Tried similar here: kzitem.info/news/bejne/qoqozJqGgIxldIo
@Make-Asylums-Great-Again
2 жыл бұрын
M25
@andrewstrongman305
2 жыл бұрын
It might be possible to damage the bombers engines with jet-wash, or crack glass and damage instruments, but the risk of collision makes it a foolish tactic. Better to zoom and boom with guns before RTB for refuel and reload.
@rebelroar78
2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewstrongman305 yeah, one crash and the RAF has lost 5-10% of its aircraft.
@dumbperson4061
2 жыл бұрын
Pretty silly that the British didn’t think to use their f-35s in the actual Battle of Britain
@colecooper5836
2 жыл бұрын
I've always found it weird that they used Matildas and Cromwells while their challengers sat at home.
@tomasinacovell4293
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, even the Luftwaffe would laugh at that lame looking VTO transition. And those AMRAAM would be far more destructive than that, in fact hitting just one bomber in that formation would have taking the closest adjacent 2 bombers on average.
@robmanueb.
2 жыл бұрын
They couldn't as it was considered unsportsmanlike conduct.
@RebMordechaiReviews
2 жыл бұрын
I agree. Not to mention the RAF Space Battle Cruisers in orbit, just sitting there with multi laser cannons and not being used. (Comment made in 2051)
@Just_lift_anyone
2 жыл бұрын
Oooooh my gwwwaaaaad they didn't eveeeen have the F35 in WW2!!!! Seriously though why didn't they just nuke the Germans with their Vulcans ?!
@Roboticgladiator
2 жыл бұрын
I could imagine the confusion of the Luftwaffe when their planes just started exploding for no apparent reason.
@syitiger9072
2 жыл бұрын
Ikr
@beauxr.benoit1374
2 жыл бұрын
The F-35 would break first.
@ArxInvicta
2 жыл бұрын
The confusion would be very limited - planes exploding for no apparent reason is just another tuesday for ww2 pilots. Basically on a weekly basis the enemy came up with some random new idea to shoot down planes - be it the german "schräge Musik" or unguided air to air missiles, even AA proximity fuzes caused a nasty surprise when they were first introduced. I think the "real surprise" would come from the planes speed - just like the B17 crews were shocked by the ME262. Didnt stop them from firing back at it though and most crews accepted the new plane as "just another enemy to fight" So I would assume the german crews would get over the sight of the F35 rather quickly.
@ShaunHensley
2 жыл бұрын
@@ArxInvicta Yes, they'd over it quickly because they'd be dead
@westrim
2 жыл бұрын
@@ArxInvicta If any F-35 gets close enough to be seen, they messed up, or there were more bombers than missiles so they decided to try a gun run.
@b2tall239
2 жыл бұрын
115 bombers......my, how things changed a couple of years down the road. Later in the war there was a half-joke going around among Germans that went "If you see silver planes in the sky, they're American. If you see green planes in the sky, they're British. And if you see no planes in the sky, they're German" Great video and scenario. Thanks.
@robertofulton
2 жыл бұрын
The German army joke in 1944 was if the plane were British we ducked, if the planes were American everybody ducked, if the planes were German nobody ducked.
@b2tall239
2 жыл бұрын
@@robertofulton I've posted a variation of that...."If there are silver planes in the sky, they're American......green planes, they're British.....and no planes, they're German."
@bmw_m4255
2 жыл бұрын
@@b2tall239 i don;t get it
@joshuaortiz2031
2 жыл бұрын
@@robertofulton yeah because american pilots were infamous for friendly fire incidents. Americans never change.
@danieldunlap4077
2 жыл бұрын
The F-15EX would seem to be the better aircraft for this scenario. It can carry up to 20 AAMRAMS. This would allow more targets to be engaged at once, and you could hopefully avoid getting close enough to where the Germans could engage you.
@TheNobleFive
2 жыл бұрын
F-1SEX
@BENKYism
2 жыл бұрын
It will be able to carry even more JATM's once the missile enters service
@shanedoesyoutube8001
2 жыл бұрын
@@BENKYism what's that???
@BENKYism
2 жыл бұрын
@@shanedoesyoutube8001 A new missile to replace the AMRAAM
@shanedoesyoutube8001
2 жыл бұрын
@@BENKYism and what's the acronym for it??? I thought it's joint anti tank missile but then I don't think it makes sense, more like joint air tactical missile
@RebMordechaiReviews
2 жыл бұрын
I would be very interested in a Battle of Britain simulation but with RAF 1950s fighters, in other words, the aircraft which were developed from lessons learnt during WWII. How would RAF of the 1950s do against the Lufwaffe of the 1940s. Sounds interesting?
@Twirlyhead
2 жыл бұрын
Lessons ? The RAF had very good fighters in the Battle of Britain, no development lessons required. Then through the war there was a rapid evolution responding to changing requirements. 1950s were jets of course. There is a video on YT of Gloster Meteors training against B29s: the speed differential is startling especially when they tell you that the film is slowed down so we can see what is occuring.
