# How many WW2-era aircraft could a single modern fighter jet shoot down with guns only? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 16, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995 "2017-02-16T18:27:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/41 "2017-02-17T14:49:01Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I think the only fighters were Zeroes, and they were probably carrying bombs also. All the fighters were Type 0’s. Those Zeroes, Model 21’s, could carry a pair of 60kg bombs but were not carrying them on that mission and seldom did. Later in the war, Zeroes were sometimes used as fighter bombers against US ships with larger bombs (besides their use as suicide planes carrying bombs) because relatively harder to intercept than dedicated strike types. However in PH raid all the bombs and torpedoes were on strike a/c. The Zeroes did a lot of damage to US a/c on the ground by strafing but posed no serious threat to ships. So again even in a real world scenario, and considering other early Pacific War real scenario’s, the main reason for US fighters to attack Zeroes was to prevent the Zeroes destroying them, and as campaigns settled into attrition also the consideration of just inflicting losses to reduce the enemy’s strength for next time. But if defending a critical value target with a fighter fast enough to evade the Zeroes, it wouldn’t really make sense to go after the Zeroes, or not as priority. In the event the few US fighters that got off the ground attacked what they saw first, and none of them were enough faster than Zeroes to ignore them, nor did they know much about their adversaries anyway. The P-36’s saw Zeroes from Soryu strafing, and achieved an unusual success for the first several months of the Pacific War by Allied fighters of actually shooting down more Zeroes than they lost to Zeroes in a combat. The P-40’s saw unescorted strike a/c and attacked, but AFAIK nobody has ever unraveled what their exact success really was whereas the P-36 v Zero combat is clearly recognizable in Soryu’s records. Anyway even closer to reality, say moving the P-38’s operational debut up by months to make them available at PH, and in an _organized_ defense, they would have done best to prioritize attacks on strike a/c and evade Zeroes with superior speed. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/42 "2017-02-17T15:03:23Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > Send the A-6 and A-7 aircraft to bomb the carriers and tankers shortly after the Japanese first wave takes off so any remaining aircraft have no home to return to. > Send the F-14s to intercept the first wave, targeting group leaders from long-range with missiles; this encourages the undamaged aircraft to break off the attack. The F-14s can then leisurely use guns on the retreating aircraft. > On their return trip to the _Nimitz_, vector the A-6 and A-7 flight to intercept the remaining Japanese aircraft to engage with missiles and guns. > > Film all of it to send to the Japanese, with a cc to Germany and Stalin. > > Award me an Oscar and the Nobel Peace prize. Why waste time and material on aircraft retreating to carriers that no longer exist? As noted upthread, they can still put out enough random-ish fire to possibly take down one of the jets. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/43 "2017-02-17T20:15:13Z")
I’m just mean that way when I’ve been sneak-attacked. And also so everybody gets a chance to earn an Air Medal and have a story to tell their grandchildren. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/44 "2017-02-17T20:54:03Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > I’m just mean that way when I’ve been sneak-attacked. > And also so everybody gets a chance to earn an Air Medal and have a story to tell their grandchildren. You need to capture or kill all the pilots. One [Niihau incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident) is bad enough. ---
**Author:** ![joema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@joema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joema)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/45 "2017-02-17T21:21:41Z")
> [@Asuka](#): > > Japanese first wave of 183 aircraft…let’s say F/A-18’s are sent to intercept them…after firing their missiles at the first targets still have over a hundred of Japanese aircraft still in the air. Now have many aircraft could a single F/A-18 destroy with it’s 20mm gun alone?.. As already stated, the F/A-18 was not deployed in 1980. But assuming you mean later, the F/A-18 could carry up to ten AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two sidewinders: [https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bshbhNC/0/O/i-bshbhNC.jpg](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bshbhNC/0/O/i-bshbhNC.jpg) If you mean a current air wing configuration, there are over 40 F/A-18s, so in theory they could take out 480 aircraft – just using missiles. That of course assumes 100% aircraft readiness and missile success rate. If you mean literally in 1980, that would be two 12-plane squadrons of F-14s, which could carry up to six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders – each. That would be “only” 192 targets. The Phoenix had a range of over 100 miles and could maneuver at over 17 g. It could shoot down a small cruise missile. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AIM-54\_6\_Pack\_uncropped.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/AIM-54_6_Pack_uncropped.jpg) [http://www.oocities.org/usa\_falcon/f14-01.gif](http://www.oocities.org/usa_falcon/f14-01.gif) Six Phoenix missiles could be ripple-fired and guided simultaneously to six separate targets and this was tested: The aircraft would be guided by the E-2C Hawkeye which can simultaneously track 600 targets at up to about 200 mile range: [Grumman E-2 Hawkeye - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye) The threatening Japanese aircraft were the Nakajima B5N bomber and the Aichi D3A bomber. Combined, there were a total of 140. Their cruise speed was about 200 knots, max. Additional there were 43 A6M Zeros used for for air-to-air and strafing. There were only about 140 aircraft in the 1st wave capable of doing major damage to surface targets. The E-2C could have detected the Japanese planes 200 miles away, but they were launched only 100 miles off shore, which is laughably close by modern standards. However the E-2C can also detect surface targets at great distances, so in a true “Final Countdown” scenario, the incoming carriers would have likely been detected and sunk before their aircraft were even launched. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/46 "2017-02-17T21:30:20Z")
Another thread on the topic, from May 2007: ["The Final Countdown": Tomcats vs. Zeros - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=421352) ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/47 "2017-02-17T22:38:18Z")
Nobody has mentioned what the Nimitz would do about the IJN submarines. Without the support (re: antisubmarine) ships the subs would probably be the most dangerous threat to the carrier (although perhaps the carrier can steam at top speed at all times). The first thing the Nimitz wants to do is account for them. Could it try to interdict the subs the night before when they are most likely to be surfaced? ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/48 "2017-02-17T22:56:17Z")
> [@joema](#): > > \ The E-2C could have detected the Japanese planes 200 miles away, but they were launched only 100 miles off shore, which is laughably close by modern standards. \ The **Straight Dope** from 2011 seems to be that the aircraft were launched from 230 nautical miles away: [How close did the Japanese fleet get to Pearl Harbor?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=627482) ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/49 "2017-02-17T23:49:18Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Nobody has mentioned what the Nimitz would do about the IJN submarines. Without the support (re: antisubmarine) ships the subs would probably be the most dangerous threat to the carrier (although perhaps the carrier can steam at top speed at all times). The first thing the Nimitz wants to do is account for them. Could it try to interdict the subs the night before when they are most likely to be surfaced? Japanese subs of the period probably would NOT be any sort of threat. Note the Queens Mary & Elizabeth crossed the Atlantic at top speed numerous times, with no escorts, and no incidents. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/50 "2017-02-17T23:57:18Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Japanese subs of the period probably would NOT be any sort of threat. Were US subs that superior to Japanese subs? Because a US sub [sank the heck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano) out of the Shinano. ---
**Author:** ![joema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@joema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joema)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/51 "2017-02-18T00:03:24Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > The **Straight Dope** from 2011 seems to be that the aircraft were launched from 230 nautical miles away: > [How close did the Japanese fleet get to Pearl Harbor?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=627482) Thanks for that correction – it makes sense they’d be more than 100 mi. away. However at 230 nm (265 statute miles) this only improves the chances of modern carrier air power. It means the slow, prop-driven incoming aircraft have about 1.5 hr before landfall. Their cruise speed was about 160 mph. Since they’d be detected by an E-2C at full range, either F-14s or F/A-18s could fly out, fire missiles (and if needed) come back, reload and go again – while the slow prop planes gradually trudge toward their target. In the modern era, fighter planes rarely use guns. In Desert Storm there were 39 U.S. air-to-air kills. Of those 25 were from the heat-seeking Sidewinder, and 11 from the radar-guided Sparrow, or 92%. The A-10 got two gun kills. Since then, the much more capable AIM-120 AMRAAM has been deployed. Whether the “Final Countdown” movie scenario used naval air forces from 1980 or 2017, it seems unlikely they would use guns except as a last resort. This would not make a very exciting story, so movies aren’t written that way. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/52 "2017-02-18T00:23:01Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Japanese subs of the period probably would NOT be any sort of threat. Note the Queens Mary & Elizabeth crossed the Atlantic at top speed numerous times, with no escorts, and no incidents. The Japanese weren’t in the Atlantic, the Germans were. I don’t know whose submarine service was better, or had the better torpedo, I just wanted to nick pick. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/53 "2017-02-18T00:23:53Z")
> [@joema](#): > > …In the modern era, fighter planes rarely use guns. In Desert Storm there were 39 U.S. air-to-air kills. Of those 25 were from the heat-seeking Sidewinder, and 11 from the radar-guided Sparrow, or 92%. The A-10 got two gun kills… Sidewinders also accounted for most of the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier kills of Argentine aircraft during the Falklands War of 1982, just two years after the _Nimitz_’s fictional trip back to 1941. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/54 "2017-02-18T00:35:44Z")
AN A-10 killed an Iraqui helicopter with the vulcan. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/55 "2017-02-18T01:18:43Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > AN A-10 killed an Iraqui helicopter with the vulcan. You mean Avenger. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/56 "2017-02-18T01:19:53Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > There is no ammo belt in the .50 cal disintegrating link style The ammo rides as loose shells in a chute. Built into the chute is a toothed conveyor belt with one pocket per shell. The chute has gaps where teeth reach in and move the shells along sorta like a sprocket engaging a sloppily-linked bicycle chain. > > The feed and the gun’s rotary breech are synchronized. If one is moving, so is the other. > > The first shell entering the gun is fired as the gun (and ammo feed) spins up. Each shell in turn enters the gun, rides around about 3 stations as the breech closes, is fired electrically at the 4th station, then the empty case (or live round if a dud) is extracted over the next couple stations and fed back into the chute/conveyor belt assembly and carried back into the ammo storage drum. > > When the firing signal is removed the gun drive cuts off, the brake is applied and the gun spins down from 1000 revs/min to zero in about 2 revs. Every shell that passes the firing position during spin-down is fired. Once the gun has stopped, it goes into reverse just enough to back every shell out of the 4 breeches at and upstream of the firing position. This renders the gun empty & prevents cook-offs. No live shells get through the gun unfired. None are wasted. Nothing is dropped overboard except the projectile and the gun exhaust gasses. > > \*\*Isilder \*\*has quite a mishmash of good and confused info, but he hit the nail with maneuverability being the key issue. Traditional aerial combat is all about turn rate and turn radius. The standard physics equations of centripetal force, vs radial velocity versus omega all apply. Plus one more: max centripetal force = max Gs is limited at high speed by aircraft structural strength. And at low speed by the wing’s ability to generate that much lift without stalling. The latter limit is the one that counts here. > > At WWII Zero (or modern helicopter) speeds, a fast fighter is going too slow to maneuver aggressively without stalling. So he can’t generate high centripetal force and his rate and radius are larger than the slow-mover who can pull more Gs can achieve. The fast-mover can zoom about at higher speed, but that raises the problem of squirting out in front of the opposition. See my post in the 2004 thread I linked to above for a more complete treatment of this. > > Good point on the first. > > Not so much on the second. > > You neglected the point that most WWII aircraft, and especially in the early days, were armed with machine guns firing .30 or .50 caliber inert slugs. The F-14s were armed with 20mm (~.80 caliber) exploding shells with warheads designed for shredding aircraft structure. The consequences of one hit are vastly different. You don’t punch a 1/2" hole in the fabric of a tail; you create an explosion that rips half of it off. You shred so-called self-sealing fuel bladders and set the escaping torrent of fuel on fire. etc. > > As well, the dispersion of several separately mounted machine guns on a WWII fighter is huge compared to the tight firehose coming out of the F-14s M61. Finally, with a radar computing gunsight, the F-14 knows when he fires that he’s gonna get a hit and a lot more than one of them. > > Modern cannon firing doctrine is very short bursts with high confidence of hits. Awesome info! Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/57 "2017-02-18T01:24:15Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The Japanese weren’t in the Atlantic, the Germans were. I don’t know whose submarine service was better, or had the better torpedo, I just wanted to nick pick. Nit pick. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/58 "2017-02-18T02:42:46Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Were US subs that superior to Japanese subs? Because a US sub [sank the heck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano) out of the Shinano. And the I-19 sank the USS _Wasp_, the USS _Albacore_ sank the _Taiho_, the U-81 sank the HMS _Ark Royal_, etc. The point **John DiFool** was making about the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary was that they were at almost no danger from U-boats because they traveled **at top speed** the whole way crossing the Atlantic alone, any anti-submarine escort would have slowed them down and made that impossible. A destroyer could cross the Atlantic at cruising speed with no problems; it would have run out of fuel trying to keep pace with the liners doing 29kts the whole way. The _Nimitz_ being all alone and powered by nuclear reactors could do much the same thing and enjoy pretty much the same near invulnerability to submarines. Note how the _Shinano_ was sunk: > [@](#): > > At 20:48, the American submarine Archerfish, commanded by Commander Joseph F. Enright, picked up Shinano and her escorts on her radar and pursued them on a parallel course. Over an hour and a half earlier, Shinano had detected the submarine’s radar.[27] Normally, Shinano would have been able to outrun Archerfish, but the zig-zagging movement of the carrier and her escorts—intended to avoid submarine attack—inadvertently turned the task group back into the sub’s path on several occasions. At 22:45, the carrier’s lookouts spotted Archerfish on the surface and Isokaze broke formation, against orders, to investigate. Abe ordered the destroyer to return to the formation without attacking because he believed that the submarine was part of an American wolfpack and that Archerfish was being used as a decoy to lure away one of the escorts to allow the rest of the pack a clear shot at Shinano. He ordered his ships to turn away from the submarine with the expectation of outrunning it, counting on his 2-knot (3.7 km/h; 2.3 mph) margin of speed over the submarine. Around 23:22, the carrier was forced to reduce speed to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph), the same speed as Archerfish, to prevent damage to the propeller shaft when a bearing overheated.[28] At 02:56 on 29 November, Shinano turned to the southwest and headed straight for Archerfish. Eight minutes later, Archerfish turned east and submerged in preparation to attack. Enright ordered his torpedoes set for a depth of 10 feet (3.0 m) in case they ran deeper than set; he also intended to increase the chances of capsizing the ship by punching holes higher up in the hull. A few minutes later, Shinano turned south, exposing her entire side to Archerfish—a nearly ideal firing situation for a submarine. The escorting destroyer on that side passed right over Archerfish without detecting her. At 03:15 Archerfish fired six torpedoes before diving to 400 feet (121.9 m) to escape a depth charge attack from the escorts. > [@joema](#): > > In the modern era, fighter planes rarely use guns. In Desert Storm there were 39 U.S. air-to-air kills. Of those 25 were from the heat-seeking Sidewinder, and 11 from the radar-guided Sparrow, or 92%. The A-10 got two gun kills. Just to nitpick you’re missing two kills: [An F-15E killed a helicopter with a laser guided bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War#14_February_1991) and my personal favorite, an [unarmed EF-111](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Brandon) scored a kill against a Mirage F1 when the Mirage flew into the ground during high speed low altitude maneuvering. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/59 "2017-02-18T02:58:52Z")
The ground is a highly lethal adversary. The planet is much bigger and more damage-resistant than any aircraft. Everybody who flies close to it respects that, whether you’re driving a helo, a heavy, or a fast-mover. Scraping an enemy off on the rocks is a tried and true tactic. It doesn’t work all that often. But when it works, it works 100%. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995/60 "2017-02-18T14:13:35Z")
Another option would be for the Nimitz to drop nukes on the Japanese task force. It could be done at night, prior to the scheduled attack, so the entire raiding force simply disappears without a trace before any opportunity to send a warning back to Japan. The appointed time come, and they hear nothing. And then more and more nothing. No news about the attack on American radio but no distress calls from their ships. That would leave an interesting alt-history scenario. What should they do next? > [@running\_coach](#): > > Nit pick. Nitpick. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-ww2-era-aircraft-could-a-single-modern-fighter-jet-shoot-down-with-guns-only/779995.md?page=4)