What If a Single F-22 Time Travelled to Germany During WWI

[@philtrumble]

I'd really like to see what an A-10 Warthog would do in the same situation

[@vic5015]

​@@geek8001the other problem would be finding jet furl.

[@samsarex4318]

Same here

[@arturolicona]

You'd have a bunch of friendly fire casualties just like in modern times

[@danceswithmules]

The Fokker's machine guns were arguably more accurate than the GAU 8, and you'd run into the same problem with running out of ammunition too quickly in the A-10. And dogfighting with the GAU 8 is hampered by the fact that you will literally stall the plane by firing it if you aren't at full throttle on both engines and in a dive (or both!). The cannon were intended for ground attack (and, arguably, not really great at it). Though, against wood and fabric opponents, one could always turn to ramming (another Soviet favorite).

[@NFL.Productionz17]

Ac 103 gunship or Apache would b cool or like b52 Edit thx for all da likes I’ve never had this many

[@joatmon101b]

There is a Sci-fi story about a jet fighter going back to WWI. Its radar couldn't pick up the wood frames of the biplanes and its heat seeking missiles couldn't detect the exhaust of the planes gas engines. Getting enough purified kerosene was difficult also. The pilot discovered he could destroy enemy aircraft by fly past them at supersonic speeds and letting the shockwave tear apart the fragile airframes.

[@wakannnai1]

Radar not picking up wood is a common misconception. Certainly it's harder to pick up wood, but with the radar systems within the F-22 being as advanced as they are, wood wouldn't really be a problem.

[@charles_xcx]

@@wakannnai1ure, but the story in question (A Hawk Among the Sparrows) was written in 1968

[@briannfs2]

And saved money on munitions at the same time ☝️

[@kehreazerith3016]

Modern radars can pick up metal objects the size of a soda can, picking up a biplane wouldn't be impossible

[@dr.sweetchat6769]

The Funal Countdown is a movie where an aircraft carrier from the 80s goes back to days before the Pearl Harbor attack.

[@rosss7721]

Imagine an AC 130. Now that would do some damage and turn a pivotal battle easily.

[@stuarthirsch]

But could also be shot down by the planes and ground based weapons of the time.

[@somerandomguy995]

@@stuarthirsch what about AC130J Ghostrider?

[@Toothlessthedragon_]

@@somerandomguy995 what about a l l of them

[@txstypotato435]

@@stuarthirsch Probally too fast to be caught by planes and ground based weapons would probally be too inaccurate.

[@mikemclaughlin1268]

it would be too high up hang it at 25,000 the enemy wouldn't be able to keep up nor really get to it

[@princesscadance197]

F-22: ‘I fear no man. But that… Thing. It scares me.’ Fokker: ‘Hello!’

[@Non-racistOpinion]

Heavy's quote

[@i.c.wiener2750]

Fokker: “H A L L O”

[@nikolasbergeron9942]

@@i.c.wiener2750 came here to say this lol

[@Lufthansa747]

How do you even think that?😂

[@bittercad1137]

Okay hear me out though what’s going to happen to the airframe of the Fokker if the F22 buzzed it?

[@Ruin3.14]

The SR71 was first flown only ~60 some years after the wright brothers took flight. Imagine what they would think of it.

[@sisilotau2185]

"Why do I hear something I can't see?"

[@nickmcgookin247]

What year did they die

[@nickmcgookin247]

1919 and 1948

[@LoganLawrence]

Would’ve thought aliens were visiting lol.

[@AnmolSingh-2911]

Any technology advance enough for human comprehension can be considered magic!

[@orfeo-7_]

Honestly the simple act of breaking the sound barrier low over the German offensive would have been devastating. A sonic boom back then is a weapon by itself.

[@seldanor6481]

I'm not that sure, WWI was the apotheosis of artillery, it was used in such proportion that in verdun 2,000,000 shells was only 6 days worth of ammo for german.

[@nurgle-j5n]

why are we fighting against the goodguys

[@vHindenburg]

@@seldanor6481 Like 64 million artillery shells at Verdun.

[@alpacaofthemountain8760]

?

[@glcart-cs5sc]

that would mean a bullets sound barrier breaking would be a weapon in itself which i guess could be true if the shockwave is strong enough to do damage being right next to it or something but its pretty ineffective

[@iamthemusicman13]

the word play on Fokker in this episode had me cracking up,. lol love it

[@Savagest.]

Your so Fokking right

[@obi-wankenobi2042]

This episode is so fokked😂😂😂

[@Ishanisnoob]

They knew what they were doing after adding the D

[@Valhalla2]

Fokking amazing

[@mrj8726]

​@@Valhalla2 "But that fat FOKKER really can fly"

[@tanner.mackey.mp3]

"Since we're not the modern Russian army, let's talk logistics" 😂😂😂 oh my god that KILLED me

[@StaticImage]

"Since we're not the modern Russian army, let's talk logistics" man, that was savage. I love it.

[@TecraX2]

2:18

[@rtixboi4193]

I am ashamed to admit that took me twenty seconds to get

[@CANUBETHEOLDKANYE]

@@rtixboi4193 I don’t get it lol

[@DeusSalis]

It's cute but inaccurate and biased. In reality, Russia is embarrassing NATO right now and strategically conquering Ukraine. Nobody is going to stop Russia unless they want a nuclear war. Which means mutually assured destruction.

[@johnwayne-mx3qp]

Russia is proving in Ukraine that they have no real sense of how logistics works

[@yuyaplays9311]

Now what if a modern tank found its way onto the battlefields of WWI.

[@Bloodwhiner]

essentially the same thing - once it runs out of ammo, there is no more. Once it needs maintenance it is down for the count. A WW2 Sherman would be more useful as that can be reversed-engineered.

[@frankgesuele6298]

Give Patton a division of M1A2 Abrams! He would go all the way to Moscow.

[@haydeng9643]

It would run out of ammo before it ran out of targets to shoot at

[@killman369547]

It would be devastating wherever it ended up. But only until it's ammunition runs out. To really turn the tide of the war you'd have to send a whole armored division back in time.