@RebMordechaiReviews
2 жыл бұрын
@@Twirlyhead "no development lessons required"? What? All Britain had available for the BofB were Hurricanes and Spitfire Mark 1s. I would argue that even 1943 Spitfire Mark 9s would have been much more effective. The development of the Spitfire increased in leaps and bounds in terms of handling, speed and most importantly, in terms of fire power and increased magazine capacity. It is interesting however to note however, that in a unique encounter in 1949 between WWII era Spitfire Mark 9s flown by Israeli combat veterans of the war and some 4 Spitfire FR18s from No. 208 Squadron RAF Middle East got into a scrap over the Sinai. Suffice to say, the RAF did not come off well. It gets worse. The RAF then sent up Typhoons to intercept the Israeli Spitfires and also suffered considerable humiliation with a Typhoon being shot down for no IAF losses.
@Twirlyhead
2 жыл бұрын
@@RebMordechaiReviews LOL. What _are_ you going on about.
@isaiahwelch8066
2 жыл бұрын
@@RebMordechaiReviews : No, not at all. The planes of the RAF in 1941 were not Mk-1 planes. There was already development underway with every plane, save for the Lancaster bomber, which was not very effective. But the Spitfire was already at Mk-3 when the Battle of Britain happened, the Typhoon already had the 1b and 2b variant, and the Hurricane had the 1b variant -- meaning, that the the Hurricane and Typhoon already had tactical bomber variations, despite the fact that they were heavier fighters than the Spitfire. I imagine a more apt comparison would be comparing the Hurricane and Typhoon to a Bf-110 that the Luftwaffe had. Sure, the Bf-110 could act as a fighter, it could act as a bomber, but it was much worse than a pure fighter, like the Spitfires and the Bf-109s.
@RebMordechaiReviews
2 жыл бұрын
@@isaiahwelch8066 The Battle of Britain, which I specifically referenced, is recognised as waging from 7 September 1940 to 11 May 1941. All online references I found state that during this period, the RAF flew only Mk Is and IIs in those battles against the Luftwaffe. I would be happy if you could show me a reference which states otherwise.
@romakrelian
2 жыл бұрын
Some of them were destined to get through. The good news is that Hermann Göring still has to explain why he thought it was a good idea to waste all those bombers on a target that could be repaired in less than a day.
@mbukukanyau
2 жыл бұрын
The moment they started dropping off the sky, they would turn tail and run, they wouldn’t have any idea what they are colliding with
@MrDJAK777
2 жыл бұрын
@@mbukukanyau WW2 pilots regularly (well I guess the Luftwaffe a bit less the allies but still substantial) flew straight through flack exploding around them at eye level knowing that was going to be the case when they took off and watching others get hit they still continued on to target I don't think another unpredictable weapon hitting them would change their determination much.
@mbukukanyau
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrDJAK777 Yes, yes, WW II is a different time. The typhoon didn't exist, nor the brimstone
@breckhollis1089
2 жыл бұрын
Tactical failure, but a strategic success. During WWII, the maximum loss rate per mission for bombers was 5%. And that was the absolute maximum. Anything above that would force the suspension of your bombing campaign. Also, that airfield would probably be operational again in a day or two.
@dirkwink9470
2 жыл бұрын
Realistically you've made several German squadrons combat ineffective and caused a significant amount of casualties. The damage to Manston isn't that bad. Craters can be filled, the grass runway section is untouched and almost all the buildings intact. That base is still operational and most damage can be patched up within 24 hours, if that long. If it wasn't for the loss of the F-35's (and lets be honest, real pilots in proper F-35's (not the mod F-15 avionics) would have been far more effective) this would have been a great success. These kind of losses in a single day would have been a punch in the gut for the Luftwaffe and set back the German operational tempo by a lot.
@DarthCody700
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, there's the fact that if the Germans encountered this durring the Battle of Britain, by at least the second time they would be postponing operations to finguee out what the hell was going on
@raymondlantz9278
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly...God save the queen!
@T33K3SS3LCH3N
2 жыл бұрын
F35 is such a weird choice. No point to go for a stealth plane against an enemy with barely functional radar to begin. At this point using a more modern plane is actually downgrading it for the role at hand. It's specifically made to be effective against modern high value targets rather than masses of low tech.
@hellothere1656
2 жыл бұрын
Ye the f35 only has 180 rounds for its gun whilst the f15 has 940.
@LondonSteveLee
2 жыл бұрын
Sea Harrier with a full compliment of 72 SNEB rockets each would have probably been a better choice.
