Theoretical history

>>34755137
Yes

>>34755137
no

File: 1501514580244.jpg (1MB, 4288x1797px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x1797px

Yes.

>Hey Truman, we have this plane . We will give you a squadron of them as well as all the tech to fly them in exchange for a conditional surrender to the US and UK and not to the Soviets. You must stop the Red Army from advancing on Berlin and to return to their 1939 borders.

>>34755137
absolutely. Mass bomber execution, precision bombing even without GPS, you still have INS. The 22s dont have the range to strike the US, but from germany to England and back? Drop tanks? yep.

>>34755137
Nah. With their speed, stealth, and ability to kill outside visual range, they'd be untouchable. But they don't have the range, numbers, or logistical support to have a huge impact.

>>34755202
>Hitler
>being this strategic.

>>34755224
How many B-17 bombers were in a typical airgroup? I ask because one F-22 with a full ATA compliment could take out 5-6 BVR on it's own while completely ignoring the escort planes.

Add 1 more F22 for another 6, etc. Can they carry anti-ship weapons? Same scenario for allied aircraft carriers.

The war would have ground to a stalemate, even if the F-22 couldn't be used for significant offense, their ability as a defender during that time period is ridiculous.

>>34755246
There are just too many variables to consider unless op gives us something to work on. Is it late in the war, or early? Are all ordinance available to 22s right now fair game? Are the Germans allowed to reverse engineer and produce more?

File: 1498392536757.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>34755137

>>34755246
>sorties for a half hour
>kills a shit-ton of planes/whatever
>the rest of the day the B-17s continue bombing everything into oblivion
Nah.

The numbers were all on the side of the allies, full stop.

Considering the retarded shit krauts pulled off, they would probably be used for gun runs vs. soviet tanks or something after they fail to dive bomb with them

>>34755303
>posts how pointless, overdone, and idiotic "what if" threads are
>instead of ignoring, still decides to put effort into shitposting in said thread
Lurk moar or get out faggot

>>34755137
>fly for 3-4 hours
>maybe take out 8 planes with missiles and one or two with the gun
>land
>sit there and get bombed to fuck for the next 12 hours
>get back in the air

nah. maybe if you up the numbers dramatically. say, 300-400. with 12 planes you simply can't get enough in the air to do anything substantial. either you put all the planes up at once and suffer a devastating gap for the rest of the day (and once that becomes apparent to the allies, they will simply up their bombing runs once your planes are down), or you try to attain even coverage and fail to do what 100 shitty prop planes can.

Taking only ATA value into account is disingenuous. Yes, they could shoot down bombers all day, but the bombers will still get through by weight of numbers. Assuming all F22s sortie together, and assuming perfect accuracy, each F22 shoots down 20 bombers, 16 with missiles 4 with gun. 12x20 = 240. Assuming a 500-bomber raid over half of the bombers still make it through.

The true asset here would be in it's recon and air-to-ground capability. Keeping 2-3 planes over England doing constant flyovers will give Germans a heads-up before a bombing raid is launched, sortieing an additional 2-3 planes out per airfield to strike the bombers with cluster munitions on the ground while they're still arming/fueling will prevent the raid from being launched, period, or at least reduce the numbers so drastically that contemporary Luftwaffe planes will be able to mop up. If the Germans figure out a way to engineer a designator that can spot for Paveway, JDAM etc. the damage could be even more extensive. Attacking convoys at sea, for example.

They still get buttfucked by the Russians and lose. If they decide to use the F22 on the Ostfront, they might be able to turn the tide against the Soviets only to be bombed into submission by the Western Allies.

In short, no. It makes no difference. None of these "future tech transported back in time to help the Reich" scenarios make a difference. The only way for the Germans to win involves not fighting a 2-front war of attrition against the most populous and industrially-capable nations on the planet.

Germany lost when they failed to take Moscow in '41.

>>34755137
1 m1 abrams tank would do it already.

Nothing from the WW2 can touch the m1

>>34755137

Not even close.

12 aircraft is about enough to have two flying at all times, probably down to one at a time knowing how maintenance heavy it is.

That's 6-12 arraams and 2-4 Sidewinders to protect all of Germany's interests.

Even if you were to keep all the fighters in Germany and only launch them to counter raids, that's anywhere from 2-20 raids a day, and without any ATC or AWACS, identification becomes a huge problem.

>>34755495

Or losing a million troops in/around Stalingrad on, effectively, a dare.

File: I'VE BECOME SO NUMB.png (893KB, 602x868px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 602x868px

>>34755546
or having pic related happen.

Don't waste your time using it to defend from bombing runs. Instead use it to perform previously impossible missions, like taking out enemy infrastructure, leadership, lines of communication, etc. If you can't destroy their military, destroy their ability to effectively wield it.

>>34755137
The biggest thing you could do is fly them past British RADAR installations at high altitude utterly untouchable to the enemy. then blast the snot out of a key target or two then gtfo. Just use them for recon and maybe cratering some runways in advance of major air raids or hitting otherwise well defended high value targets if you can find out where they are in time.

They WOULD make a major difference, but not nearly enough of one and not for anywhere long enough to matter in the grander scheme.

>>34755597
Unless those F22s come with KC130's I don't see them making it to America or past the Urals.

