It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would 200 Nazi Bombers be able to bomb London today?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Would 200 nazi bombers still be able to get to London with todays technology?

I know our jets are far superior to WW2 planes but surely we wouldnt have enough missiles to take every bomber out before they hit London?

How many would get through?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Oh and the TV program Blitz street inspired me to make this thread

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Haydn_17]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:04 PM
No. There is still too much volcanic ash floating around for them to get airborne.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:11 PM
200 me262s would be tough to stop if they flew at tree/roof/civillian top level.

edit for non plane geeks: Messerschmitt me262s were the worlds first jet fighter, built by Germany at the end of WWII. With that in mind I do wonder if they did manage working out some more exotic 'solid state propulsion' technology

[edit on 20/4/10 by GhostR1der]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:22 PM
Actually, in all honesty, that is an interesting question. Those older non jet engine planes fly much slower than modern places, making it hard to stay with them in a jet.

Also, the way I understand our tracking systems that is built into our missiles, it searches for the heat from the jet engines. Seems a stroke engine might not produce enough heat to be picked up even by missiles.

And agreeing with an earlier post, flying just off the deck, and over the trees would make it really hard to pick up by radar. Just my opinions. I'm by no means a military radar and guidance systems expert.

About 15 years ago or so a movie was made along the same line of thinking. It was a comedy, called Down Periscope, but it did raise the possibility of a foreign force using pre-nuclear submarines to evade modern tracking systems in order to attack the U.S.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:09 PM
Using WW II era technology, even the famed Me 262, ZERO aircraft would arrive over England, regardless of evasive maneuvers employed. As for piston-aircraft, they still produce plenty of heat signature for the AIM-9 Sidwinders.
Most gliders, flying in bright sunlight, would carry enough heat for a kill, even in the "look-down" mode.

Using standard NATO aircraft of today, perhaps half to two-thirds would get through, flying on-the-deck in small, tight formations over a multitude of routes.

If they were using the Stealth bomber, nearly all of them would be able to drop their loads on London.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by Haydn_17


Not sure about Nazi bombers but the Germans appear to have your airspace;

A (usual) outraged Daily Mail link.


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:16 PM
I don't think they would need bombers. Just a few missile silos and it's game over.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:41 PM
I definitely agree. Unmanned cruise and ballistic missiles would be the most likely initial means of attack, in such a scenario. Manned aircraft would more likely be part of the FOF (Follow-On Forces).

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:44 PM
Of course they would be able too, why? Because you let Parliament and the politician clowns decimate the British military. The British people let them turn a once proud force to be reckoned with that conquered half the planet into a force on par with some 3rd world armed forces.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:37 PM
I don't think any Nazi bombers had the range to reach London from Germany, so unless they get to launch from France, probably not.

But if they did manage to, it's kind of a tossup. Certainly modern planes would have no trouble destroying at least a dozen bombers each before running completely out of guns and missiles, but I don't know if fighters would even be scrambled in time. I really doubt England expects to be attacked from the continent.

That said, while 200 bombers would be able to do some damage to london, by total war standards, it wouldn't be much. And, at least during the opening stages of the war, the luftwaffe focused exclusively on military targets, unlike the British air force (though that was probably a consequence of flying night missions).

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by areyosicker
I don't think they would need bombers. Just a few missile silos and it's game over.

I was thinking that too as I was reading through this the whole time. But some of the "just plane folks" out there have made some very good points as to the tactical advantages of using such obsolete technology. The Russian TU-95 Bear Bomber is prop driven and uses tube type technology in it's flight and communications instruments because they are less susceptible to EMP's.

But it was the Nazi's who first developed the "ICBM" with their V-1 and V-2 rockets, and Werhner von Braun, and several other Nazi scientists were brought over here during Operation Paperclip and worked on the developemtn of our own missile technologies during the cold war. "Neat" trade off, hunh?

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:57 PM

Glad to see the ICBM in quotation marks. While it was the first operational ballistic missile, it's range would definitely not fit into the ICBM role. With the quotation marks, it does recognize that the V-2 was the forerunner of all ICBMs that would eventually be created. Plus, you did associate von Braun's arrival to the U.S. through PAPERCLIP. Do not forget that several hundred other rocket scientists were captured besides von Braun.

However, people need to remember that the German rocket scientists were also captured by the Soviets. The Space Race was really wthether our German scientists would beat their German scientists.

Good job, Rowdy!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Truth1000]

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:45 AM
The UK keeps a grand total of between 4 and 6 fighter aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA)

Those aircraft are fully armed with pilots in dispersal huts next to them.

Either of the two "fighter" types - either Tornado F3 or Eurofighter Typhoon - can carry four AMRAAM radar guided missiles and 2-4 sidewinder heatseeking missile. They also have cannons on board.

Both types will also carry extra fuel in "drop tanks".

A number of planes are kept on reduced alert status, and these are brought up to operational standard as needed.

So a modern jet fighter could - if nothing malfunctioned and everything hit, take down 8, maybe 10 WW2 vintage aircraft by itself.

If you go with the 10 figure, four aircraft on alert could take down 40 incoming aircraft.

If we were at war, there would be considerably more than 4 planes on QRA - during WW2 all available aircraft on an airfield were fuelled and ready to go.

Modern warfare is slightly different though

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:03 AM
That fails to take many things into account. The Germans would have had to expend a significant amount of effort to prepare such an attack. The preparations by the Germans would lead to similar preparations on the pasrt of the Dutch, Belgian, British, and American air forces. These would include the full-depth integrated air defense systems, including overlapping and multi-grade radar and other surveillance systems, AAA, surface-to-air missile batteries, with activation of the continuously monitoring E-3 AWACs & E-8 J-STARS systems, as well as the whole range of manned and unmanned tactical aircraft systems from Portugal to Norway.

The number of aircraft now standing Ready-alert have increased quite impressively. Picket and Aegis cruisers would be standing by in a FENCE configuration across the English Channel.

Into this setting, the WW II Luftwaffe attack teams would find the air campaign planning to be a severely challenging offensive plan.

I know that would be a job I would not wish to tackle.

top topics


log in