@stevenlarratt3638
2 жыл бұрын
2 key points to consider, 1 imagine being a survivor going back saying they flew near us and loads of planes blew up near them. That would be devistation to morale and mean they might not strike again. 2. Also seeing a plane with no conventional prop engines and flames coming out the rear passing by at 500knots or past the speed of sound would be a massive WTF moment in the ealy 1940's... Try flying high above the fighters and down from behind the closure speed would be lower
@stevenlarratt3638
2 жыл бұрын
@Modoc Jack the Jets at the end of the war although fast in comparison were a step forward, but the F35's are a leap forward. The ME262 had limited range of firing and could be seen and tracked still as it would need to be within a short range. The F35 would be hitting and taking many multiples of targets down before even being seen, that is a massive difference . Kill ratios are drastically different as well. ME262 achieves a ratio of 4:1in the second world war, F35 in this simulation?
@breadngames
2 жыл бұрын
A sonic boom that close to a bomber from WWII could have a serious chance of injuring the people inside and shattering the glass. Those planes weren't really meant to tolerate those forces. Might be able to down the squadron with just repeated super sonic close passes lol.
@fabiosemino2214
2 жыл бұрын
Seems to be a good script for a Roland hemmerich film
@ClingyCrab
2 жыл бұрын
@@breadngames Forget shattering glass, a plane of that mass flying in supersonic speeds near those bombers would tear them to shreds. Just remember the movie “Final Countdown” (I think), in which when a couple of F-14s flew past some A6M’s, the pilots of the zeroes almost crashed due to the wind being created, and they weren’t even going as fast as an F-35 could. This was all also in live action.
@andrewstrongman305
2 жыл бұрын
This could be more workable if the F-35's were able to RTB and reload after volleying off their first payload. They could also use their superior speed to attack the bomber stream from above and to the sides. In order to avoid friendly-fire incidents, a caracole-style attack could be conducted. As they circle, only the leading F-35 fires so there's never any chance of a missile locking onto a friendly.
@breadngames
2 жыл бұрын
Also I swear those bombers and fighters were defending against those missiles in a couple cases.
@emperorkalan
2 жыл бұрын
...or RTB and then spawn a second, replacement group after the first came in. That's how I've handled it in my own cross-tech scenarios, although maybe I just couldn't figure out commands to have them reload.
@paulzuk1468
2 жыл бұрын
Forget the bomber stream entirely. Strike the bases, Luftflotte HQs, fuel and ammo dumps. Cluster bomb the airfields, kill all the generals, destroy the supplies they need to keep the bombers flying. Done.
@tomasinacovell4293
2 жыл бұрын
It's a retarded comparison anyway, they should have tried it with A-10's, and they don't even intercept when they could have.
@andrewstrongman305
2 жыл бұрын
@@tomasinacovell4293 Yeah, A-10-s are faster than 109's and can carry a massive missile payload before going in with the Gauss. They could wreak havoc before breaking away before the fighters could even respond.
@drtidrow
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder how they would cope in real life if you did a close flyby at maximum speed - would the shock waves coming off the F35s be strong enough to severly damage or crash the Ju88s.
@andrewstrongman305
2 жыл бұрын
Probably not, but it would terrify the crews!
@MrRandalfscott
2 жыл бұрын
There's a chance it might break some glass instruments, maybe a windscreen if very lucky, but that's about it
@MeanLaQueefa
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe with a B1 full afterburner
@APV878
2 жыл бұрын
I do hope to see DCS have 1950s and 1960s Interceptors at some point, it'd be really interesting to see a coordinated intercept with a bunch of F-102's, even something like F-89s and F-93s with a ton of aerial rockets. I also wonder how well a squadron of F-15s or F-14s would do in this situation
@badgermcbadger1968
2 жыл бұрын
Yes yes yes
@billisaacs702
2 жыл бұрын
1) Forget a carrier. Use an airfield. 2) Ripple fire immediately and turn around for reloading. Do this like a merry go round. It's all about volume of fire. No time for nonsense.
@bjorn7355
2 жыл бұрын
I think it would have been interesting to use A-10 warthogs
@yuuzyerbrejn9603
2 жыл бұрын
Love this idea, way fun! Here's one for you, and in the realm of reality- what if the soviets had been prepared on June 22, 1941? In other words, could you simulate the massive Luftwaffe preemptive strike that day except have the soviets armed and ready with all ground and air assets involved? Would it be worth it even? Wouldn't the germans just be destroyed? Anyway, great content mates!
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting...
@arsenyjsharov2239
2 жыл бұрын
Also don't forget to use Su-27/35/57 with it.
@emperorkalan
2 жыл бұрын
@@grimreapers If you do that, set the SAMs to only initiate fire at a reduced distance. The 40s planes move too slow, so if the SAMs are set to fire at max range, the planes stay outside optimal range too long and, while most hit, there are enough missed shots to grind your teeth over. Limited range is more effective.