[@michaelmeurer2139]

There's a video somewhere about how many Tiger tanks a single Leopard 2 tank could fight theoretically. It concluded with the most common outcome that a single Leopard could take on up to 25 Tigers and the battle would end with the Leopard casually retreating due to lack of ammo after having destroyed 17 out of the 25. Rare result had the Tigers win if a lucky hit immobilized the Leo very early when there were still enough Tigers left for a suicide rush. The Leo would then take it's toll on the quickly closing Tigers, but enough would get into penetrating distance to take it out. That result only happened very rarely in a thousand (I think) simulations they run.

[@ChickenWings103]

Reminds me of that 80's movie The Final Countdown, where the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz goes through a time portal and ends up in 1941 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor, so the crew try and prevent it from happening. When the Japanese witness the future jets in a dogfight they can't believe the Americans were so technologically advanced. Really cool concept.

[@jjtninja]

I gotta see that

[@redacted8983]

And that concept is still being used in wattpad and other novel websites today

[@JonBecker81]

It was funny when the Zero was firing at the f14. It’s a good movie.

[@Ponchov009]

I saw that movie as a kid, but i never knew its name... until now, thanks!

[@rp23-rmi85]

@@Ponchov009 what the movie name?

[@Notion752]

I don’t think it’d be impossible to figure out how to work an f-22, or a ufo in our time. Making them from scratch would take as long as it did the first time round but seeing it alone gives a vague breath of ideas on how to recreate them, but having the chance to get hands on with either of them would cause a huge exponential growth in understanding of it’s tech

[@Flyingmonkey590]

They would reverse engineer it to make a different plane because the f-22 would be useless due to it has bad air to ground capabilities which is why they tried making an f/b-22 which would be useful because that plane could still defeat ww1 planes and actually do air to ground damage

[@maneamanea1464]

Gotta love the extensive use of the word Fokker, in perfectly timed situations. Hats off, gentlemen.

[@Megalodon1986]

Voice over guy had so much fun with the Fokker.

[@chemreal]

truly a fokker legend moment

[@yaroslavromanyuk5669]

Red Baron was indeed a true Fokker legend.

[@captain_noo]

7:39

[@rmedina]

@@captain_noo perfection

[@psiah9889]

My initial thought when I saw this was "it would run out of fuel and be useless... But let's see what kind of military power fantasy they came up with". Was pleasantly surprised to see a realistic approach was taken.

[@seanswader7425]

I was also thinking that, but there’s also issues with computer and satellites not existing yet, so quite a bit of its systems would be useless

[@alextait8255]

not useless, the allies could be able to use it for study and reverse engine it in order to gain around a 100 year advantage

[@BillThompson1955]

@@alextait8255 It might take a long time to develop the technology to exploit the plane's secrets. I remember an article about that problem, probably based on the "Hawk Among the Sparrows" story. If you have 1918 science and technology, what would you make of a 1960 transistor? Three cat-whisker wires touching what seems to be a crystal of pure germanium? They wouldn't be able to detect the other elements that doped the semiconducting crystal. But the resistors would be another matter. They're still basically made of pencil lead and would be a major improvement over wire-wound resistors.

[@fanzhang5568]

@@alextait8255 it would be more useful if send a mig 19 or something back. There are too many things on a f22 that are just way too beyond the industrial and scientific capabilities of the time.

[@holyheretic3185]

I thought it could atleast take out one head hancho(depending on where this portal opens up) but it's all air to air I'm sure it still works if you fire it flying towards the ground but still.

[@dustinwoodward614]

I wonder if a carrier fleet could take on WW2 if it had unlimited logistical support through the portal.

[@okipullup3367]

Basically me go to my first levels after completing the entire game

[@dekulruno]

If they had logistic resupply then yes they’d be absolutely devastating. The main problem with a modern carrier vs ww2 navies is numbers, they has huge amounts of ships to offset limited supply, modern carriers are equipped to fight modern navies with only a couple dozen units.

[@kennethberger2967]

@@dekulruno I think it could handle a few more ships

[@longemen3000]

The movie "the final countdown" seems similar to your premise

[@nanonano2595]

unlimited logistics is a bigger cheat than a carrier fleet. If a WWI power had magic unlimited logistics, they'd be able to invade russia today. Maybe america too if unlimited logistics included the ability to teleport armies.

[@Fishing_GOAT1]

Thanks for the video it is very cool and I would hope you come out with more videos like this in the future

[@yup4391]

I've always imagined since a little kid what it would be like to go back to medieval times in a tank with unlimited ammo. Could you hold off the world's biggest armies???

[@understandabIe]

as long as they didn't have too many trebuchets, probably yes

[@yup4391]

@understandable4514 even if they did I feel like it would be so hard to hit a moving tank and it could come inside the range of them making them redundant. Obviously my fantasy relies on unlimited fuel as well haha. The only way I could see them defeating the tank is if they immobilised it somehow like maybe getting close enough to stick logs in the tracks and de rail the track off the weel system but even then very difficult if the tank is moving at all times... I'm putting way to much thought into this!

[@sacredprovenance]

Or worse, an AC-130 Armies would think it’s the actual hand of God

[@yup4391]

@Ignacioofcl I wonder what technology will exist in the future that if here now would cause the same reaction and have the same effect against our modern armies

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

The main gun would be a ludicrous overkill vs any troops, only useful in sieges and against ships. The MG would be more than adequate to mow down armies, infantry cavalry you name it they will rout in seconds. Honestly a tank would be overkill, for the same weight get me several lighter armoured vehicles (enough to resist crossbows and scorpions, a trebuchet cannot track a moving target) with machineguns and at most an autocannon, wheels would be so much more convenient for maintenance than tracks, plus some lighter vehicles can float.

[@raynin_2767]

7:39 this is fokking gold

[@PringleVr-k6e]

Wow look a Fokker!!

[@Redmage913]

A B-52 bomber or GC-130 gunship would be really interesting for this form of WWI analysis. It’s only a couple generations ahead of the tech of the time, so it’s easier to work with and understand, and it’s been so versatile over the years that it’s still in service today.

