However, as with most such new-vs-old comparisons within the 20th century, the real advantage is in precision and C4ISTAR. The ability to fuck shit up (conventionally speaking) hasn't changed too much, 1500 lbs of HE is 1500 lbs of HE.

But once you put a Paveway III kit on it, it becomes a flattened Parliament building, a destroyed carrier, a field HQ destroyed. Mavericks would do double duty as bomber busters, I would imagine. It would be very difficult to take out at its service ceiling, and even if they were bushwhacked by, say, P-51s or La-5s, the attackers would eat a bunch of 'Winders and then end up mixing it up with aircraft that outturn, outshoot and outaim them.

What this adds up to is both the ability to destroy any Soviet armored push (as well as tons of tube arty), complete control over the English Channel, and the possibility of strategic pinpoint strikes deep into enemy territory.

And so far, I've ignored the most profound aspect. These A-10s would, if they're C-models, have LITENING pods under the wings.

They would be absolutely game-changing intelligence assets. Flying above the interceptors with a thermal camera lighting up all the hidden tanks, troops, anything and everything. The element of surprise, a huge advantage of the Allies, would be completely lost.

Post 1/2

>>33301152

The end result of this would be complete despair among the Western Allies, knowing an invasion of France had become completely hopeless. The Soviets would see their juggernaut stopped and possibly even reversed, the armored spearheads that proved so crucial to their tactics destroyed as soon as they were identified. Bombs would rain on everything remotely important in London.

The big variable would be if the Germans managed to pull off an invasion of England within these three months. If they knew their time with these aircraft was limited, they would likely have some sort of land force in Southern England before their three months were up.

And after a bitter struggle, on April 1, 1944, these aircraft would vanish, and the United States would struggle valiantly to prevent Germany from using its second wind to overrun Moscow and London, push the last remnants of Allied forces from Italy, and from consolidating its control over all of Europe.

However, even as they changed the fortunes of the Wehrmacht on the battlefield, the Warthogs would not be able to shorten German supply lines. The LITENING pods would be gone and Germany would once again be in the dark. Bombers, fresh from the United States, would continue to pound German-held territory. And the German forces would be again fighting on even heel, if not in retreat like they were before the Hogs arrived.

And a year and a half or so from the end of this Luftwaffe menace, Berlin and Frankfurt would go up in flashes of blinding light. Without any warning, the leadership of Germany would be incinerated. The political, military and economic engines of the Nazi state would cease to exist. The threat of instant and fiery death would hang over every German citizen, and enthusiasm for the war would go out like a light. It's likely that some sort of settlement would be negotiated at that point, possibly slightly more generous than what happened in reality.

Post 2/3 (I'm more verbose than I thought)

>>33296776

There was nothing regular about flying at 12km high, even the luftwaffe specialized high altitude Mosquito hunters flew on average around 7-9000m.

>>33292502
>get shot up on ruways, just like IRL luftwaffe jets
>no replacement parts
>eventually get captured and give the world a two decade boost in arms and jet tech

>Is this enough to turn the war?
No.

>>33301204

Post 3/4 (haha)

For a second, though, let's imagine that the bomb destined for Berlin fizzled, and the Nazi leadership survived. They would immediately go into the deepest bunkers available and begin planning for a new kind of war.

It would be, in the end, futile. The source I have appended to this post describes seven bombs ready by September of 1945, working at maximum production capacity. And I do not believe our hypothetical German reversal in early 1944 would have inhibited the American capability to produce nuclear bombs.

Seven additional atomic bombs, for a total of nine from August to September. Eight cities, allowing for our hypothetical first fizzle.

Berlin.
Hamburg.
Munich.
Cologne.
Frankfurt.
Stuttgart.
Dusseldorf.
Dortmund.

All piles of rubble. And there would be not a shred of sympathy for those on the receiving end.

The successes of the German military would all become moot once there was no Germany to fight for.

And it would continue like that. Say in one final paroxysm of rage, the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS destroyed major cities in France, the USSR and possibly England, massacring the inhabitants.

Then at the very least, Essen, Leipzig, Bremen, Dresden, Hanover, Nuremberg, Duisburg, Bochum, Wuppertal and Bielefeld would be added to the list before the year was over.

Without any form of supplies other than those which they already had plus those which they could scavenge off the land, the once-vaunted and formerly rejuvenated forces of Germany would be reduced to marauding bands, and eventually mopped up and destroyed by troops from America.


http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/

>>33301276

Actually post 4/4 because I have class tomorrow.