@BD-yl5mh
2 жыл бұрын
I really like that one. Because it seems almost plausible that someone like a diplomat or something MIGHT have been in a position to pass along a credible early warning but didn’t
@yuuzyerbrejn9603
2 жыл бұрын
@@BD-yl5mh Actually BD they had all the early warning needed, Stalin didn't credit it as plausible and bears full responsibility for the state of soviet forces. Soviet intelligence was always well informed and they had the particulars of Barbarossa, just wasn't acted on.
@andrewmetcalfe9898
2 жыл бұрын
3:38 - ‘fighters going after the same target” isn’t a problem with the F35 because of sensor fusion and teaming. All of those missiles are BVR ordinance, so should be launched immediately upon take off. Frankly a single AWD with evolved sea sparrows (say an evolved Airleigh Burke Destroyer with an 80 VLS tube Mk41 Aegis guided quad packed missile system) would do the job in one missile volley (with a second volley to mop up).
@HeyZeus096
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I think the 8 fighters coordinating with an AWACS would probably make short order of the bomber stream.
@brickisland6353
2 жыл бұрын
Can't the F-35B fire it's missiles like 30km away? So you could take out about 80 planes even before they know what hit them. And then you could drop on them from like 30000 feet. And they wouldn't even know what hit them.
@pancake5830
2 жыл бұрын
10:39 "why cant i find any baddies on my radar?" i felt that..
@johnparrish9215
2 жыл бұрын
I have to say that one of the things that is never modeled, I don't know how it could be, is moral. If you think the Germans would not be affected by these superweapons slaughtering them you are wrong.
@trottheblackdog
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Those crews, seeing their mates simply explode, with no idea what happened, would be highly disconcerting. Might even be enough to get the bombers to abort mission. At any rate, a 50% kill on the bombers has to be a success by WWII standards.
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
Fair point.
@icyknightmare4592
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder what would have had the greater effect on German morale: Absolutely none of their aircraft returning, or too many survivors coming back with the same story of unbeatable British superplanes.
@NSResponder
2 жыл бұрын
The optimal scenario would be two German survivors. Make it clear that they were spared intentionally, and if you have two witnesses, you can't really dismiss the story as hallucination.
@PrinceWesterburg
2 жыл бұрын
I asked a guy I knew who was a Ministry of Defense stratergist, how long the might of the Vermacht would last against our non-nuclear missiles of all types and one squadron of Tornados and he reckoned they'd be on their knees within an hour, half a day at most as we'd cripple communications, electricity, gas, water, military installations and runways just with cruise missiles alone!
@alganhar1
2 жыл бұрын
Right up until the point we run out.... We do not stock that many of them, and there is no way the engineers of 1940 would be able to 'reverse engineer' the things like some suggest they could. Reverse engineering does not work that way, solid state electronics would be years away at best even with actual physical examples to copy. Also I think your friend misjudges the pernicious resilience of the Nazi regime, after all, those things HAD happened to them and it took the almost total destruction of German infrastructure and Industry as well as the occupation of the entire country to pull them down. Something that may want to be considered in that scenario.
@tonyroberts4807
2 жыл бұрын
Same battle but Kuznetsov with SU-33s armed with R-27ETs. Could also try USN with hornets, they can carry a lot of missiles and more gun ammo. Finally for fun, frogfoots with full gunpod load out 😁
@ettavictor4804
2 жыл бұрын
The GAU-12 on the F35 has a magazine capacity of about 180, compared to the 400 or so 20mm rounds an F22 can carry.
@emperorkalan
2 жыл бұрын
I've done a number of cross-tech scenarios mostly relying on AI, and yeah, AI for modern jets is always rubbish against 40's tech. It never sticks to its advantages. You can get around that some by setting it to RTB once it's expended its missiles. You really need human pilots to let the modern jets be the monsters they can be against 40s tech. Here's a scenario: Thanks to whatever BS fictional reason modern units are operating in a 40s battlespace, supply is very limited, and for the most part you can only use aircraft that can operate from unpaved airfields or the occasional paved road. Let them act as night fighters (even if you film it in daylight to have decent video), mainly to take enemy fighters out of the mix. How would a number of A-10s and Harriers with gun pods fare against a 40s bomber formation? (One that isn't trying to replicate Greatest Day numbers, to keep it manageable. I'll also suggest putting the bomber crews at lowest quality, since they're not supposed to be used to shooting at jets.) It was cross-tech stuff (your jets vs warbirds over the lake) that put me onto GR and DCS in the first place, so thanks for that.
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks
@shearfury147
2 жыл бұрын
great video again missed this channel. let the binge begin. ill share as much as possible on social media
@thefamilydogs3213
2 жыл бұрын
Ok so I’ve been thinking about this a lot and what I think we could do to put the ball in your favor more is to add 2 fleets in the channel. One close to the west so they can engage targets as they cross. The other fleet should be within striking distance to the east. Both fleets should be Royal Navy to stay within that facet. So with the additional fleets you will stay within the original parameters aircraft wise. The Eastern fleet can be used to launch player assets. In this case also increase the number of player assets to 10-15 with 2 respawns only. The Western fleet has one full deck of AI and no internal aircraft. Then spawn the rest of the F-35B’s in their original location.
@Wilson2005WAW
2 жыл бұрын
This is quite an interesting fictional scenario. I honestly enjoyed it.
@Brykk
2 жыл бұрын
Kinda makes you wonder if a10’s could take on a task like this. Closer range to the base but the a10 being able to use their gau. I dont know, some kind of slower moving plane with lots of machine guns.
@willwozniak2826
2 жыл бұрын
Pretty cool how you guys used the ramp to take off.
@bennielovejoy1305
2 жыл бұрын
I really like these "time travel" what if's. Now granted I am not up on the BoB, But I would think that the shock of seeing bombers in your group just explode out of no where would put anyone off guard. Not to mention the sonic boom perhaps. And also would not the F35's have still had help from RAF? It's my opinion that they could have helped in stopping The battle of Britain.
@johnparrish9215
2 жыл бұрын
Hmmmm..... Replace a Lancaster Bombers bombardier with the radar and fire-control of a modern fighter and fill that huge bomb bay with AA missiles. They can't model it but in my mind it makes me laugh.
@anditsP
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnparrish9215 every Lancaster pilot becoming an ace within 5 minutes flying straight and level hahaha
@fredflintstome6532
2 жыл бұрын
How about RAF F4 Phantoms? Air Defence loadout - 4 Sidewinder, 4 Skyflash and a Vulcan gun pod. Yeah baby!
@nickmcgookin247
2 жыл бұрын
As a valued member of the community. I say this looks fun. Good thinking like a ture production manager.
@essexginge9167
2 жыл бұрын
Strafing them from above on a fast fly by would be the quickest way to take them out
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
We found the 88's could defend themselves really well from above.
@ketsan
2 жыл бұрын
In fairness, in real life suffering 50% casualties in one raid would have given the Luftwaffe serious kanalkrankheit.
@Bohdan_Medvedskyy
2 жыл бұрын
Holds the explosion of a warhead 120))) But dies after a couple of hits from a cannon. Well tuned the strength of the aircraft ...
@DavidSmith-yv2vb
2 жыл бұрын
F35s aren't designed for dog-fighting, they are stand-off fighters, launching missiles from beyond visual range. Unless you absolutely have to use the cannon, there is no need to get within bullet-catching distance
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
agree
@creightonfreeman8059
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder how the EMB 314 Super Tucano would have done in the Battle of Britain. It has similar speed to WWII Warbirds but has modern electronics and weapons. I don't know if DCS has modeled this plane or not.
@STScott-qo4pw
2 жыл бұрын
i'd love to see this - modelling super tucano single seaters and twin seaters vs luftwaffe. as the planes are very similar in terms of speed it would be very interesting to see how it plays out.
@tylerhendrix14
21 күн бұрын
The F35 can engage at a much further distance than literally any aircraft at the time. It's essentially a turkey shoot.
@robertofulton
2 жыл бұрын
In reality. The entire formation would turn back when 40/50 of their number exploded randomly with no warning and no enemy in sight.
@eli6797
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I saw in someone else’s comment that bombing groups had a margin of loss percentage of like 5 percent before they called the mission off and sent the whole formation home. If this were to happen, once they saw the first 7-8 bombers destroyed with none of the fighters even seing an enemy, I’d imagine the morale was completely gone and they’d turn back immediately. Those missiles are moving so fast that they make all the German aircraft (especially the bombers) look like it’s sitting still.
@robertofulton
2 жыл бұрын
@@eli6797 indeed. Be little different to putting a modern main battle tank on the field at Waterloo
@LSwick-ss6nm
2 жыл бұрын
At what range could radar detect the incoming raid and would there be a chance to RTB and re-arm considering the speed of the lightning vs the speed on the enemy? I also agree with another comment regarding the likelihood the Lightning would be too fast for the gunner to track.
@keithhoss4990
2 жыл бұрын
They didn’t need radar, the French resistance usually call in air raids
@jamesknowles2445
2 жыл бұрын
Ah, the KZitem recommendation algorithm
@Wolfen443
2 жыл бұрын
The Germans had some advanced prototype aircraft and some early missile tech, try that with the best warplanes and missile tech the Luftwaffe could have had in 1946 maybe?. Interesting experience , the more advanced and early prototype German warplanes had the same problems targeting the slower Allied bombers at the time.
@shaundavidssd
2 жыл бұрын
Lol rockets ,not missiles
@slowhornet4802
2 жыл бұрын
We need a Grinelli mod Ta-183.
@Wolfen443
2 жыл бұрын
@@shaundavidssd , right rockets sorry.
@OseanBigshot444
2 жыл бұрын
(5:58) That star transition is pretty snazzy. I don't remember this Mario 64 level though. (12:00) The cockpit voice is very polite and family friendly. Love these "Final Countdown" type vids! The biggest problem always seems to be the AI in DCS, they really need to do some overhauls. Even when you set behavior limits, the AI seems to just ignore it anyway, or kill themselves on take off lol.
@slowhornet4802
2 жыл бұрын
"Even when you set behavior limits, the AI seems to just ignore it anyway, or kill themselves on take off lol." I am sure there were times when Cap was thinking exactly the same when leading the GR team into missions 😎
@DragNetJoe
2 жыл бұрын
Total WW2 production of fighters and bombers on both sides wildly exceeds production of air-air missiles. About 15,000 JU-88s were produced, over 30,000 109s.
@JustEffinLetMeIn1
2 жыл бұрын
How about something that could have happened? Like: - De Havilland Vampire + Gloster Meteor vs. Ju-88 - De Havilland Vampire + Gloster Metor vs. Horton Ho-229 - Hawker Hunter vs. Horton Ho-229
@Skepperly
2 жыл бұрын
A flight of B-1Rs would be a good contender for this scenario
@techforthedisabled9514
2 жыл бұрын
If you had f35 pilots the German AI wouldn't stand a chance and A10 would have cleaned house
@dancole3187
2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video! I love watching these hypothetical videos. You could try this one again except with all human pilots in the F-35s.
@benja_mint
2 жыл бұрын
upvote this!
@gargk999
2 жыл бұрын
Only if you also transported the infrastructure needed to support them. External power could not be applied, as the trolley-accs used back then do not have the voltage, nor the correct connector. To keep the battery charged, you'd have to run the APU almost all the time the aircraft was on the ground. (Which also brings fuel/oil problems - see below). Any engine fault that requires engine (or component) replacement would be problematic. Any FCU/oil pump/fuel or oil filter problems would ground the aircraft. With a central European contract for engine servicing, engine bays on active RAF stations have limited ability to carry out module replacements - anything more requires shipping to the deep strip contractor. Some of the avionics boxes in the plane also cannot be deep-stripped in the UK, due to the contract signed with the USA. Some can only be replaced, box for box, and any deeper repair carried out in the USA once the box has been shipped back there. I am unsure if (like the Tornado) the engines can be run on AVGAS as well as AVTUR/AVTAG. If not, then as (at the time of the Battle of Britain) there were no operational jet fighters, the F-35s would manage one or two sorties before running out of fuel. There would possibly be problems with oil to top up the engine as well, with the Tornado using a synthetic oil (OX36? Been a while!). If the F-35 uses a similar synthetic oil, there would be difficulty in supplying it. Focusing only on the air-to-air ability of the plane gives a somewhat false outcome.
@kingtigerbooks1162
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks to computer simulations we can find out how a small group of modern fighter jets will do against a massive array of WW2 fighters. Only in a good simulation can such wild battles take place, without anyone getting hurt. To me it's the stuff of Sci-Fi. To whom it may concern, my 3 favorite science fiction art books are : - Wonderworks by Michael Whelan - Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson - Icon by Frank Frazetta
@alastair9446
2 жыл бұрын
Those missles probably cost more than a WW2 fighter.
@realalcibiades2909
2 жыл бұрын
What you have to take into account is that in real life if planes were exploding in the air from an invisible enemy while they hadn’t reached the channel it’s likely the morale of most of them would have broken and they would have turned round.
@theganymedehypothesis4057
2 жыл бұрын
F35 vs FW190?? My money would be on the Focke-Wolf, no aviation expert ever called the Focke-Wolf a "flying pig"...
@MrNufzed
2 жыл бұрын
My money would be on two squadrons of 1950s Era fighters to do a much. Ore effective job
@bearcatracing007
2 жыл бұрын
Valued viewer request: Can a squadron of F-35 beat 5000 cows?
@hades0572
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe but it'd have to be over land and not an island.
@jesuschrist7169
2 жыл бұрын
If this doesn't happen there will be trouble! Also Mooooo
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
5000? GoFundMe a NASA super server?
@darrenfinnerty3872
2 жыл бұрын
The luftwaffe would feel the US airforce in the movie independence day
@garethonthetube
2 жыл бұрын
If the bombers were flying in tight formation, a couple of well-aimed missiles would probably wipe out several planes in one hit. Destroying a complete squadron would make them give up pretty quickly.
@theheartlandgroup757
2 жыл бұрын
That’s not how this works….
@Joe_duffy
2 жыл бұрын
Next time. Do it with 8 humans or same 3 guys but reapawn as soon as your out of ammo so that total only 8 planes take flight
@kaijohnson5033
2 жыл бұрын
Nice Eagle cockpit on the F-35😂
@hammysholdingpattern8692
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, an idea I sent in got used! (Not exactly what I suggested but close enough. I'll take the win)
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
Good job!
@Brian-mr4gf
2 жыл бұрын
I suspect that Skyhawks with gun pods would fair better. Use one gun pod at a time leaving the internal guns for last.
@peterbrazier7107
2 жыл бұрын
Untill the USAAF came over Manston was a Grass Airfield, it was paved as an emergancy Airfield for damaged returning Bombers in 1943?
@anotherHelldiver
8 ай бұрын
F-35 with a F-15C cockpit looks so wrong
@fredkruse9444
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if old F 101 Voodoos with Genie air-to-air nuclear missiles could vaporize the entire attack.
@richardstuart325
2 жыл бұрын
Can't beat the subtle approach!
@ivorbrae
2 жыл бұрын
This was brilliant. It would be good to give this another go with a few more actual beautiful hyoomans in jets. How about the ability to return to the QE to rearm?
@pahtar7189
2 жыл бұрын
If the F-35s had attacked only the first group of bombers, they'd likely have wiped them out entirely. They could have then RTB and rearm before the second group arrived.
@karlostj4683
2 жыл бұрын
The mating dragonflies: Clearly an "off-by-one" error.
@bigphizza2819
2 жыл бұрын
Line abreast attack with rocket pods!
@goldenstateaviation2861
2 жыл бұрын
I love these. It’s like a tv show final countdown
@Anarchy_420
2 жыл бұрын
I love time travel lol Cool vid concept watching now👍
@nicomeier8098
2 жыл бұрын
Those Ju88's are beautifully rendered.
@JabbaTheYutt
2 жыл бұрын
i can say this... the f-35 cockpit looks absolutely nothing like that
@nomercyinc6783
2 жыл бұрын
The canons on modern planes would decimate fleets of old planes. New armor piercing rounds melts through old world armor like butter
@andyf4292
2 жыл бұрын
maybe load up completely with sidewinders? or,,,, a gunpod on each pylon?
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
rgr
@lohrtom
2 жыл бұрын
Your Victoria Cross is hereby revoked
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
I want that cross!
@ADB-zf5zr
2 жыл бұрын
#GrimReapers Here is an idea for you, although I doubt that the missile in question is in the game. Battle of Britain (as above video) vs a F104 Starfighter with it's nuclear AA missiles...
@cesaravegah3787
2 жыл бұрын
If they managed to fix the gun targeting software, yes.
@moortz_bb
2 жыл бұрын
"The bomber will always get through" Stanley Baldwin 1932.
@BarryChumbles
2 жыл бұрын
Please could you do 15 otters and an angry worm vs. Adolf Hitler with a stick?
@laurieharper1526
2 жыл бұрын
I'd be interested to see how less high tech would fare. Harriers, for example, with their manoeuvrability, wouldn't suffer the same difficulties tangling with fighter escorts, but still be able to deal with the bombers.
@gaxanuziagain1748
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Cap, sorry to bring this up, but you did actually shoot Simba down. Your kill feed showed @14.39 that it was your sidewinder that destroyed Simba's aircraft. In saying that though, I do think your "zoom and boom" tactics were far better than just blindly firing missiles into the mass of aircraft. Great series, and I look forward to more!
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
whoopsy!
@simba1113
2 жыл бұрын
wait what. Cap you swore that wasn't you. How could you do this to me Cap we've been besties since pre-school. the back stabbery that has just gone on. hahhaahahahahah these things happen.
@gaxanuziagain1748
2 жыл бұрын
@@simba1113 I think Caps aim is to "accidentally" shoot down every member of the Grim Repairs, and it has been a while since he shot you "accidentally", Simba...
@Kizahd
2 жыл бұрын
first bomber group uncontested might be wise, free ground AAA fire (obv. not in sim)
@Tyler5346812
2 жыл бұрын
I noticed a bunch of bombers get hit drop bombs and then still continue.
@jonniepotter1194
2 жыл бұрын
I would of thought the F35 cockpit would be much more High tech than that
@grimreapers
2 жыл бұрын
That's an old Eagle cockpit.
@clarencesolomon137
2 жыл бұрын
Following the announcement by the CIS in September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.
@rocketremity9571
2 жыл бұрын
Tbh i thin that irl it would be much more effective because if i was a german squadron leader and i just saw few dozen of bombers in my formation blow up out of now where i´d be scared af and just retreat
@jamesberwick2210
2 жыл бұрын
If I were using F-35's against piston engine aircraft, I would never directly get in and duke it out. One thing I would try, take all eight F-35s, fly from behind and get them up to Mach 1, use the bow wake from the Sonic Boom and fly through so fast the gunners could never track them, hit them from eight directions, the disruption from the bow wake might send them out of control, some crashing into each other, the fighters could never catch them, then do it once more if it works and fly right though their formations, then from outside their gun range, fire missiles and take out the lead aircraft, then fly through just below Mach one, and strafe them and get the hell out of there when ammo expended and go back and rearm. At Mach one that very bow wake that makes the Sonic Boom maybe more effective at sending old aircraft down, out of control without ever firing a shot.