[@Bmuenks31]

Problem is the ammo, you have to bring whole ground and maintenance crews with any aircraft you bring back in time to even be used The airfields would also be another problem, since they probably wouldn't be long enough

[@super-maneuverability592]

Nothing would happen, no data links, no IFF, no GPS, so guided bombs wouldn't work, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an enemy aircraft and a friendly aircraft, you won't be able to distinguish between friends and enemies because current targeting pods and fire control systems don't have required data to recognise WW2 era equipment, you'd have to explicitly rely on dumb bombs, carpet bombing, which doesn't makes B52 a big deal in comparison to other bombers, except speed and range.

[@isaiahjones3427]

@@Bmuenks31AC-130 is capable of landing on short all weather air fields, but maintenance crews are still a must.

[@yeeloongong]

the B52 is practically a WW2 plane - its only a year after the war that its first prototype was finished. Keeping a B52 running would hardly need a genius. Keeping an F22 on the other hand running would strain even the resources and ability of Howard Hughes , the aviator and best equivalent for Howard Stark in our world .

[@Bmuenks31]

@@isaiahjones3427 I imagine the B-52 wouldn't work though but the 130 i could see landing

[@saifuddinsaifee8161]

This was some FOKKING good content

[@ruvomc5814]

"That would take down the fattest Foker the germans put on the sky" got me on the floor

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

One thing I wonder is whether there would even be anywhere to safely _land_ an F22 in WWI? Paved runways were basically unheard of, and the dirt/grass fields would be quite rough and short in comparison.

[@zeropsycho5768]

i think f22 can land safely with it hover feature i dont know the name

[@zeropsycho5768]

like a helicopter

[@UnitedStatesOfCoffee]

That would be the VTOL capabilities of the F-35

[@zeropsycho5768]

@@UnitedStatesOfCoffee thank u yes thats the one

[@zacharymabb4873]

The A-10 is far more adaptable for landing in such conditions.

[@dekulruno]

I think the most effective thing a modern aircraft like this could do to make a difference is making a precise strike on enemy leadership, it would be unstoppable for the one mission it could fly without maintenance and refueling

[@connortipping7427]

Right, this video didn’t think at all about strategic deployment. Wait until you have a high value target confirmed, and fly the f22 directly into Berlin at a speed they can’t comprehend or defend and light up top leadership. No chance this would just be used to dog fight with a couple 40’s fighters in a comparably meaningless situation.

[@KNAPPAID]

​@@connortipping7427 its pretty funny imagining how theyd just stroll into the capital while the AA gun try to keep up " Oh look they lit up fireworks for us "

[@christopherjones8448]

How would they magically know where to drop a bomb?

[@dex6316]

@@christopherjones8448 that’s what makes it a strategic mission. Utilize spies and intercept communications to find the leadership, then take them down. You can’t win a war without leaders directing the war.

[@dekulruno]

@@christopherjones8448 intel, the British had completely compromised Germany’s enigma code but were very selective with which info they used in order to keep that fact secret. They didn’t have weapons to reliably strike at German leadership but if they did have this capability they could have found them.

[@TigerReal]

"That Fat Fokker" "Even the fattest Fokker the Germans put up into the sky"

[@place_there9104]

There was a short story in the 1970s with this premise of a high speed jet being transported back in time to World War I. Think of an armed version of the SR-71 Blackbird. Fuel wasn't as much a problem as it used kerosene in vast quantities, but it's missiles were useless against WWI German aircraft precisely for the reasons mentioned. What it did have was the ability to fly through German formations at Mach 3 and completely destroy them through shock waves. The jet itself was destroyed though when debris from the destroyed German planes got into the air intakes.

[@vladt7150]

I was about to mention that very story - that would be "Hawk Among the Sparrows", by Dean McLaughlin (originally published in ANALOG magazine in 1968, then in book form in 1976)

[@BigBrainBrian]

I'm thinking Analog magazine, cover art, early 1970s, maybe 1960s. But yeah.

[@place_there9104]

@@vladt7150 Thanks. That's exactly the short story I was thinking of.

[@3dcritter]

"A Hawk Among Sparrows" by Dean McLaughlin, appeared in Analog in July, 1968.

[@BigBrainBrian]

@@3dcritter Thanks! My dad collected them for decades. I read them as a teen. The cover was a SR-71ish looking plane with pilot in a pressure suit. Right?

[@1anthonybrowning]

Additionally, at the time there probably wasn’t a paved runway, anywhere in the world, long enough to safely land the F-22.

[@Soflogamer]

Well, the plane that dropped the nukes of Japan (B29) had a takeoff distance of around 3,000 to 4,000 feet, the raptor is around 1,300 feet so there would have definitely been places for it to takeoff and land. The F22 has STOL, Short Takeoff and Landing

[@capastianluna8896]

Would have to be in WWII era for the runways, however you could just beach it or land in a field, when that happens its not going to be able to take off, landing gear would be damaged.

[@1anthonybrowning]

@@Soflogamer that’s WWII, WWI runways were grass. Also, I don’t think the F-22 has STOL, I think that’s the F-35.

[@Soflogamer]

@@1anthonybrowning oops, my mistake. i thought this video was about WW2. i read somewhere that the F22 was STOL but i cant find it again, the main result is 480 meters for takeoff though. But yes in WW1 im sure your correct here, sorry lol

[@justacrusadr]

​@@1anthonybrowning F-35 has VTOL (Vertical take off and landing)

[@jc-tu6pg]

You need to do more vids like this! Sending modern tech back in time!

[@blink182bfsftw]

Yeah tank vs ancient Roman legions or tank vs Indian war elephant armies!

[@NFL.Productionz17]

Yea this is great topic

[@hanschristiandelacruz6433]

It is pointless. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the outcome of this what ifs. Modern technology will always dominate the old ones.

[@History_Nurd]

@@hanschristiandelacruz6433 Buuut Infographics LOVES money, even going as far as giving FALSE INFORMATION just for more money (Just look at their secondary channel, SCP EXPLAINED)

[@fbiagentmiyakohoshino8223]

@@hanschristiandelacruz6433 no one cares.

[@KurNorock]

It wouldn't need stealth in WW1. It also wouldn't need to communicate with any other planes. And it wouldn't need any maintenance. It would have whatever fuel and ammunition it appeared with, which would be used, and then the plane would be grounded and useless. It would have one mission. And if that mission is the right mission, it could make a huge difference in the war. You wouldn't use it to shoot down enemy planes. You would use it to destroy high value targets.

