why didn't germany use strategic bombers
why didn't germany use strategic bombers
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
They were trying the V1 and V2 out instead
goering was a retard
bump
He was a Train autist.
He was an addicted retard
Because the value of strategic bombing hadn't been realized yet. The focus was set on tactical bombers (Hs 123, Ju 87) and medium bombers (Do 17, He 111).
Germany did produce a heavy bomber with the He 177 (four-engined, despite having just two nacelles), and even built more than 1,000 of it, but it wasn't a very successful design due to its unconventional engines.
Also Germany lacked the escort fighters and raw numbers for its strategic bombing to be really effective.
there was an actual 4 engine he 177
>Because the value of strategic bombing hadn't been realized yet.
That's why every major power had those - even italians.
what value? even the allied bombing campaigns were a massive failure
if you're trying to curbstomp the german industry yet the german industrial output peaked in '44 i have some serious doubt about how effective strategic bombing actually was
i mean even the brits knew this that's why they switched to terror bombing. smoothbrains thought the germans would roll over and die when their house got destroyed and not see it as an act of genocide propagandiced by the nazis and be vengeful and fight to the bitter end instead
bous points for releasing a book about how you are going to cull the german population. not that it was seriously considered but that shit was pure gold for people like goebbels
If strategic bombing was such a failure, why did the Luftwaffe feel compelled to drop everything, concentrate its forces for air defense of the Reich and allow itself to be destroyed in the skies over Germany?
if strategic bombing was so successfull then why did the german war output increase year after year?
Because their industry was a fucking nightmare of inefficiencies that Speer was steadily able unfuck post '43. Now explain why strategic bombing was such a threat that it HAD to be met by the Luftwaffe, even after it was obvious that the attrition was grinding it to dust?
>explain why the luftwaffe didnt sit back and do nothing
If they attacks were no threat, then the logical response is to ignore them. Instead, the Luftwaffe drastically cut bomber production in favour of fighters and stripped the peripheral units of their strength in order to reinforce the home front. Why?
Because the process of streamlining production, by deleting competing departments, shifting consumer goods production to occupied territories, converting factories to military output and simplifying manufacturing processes is one that occurred over several years. Germany didn't even START to shift its economy to prioritizing war production until 1942.
>Because their industry was a fucking nightmare of inefficiencies that Speer was steadily able unfuck post '43.
So why does it increased each and every year my literally no argument dumb retard commie kike friend?
the opposite is true. Germany (just like the US and UK) thought that strategic bombing would be this unstoppable force that would instantly win the war for whoever launched it first, sort of like how we think of nukes today. They put a massive amount of resources into building strategic bombers, much more than any other branch of their military. They just failed at building them because they had a shitty 3rd-world economy with more horses than cars, so building a massive long-range bomber was beyond their capabilities.
Somewhat true but overstated. It did hurt the German economy a lot, it just didn't make them surrender like the pre-war planners imagined. Their economy grew because they were taking resources from the rest of the europe, and the Allied bombing only really figured it out in 1944.
>They put a massive amount of resources into building strategic bombers, much more than any other branch of their military. They just failed at building them because they had a shitty 3rd-world economy with more horses than cars, so building a massive long-range bomber was beyond their capabilities.
why do you make up bullshit and post it here?
pic is from https://www.amazon.com/How-War-Was-Won-Cambridge/dp/1107014751#:~:text=Air%20and%20sea%20power%20dramatically,air%20and%20sea%20power%20did.
notice the 48% spending on aircraft, which (until the last years) was heavily aimed at trying to build bombers.
these bombers were mostly light and medium tactical bombers, Ju 87, Ju 88, Do 17, He 111, stuff like that.
Germany didn't have a heavy strategic bomber except for the He 177, of which just over 1,100 were produced
your claim that Germany "put a massive amount of resources into building strategic bombers" is a blatant lie.
I didn't say they built them, I said they TRIED to build them. It was a massive failure because of
They ended up relying on shit designed for the Spanish Civil War which was considered obsolete before WW2 even begin. The HE -177 was intended to have 4 engines, long range, and be built in massive numbers for bombing the Urals and eventually Amerika. they put a shitload of resources into building it, not only the planes themselves but also the tools and factories to build these massive complex machines. But then the aircraft factories were all destroyed by allied bombing.
>Nazi German Industry
>Producing Quad-Six Engine plane frames
German industry was in nothing but decline since 1939, the couldn't afford start bombers and where stuck with flying coffins like that would catch on fire while doing large bombing runs.
did they bomb england rotterdam warsaw stalingrad with paper planes or what?
he-111s aren't long range
is that a requirement for strategic bombing?
They felt to the Dive Bomber meme.
>precision attacks bad
>incinerating whole cities good
Correct
What wins? A guy who uses a rifle to shoot one target before running away, or the dude who drops a fucking nuke on the target, then goes back to base to do it again?
"we're the good guys btw"
“We’re the winners btw”
the good guys always win
And the winners always write the history.
Only if the winner is a non-democratic, non-liberal country. There are a lot of books about Allied war crimes, suffering of Germans and so on. It wouldn't be possible to write such books if the Nazis won WW2 like it wasn't possible to write such books in the Soviet Union.