@minstew
2 жыл бұрын
You wouldn't have the fuel to do that. Maybe if there were a couple tankers to support the 35s, your plan would be feasible
@jamesberwick2210
2 жыл бұрын
@@minstew Be fun to watch, WW2 planes and something out of nowhere blasts through at 700 mph. Half their numbers would bail then and there, no way to catch them.
@Twirlyhead
2 жыл бұрын
"English" ! It's called The Battle of _Britain._
@surprisedchar2458
2 жыл бұрын
>Squadron 617 Ah yes. The Dam Busters in their most famous operation of WW2. Dabbing on bombers in futuristic jets.
@TehShinegami
2 жыл бұрын
surprising how so many bombers shrugged the missiles off
@Webby304
2 жыл бұрын
To be honest a squadron of Thunderbolts would be more effective, the damage the can take plus larger ammunition would make them very effective against prop aircraft.
@beetledesert8642
2 жыл бұрын
They are attack aircraft, not interceptors. The gun itself isnt supposed to be used against air targets as depleted uranium rounds does not leave behind tracers, also the A-10 is extremely heavy, the 2 jet engines can only push the A-10 no faster than a P51 Mustang. So yeah, IDK why ppl think the A-10 is a fighter aircraft.
@robertsneddon731
2 жыл бұрын
The A-10 is a slow aircraft by today's standards although it just about matches what a high-speed WWII fighter-interceptor aircraft could achieve (ca. 400mph). Any A-10s used against incoming WWII German bomber and fighter streams would spend a lot of time getting into position to launch attacks on their targets, assuming the guidance from the ground could direct them there in time (and I'm pretty sure the radios aren't compatible with what Fighter Command was using back in the day). I'm not sure if the A-10 actually has air-to-air radar, it certainly doesn't have the battlespace awareness[1] of the 21st century F-35s so co-ordinating operations against even 1940s bombers and fighters is going to be a stretch. However the F-35 is one part of a complex interlocking data system with satellite uplinks and downlinks, connections to other aircraft like AEWs, ground-based radars etc. Just dumping a squadron of F-35Bs at Manston in 1940 without all the other sparkly bits isn't going to be as big an advantage as it first might appear. The logistics of getting enough refined kerosene to fuel the planes for turnaround is going to be a real problem. There was an SF story, "Hawk Among The Sparrows" where a 21st-century A-12/SR-71-style fighter-plane ends up timeslipping to France during World War One after a close encounter with a nuclear anti-aircraft missile. The lost pilot was asked "Why do you need so much lamp oil?" [1] Long time back I read the account of an F-35A pilot who was preparing to take off on his first flight after he completed initial training - as he taxied to the end of the runway he realised his helmet display was keeping him informed about every aircraft in the sky for about 300km around the airbase.
@Yeetin_Boomer_Actual
2 жыл бұрын
No. Too much maintenance vs flight time. Typhoons, yes.
@captain007x
2 жыл бұрын
A Tomcat with Phoenix AAM could shoot them down over 50 miles away.
@robertsneddon731
2 жыл бұрын
The Phoenix AAM was decommissioned over 15 years ago when its intended target, Soviet supersonic bombers threatening American CVBGs with anti-shipping missiles ceased to be a serious threat.
@edvoon
2 жыл бұрын
A fast gun jet would have done much better - modern fighter jets are not meant to do much gun work as their missiles are meant to take out smaller numbers of fast moving bogeys. 180 rounds of ammo doesn't last very long at the fast firing speeds.For masses of slow-moving targets like this the size of the magazine is much more important. Any of the 1950s gun carrying jets (e.g. Hawker Hunter, Mirage III, etc) have 4x20-30mm cannons, and although the rounds carried per gun is roughly the same as the F-35B, because they fire slower the ammo lasts much longer. (And 4x cannons can put as much ordnance in the air as the single 25mm cannon of the F-35B)
@nickthx1138
2 жыл бұрын
Best thing simply ditch the ai and respawn in the available no. of jets as required.
@johnharris6655
2 жыл бұрын
I bet a squadron of A-10's in the war would be fun. Imagine an A-10 strafing a column of Tiger tanks. The bombing the runways of the Luftwaffe.
@MikoyanGurevichMiG21
2 жыл бұрын
Cap already did that..sort of.. long ago. kzitem.info/news/bejne/qqBs2HyBfZODfaQ
@FreshlySnipes
2 жыл бұрын
One single F35 could have ended the war entirely by sneaking into Germany and dropping a JDAM on Hitlers hideout.
@marcdavis4509
2 жыл бұрын
Zoom and boom there’s no way they can reach your altitude
Пікірлер: 841