[@zacharymarino8926]

"UFO" is a pretty apt description for the Raptor given it can pull maneuvers that seemingly defy physics. A Hornet can do a loop, a Raptor can do a flip

[@potatopilot16]

I would still consider the Hornet to be UFO like sometimes considering it still has the highest AoA authority in any modern fighter jet.

[@zacharymarino8926]

@@YonIon996 Yeah, but Flankers aren't as cool

[@nade5557]

​@zacharymarino8926 I've seen videos of flankers spinning around in place mid air, definitely cooler imo

[@zacharymarino8926]

@@nade5557 I've seen a raptor do that as well

[@marlonfowler]

This is a very interesting video lol I was certainly not expecting the F-22 to have absolutely no impact, but the scenario is explained in a way that makes sense. I’d like to see more of these “what if” scenarios.

[@alphaintuition1]

In Kurt Douglas's movie THE FINAL COUNTDOWN you can see, F-14 Tomcats of VF-84 'Jolly Rogers' are shown engaging in a dogfight with Japanese Zeroes.

[@Estuardomendez13]

i think it would be way better than described they severely underestimate modern radar i mean the f14 form the 70s could lock onto missiles smaller than ww1 biplanes and just cause youre faster it doesnt mean you cant get hits in on a target in fact its more like shooting stationary targets than highly manueverable ones just from how slow ww1 planes flew. the final premise is still probably correct but im pretty sure every details isnt

[@ryanwatkins138]

@@Estuardomendez13 yeah I don’t understand this video at all cuz realistically the jet is not gonna break right way and it could easily wipe out miles of trenches almost instantly

[@snspartan714al2]

The main problem is that it would be too good for the situation, but not bring a large enough amount of lethality to make it useful, yes it would win any battle it was in ( or at least destroy all targets possible until it ran out of munitions and then be able to retreat) but more useful things would be something like the a10, or even p51 mustangs, still greatly advanced compared to other aircraft of the time but easier to rearm and maintain

[@natekane4896]

I love these types of videos. Another cool concept would be what if they had a modern day Abram or a Bradly

[@davidrenton]

the Abrams would have broken down , and the Germans would have probably captured it

[@vincewilson1]

@@davidrenton Definitely!

[@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq]

​@David Renton Between the soviets massive meatshield and the allies at normany that wouldn't have mattered. There were plenty of t34s captured by Germany they just couldn't do jack with it being overwhelming pushed back at the front and trapped in the rear, having no place to regroup or reinforce

[@danceswithmules]

@@davidrenton The M1Awhatevers would have been the TIger of WWI (and WWII, for that matter). That is to say, I agree lol.

[@scatmanpro]

@@davidrenton exactly. That'd probably be the case with most modern day weapons

[@overkilldyl6841]

Was waiting for word play on Fokker. You didn’t disappoint 😂

[@Kevinwatches]

Here I was thinking I was the only person imagining if you travelled back in time with one piece of equipment and unlimited fuel and ammo; with the knowledge I have now, what would happen! :D

[@Kevinwatches]

@Gen Agreed! im·ag·i·nar·y adjective 1. existing only in the imagination.

[@WayneKitching]

There are a few KZbin videos about this scenario. Grim Reapers do it with the DCS simulator.

[@marcelo20xxxx]

You only missed noclip...

[@darthparallax5207]

i like the idea this video has of highlighting the fuel incompatibility: it's a great limitation on the scenario that you can only the future tech for a few missions and the enemy doesn't need to be told that at all, but your side has basically the same problem has having ''only 2'' nuclear bombs in 1945: you can know for a fact you're about to WIN the next one or two encounters, but you DON'T know if you can make them have enough impact to end the war, And you know that you can't keep going for 5-10 missions like that so the enemy's -Numbers- matter: it's a very realistic way to simulate the impact of any technology in any battle and use a Fantasy of travelling back in time to model useful information out of the possible benefits of the real questions in the present about the use of the next technology we might unlock. as for ammunition though, i think it's probably playing the thought experiment pretty fair and square to suggest that ''golden age of piracy logic applies'' and ''anything you can stuff in the barrel can get shot out of it'' and you can probably wind up with effectively infinite bullets ''of any kind that don't require extra fuel to be more incendiary or something'' TL;DR: infy ammo seems realistic to assume you get to have; infy vroom vroom juice is so much of a cheat code it makes the question way less interesting because the answer is way more short and obvious "What's the best advantage we can get when it's still difficult and a chance of failure?" is more Useful than ''wouldn't it be great to be God''

[@mohk2008]

I’m using chat gpt to create that story

[@alistairgrey5089]

The impact an F-22 would have on the war is negligible at best. But the massive leaps in technology that would follow in the decades afterwards would make history very different. Just the computers alone would take decades to reverse engineer but that would still put the microchip far ahead of its normal time. The impact of that cannot be understated.

[@namyun2743]

They'd have to put all the digital electronics up on a shelf until they get to the level of science and technology to even analyze it.

[@sethb3090]

​@@namyun2743depends on the pilot. One who knew some things about electronics, semiconductors, and computers would make things a whole lot easier.

[@namyun2743]

@@sethb3090 I don't think "knew some things about electronics" is going to cut it. There's a lot of steps between industrial revolution and tube radios to even the most simple logic-gate transistors, never mind programmable logic and even the concept of programming. You'd need like dozens of, if not hundreds of PhDs worth of knowledge. If the pilot was an aeronautical engineer and knew a lot about jet engines and metallurgy on the other hand...maybe jets by the time WW2 starts. But even without future knowledge, that's something that could have happened if history went just a little but differently. Digital electronics, even just the concepts and ideas behind it is super hard mode in WW1. The jet engine, in comparison would be child's play. The concept of compression of air and fuel combustion was already understood. The concept of turbines was already understood. It's just a matter of taking all these ideas that are already understood and putting them together. To give an example, a French engineer, Maxime Gillaume filed a patent for what is now recognized as an axial-flow turbojet concept in 1921.

[@rowaystarco]

@@namyun2743 The computer technology in the F-22 could absolutely be very beneficial for learning in WW1, it would take time but they would absolute reap benefits from the tech inside. But the engines would probably be of mer benefit to begin with. So much other stuff would also be of relevance for the scientists. Even the flight suit.

