|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:56:05 GMT
I don't think there is any other difference. There is a reason behind everything. Again, Land-based naval bombers exist for a reason. Lol, you need some sleep or any other refreshment, it was 1940-41. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 7:56:47 GMT
I don't think there is any other difference. Aircraft carriers are guarded by planes and vessels. There is a lot of difference If they had "naval bombers", then why they need planes to defend? |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:58:04 GMT
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. Okay, but I don't see how that's related to the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:58:37 GMT
There is a reason behind everything. Again, Land-based naval bombers exist for a reason. Lol, you need some sleep or any other refreshment, it was 1940-41. Don't know what you mean by that either. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 7:59:09 GMT
Aircraft carriers are guarded by planes and vessels. There is a lot of difference If they had "naval bombers", then why they need planes to defend? They needed planes to defend "THEIR" carriers. They need naval bombers to destroy "ENEMIES" carriers |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 7:59:44 GMT
Aircraft carriers are guarded by planes and vessels. There is a lot of difference If they had "naval bombers", then why they need planes to defend? Bombers should be escorted to increase their survivabiltiy. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 15, 2021 8:02:15 GMT
57 are viewing this board (or maybe this thread)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 8:09:05 GMT
57 are viewing this board (or maybe this thread) How you know? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 8:10:05 GMT
If they had "naval bombers", then why they need planes to defend? They needed planes to defend "THEIR" carriers. They need naval bombers to destroy "ENEMIES" carriers Simply say that Fighters and Scout planes were also present. |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Apr 15, 2021 10:24:39 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. yes, and also they have fronts they still have to fight on. Soviet Union will inevitably invade in '43. It just isn't practical to invade Britain |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 11:37:02 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. yes, and also they have fronts they still have to fight on. Soviet Union will inevitably invade in '43. It just isn't practical to invade Britain It is 2-3 years time. And how can you be sure that they will invade in '43 or you mean 2043. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 13:57:49 GMT
yes, and also they have fronts they still have to fight on. Soviet Union will inevitably invade in '43. It just isn't practical to invade Britain It is 2-3 years time. And how can you be sure that they will invade in '43 or you mean 2043. Because according to Soviet Estimates, that's when the army would be able to effectively fight the Germans. I don't think Germany can develop the capabilities to invade Britain in 2-3 years. That's also discounting the US joining the war. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 14:13:06 GMT
It is 2-3 years time. And how can you be sure that they will invade in '43 or you mean 2043. Because according to Soviet Estimates, that's when the army would be able to effectively fight the Germans. I don't think Germany can develop the capabilities to invade Britain in 2-3 years. That's also discounting the US joining the war. Britain was overextended. Why you think they can't? Where did you find those "Soviet Estimates". |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 15, 2021 14:18:37 GMT
Because according to Soviet Estimates, that's when the army would be able to effectively fight the Germans. I don't think Germany can develop the capabilities to invade Britain in 2-3 years. That's also discounting the US joining the war. Britain was overextended. Why you think they can't? Where did you find those "Soviet Estimates". Britain can't what? Let me find you a source that you won't discount. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on Apr 17, 2021 5:59:07 GMT
Wait everyone, I've got a very good one. What if the French Army decided to go with thw Foch strategy of "l'offensive à outrance", Pushing through the Rhine and basically counter-passing through Belgium. Also what if they used de Gaulle's blitzkrieg during that push ?
|
|