I agree that the situation is more complex in countries with freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean that the dominant narrative isn’t shaped by propaganda. There are no good guys in geopolitics: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, same as it ever was.
There are no good guys but there are bad guys and the Nazis were undeniably the bad guys
They wore skulls for God's sake
>They wore skulls for God's sake
I hate this meme so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_crossbones_(military)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totenkopf
>wehraboo autistic cannot handle a Mitchell and Webb joke
No shock there
I've read that as a serious argument often enough here.
>The No. 100 Squadron RAF (Royal Air Force) continue to use a flag depicting a skull and crossbones,[18] supposedly in reference to a flag stolen from a French brothel in 1918
Yeah and Maori warriors make ugly faces. What’s your point?
>Nazi regime kills 11 million people, not only it's own citizens but spergs out and demands its puppets send them more victims.
>strongarms Austria's annexation
>annexes half of Czechia, then the rest of it
>invades Poland starting the largest war in history even before the USSR was involved.
>invades France
>invades Denmark
>invades Norway
>invades Greece
>Invades the USSR, breaking a non-aggression pact
>holy shit they're importing victims from Italian north africa now
>Italian government switches sides after losing a million times
>frees Mussolini and places him in charge of a puppet regime that coincidentally only controls Italy where the German army is.
>bombs British cities
>refuses to capitulate even when the war has been lost for 6 months, sends millions of their soldiers to die.
>Americans and British kill less than a million civilians over the same amount of time
>nobody serious says the allies killing civilians is a good thing
>amerifat chud on LULZ with a loose grasp of even 2nd world war history pretends that allies were the bad guys because
>Nazi regime kills 11 million people
picrel
And did you forget that Britain and France declared war on Germany....Again?
After Germany invaded Poland. Stop pretending to be retarded.
And yes, they killed more than 11 million.
Poland isn't Britain or France bud. Besides, Poles had tons of ethnic Germans trapped in its borders so those lands should not have been Polish to begin with.
These lands were majority Polish and were stolen by Germans during the partitions. Many of those Germans were settled there by the Prussian and later German government to change the ethnic make up of these lands.
>trapped
No one wanted them there. They could leave at any time.
>Poland isn't Britain or France
Do you know anything about history? Poland was in a military alliance with those countries.
>Poland isn't Britain or France bud. Besides, Poles had tons of ethnic Germans trapped in its borders so those lands should not have been Polish to begin with.
If everyone of your own ethnic group has to live within YOUR borders, we'll have wars until the end of time.
m8 they had an established defense agreement with Poland, that's the entire point of defense agreements. If you attack a country with defensive partners you are declaring war on their allies too. That's the whole point.
retard- I didn't say holocaust, I said "killed 11 million people" obviously that counts mote non-israelites than israelites, and things like einsatzgruppen
wrong board
>declaring war on a country when it has been made clear that it would trigger declarations of war from other countries is the same thing as a war of aggression started by the Nazi regime
I was responding to someone who was implying the allies were the bad guys, there are no "good guys" in war, only guys with bad intentions and guys with good intentions, the nazis had bad intentions and probably the worst intentions of any warring state in 400 years, definitely in the last 150 years.
You /misc/tards are really love to cope about world war two, I wonder why you come to other boards where there are people who don't echo everything you say, maybe if you stay on /misc/ you'll get some validation from your bruder
>declaring war on a country when it has been made clear that it would trigger declarations of war from other countries is the same thing as a war of aggression started by the Nazi regime
Yeah it is when you throw them away 5 years later to another bunch of evil cunts.
>the cope never stops!
do you HONESTLY think that the western allies wanted the Soviet Union to replace the government of like 10 countries in Eastern Europe, you CANNOT be that stupid. There was much discussion of operation unthinkable, and the conclusion that was reached was that it would not be worth it (maybe even possible) to defeat the USSR particularly after fighting in a total war for 4-6 years. The USSR broke promises left and right, it wasn't concessions from the western allies, Stalin ended up being pretty astute with his diplomacy given how it turned out, that is not the fault of the western allies, but the fault of the USSR, turn your hate towards them(oh you already have). Not to mention that living in a nazi occupied country was far worse than living in a soviet "occupied" country, particularly East Germany.
Patton was famously a blowhard autist, Patton probably thought he could invade Normandy with an army 500 mailmen
>Its not worth it to save the countries you payed half of Europe to save once
Bullshit they just stopped about other countries because the USSR would not be as big a threat to them personally as a hostile Germany would of been, they never gave a shit about Poland they just didn't want Germany getting powerful and then getting ideas about revenge for WW1.
>>Nazi regime kills 11 million people
stopped reading
You forgot the part where the Allies throw the country they started ww2 over too the commies to get genocided again.
Commies did not plan to genocide Poles.
But they still did a pretty good job killing a whole load of civilians and deporting a load more to gulags to "disappear"
Sounds like genocide to me
It happened mostly during the war, after the Soviets took over the Eastern Poland. They were still Germany's allies back then.