[@namyun2743]

@@rowaystarco Unless that pilot was capable of transferring the full breadth of knowledge of digital computing, integrated circuits, silicon IC fabrication technology, etc, then no, not until they decide to stick one of the microchips under an electron microscope maybe around WW2. You could say it might be more important to teach why digital computing technology is important. It might shave development time of computers by maybe a decade, but a lot of the basic concepts were already around by WW2 anyway. The jet engines however would completely overshadow the electronics. Even the synthetic petroleum-based materials in the plane and pilot's equipment would overshadow the electronics because of their potential low-hanging fruit.

[@Sheepheadz]

It would be in the air for some hours, then it couldnt refuel or get maintenance. So all in all absolutely pointless.

[@KevinRedmondWA]

This

[@toddbrackett4277]

Kerosene based fuels like JP-8 could have been manufactured by WWI Chemists.

[@eric63377]

Technically Diesel fuel was for sale back then and could be ised as a substitute so he could have landed near one of those gas stations and fill up some how.🤷‍♂️

[@Kuro-mg8vc]

reverse engineering ?

[@zeus982]

With a little bit of tweaking, the F-22 could have run on the jet fuel available back in the early 1940s. It wouldn’t be as efficient or create the same power as modern military jet fuel, but it would power the aircraft. Edit: just realized this is talking about wwi, not wwii

[@JayOhBreezy]

You’re right about pretty much everything, except the fact that the plan would stall out. It has such incredible maneuverability. It could easily shoot one of those planes down.

[@RobKimbro1966]

This is kind of as intriguing as the old 1980s movie called The Final Countdown where the USS Nimitz went through a time portal and came out just hours before Pearl Harbor

[@enochkam]

F14 vs Zeros was awesome 😄

[@jasontoddman7265]

I was thinking the same. Strange that the movie came out less than 40 years after Pearl Harbor, more than 40 years have passed since the movie came out, and yet except for more advanced electronics all throughout the military tech has changed far less than it did during the earlier 40-year period than it has in the later.

[@texan-american200]

There was an anime called "Zipangu," where a modern JMSDF Japanese Aegis destroyer went back to the Pacific theatre WW2 and had a bunch of very interesting consequences.

[@mikefarino4368]

@@jasontoddman7265 that's due to what is known as the S curve of technology, essentially technology is very stagnent at the beginning of its life while still in early development, then massive breakthrough after massive breakthrough is achieved, before once again slowing down and becoming stagnent, clearing the way for the next thing to start getting funding and rapidly advancing.

[@jasontoddman7265]

@@mikefarino4368 Yes, I know. Well, except for the name anyway; but I've been noticing this since I was a computer programmer for the USAF starting in the late 1970s. We've had the same problem with developing new spacecraft as well; otherwise we'd have spacecraft like the ones in 2001 and 2010 by now. It is especially noticeable with automobiles, which again except for the electronics like GPS have not changed substantially since at least the early1970s (when I first started driving one). We're already seeing a similar trend with electronics as well; Moore's Law just is not a valid thing anymore. So *now* if the Nimitz went back in time 39 years; it wouldn't create as much of a stir except for the computers aboard it and I think maybe some of the radar systems as well. The aircraft would change somewhat more but still nothing when comparing the 1980-version fighter jets with Japanese Zeroes.

[@Wrathlon]

What would be interesting is seeing the closes analog they could make in WW1 and WW2 trying to replicate the F22 as closely as possible but within the limitations of the time.

[@cboscan1]

Now THAT would be sick, like taking the aerodynamic design of the modern jets but using their outdated propulsion

[@huntercooke9592]

They could maybe work with an f14 which can fly without a computer

[@hartmusk88]

@@huntercooke9592 I don't think, that an F14 could fly without it's computers, I mean the wimg sweep is constantly controlled by the computer for example

[@Stand_Tall]

@@hartmusk88 it isn't necessarily. The f14s wing sweep can be manually controlled

[@LevaniaMeyano]

@@cboscan1 Probably can't even fly as modern fighter designs are inherently unstable and require a lot of speed to have lift. On top of automatic flight control systems to let the plane fly stable without pilot input.

[@uku4171]

It would probably have a bigger impact in WW2 since airplanes played a much larger role there, so aerial dominance could possibly be a decisive advantage in any battle

[@triggerfish4744]

Except it would run into all the same problems with Maintenance

[@The_John_Doe69]

@@triggerfish4744 probably more

[@Lithane97]

That's the problem with the video though, it just says "logistics" and completely ruins any actual chance at analysis. You could basically do this video for any time period other than the last 30 years and it would be the same video, including the future, because the logistic to supply it would eventually be phased out.

[@yoda6292]

But no radars, no radios, no internet, no satellites, no GPS, no missile locking system (except for heatseekers and those would be kinda useless too because old planes emitted less heat), only a 30mm cannon with like 300 bullets and going extra fast around prop planes

[@yoda6292]

Also take into consideration Flak cannons which would sometimes just constantly be blasting towards the sky and spamming shitton of projectiles which exploded and made solid wall of shrapnel up in the air

[@nxyz4990]

This was surprisingly informed and realistic

[@raysaade]

2:04 That fokker was a legend indeed

[@BigGringus]

Basically, an F-22 would not have had an effect during WW1 but after careful study, it would have definitely had an impact on WW2 technology.

[@alexjackyperson101]

Probably will make WW2 more of a win for USA and Europe

[@alexjackyperson101]

Also this video doesn't talk about the the guy who time travel back in time, he go changed history for better or worse

[@Railhog2102]

Considering that Jet fighters were first introduced during WWII with the Me262

[@Gollentar]

One thing I have considered regarding a modern aircraft in the past, though in my case, it was a Eurofighter in WWII; was the act of simply flying supersonic and very low, over enemy capitals. It probably wouldn't have a massive impact, but breaking every window in Berlin and the morale impact of the sound and effects, may be useful.

[@perendinatorian]

yeah this entire channel seems to be really badly researched content mill stuff. I'd imagine breaking the sound barrier beside an open cockpit plane would probably do the job. if a fighter jet can take down a balloon it can take down a focker. Radar would work fine too and could easily lock on from a distance that makes flight speed a non issue.