During this entire write-up I have ignored Japan, but regardless of if the tide turned in the Pacific, Japan could not build up the sealift capacity to do so much as threaten Hawaii in the time it would take for the US to lay waste to Germany. After this, either Japan would surrender outright, or be bludgeoned into submission with a few more atomic bombs.

Although the most likely scenario is the first that I described, in which Germany, not Japan, is the recipient of the first few atomic bombs, I am including the rest partially because I feel like writing, and partially to illustrate the supreme effect of the Manhattan Project when compared to literally everything else that had been done to that point. For a brief time, there most likely was no nation on Earth that could have resisted the United States. Even the Soviet Union would have likely been unwilling to lose Moscow, St. Petersburg and Rostov without much in the way of an answer other than to hold out until they had developed the Bomb themselves.

For a tl;dr:

Only a complete disruption of the Manhattan Project or the advent of a Nazi nuke could have forestalled the eventual doom of the Axis, regardless of how the war went. Regardless of if the A-10s showing up had put a swastika on Buckingham Palace, the US would have still nuked the Germans into submission sooner or later.

>>33301276
you had me until you mentioned Bielefeld
as we all know, there is no such thing

>>33301303
you are correct as far as that goes (although I think the Soviets would quickly learn to disperse their forces and go to the defensive)
the major issue here is political.
IF the allied invasion is stopped and the British war effort stalled through strategic bombing, THEN Germany is in an excellent position to negotiate a separate peace, regardless of what Uncle Joe is doing or not

>>33300495
>A warthog will do over 500mph,

It wont....
My god you guys are dumb

>>33295932
KEK fuck no, it wasn't...

>>33301646
I have a top speed of 490 cited in some ancient Jane's
I suppose that's flying clean
what is your source?

>>33300933
>less than 500,000
>World War Two
>Plenty
No.

>>33301131
They didn't.
Also
>measuring combatant skill and fighting ability purely based on K/D
We're talking about real life not CoD.

>>33292502
A10s would be the best fighter and bomber of WW2. They would be able to bomb the USSR unmolested. That GAU would be enough to destroy any ground vehicle of the era.

>>33302404
>They would be able to bomb the USSR unmolested.
Nah, not really. It wont be efficient at high altitudes, at low altitudes prop fighters would be able to catch up and have a non-zero chance to shoot it down.

>>33292608
>shot down

By what airframe in WW2? Nothing could catch it and even if it did, .50 and 20mm isn't going to down it.

>>33302420
>By what airframe in WW2?
Basically any mid-war.
>Nothing could catch it
Wtf is diving?
> .50 and 20mm isn't going to down it.
Even one intermediate bullet has chances to down it. And 20mm is quite a substantial threat.

>>33292893
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnw29tXqJbs&list=PLC66043951F072E1B

>>33302418
What kind of world of warplanes VS are you smoking?

>>33302460
555kmh is not unachievable for ww-2 airplanes, Spits would not even need to dive to catch it.

>>33302433
I think you are mistaking the fast a plane of the era could reach for what speeds they could get to and maintain in a pursuit.

>they could dive!

More like they will tear apart their plane trying to gain enough speed to catch up to a modern jet aircraft.

>>33302479

They can't curse at 550km you idiot. Thats like claiming a beater car can maintain 250km/h becuase the meter has a tick mark for that speed.

>>33302483
>I think you are mistaking the fast a plane of the era could reach for what speeds they could get to and maintain in a pursuit.
I think you are mistaking A-10's maximum speed with the actual speed it can fly with payload and reasonable range.
>More like they will tear apart their plane trying to gain enough speed to catch up to a modern jet aircraft.
A-10's cruise speed - 560kmh, Spitfire Mk VC speed 600kmh.
>>33302494
They do not need to cruise at 550kmh, imbecile.

>>33293755

>Some nay-nay palms on dem rooski sucidece rushes!!

Do you describe yourself as a "gamer" on your CV? You seriously think that some napalm drops was going to change the situation on the fucking eastern front? Jesus harry christ, even with targeting pods and gudided missiles you'd be hard pushed to find, and STOP the armored attacks, and once you ran that shit dry you'd have to fall back on the GAU which takes you don't to medium flak range where you WOULD tank so much damage the aircraft would be rendered inoperable very quickly.
Here's your (you) you fucking retard.

>>33302494
And, by the way, Me-262 wasnt very different from A-10 speed wise, it had even a bit higher max speed. Still go shot down, you see.

>>33302506
>muh bing bong spitfire wonder plane!

I forgot it was noguns sharia law prime time. Spitfire engines can't maintain speeds to interdict a 1970s designed jet aircraft. Even if they could the lead core rounds of a Hispano cannon aren't going to guarantee a kill.

