|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:43:37 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. If normal bombers can do, why did they invent naval bombers then? There must be a reason to invent naval bombers |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:44:11 GMT
As many as possible and also sometimes, you need to use your own brain. Yep and you are not using that right now |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:44:43 GMT
I can find you another source, if you'd like, I've seen this information come from other sources. Wikipedia is just convenient. The information is true, but this is like claiming Vichy France was German Puppet. At first glance it seems it is true and it is partially true but as you know more about it ,your opinion changes that it maybe a Puppet, but not like Slovakia for example, it was more like Spain. I'm afraid I don't understand how the analogy relates to the topic. I slightly disagree with it though: Vichy had more sovereignty than Slovakia, but Spain had complete sovereignty. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:45:33 GMT
Even normal bombers can do that. If normal bombers can do, why did they invent naval bombers then? There must be a reason to invent naval bombers I don't think there is any "naval bomber" other than them to be made for Carriers. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:45:50 GMT
Even normal bombers can do that. If normal bombers can do, why did they invent naval bombers then? There must be a reason to invent naval bombers Oh my god, Thank you! That's what I have been trying to explain for two pages. There is a reason behind everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:46:17 GMT
The information is true, but this is like claiming Vichy France was German Puppet. At first glance it seems it is true and it is partially true but as you know more about it ,your opinion changes that it maybe a Puppet, but not like Slovakia for example, it was more like Spain. I'm afraid I don't understand how the analogy relates to the topic. I slightly disagree with it though: Vichy had more sovereignty than Slovakia, but Spain had complete sovereignty. Not Spain, it was more like Soviet Union |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:48:07 GMT
If normal bombers can do, why did they invent naval bombers then? There must be a reason to invent naval bombers I don't think there is any "naval bomber" other than them to be made for Carriers. Yes. You got to the point. TO COUNTER THE NAVY MORE EFFECTIVLY THAN NORMAL BOMBERS, naval bombers were used. And since navy is only prevalent in coastal areas, it's use is limited |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:48:39 GMT
I'm afraid I don't understand how the analogy relates to the topic. I slightly disagree with it though: Vichy had more sovereignty than Slovakia, but Spain had complete sovereignty. Not Spain, it was more like Soviet Union In that? . . . Comparing Vichy to the Soviets makes less sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:49:39 GMT
I don't think there is any "naval bomber" other than them to be made for Carriers. Yes. You got to the point. TO COUNTER THE NAVY MORE EFFECTIVLY THAN NORMAL BOMBERS, naval bombers were used. And since navy is only prevalent in coastal areas, it's use is limited I mean they are made to be more suitable to Carriers since Carriers have some differences from Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:51:24 GMT
Not Spain, it was more like Soviet Union In that? . . . Comparing Vichy to the Soviets makes less sense. Germany do not have any sustainable option other than allowing Petain to continue, same like they have no sustainable option other than signing a non-agression pact with Soviet Union. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:51:45 GMT
Yes. You got to the point. TO COUNTER THE NAVY MORE EFFECTIVLY THAN NORMAL BOMBERS, naval bombers were used. And since navy is only prevalent in coastal areas, it's use is limited I mean they are made to be more suitable to Carriers since Carriers have some differences from Airport. Yes. Airports are still, they don't move so normal ones do fine. But carriers move, guarded by planes and vessels. To suit these requirements, they were made. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:52:17 GMT
Yes. You got to the point. TO COUNTER THE NAVY MORE EFFECTIVLY THAN NORMAL BOMBERS, naval bombers were used. And since navy is only prevalent in coastal areas, it's use is limited I mean they are made to be more suitable to Carriers since Carriers have some differences from Airport. That's true. The planes on carriers are designed to be on carriers. However, Naval bombers can be designed for land airports and carriers respectively. There are land-based naval bombers. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:53:18 GMT
I mean they are made to be more suitable to Carriers since Carriers have some differences from Airport. That's true. The planes on carriers are designed to be on carriers. However, Naval bombers can be designed for land airports and carriers respectively. I don't think there is any other difference. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:54:52 GMT
That's true. The planes on carriers are designed to be on carriers. However, Naval bombers can be designed for land airports and carriers respectively. I don't think there is any other difference. There is a reason behind everything. Again, Land-based naval bombers exist for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:55:09 GMT
That's true. The planes on carriers are designed to be on carriers. However, Naval bombers can be designed for land airports and carriers respectively. I don't think there is any other difference. Aircraft carriers are guarded by planes and vessels. There is a lot of difference |
|