[@atlastanker]

"Skies full of free use Fokker D VII's, it's like christmas in july!" -the kid

[@myroslavmokhnar415]

2:05 focking legend lol

[@Knewman7777]

I like that they took the logistics route and showed how it would be useless when it ran out of modern fuel and ammo, but if we're going with the hypothetical about taking a modern plane back in time, we should also be able to take the support footprint it would require to operate.

[@Dhalin]

There's a movie about this, called The Final Countdown. It's not WWI, but rather WWII and instead of an F22, it's a Nimitz Carrier (along with everything it has on it) that goes back in time to just before Pearl Harbor. They were going to stop Pearl Harbor, but the time travel thing happened again and they got yoinked back to present day before they could. Still, though, there's a dogfight scene in it that's done decently well, though they almost crashed an F14 in trying to film it as he almost stalled and slammed the water, barely recovering in time.

[@DavidC_92]

Yeah I was thinking the same. Why send it back in time without the support/logistics?

[@GreyKnightsVenerable]

The support footprint for a jet of this caliber is endless, you would bring with you pretty much a good chunk of the modern world and military.

[@shealupkes]

@@GreyKnightsVenerable the computer systems alone would need clean rooms littering the countryside and don't get me started on the raw material-to-jet fuel pipeline

[@moy_moy85]

For years I've wondered why noone has made a movie where a modern soldier with cutting edge equipment finds themselves sent back in time to face a medieval army.

[@MatthewTalarcek]

The final countdown.

[@molybdaen11]

Because the moment you show up with weapon like this everyone and his mother will try to rob you. Sooner or later you will have to eat and sleep...

[@danzjz3923]

@@molybdaen11 depending on how far back you go you can make yourself a god

[@molybdaen11]

@@danzjz3923 If you provide knowledge like Senku from Dr. Stone, yes. If you reley on tools, no. I think the further you go back, the less people would hold back when feeled thredened.

[@rambo64bit82]

Gate

[@lazytommy0]

This series is gonna do well lol What if videos are super compelling and fun to think about

[@ddelv1601]

The radar would have no problem picking up the old planes. The frame might not retun a lot of radar, but the big metal engine mounted to the front would present a huge target. Heat seaking missle can lock onto the heat of aircraft skin, so locking into a hot air cooled engine wouldn't be an issue. Though it still wouldn't have any effect on the war.

[@Utubesuperstar]

Don’t underestimate the power of morale and fear. The raptor would be a major psy op

[@GreyKnightsVenerable]

@@Utubesuperstarfor the 1 or 2 sorties it flies before it would be too dangerous to launch it again due to an absolute lack of ability to service the craft.

[@Draconicfish2679]

⁠@@GreyKnightsVenerableThing is, nobody knows how this plane works. That includes the enemy. *The enemy doesn’t know it can only be used once or twice.*

[@roetemeteor]

@@Draconicfish2679 Ahhhhhhh, what a turn of events. The Kid, FINALLY, gets to eat, and is treated the same as a nuclear bomb. We only had two, but they don't know that, *and they certainly don't want to know any more.*

[@MrUranium238]

you'll need high sped internet to run some machines today

[@camtheterrarian8583]

“Sense we’re not the modern Russian army let’s talk logistics” OHHHHHHHHHHHHH! 2:19

[@wewtyeyyt]

Cringe

[@Separatist777]

​@@wewtyeyytpeak pro-ukraine humor

[@Xtank425]

The Raptor is indeed a terrifying and astounding fighter. However, its viability in a World War One setting depends on the numbers of the enemy at the time. A reliance on stealth meant it'll never carry enough missiles to wipe out enemy resistance in enough runs to win the war

[@Tbrous4]

One thing it could do that other planes couldn’t would be to quickly go behind lines and take out munitions factories with a few missiles. Without the ability to produce artillery shells or at least slowing production down, many allied losses could be prevented.

[@MorginAubrey]

@@Tbrous4 could even potentially force an early surrender with smart choice of attack locations

[@sonofgenesis7584]

Not me living in California unaware I was about to get absolutely demolished in a hypothetical history video.

[@AlexGardunio]

2:18 "since we're not the modern Russian army, lets talk logistics. Bruuuuuhhh I'm DEAD

[@FlirBlitz]

emotional damage

[@emmauba6568]

Russophobia

[@awgates85]

If it flew fast and close enough, the turbulence would probably be enough to knock most biplanes out of the sky

[@VeraTepes]

The F 22. My boiiii. My favorite Air Plane ever since Ace Combat 4.

[@АриунболдЦоодол]

Nobody: F-22 : Would you intercept me? I’d intercept me.

[@Bartthewalk]

Man of culture I see

[@atlastanker]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one here who watches Habitual Line Crosser : )

[@Chris-st9mm]

I'm so happy to see this episode!!! Ive literally daydreamed the scenario of what if say an Abrams tank were to travel back in time to world war 1 or even the revolutionary war could it single handedly win the war being so advanced? Such an interesting thought and I'm glad infographics made a video related to that!!

[@seldanor6481]

Not so sure such an heavy tank could perform well in WWI, the important battles were of such scale that it is dubitious that a tank can roam freely unimpeded by the ravaged terrain laboured by artillery. In wwI tanks were very focused on infantery support and their most important role was to take down machine guns so speed was not a really important factor. An usage on less important fronts may work, but the technology of WWI is not to underestimate would probably have appeared. That does not mean such a thing would have been useless just not as omnipotent as we may think. Also US was really late in the conflict, it helped a lot for to obtain a victory with adventageous condition, but germany like other european country were alreading heading to an end of the conflict (probably by a civil war like in russia)

[@myguyryy]

You missed the chance at 1:35 to say “Meet The Fokkers”

[@markmckinney9821]

I'm was an f22 crew chief. This video is a fun way of explaining hiw advanced the raptor is. It really does take that much maintenance. Yet is still EASILY the greatest deadliest aircraft on the planet EVER!

[@todddammit4628]

This is fascinating. This makes me think that maybe we should be making modern versions of these old planes.

[@Aerospace_Education]

You’ll see that with drones, but ya

[@todddammit4628]

@@Aerospace_Education That makes sense. Drone do cover that slow and light weight thing.

