Jump to content

What effect would a good stategic bomber have had. For either side.


Recommended Posts

The western allies devoted large amounts of recources to them while the Germans, Russians & Japanese did not. This may have been influenced by the channel, obviously. But if the nazis had been able to damage tankograd, or indict the re-inforcement of Moscow by the eastern divisions, would it have made a difference to the outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, thats that cleared that up then.

as i'm new to these here parts i don't know whether they're a good place to post these sort of hypothetical questions. but i've enjoyed enough of this BB to see that there are a lot of people with a broad knowledge of the conflict who post here and it was something which interested me. why, in a war where mud, snow & vast distance defined the battlefield, were stategic bombers not used? did they know something the western allies overlooked or was it just that we had the appropriate tech?

[ January 22, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Other Means ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Other Means:

why, in a war where mud, snow & vast distance defined the battlefield, were stategic bombers not used?

Didn't fit the German or Soviet doctrine of the time.

You don't really need strategic bombers if you're planning to overrun the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...