Not if you hire me as "Deputy PM for Beatings and Requirements Creep."
Makes me wish this forum had a 'like' button. I'd like to be in this position as well.
Also notable is that the 16,000 lb hard point loadout of the lowly A10 is fully twice the ordinance load of a WWII B17 bomber
Makes me wonder what the Germans of WWII would have thought if we 'replaced' all the B17s with A-10s.
Size: (A10) 53x57x15 vs 75x104x19 (B-17) - A-10 is substantially smaller
Weight: 28k lbs:36k - but only somewhat lighter unloaded
Crew: 1 vs 10 - much easier to man
Max speed: 439 mph vs 287 mph - Intercepting the A-10 will be a lot more difficult
Range: 474 miles vs 2,001 - B-17 cleans up here.
Ceiling: 34,695 vs 35,597 - roughly equivalent.
Weapons: 30MM GAU-8 vs 10-11 12.7mm machine guns. After some consideration, I'll go with the 30mm. It might 'only' be 1 gun, but by golly anything shot with it is going to know it.
16k pounds vs 17.6k pounds - Oops, looks like the B-17 can carry more. I think your search got pounds and kg confused. The comparison site I found has the B-17 rated at 8k kg/17.6k pounds bombload, while it lists the A-10 as 16k pounds/7.2k kg.
Reviewing the web, the A-10 would make for an acceptable WWII fighter, especially if you adjusted the sights a bit. But you'd have to go with supplemental fuel tanks to make up for the B-17 having roughly 4x the combat radius of the A-10, which cuts into your bomb load. But even if you disallow smart munitions the A-10 would be able to place bombs on target more accurately through improved targeting equipment and lower altitudes(which it can survive better due to speed&armor).