[@yournotgully]

nah the only reason the f22 is ineffective against them is because its designed to fight modern jets, if for whatever reason an f22 was tasked with shooting down a bi plane theres definitely better armament options it could take, like dumb fire rockets.

[@Hanz13171]

@Gen pretty sure it would be destroyed in a matter of seconds but depends on what country it's from

[@firebird6522]

Good video. I had figured out most of these before they were shown - like the WWI biplanes being "too slow" for a modern jet to actually engage or shoot at. LOL! That would sure be a sight to see. But I wasn't aware of just how little ammo an F-22 has.

[@VIDGamer]

@firebird65 I've tested the raptor in dcs, it literally shoots for 11 seconds and runs out lol. This is because normally you should hold the trigger for only one second at a time, since the cannon shoots like, 100 rounds in a second, not exaggerating. The bullets look like a solid line of gold. you get 11 shots. the only time you should shoot for more than a second is if you can get a good angle near the back, because if you fire for 3-5 seconds while wiggling your nose you're bound to get a hit in one of the engines of an enemy jet aircraft. Also, the two heat-seeking sidewinders and 6 radar-guided AIM-120s can take out 4-8 targets, and you can get 1-2 kills with guns, so you could take out ten enemies if you're lucky and skilled. you'll typically get five, maybe 6 or 7 if you're good. before i started playing dcs, even i was confused about the fact that the deadliest aircraft in the world couldn't shoot for 12 seconds. EDIT: sorry for the long slab of text, the hyperactive primate inside of my very smooth brain just went crazy after watching top gun.

[@zacharymarino8926]

Despite the fact that the Fokker definitely has a lower stall speed than an F-22, it's actually not by very much. the stall speed of the F-22 is only 128 miles per hour, which is pretty crazy

[@Kat-only]

I'd love to see what an Apache Ah-64 could do in similar scenario

[@kpjammerwolf330]

I remember seeing a war thunder video about a KA-50 getting destroyed by a WW1 biplane Oh well, it's war thunder

[@TacPhoenix]

Answer. Quite a lot in its flight time.

[@dlwah]

I always loved the idea of something modern reaching into the past

[@potatopilot16]

Only issues I have with this video are the lackluster explanation of why missiles wouldn't work. AIM-9 sidewinders are not only heat seekers, they are optical-based too. Their heat seeking sensitivity is NOT to be underestimated. Even an older AIM-9L could easily lock on and shoot down any piston aircraft. The same goes for radar missiles. The wood and cloth not being easy to detect by radar is a myth. radar would easily be able to lock any flying object. Aside from that, this is an excellent video!

[@esho6460]

3:05 😂😂😂 Facts

[@Vorthulusgaming]

A video of the same concept but during WW2 would be really cool.

[@Lithane97]

It would just be the same video though lol. There would be no supplies for the plane.

[@jkillerfans2072]

infographicshow How much you do want it to be unrealistic? InfographicShow: *_YES_*

[@cmeGordy]

The best plane to put back in ww1 I think would be a sky raider. It was a highly versatile vehicle with a large number of bullets an high capability to load on munitions as well as having technology the allies could replicate more rapidly. Also it was designed with technology for late ww2 so it would be useful even during ww1. Also with it's construction it would be able to take more small arms fire than the enemy. It would be like a tank and a race car given the ability to fly vs. A flying tent with a machine gun.

[@fate3071]

If they used the Vietnam Era skyraider it would have loadout comparable to a B-17 as well

[@cmeGordy]

@@fate3071 yup

[@SikerGaming]

The biggest advantage would be it's ability to fly well above other planes, and then send a handful of missiles over the horizon to take out key targets that would turn the tide of the war. The only issue would be lack of GPS for the missiles to navigate by.

[@johnw9190]

I recall a while back reading a story of actual biplanes defending against jet fighters. The biplanes were agile and it's turning maneuvers couldn't be matched by the jets who had larger turning radii.

[@aslankavisoydan]

german guy: its a plane its a bird? tim traveler: F22. german guy: what time traveler: ur gona see.

[@jimmymcgoochie5363]

The Fairey Swordfish saw considerable successes in WW2 despite being a 1920s design; dropped back to WW1 it could be game-changing. Something like the Thunderbolt or Typhoon would be harder to reproduce but utterly transformative in he same way that taking the Churchill or Tiger tanks back to WW1 would be.

[@yixuan7043]

If you put a Churchill VII back to ww1 I'm sure it will destroy everything because no gun a this time could pen the Churchill armour

[@Krokmaniak]

​@@yixuan7043 That's can be said about basically all infantry tanks. They were designed as sponges to take hits when breaking through allowing infantry and cruiser tanks ravage the back of enemy 's formation

[@jdotoz]

Flying back to WWI would have a bigger impact on WWII - wherever it landed, people would salvage and examine it, and even if they couldn't replicate it right then, they would learn some of what is possible, which could be good enough to put humanity on the path to getting there sooner.

[@kyle18934]

that was my thought. it may just bump up the world's tech in engines by 30 years. the pilot would also be very useful. even if the pilot didn't know how something was done, knowing it could be done would be valuable. like nuclear power

[@NinjaEsprit]

I love these in modern tech vids in the past. Have heard about the propeller plane I think Brazil is using today? I think it's called the super Tucano? It's a propeller plane with modern missiles. It's cheap, easy to fly and build, but also capable of putting missiles in the air.

[@nosnap]

The a29 super tucano is a beauty.

[@remtorres7511]

f22 would u intercept me? "clicks tongue and bites llips". Id intercept me.

[@guarddogwon6835]

2:00 A Legenday Fokker!

[@josh_sulli985]

Now imagine if an A-10 entered ww1

[@oracleofdelphi4533]

Why not a B-52? that'd be far more impressive. Or an AC-130 Spectre. Heck, even an AH-64 Apache would be fun to watch.

[@Furyman325]

Brrrr

[@Danny___Riot]

This is a great video idea!

[@ironboyjunior8509]

there should honestly be a movie on this.. that would truly show just how deadly and mortifying the f22 really is

[@dodge1515]

Oh look, they got an ACTUAL F-22 Raptor model this time! lol

[@oracleofdelphi4533]

Not a Harrier like last time? I'd better watch the video then. Come to think of it, a Harrier would be a more interesting matchup.