So? that does not change the fact it happened, the "Good guys" started a war that destroyed most of Europe to save countries from occupation just to let another country occupy them. If they were going to be the good guys they could of held onto their ideals for longer then 5 fucking years.
Germany started this war. It's not about being good guys, it's about not allowing one country to gobble up half of Europe.
But it was pretty much impossible to save East Europe from the communists in 1945. And technically Central European countries never became part of the Soviet Union.
Germany started a war with Poland. Britain and France turned it into a World War.
Germany started a war with British and French allied. Do you understand how international treaties work?
The Red Army was the biggest army in Europe and was generally considered the saviors of Europe. And I really doubt people would be willing to start another devastating war after the first one just ended.
>Germany started a war with British and French allied. Do you understand how international treaties work?
Germans protecting their own people > British and French wantonly declaring war willy nilly via secret protocols with third parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance
you misunderstand what was a secret protocol and what was a regular alliance. It was the reason hitler waited several days longer to invade Poland
Ask the ethnic Germans in South Tyrol about how vital Adolf thought it was for Germans to protect their own people.
Considering the state of northern Italians today I'd say pretty vital lmfao
They also made a promise to Poland they could never keep.
>Hey Poland we will help you if you get invaded
>*Poland gets invades*
>*Does literally fucking nothing to help, plunged Europe into another war and gives half of it away to the soviets after*
Lucky about all the genocide or Britain and France would of looked fucking retarded after that.
I should add that France did do something, just a shame it was one of the most embarrassing invasions ever.
>it was pretty much impossible
According to who? Patton was pretty confident in being able to destroy the Red Army.
ah the good old "indiscriminately killing civilians was justified because the nazis were worse" argument
It was necessary. It's not like the Nazis cared about civilian life when they bombed Soviet or Western cities.
>but what about the nazis they were far worse
killing
civilians
is
wrong
ffs i really have to spell it out don't i
yeah the germans did it too and i'm not defending their actions either
the mental gymnastics allied apologist will resort to to defend their own atrocities
>it's okay when we do it
The mantra of 20th century liberalists.
>We're the heroes btw, now enjoy this hollywood movie and videogame about the 'good' war
Yes
>then goes back to base to do it again
lol. being a british bomber pilot was one of the most dangerous jobs of the entire war. harris was nicknamed the butcher not because of his complete disregard for humanity but because he made bombing missions borderline suicide
Nighttime raids had a casualty rate of less than 15 percent on average
both where good, but arguably the dive bombers where better since they equaled a direct battlefield advantage compared to the long term logistical disruptions start bombers caused, that only killed civilians and angered the entire nation after a bombing run.
>blow up trains, factories, ships at harbor, disrupt logistics, de house populations, and annihilate cities
Vs
>fly super low and expose yourself to AA fire and blow up one tank
Strat bombers can also carpet bomb enemy positions without needing to expose themselves. It's no contest
Grandfather was in the AA. He said they were easy to shoot down because they came straight down. Looked highly effective earlier in the war though.
(He didn't mention he was scared shitless, discovered that after he died in a letter he wrote to his sister. May or may not have been on account of the Stukas screaming down on you and you better hit it because otherwise RIP.)
kek implying they had any left during 44/45 your grandpa is lying
You're lying, these AA guns pretty much never got to shoot at axis planes. Allied doctrine was so scared of axis planes but they basically never put things into practice. All those 50 cals on vehicles? Barely got used for their purpose as AA.
Yes they did.
The only reason the Brits didn't keep them on their tanks was the Allies had uncontested air supremacy mid war onwards
In the run up to the war the Luftwaffe was built around the doctrine that they would be primarily focused on close support for the Wehrmacht, so they focused on attack aircraft and light/medium bombers. It's kind of hard to do strategic bombing with a Stuka, but their heavier medium bombers did more or less OK in that role, as British cities of the day can tell you.
In comparison the RAF spent most of the interwar years focused on building larger and longer ranged bombers, initially for use in 'colonial policing' (you don't need to worry about a colonial town objecting to regulations when you can send a half dozen heavy bombers loaded with incendiaries in to 'resolve the issue'). Which were much better suited to carpet bombing industrial and residential areas.
Ultimately the RAF did better to cover their weak point as the war went on, but German military procurement during WWII was the sort of clusterfuck-horror show that makes the worst jokes about corruption in the Pentagon look like a smoothly oiled machine.
Turns out, when you have a corrupt mafia as a form of government, your vegan high-school dropout leader will give out all the highest positions of power to his retards friends, who will go on to appoints their own retards friends to create the retard pyramid of fascism.
goes against lighting war tactics the whole idea of blitzkrieg was to have CAS readily available to the panzers and or infantry to take out crucial targets quickly and trap them in pockets to wither them down and rinse and repeat till you win
I mean really other then stopping the Holocaust what was the benefit of world war 2? the Allies still ended up with an extremely hostile enemy on their eastern border and they still gave up all the Countries they wanted to save from the Nazis.
Broke the back of the British empire and set the American empire on its path to ascendency. How beneficial this was and to whom is of course open to opinion.
They couldn't invent four engine bombers.
They had a few prototypes, but none went into full production.
retard