|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 1:34:09 GMT
Who said Kriegsmarine had to defeat Royal Navy, it can be defeated by Luftwaffe if it had air superiority. If Germany commits itself to such a strategy, the Luftwaffe is going to need a lot more planes, a lot more pilots, a lot of more time to train said pilots. Additionally, Germany had very little capabilities in terms of naval air power; development of such capabilities was opposed by both the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine. Even normal bombers can do that. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 1:36:54 GMT
If Germany commits itself to such a strategy, the Luftwaffe is going to need a lot more planes, a lot more pilots, a lot of more time to train said pilots. Additionally, Germany had very little capabilities in terms of naval air power; development of such capabilities was opposed by both the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine. Even normal bombers can do that. No, they can't do as well as naval bombers. Combat planes are designed for specific roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 1:37:30 GMT
Even normal bombers can do that. No, they can't. Combat planes are designed for specific roles. Can you explain? |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 1:42:19 GMT
No, they can't. Combat planes are designed for specific roles. Can you explain? Combat planes are designed for specific roles. The Luftwaffe was focused on air support; helping the army. They did not have a long range strategic bomber to bomb the Soviet factories in the Urals. They didn't have specialized naval bombers designed to be effective against naval ships. To use an land-based analogy, shooting a bullet at a tank doesn't work. That's why anti-tank weapons were developed for infantry to have the capabilities to do meaningful damage to tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 1:50:59 GMT
Combat planes are designed for specific roles. The Luftwaffe was focused on air support; helping the army. They did not have a long range strategic bomber to bomb the Soviet factories in the Urals. They didn't have specialized naval bombers designed to be effective against naval ships. To use an land-based analogy, shooting a bullet at a tank doesn't work. That's why anti-tank weapons were developed for infantry to have the capabilities to do meaningful damage to tanks. OK noob. Do you know about armor piercing shells? |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 1:53:03 GMT
Combat planes are designed for specific roles. The Luftwaffe was focused on air support; helping the army. They did not have a long range strategic bomber to bomb the Soviet factories in the Urals. They didn't have specialized naval bombers designed to be effective against naval ships. To use an land-based analogy, shooting a bullet at a tank doesn't work. That's why anti-tank weapons were developed for infantry to have the capabilities to do meaningful damage to tanks. OK noob. Do you know about armor piercing shells? Yep. Armor piercing shells are anti-tank weapons. A bullet is fired by a handgun or rifle. You still haven't addressed my arguments lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 1:55:30 GMT
OK noob. Do you know about armor piercing shells? Yep. Armor piercing shells are anti-tank weapons. A bullet is fired by a handgun or rifle. You still haven't addressed my arguments lol. Armour piercing shells peirce the armor and then they blast when used against any armor and they can be used by planes also. Luftwaffe has hundreds of bombers which they can use. Japanese used Armor Piercing bombs against Battleships during a very infamous attack on December 7th, 1941. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 2:17:41 GMT
Yep. Armor piercing shells are anti-tank weapons. A bullet is fired by a handgun or rifle. You still haven't addressed my arguments lol. Armour piercing shells peirce the armor and then they blast when used against any armor and they can be used by planes also. Luftwaffe has hundreds of bombers which they can use. Japanese used Armor Piercing bombs against Battleships during a very infamous attack on December 7th, 1941. Mostly true. All armor is different; you need stronger bombs for stronger armor. But the Japanese had specialized naval bombers that used bombs capable of piercing ship armor. The Germans still didn't have such aircraft or such bombs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 5:14:06 GMT
Armour piercing shells peirce the armor and then they blast when used against any armor and they can be used by planes also. Luftwaffe has hundreds of bombers which they can use. Japanese used Armor Piercing bombs against Battleships during a very infamous attack on December 7th, 1941. Mostly true. All armor is different; you need stronger bombs for stronger armor. But the Japanese had specialized naval bombers that used bombs capable of piercing ship armor. The Germans still didn't have such aircraft or such bombs. It isn't that difficult to make anti-armour shells and I don't think they need special planes because they will work from airports. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 5:33:18 GMT
Mostly true. All armor is different; you need stronger bombs for stronger armor. But the Japanese had specialized naval bombers that used bombs capable of piercing ship armor. The Germans still didn't have such aircraft or such bombs. It isn't that difficult to make anti-armour shells and I don't think they need special planes because they will work from airports. I don't know what airports have to do with not needing specialized naval bombers, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Germany isn't going to build aircraft carriers, so of course they are going to use land-based bombers. I think you underestimate the time and resources needed to develop new combat equipment. Also, as I said earlier, Germany needs time and resources for a drastic expansion of the Luftwaffe to tackle both the Royal Navy and Airforce. Germany needs to spend time and resources that they can't afford because of Hitler's desire to invade the Soviets. In theory, they could divert time and resources from Operation Barbarossa and dedicate it to fighting Britain, but why would they when the Soviets are the biggest threat? It doesn't make sense to me. Forgot to mention this, but Germany doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Britain either. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 6:41:43 GMT