[@wolfshanze5980]

As a 20 year USAF veteran who served countless years on the flightline, I can assure you, after 1 mission, the F-22 is likely to land with "issues" that need to be resolved by a crew chief, specialists and spare parts... unless you're shipping crew chiefs, specialists and spare parts through your time portal, you're unlikely to get anything more than one or two sorties out of an F-22. After every sortie (mission) a few to a dozen hours of specialized maintenance is the routine before the aircraft is ready to fly again. For the record, this would pretty much apply to any modern USAF fighter/bomber.... except the A-10... which usually lands Code-1 (no repairs needed) because of how low-tech the aircraft is.

[@centralbiz5974]

This episode reminds me of the 1980 movie "Final Countdown" starring Kirk Douglas and Charles Seen where a Nimitz class carrier traveled back to 1941 one day before the Pearl Harbor Attack and they had the opportunity to stop it.

[@epicgamerjeremie]

I just seen the clip when it travels back and it travels back to present

[@alanaspinall7147]

If u like time travel story, read the Axis time series, It deals with a 21st centery UN task force being sent back to 1942 when a weapons test goes wrong, and unlike that movie where little happens, thses guys really mess up the time line,

[@Stinger420]

I thought of the same thing. My dad showed me that movie years ago.

[@RZP_Zenaucsns]

Fun-Fact: The F-22 Raptor’s stealth capabilities (the Gold hue of the canopy and its paint which deflect pings) measure the size of a bee on radar.

[@kellenwalburn5238]

What about an A-10? Something that is a bit more suited towards aggressive fighting and ground support

[@theezeelife292]

Here's an interesting idea; how about if a P-51 or F4U Corsair went back to WW1?

[@aaronkameric1419]

Spitfire.

[@ewhartiii]

Spitfire or Hurricane would be better, there would be ammo for the guns. The .50 cal wasn't developed until nearly the end of the war. .303 British was commonly available. High octane gasoline however, was not.

[@Mortisville]

with a ground crew, logistic and a suitable runway It might have a noticeable effect on moral - a squadron could for example convince the central powers they were so technologically outmatched it was pointless carrying on the war.

[@simonbrown4284]

You should do a video with either the British Challenger 2 MBT or the US Abram

[@SubaruPieter]

The Red Baron never flew the D.VII in combat. If I remember correctly, he only flew a prototype a few times, and was very impressed by it. If he survived that one fatal day, he may have gotten more than 100 victories in the last few months of the war though

[@Schindlerphoto]

The Red Baron, was known for flying the Albatros D.III and famously the Fokker Dr.I Triplane, while he championed the development of the Fokker D.VII, he never had an opportunity to actually fly one in combat.

[@SubaruPieter]

@@Schindlerphoto I know about the Albatros, and the Dr.1, I've read a lot about Richthofen since I was al little kid. I also have the book he wrote in 1917 (although slightly different because it has extra information added by people after the war). And I know he didn't fly a D.VII in combat, but he flew a prototype for evaluation

[@zachmach9588]

@@Schindlerphotoeven tho he was the enemy, I kinda feel sorry for him, he died so young for a cause he probably didn’t know the total truth about😢

[@Schindlerphoto]

@@zachmach9588 At the end of the day he was a fellow solider who answered his nations call to arms. Sure we can say that he was on the wrong side of history, but from his point of view he didn't see it that way. He was a pioneer of the field of aerial combat and he was the best at what he did.

[@zachmach9588]

@@Schindlerphoto True agreeed

[@thomasfarr7934]

The Red Baron did fly a Fokker, but not the DVII. He flew the Dr1 triplane, and most of his victories were in the Albatross.

[@oldcremona]

So disappointed to see that error, I quit watching 😢

[@Cherno35]

“Supercruising without the need of afterburners” has the afterburner on 0:43

[@scoobidywoobidy7214]

This is the perfect yapping that I need to get through the work day.

[@chefdean7257]

I'd go for second generation A10 Warthog. The multirole capabilities combined with the low tech maintenance matching a slight advance requirement would be globe changing, with less than a dozen.

[@bojanglesthewizard8875]

They kinda are with the new turbo props that are supposed to replace the A10

[@iPod1]

7:44 LOL

[@PoloABD]

I think when we’re asking if a single F-22 could have won the war, we are assuming it could be used as it is now. Otherwise the question is meaningless. Precision guided missiles and bombs, along with a craft which could evade any and all attempts to shoot it down would obviously be devastating.

[@HaakonTheViking]

A crazy fact is that the rapid advancement of air combat means that the pilots of ww1 May have lived long enough to be alive at the same time as the first f-22 pilots...

[@GrumpyXer]

It sure would be interesting to see what tech they were able to take from the f-22 and apply it to new planes of the time

[@riccardomariani9648]

Probaby just the autocannon since the eletronics are impossible for the time to even read, for them till post ww2 it would be just a fancy metal plate with wires coming out

[@toddbrackett4277]

The A-10 might have been effective in WWI.

[@ViraL_FootprinT.ex.e]

💯💯💯

[@antoinelachapelle3405]

I think the A-10 is accurate enough to literally take out an entire trench section on its own, then the infantry could take it with minimal resistance

[@matthewjrw6218]

0:55 you thought you could throw the red baron in and we would not see

[@d5kenn]

This is really well done. I've always thought that the logistics train needed to keep ANY modern military unit functional essentially means that most of any single unit, team, squad you send back could hardly be expected to be more than a raindrop in a thunderstorm. Short of maybe teleporting nukes over Berlin, etc. Even a full aircraft carrier group just doesn't have the reach to do all that much. Sure, they'll win whatever battle they're within 500 miles of, and you can park it close to shore and decimate the coastal front. But the 99.9% rest of the war is just going to be fought around whatever they do.

[@53v3n_L1v3z]

I actually thought about this before lol. Also imagine a modern tank vs old tanks.

[@orangecookie3132]

Same problem. But it will be more useful they would have to change gun on it.

[@dietermitplatten]

That's what we are literally going to see soon with the upcoming Ukrainian counter offensive. It's going to be Abrams vs. T-34s from WW2 :)

[@WorkersofAmericaRise]

@@dietermitplatten t-55 vs leopard 2