>>33302548
Britain did have a Jet fighter too y'know...

>>33302548
>I forgot it was noguns sharia law prime time
I am not a brit. Spitfire isnt even the fastest plane allies had, i brought it up as an example.
>Spitfire engines can't maintain speeds to interdict a 1970s designed jet aircraft.
Holy shit, you cant read? It does not need to.
>Even if they could the lead core rounds of a Hispano cannon aren't going to guarantee a kill.
Ok, that bastad shredded you a little bit, you got away. Lets assume your airfield did not get bombed into ashes the next night. What now? Are you going to fly it as it is, damaged?

>>33301303

Breddeh good quadrupe post man. Well-reasoned and enjoyable.

>>33292502
maybe w/100 hans ulrich rudel's to go with them.
then, fuck yeah.

File: 1489454666896.jpg (232KB, 1800x1172px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1800x1172px

>>33302240
>I have a top speed of 490 cited in some ancient Jane's
>I suppose that's flying clean
>what is your source?
Freshly extracted from his arse.

>>33302418
A non-zero chance, sure, but they'd have to mess up pretty badly to lose many of them to prop fighters. As in committing single planes with no backup, perhaps. Come on, if you're Russian air defense and you have 100 of these coming at you in rotations of say 20 at a time, there's no way in hell you're going to have an adequate counter.

>>33302433
>Wtf is diving?
A maneuver that trades altitude for speed. No good at all in trying to catch a plane that's higher than you are!

>>33302532
>Me-262
Similar performance, less powerful weaponry, MUCH less protection from weaponry, yes it could catch an A-10 (unlike everything else being flown at the time) but even they would have a hard time. And the allies had nothing comparable, again the scenario has the GERMANS getting the A-10 not the Allies.

>>33304554
Lets think about this here,
There is a german flight of 5 A-10's on June 10th 1944 flying at 7000 feet searching for shermans. Now at this altitude the A-10 can probably reach 450mph, however the A-10 is fully loaded with weaponry. Because of this the A-10 is now flying at 410mph. Now a flight of P-51's are flying at 10,000 feet, searching for enemy planes. These P-51's dive on the A-10s going, the Mustangs reach about 450mph.

These P-51's could catch up to and bring down a couple of these A-10's. And even if they had trouble the Gloster Meteor will be introduced in July and they can outrun A-10's.

The allies can kill the A-10's, they can catch the A-10's, they can bomb the A-10's. TL;DR Hitler is a moron and Germany still loses the war.

File: 1482980740745.jpg (30KB, 395x344px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 395x344px

>>33305723
Sure, you cherry pick a fantasy scenario where they can catch them. It could turn into a dogfight and that would be where the A-10 is weakest. It's not designed for it, it can climb faster but I don't see it turning faster at max speed, not by a long shot. It would be a bloody melee for both sides at that point.

But if you were the German commander, would you let your A-10s fly into that situation? Why? Maybe as a gamble on the 89th day but there would have to be something extraordinary on the line to take such a risk.

More likely scenario - send the first flight out stripped down - no bombs, nothing but AA and sensors. They fly high, at least 20k, and use those sensors, they map out where the ground targets are, and where the defenses are in real time. As they're nearing their patrol area, a second flight launches, armed to the teeth, with a third flight on ready alert to go after them.

As the second flight is taking off the first spots your flight of P-51s, patrolling in a good spot to ambush the planned attack on your primary target just as you described. But my first flight spots them, and confirms a secondary target they are not in a good position to cover. Second flight changes plan to target secondary target. First flight observes.

The P-51s spot our first flight about this time, flying more than 10k over their heads. They can try to climb and engage, but they'll be at a big disadvantage doing that and they know it. They don't know that the attack on your primary target has diverted to secondary, but even if they did they couldn't do anything about it. And our third flight will take off with full load and move on the first target about the time these guys run out of fuel.

What do then oh allied commander?

>>33301148
kek, this is probably pretty true, by 44 methfuhrer was no longer thinking well.

the a-10 would probably be unmatched by anything flying.

>>33292566
>Nazis still lose because Hitler was a retarded faggot.

On meth. A lot of historyfags kinda gloss over the fact that he was a meth user.

>>33293824
>Better small arms
Debatable

>better small-unit tactics
That's a relative thing

>better aircraft and air superiority
Arguably, yes

>better tanks
Debatable

>better anti submarine and convoy tactics
Arguably yes, and on sea, sure. Convoy tactics on the ground is a different matter.

>better quality materials like steel and tungsten
Debatable, I'd say it started to slip in early to mid 1944

Try harder next time. Then again, even when you present someone with facts, they can choose not to accept those facts even if the facts disprove their argument.

