Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

My vote would be the StuG IV
 
Jagdflieger said:
Hmm... I just can't see any wings on that M-18 aircraft

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...
I got your wings right here.............................



If those wings aren't big enough how about these.

or these for an impressive wing span


No wings but one of my favorite 1950s anti tank systems.

The vehicle couldn't fly (almost) but it could move a number of feet on the ground when it recoiled

Now can we go back to my idea of using 1939 Ford Anglia's as troop/supply carriers in the Ukraine


Edit, the Missiles and armored vehicles are from the 1950s and show how out of date anything that served in WW really was.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think that probably five or ten thousand of ANYTHING we used in WWII would be enough to make the Russians reconsider their plans. P-47, B-17, B-26, A-20, A-26, even C-47 or L-4.

I recall reading a comment by a WWII RAF about night ops over the ETO. You had RAF bombers going out at night, German bombers going the other way, RAF and USAAF night fighters and intruders on patrol, German night fighters going up to intercept, 100 Group and USAAF jammers and ELINT aircraft going up, RAF bomber support fighters going up after the German night fighters, RAF and USAAF special mission aircraft dropping supplies and picking up agents in Europe, a BOAC Mossie going to Switzerland, ASW aircraft going up.

Said the RAF pilot, "Good thing it was at night! If we could have see all what was going on it would have been bloody terrifying!"
 

It's a tin-can without the lid, max 1" frontal armor, 1/3" on the sides, and no top on the turret. Any MANPATS worth its salt would eat it for breakfast and look forward to lunch, not to mention the T-72s filling out the ranks on both sides.

Either side in this war would be better off with a T-34/85. Not as fast as a Hellcat, but better in the sog that's going on right now with its wider tracks. Good sloped armor, reliable once the transmission issues are ironed out in that mark, gun still too weak to take out modern MBTs but able to kill about anything else.

Light is good, but the Hellcat is much too light, and too lightly armed, to survive, imo, outside of quick raids and even then it's probably a tough push, especially in the urban environs fought over here, without top-cover and side-armor.
 
Modern armor has much better vision/sights than the antiques.
One reason the T-34/85 got it's butt handed to hit whenever it ran into western tanks was the poor ergonomics. It had a miserable rate of fire, it had a poor fire control/engagement system. The commander could NOT see well with the hatch closed up.

In a one on one dual it may have come out ok, in a twenty on twenty melee the faster firing tanks were often shooting up their 2nd or 3rd target while the slow firing tanks were just finishing up the 1st target.

And in todays environment lack of vision is even more important since all the buggers with their shoulder fired AT weapons are a lot smaller than the enemy tanks
 
Back to the idea of a WWII aircraft for the modern combat environment as found in the Ukraine.

I seems that the consensus is that the options are either some sort of very low tech (such as an ultralight or Piper Cub, or maybe a more capable bi-plane) for nuisance raids - or higher tech.

It seems to me that the problem of survivability is the issue.

If we go with the ultralight option, we may have some stealth ability, but grenades are about all we can carry. The pilot could use night vision goggles of some sort for night operations. But anything with a rifle or MG can easily shoot it down.

If we go with a low tech aircraft such as the Piper Cub dropping grenades or small bombs we have an airframe that is vulnerable to anything on the battle field that can see it.

The consensus seems to be that none of the higher-tech WWII airframes have a significant enough stealth factorI to allow survivability in the face of any kind of modern radar/IR controlled systems. So if we go with a higher tech/performance option - and we want it to survive - it will have to be big enough to be fitted with basic modern ECM and/or decoy systems at the very least (at least to the level of the modern attack helicopter). If it is to be employed at night it will also have to be big enough to fitted with some sort of night vision system (ideally FLIR). A large WWII fighter (such as the F4U Corsair) could fit the bill - the ECM/decoy systems could be pod mounted? There is more than enough room in the fuselage for basic modern night vision, navigation, and commo systems.

As far as weapons carriage goes, it depends on what weapons we want to carry. The late-war F4U could carry multiple 5" FFAR/HVAR under the outer wings, so carrying something like Hellfire/Brimstone missiles should be no problem. If we do not worry about self-carried laser designating systems - then no problem. If we want to have laser designating ability in/on the airframe along with ECM/Decoy systems - then we are again talking about a large airframe, so an F4U with another large under-wing/fuselage pod?

A Москітний (or some other twin-engine airframe like a A-20/A-26/F7F/etc) would be big enough to carry all of the above mentioned equipment, reasonable ordnance load, and a 2nd crewman to handle the additional work load. A squadron attack of Москітний, with modern nav and commo systems, underwing ECM/decoy pods, and a 4000 lb Cookie, could ruin any ground unit's day. But ?

I realize that retrofitting the systems mentioned above is not necessarily all that simple, but I know that there are/were pods in service preprogrammed before TO and turned on/off by the crew upon interring/exiting the ops area, so maybe?

Just some thoughts.
 
Last edited:
No piston engined fighter can live with supersonic heat seeking missiles - they lack the speed and kinematic performance to attempt to break lock.

Busting Mach, pulling 9G while popping flares - not with propellors you aint.
 
Hey Macandy,

re "
No piston engined fighter can live with supersonic heat seeking missiles - they lack the speed and kinematic performance to attempt to break lock.

Busting Mach, pulling 9G while popping flares - not with propellors you aint.
"

You should send a letter to all the armed forces of the world and tell them that ECM/IRCM and chaff/flare dispensers are worthless on anything other than a Mach 1+ / 9G capable airframe. So they should remove them from anything slower as they have no effect and are just a waste of money on attack helicopters, A-10 Warthog, Su-25 Frogfoot, transport helicopters, transport aircraft, etc.

All the helicopters in particular, as they are slower (the fastest attack helicopter is about 250 mph) with a lower max G load than most high performance WWII combat aircraft. The MV-22 is about as fast (~300 mph at sea level) as some of the slower late-WWII fighters. Even the Москітний would be faster (~350 mph on the deck) with a higher(?) max G than the helicopters.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the anti-missile countermeasures aboard Air Force One.

Since it can't pull 9Gs, it looks like that has to be removed as well...
 
I understand that back in the 50's the USN used to do mock nuclear attacks on US western cities using A-1 Skyraiders. Reportedly, they were never intercepted, although two did disappear on such a mission and were never found. Of course they were flying at low altitude using "nap of the Earth" flying techniques and a toss-bomb maneuver to deliver the weapons - and the pilots really doubted they would survive the blast. But I doubt that UKR has terrain that would facilitate the use of SPADs.
 
The summer of 1960 as a guest on the USS Hancock we saw the results of the war game in which we were the orange force attacking Southern California. The Skyraiders took off first and came back last due to their loiter time. A very interesting week.
 


Thats the A-10 that had to be pulled out of point ops in GW1 as it was suffering far higher losses to MANPADS than any other aircraft?
You must be one of the people demanding every western airforce buts cheap armed heat trainers for COIN and CAS - been tried, they die faster than they can fly.

Helicopters?
In your own time, name the fast movers that can move from carefully from terrain cover to terrain cover. Contrary to popular myth, an AH-64 doesn't scream around the battlefield at 175kts… its plays a delicate and very considered slow motion ballet with the landscape.
 
Macandy said:
Thats the A-10 that had to be pulled out of point ops in GW1 as it was suffering far higher losses to MANPADS than any other aircraft?
Click to expand...
Depending which source you want to believe 5-7 were lost, flew 8,000 sorties, a loss rate of .062 percent. The losses WERE NOT all from MANPADS at least 3 were shot down by SA-13s. I believe only one was shot down by a MANPADS
 
Hey Macandy,

1. The A-10 was not "pulled out of point ops in GW1". They ran out of targets.

2. In operations during GW1, there were 22x USAF 'fast movers' (not counting the OV-10 or AC-130H) shot down by AAA and/or SAMs. These included:
1x F-4G 'Wild Wiesel' by AAA
1x F-14A shot down by a SA-2E heavy SAM
2x A-6E shot down, with 1x AAA, 1x unknown heavy SAM
2x F-15E shot down, with 1x AAA, 1x SA-2E heavy SAM
3x F-16C shot down, with 1x SA-16 (Igla-1) MANPAD, 1x SA-3 and 1x SA-6 heavy SAMs
5x AV-8B shot down, with 1x probably AAA, 3x unknown MANPADS, and 1x unknown heavy SAM
6x A-10A shot down, with 1x AAA, 1x SA-16 (Igla-1) MANPAD, 1x SA-9 (Strela-1) MANPAD, 2x SA-13 (basically a mobile SA-9 Strela launcher),
___and 2x unknown SAM (one is thought to have been a SA-13) so possibly 5x A-10A shootdowns by MANPAD type SAMs

The total USAF 'fast mover' sorties was just over 43,000 in GW1, of which:
8,100 by A-10s
13,400 by F-16Cs
3340 by AV-8Bs

3. Most of the A-10 mission sorties in GW1 (over 8100 as mentioned above by FLYBOY J) were close air support and ground attack, many of which required low altitude operations and hence exposure to Regimental level AAA and SAMs. Some were flown at higher altitudes, such as when the Maverick was the main weapon used - and also included at lest 40 that were flown as 'Wild Weasel' (ie their load included jamming pods and ARMs) during escort of other A-10s or helos, and ~20 that were in effect armed reconnaissance.

Note that the Marines used the AV-8B for close air support and ground attack missions in a similar manor to the USAF use of the A-10A, and hence suffered similar losses.

Incidentally, 7 squadrons of the A-10 have been funded to remain in service until at least 2045. Although the A-10 remaining in service is often attributed to stupid politics, this is not really the case. One of the deciding factors was a series of 3 independent studies, all of which showed the A-10A as superior in the CAS role, although it was only marginally superior in 2 of the 3 main areas. The A-10 was found to be satisfactory in both marginal areas, and was found to be the only type capable of satisfactorily performing the third area mission. The only valid argument is whether the USAF can/should spend the funds on the A-10x rather than other platforms (such as the F-35 for example). The final statement put forward during the hearings by one Army general was "When the Air Force is willing to come down and fight on the ground along side of us . . . they can decide what we need [for CAS]."

4. I am quite familiar with how attack helicopters operate. As to their survivability in different environments? IF the US attack helicopters ever have to operate in the face of serious opposition, including contested air space (ie the where the US does not have air superiority and/or where the majority of the air and ground based anti-helicopter threat has not been neutralized by fixed wing aircraft), maybe we will find out just how survivable helicopters are. For now the RF attack helos operating in the Ukraine are the only real example we have for helicopters operating in a theater where MANPADS are ubiquitous. (And yes, I realize that neither the A-10x or the AH-64x have faced the high intensity conflict they were both designed for.)
 
Last edited:
SaparotRob said:
Another new one for me. I thought they had only built the N3N.
Click to expand...
They built quite a few types between WWI and WWII, though in their later years, they were building types under license, like the Catalina, Seagull, Kingfisher, etc.

What's really interesting about the Naval Aircraft Factory, is that three of the top Science Fiction writers worked there at one time or another:
Heinlein, de Camp amd Asimov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
Replies
16
Views
836
mack8
M
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
[ww2] Ever smaller rockets for air fighting?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
bf109xxl
Modern Jets in WW2/WW1
Replies
4
Views
883
GreenKnight121
Menu
Log in
Register