On 29 Jun 2003 17:04:35 GMT, nt (Gordon) wrote:


Well, the Hampdens, Battles and their ilk were certainly a disaster, but I do
agree that the German idea of a bomber primarily useful as a CAS asset was a
huge flaw.

If your primary enemies (Poland, France) are on your borders, than
designing bomber that will help the army subdue the enemy in shortest
possible time looks like a good move to me.

The German's prewar thinking was how to win battles, not sustain a
nearly indefinite war - something both America and Russia could afford to do.

Germany could never win a nearly indefinite war against opponents who
enjoyed the command of the seas and access to resources Germany
lacked.

I think its a very lucky thing that the man that would have insured the Germans
possessed a heavy bomber died in the years leading up to the war. Without a
strategic bomber, Germany never had a chance.

Strategic bombers were not needed to defeat Poland, nor France. They
weren't needed for invasion of USSR either. Germany did not posses
resources to build both, strategic bombers and tactical ones. They did
not have fuel for both. Given the historical reality, they picked the
weapon that matched their needs. Political map of Europe in June 1940
reflects this.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply