Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the strategic strike with or with out a radiological atack would have had good and bad results. One more fighters would have been held over US cities, but I do not think they would have been taken from frount line units, more like they would be training patrols or rotatted crews.

2- with more air cover the U-boats would have had a harder time sitting off the New Jersey coast and dropping shipping with almost no opposition.

3- With a straegic bomber you could if so wish level London or all the RAF bases. Think of the greater carnage then what London did suffer. Could have been like the fire bombing of Japan.
 
to be honest during the BoB and the blitz even a larger bomber wouldn't have made any real difference, the germans didn't have the tactics to use them effectively, the only difference would be would be there would be fewer bombers, they may have beem harder to shood down but we'd still get 'em and more crew would be lost per bomber...........
 
Lanc, if the German's developed the 4 engine heavies then they I think would have had some development of doctorine. I know that is my own thought and a strech, but that is my feeling.

They might have been used more in the East, to reach out over the Urals, or the American sites over the pole.
 
mosquitoman said:
Yes, the removal of fighter squadrons from the Western Front might have given the Luftwaffe a slight advantage. If it had a dirty bomb, the whole of New York would have become uninhabitable aswell.
But this is all one BIG "IF"
Click to expand...

The likely size of any German Dirty bomb would not have caused too much damage. It would have been one hell of a shock though.


I disagree, if they had designed more heavy bombers before the war they certainly would have come up with better tactics. Where not talking about the Russians here.
 
I think that a program for havies would have to be in place pre-war because the Germans had limitted recources.

Sustaining this bomber force would be hard in the war I think.
 
Possibly, although when they took over half of Europe with no real problems without the bombers, perhaps they thought Britian would be pretty much the same. How wrong they were
 
yes but most of europe cannot be counted as serious opposition realisticlly, as soon as they came up against serious opposition they needed a bigger bomber..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Locked
Attempted assassination of Trump.
Replies
2
Views
966
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Dana Bell
D
  • Locked
Charity Auction for Signed Copy of Finish Forty and Home
Replies
2
Views
2K
ccheese
WW2 career, plausible postings/dates.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Tony Hill
L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
24K
Lighthunmust
L
Menu
Log in
Register