It isn't that difficult to make anti-armour shells and I don't think they need special planes because they will work from airports. I don't know what airports have to do with not needing specialized naval bombers, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Germany isn't going to build aircraft carriers, so of course they are going to use land-based bombers. I think you underestimate the time and resources needed to develop new combat equipment. Also, as I said earlier, Germany needs time and resources for a drastic expansion of the Luftwaffe to tackle both the Royal Navy and Airforce. Germany needs to spend time and resources that they can't afford because of Hitler's desire to invade the Soviets. In theory, they could divert time and resources from Operation Barbarossa and dedicate it to fighting Britain, but why would they when the Soviets are the biggest threat? It doesn't make sense to me. Forgot to mention this, but Germany doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Britain either. They can get resources from Soviet Union which was providing lwnd lease to Germany to buy time. Soviet Union was not a real threat because Stalin was cautious to an invasion of Germany due to Wehrmacht being undefeated till then, he has no plans to take enmity with Hitler any time soon. Germans have given them free hand in Asia (particularly Afghanistan and South Asia) in exchange for no further claims in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 6:44:35 GMT
It isn't that difficult to make anti-armour shells and I don't think they need special planes because they will work from airports. I don't know what airports have to do with not needing specialized naval bombers, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Germany isn't going to build aircraft carriers, so of course they are going to use land-based bombers. I think you underestimate the time and resources needed to develop new combat equipment. Also, as I said earlier, Germany needs time and resources for a drastic expansion of the Luftwaffe to tackle both the Royal Navy and Airforce. Germany needs to spend time and resources that they can't afford because of Hitler's desire to invade the Soviets. In theory, they could divert time and resources from Operation Barbarossa and dedicate it to fighting Britain, but why would they when the Soviets are the biggest threat? It doesn't make sense to me. Forgot to mention this, but Germany doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Britain either. Can you explain me what is "difference" between Naval Bombers and Normal Bombers according to your Reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:07:57 GMT
I don't know what airports have to do with not needing specialized naval bombers, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Germany isn't going to build aircraft carriers, so of course they are going to use land-based bombers. I think you underestimate the time and resources needed to develop new combat equipment. Also, as I said earlier, Germany needs time and resources for a drastic expansion of the Luftwaffe to tackle both the Royal Navy and Airforce. Germany needs to spend time and resources that they can't afford because of Hitler's desire to invade the Soviets. In theory, they could divert time and resources from Operation Barbarossa and dedicate it to fighting Britain, but why would they when the Soviets are the biggest threat? It doesn't make sense to me. Forgot to mention this, but Germany doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Britain either. They can get resources from Soviet Union which was providing lwnd lease to Germany to buy time. Soviet Union was not a real threat because Stalin was cautious to an invasion of Germany due to Wehrmacht being undefeated till then, he has no plans to take enmity with Hitler any time soon. Germans have given them free hand in Asia (particularly Afghanistan and South Asia) in exchange for no further claims in Europe. Stalin wanted to reform his army after the Winter War. After that, he would eventually break the pact and invade once he's extracted a significant amount of concessions from Hitler. Stalin could and did use the threat of ceasing raw material shipments to extract concessions. The original invasion date for the Soviet Union was the most optimal time that Germany could have invaded. After the Balkan Delay, Hitler and his generals were united that they couldn't afford to delay the invasion again. They didn't want the Soviets to get too strong and crush Germany once Stalin decided that the pact was no longer in his interest to maintain. The Soviets were more interested in Europe, which is evidenced by their occupation of Bukovina, which was not included in the pact. Still, none of this changes my belief that Germany was not be able to develop the capabilities to invade Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:09:38 GMT
I don't know what airports have to do with not needing specialized naval bombers, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Germany isn't going to build aircraft carriers, so of course they are going to use land-based bombers. I think you underestimate the time and resources needed to develop new combat equipment. Also, as I said earlier, Germany needs time and resources for a drastic expansion of the Luftwaffe to tackle both the Royal Navy and Airforce. Germany needs to spend time and resources that they can't afford because of Hitler's desire to invade the Soviets. In theory, they could divert time and resources from Operation Barbarossa and dedicate it to fighting Britain, but why would they when the Soviets are the biggest threat? It doesn't make sense to me. Forgot to mention this, but Germany doesn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Britain either. Can you explain me what is "difference" between Naval Bombers and Normal Bombers according to your Reasoning. Bombers are used for supporting the army and attacking key enemy industries from a medium range, which is how the Germans used them. Naval bombers are used against ships. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:22:52 GMT
Can you explain me what is "difference" between Naval Bombers and Normal Bombers according to your Reasoning. Bombers are used for supporting the army and attacking key enemy industries from a medium range, which is how the Germans used them. Naval bombers are used against ships. What makes different? By that way, it depends on against whom they are used. |
|