>>34755648
>wait until D-Day
>bomb americans
simple, mein fuhrer!

>>34755699
Ah yes, I forgot about the factory-ships that manufactured tanks, rifles and ammo, vomiting forth war materiel right onto the Normandy beachhead.

>>34755738
it was a joke about bombing the americans when they come to france because you can't fly to america, you autist.

Depends what stage of the war we are in. They could have done a number on the RAF in the battle of Britton, which wouldn't have helped with a landing, but would have achieved the air superiority needed for one. As many have said they would be useless against any major bombing mission, but to use >>34755495 as an example, you would be dropping roughly half of the bombers. If they could pull shit off regularly the morale of the allied bombers would plumit, and the command would see the losses as too high to continue bombings.

Either way they can't stop the Russians, or keep the jets in the air.

>>34755392

You're talking as if Germany wouldn't have their normal airforce still. They held out for years in the OT, there wouldn't be any gaps like that.

F-22 Radar could be a big advantage for Germany defense - 400 km of range could change many more of allies bombing rides to complete failure. But that, in the end, will only buy them some time. Only game changing would be if they get Raptors with nukes.

>>34755137
>Destroy over 100 bombers every time they sortie
They will attrit the bomber fleet into nothing, neutralise the West and have Germany fight on only one front. Axis wins.

Here's a better question: would bombing Chain Home have effected the Battle of Britain?

>>34755856
>Use the F-22 as AWACS because of it's magic radar and untouchability
Seriously underrated suggestion

But really it depends WHEN the Luftwaffe gets the Guns of the South style crates of F-22s. If they get them in 1939? Easy peasy victory. 1945? Allies wouldn't even notice.

>>34755220
they might have the legs to BTFO the English fleet too. Maybe not well, but the Brits wouldnt be able to do anything about that.

>>34755137
Fly London, kill Churchill. Fly again, kill whoever they put in his place, repeat until Britain surrender. Do the same with USSR. Why the war in one month.

>>34755286
Ok, hypothetical: 12 Raptors become available to Germany as soon as the US enters the war; all non-nuclear payloads currently available to the 22 are fair play. They can be repaired, but tech cannot be reverse-engineered and more cannot be manufactured.

Would the psychological impact alone not have a huge impact on Allied bomber doctrine? Picture the fear factor of the 262 and multiply it by 1000 when facing a vehicle that can travel faster than sound and can kill you before you can even see it, not to mention the result of a single cluster bomb going through the roof of buckminster palace

>>34756036
Do the Germans get laser designators as part of the deal? Remember the F22 can't spot for itself.

>>34756036
>12 Raptors
Keeping them in rotation over the Rheinland for use as AWACS and to lob AMRAAMS at bombers seems like the best way to employ them.

The psychological issues would be fun because no allied pilot would ever be within visual range if you're using the Raptors right. Instant rumours of German death rays.

>>34756072
>12 raptors
>1000 bomber raids on the reg

see >>34755495

>>34756096
You missed
>for use as AWACS

The radar on the F-22 is it's strongest asset. Total, millimeter precision radar coverage over the Reich would force multiply existing interceptor squadrons. I do like the idea of high value target assassination though.

>>34756096
Those 1000 bomber raids would quickly be depleted to whatever handful of bombers can be produced in the days between between raids, and become suicide missions.

>>34755306
You're discounting the morale damage that would come from an entire bomber mission coming back with no bombers and no bombs dropped. My point was the F22s could cherrypick their targets from altitude and BVR and pop them. They wouldn't have to tangle with escorts or anything and the allies wouldn't be able to do anything to counter it.

You'd run out of pilots before you ran out of bombers.

How many AMRAAMs come with the F-22s?

If it's infinite rig them up as SAMs and use the F-22s for tracking bomber raids

>>34755137

If it came with modern munitions then yes. They would have free reign to destroy enemy airfields and supply lines with absolute impunity. it all it had were its guns it wouldn't make a huge difference aside from a psychological advance. It would have bought the allies a bit more time but wouldn't change the outcome.

>>34755341
All I hear is an assblasted wehraboo

Guys what if the Nazi's were all 10' tall and completely bulletproof? Would they have won WWII? What if they had nuclear lazer guns that could destroy a city block and ran on sunlight? What if Hitler pulled the plans for the F-35 out of his butt one night and put it into mass production? Surely he would've won then, right? Please help me justify my hatred of losers and love of Nazis, please /pol/- uh, I mean /k/!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 4chan, every fucking thread ever.jpg (60KB, 346x440px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 346x440px

>>34757425
>>34757526
If you hate a type of thread don't post in it, you only get more replies for the thread. The best course of action is not to go into every thread you don't like to bitch, instead ignore it and find a thread you like.

>>34755231
>Implying that Hitler wanted to fight the british.

>>34755137
They could literally shoot down like 500 bombers a day

Yes it can be effective against bombers, but imagine the anti-ship abilities. 12 Raptors could sink the entire Royal Navy in one month without any loss. And i'm sure it would also be the same deal with old Super Étendard and Exocet

File: avatar-press-uber-issue-2.jpg (107KB, 453x700px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 453x700px

>>34757526
>Guys what if the Nazi's were all 10' tall and completely bulletproof?

There's a comic about that actually

>>34758014
>this is what Wehraboos actually believe.jpg