>>33305975
Assuming all things being equal to the post you're responding to, I take heart that you've dedicated 15% of your total A-10 fleet, and 1/3rd their available daily sorties, to a highly specific scenario covering a small portion of the European theater.

>>33307451
Well yeah, at least at first, that's exactly how you would have to do it. Concentrate these things in only 2 or 3 places where they can do the most good and take no chance of losses.

>>33306189
The entire German war machine was on amphetamines.

>>33307654
The problem with that is you're getting your shit wrecked everywhere else. There is also the fact that using them in tactical bombing roles puts them in a lot of danger. At this point in the war the radar tracking and anti-aircraft gun laying are commonplace among Allied forces.

File: 1470366927584.jpg (18KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x360px

>>33307844
You're just giving more reasons you have to do as I say.

Spread them out and the allies will find some way to counter them. You can't risk that, that's the end.

Concentrate them where the enemy has most of their shit and just level everything in the area, it's the only sane thing you could do.

>>33292553
>>33295932
Actually germany didnt have any fuel but they did have knowledge that could male synthetic fuel some one in usa leaked it

>>33302532
The Me262 and A10 are wholly different aircraft... and have nothing in common performance wise


Jesus Christ, /k/, this is very simple. THE A-10 IS NOT A FIGHTER. IT CANNOT ACCEL INTO THE VERTICAL AT WILL LIKE A NORMAL FIGHTER, IT STALLS AFTER BARELY A SINGLE TURN, ITS TURBOFAN ENGINES CANNOT FEED THEMSELVES PAST 25,000FT.

THE A-10 IS NOT FAST, IT DOES NOT HAVE AT ALL A SIMILAR T:W OF ANY WW2 PROP FIGHTER. IT DOES NOT FLY AT '500'MPH, AN A-10 PILOT IS LUCKY IF HE HITS 320.

JESUS CHRIST, LITERARY ALL OF YOU CAN LEARN HOW AN A-10 FLIES, RIGHT NOW.

*educate yourselves*

>>33308422
b-b-but muh wikipedia statsheet arguments!

>>33292566
>>33306189
>>33297589
Okay, even if Hitler has to be there, let's say a few other people are eliminated, like Himmler and Ribbentrop for starters?

they are owned by someone autistic enough to waste shitloads of fuel and materials to terror bomb england in the most incredibly ineffecient way. he suicide bombs them into a few libraries and nothing happens.

seriously this is the guy they had to sneak the stg past

>>33308422
>AN A-10 PILOT IS LUCKY IF HE HITS 320
you keep forgetting to provide citations for these outlandish claims of yours

>>33312603
>thinks max mach rated speed for the airframe in a dive that is stated on wikipedia is the same as its max speed it can attain level flight on any given day

You're an idiot

>>33293797
>the United States and Russia would probably fight over who their new best friend would be to get access to that sweet sweet jet and laser-guided bomb technology.
Let's say that the USA wins that race, by virtue of basically owning Russia at the time due to lend-lease programs etc. Russia was basically bankrupt anyway so it can't really bid.

USA gets A10s in 1944, reverse engineers them, comes up with AIMs, laser-guidance, jet turbines and arguably most important, radar targeting, all that cool stuff.

They then improve it all through the cold war.

The A10 was designed/built in 1970-1972. If the USAF had A10s in 1944 and 26 years to build on them...what kind of planes are they going to be building in 1970?

Well, 26 years after the A10 was built in our timeline, they came up with the F22.
So in 1970 in OPs timeline, the USA invents the F22 and at some point, whoever wanted to send 100 A10s back to the Nazis sends 100 F22 instead.

So this timeloop now has nazis with 100xF22 and I think it's clear what happens to air superiority in Europe then.

Who the fuck knows what that timeline looks like in 1970 but there are definitely some interesting air fighters around.

>>33313310
> still not providing any sort of citation
> not understanding that max speed is always, always given as measured at cruise altitude in straight and level flight.
get fucked

>>33313512
>> not understanding that max speed is always, always given as measured at cruise altitude in straight and level flight.
Sorry, that guy is a retard and you are mostly right, but this is not right. Typically they'll either list max speed at nominal cruising altitude OR at sea level, you do need to check which you're looking at.

Either way, the A-10 is not a fast plane by todays standards but it certainly could keep up with prop-driven fighters from the 40s and it's a good point to note that this guy has been claiming otherwise the whole thread but not posted any sort of source for this claims at all.

>>33313549
> at sea level
never saw that in yurp, where I live, but maybe it's a thing in bongland or somewhere?
> source
I don't think he has any