Why couldn't German into four engine bombers?

their economy sucked.

only half of the USA's GNP as of 1938.

>>33830013
that didnt stop the british or soviets

File: 23155.jpg (42KB, 668x307px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 668x307px

Because bombers don't win wars.

And yes they did have a 4 engine bomber. I think they experimented with several but this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_Condor
Germany also had plans for 6 engine long-range bombers. BV 222 and BV 238

File: 1491355598685.jpg (110KB, 592x887px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 592x887px

>>33830131
>bombers dont win wars

>Says the faggot who doesn't realize the bomber won the pacific theater.

>>33830131
None of these were a dedicated, reliable, four engine bomber they were able to field

And "had plans" is a shitty excuse. Soviets had a fielded reliable four engine design in the mid-30s, US and UK by the late 30s.

>>33830164
Lol bombers alone don't win wars.
The US dropped two atomic bombs, I believe you left that little detail out. The US conducted bombing after bombing with little to no effect on Japanese progress.
Stop being pretentious.

Hitler had been obsessed with bombers and this obsession is why the Luftwaffe began to crumble toward the end of the war. He wanted the Me-262 to be a strike/bombing aircraft just to give you an idea of how delusional he was.

>>33830131
>bombers don't win wars.

Nope, but against a traditional enemy denial of resources is the best way to break an army. Guess what the best way to deny resources is?

>>33829906
the military had to be effective but not too effective to possibly overthrow adolf

File: 1469218720653.jpg (42KB, 473x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 473x500px

>>33830197

>The US dropped two atomic bombs, I believe you left that little detail out.


Oh yeah you're a completely right, I completely forgot how the US carrying Fat Man and Little Boy on a rowboat and hand delivering on a mule cart into the heart of nagasaki and hiroshima.

Totally forgot.

File: Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.jpg (322KB, 906x626px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 906x626px

Walther Wever died and so did support for the strategic bomber.

>>33830197

>us drops atomic bombs
>atomic bombs
>bombs

>with a bomber.

Did you just unwittingly proved yourself retarded?

>>33829906
They could. They had the capability.

They were just completely retarded about it and put doctrinal constraints on their engineers, which resulted in their primary heavy bomber candidate being designed to be some kind of dive-bombing heavy bomber with welded-together double engines (which caught on fire literally all of the time), rather than just making a bunch of "good-enough" 4-engined heavy bombers that could function in a strategic capacity.

People always praise kraut space magic without realizing that it failed to win the war because it diverted valuable resources to retarded, underdeveloped technology demonstrators. For example, Nazi germany never satisfactorily replaced the Bf-109, instead producing limited numbers of jet fighters that had negligible effect on the war, while the rest of the luftwaffe was ripped apart by large numbers of advanced allied piston-engined fighters. Which is what happens when you entrust your weapons development and procurement to dictators with mental problems.

inb4 triggered wehraboos

>>33830277
>>33830300
you two are fucking retards.


we're talking about conventional bombers. are you this dense?
now you just want to argue semantics so you can chock up one little victory in your sad notepad file.

>>33830353

But anon,

A B-29 IS A CONVENTIONAL BOMBER.

plot twist.

Btw I already won. Just like how the bomber won the pacific theater.

>>33830353
The B-29, which was used to conduct the strategic bombing of Japan, mining of Japanese sea lanes, and the delivery of both Fat Man and Little Boy, is a conventional bomber.

>>33830351
this
the Germans had multiple sized helmets to accommodate different size heads

everyone else simply had more adjustment in their liners

>>33830197
The ability to deliver weapons to the target is far more important than the weapons themselves. The bomb itself didn't mean jack shit if they have nothing to deliver it. Which is why North Korea is considered a paper tiger even though it has nukes-- because it doesn't have the necessary delivery systems.

Want proof? The development of the B-29 Superfortress was 1.7 billion dollars more expensive that the Manhattan Project-- the most expensive weapons project in all of WW2. Aircraft won the second world war, and strategic bombing was the primary reason for that, in both theaters.

>>33830390
That can't be true.

>>33830197
>no effect on Japanese progress.
nukes are just to avoid a conflict with Russia in the north of Japan
the us got scared of Operation Downfall and the lead up to operation unthinkable

conventional bombing killed more per day than the nukes ever managed
besides Japan lost the moment they failed to secure the Philippines or even came into conflict with the us in the first place

besides bombers ain't shit and all air to ground nukes got cancelled
along with the interceptor made to counter them

>>33830430
it is SHOCKINGLY true
http://www.german-helmets.com/HELMET%20SHELL%20SIZE%20CHART.htm

five different sized shells which accommodate additionally two more liner sizes each
5 shell sizes and 10 liner sizes

meanwhile, M1 helmets are universal and adjustable

>>33830223
To cut off their shipping routes through naval superiority. That's what you were going to say, right?

File: 1492995599225.jpg (14KB, 315x317px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 315x317px

>>33830131
Kek. Wut?

Strategic bombing worked so well for WW2, generals tired to apply it for every war they were in for generations. It's sorta the reason why all these modern wars are fought vs insergents and guerrilla fights. Bombing the shit out of all your factories, ports and railways to deny supplies is way more efficient then manually killing every man on your way to Berlin/Paris.

Don't be silly m8. Quailty bombers are just as important as any other next thing.

>>33830965
Quick question, can you bomb ships? Or do torpedo bombers not count?

>>33831189
Yes, though tactics may vary. Level bombing tactics like you see the Allies using over Germany wasn't too effective, as the time it took for the bombs to reach the surface meant that it was very difficult to hit a maneuvering ship.

Dive bombing was popular, although it was limited to smaller bombers - usually single-engined - and thus payload were usually limited. Unless you were an IJN carrier, it was probably going to take a few dive bombers to kill your ship.

For larger bombers, skip-bombing was fairly effective. By flying very low and releasing close to a ship - similar to a torpedo bombing profile but significantly faster and less vulnerable - it was possible to skip bombs across the surface of the water. Those are the tactics that we see medium bombers like the A-20 and B-25 being so successful with in the anti-shipping role, but I've seen reports of planes as big as the B-17 performing skip-bombing attacks.

>>33831189
Look at the tonnage for ships sunk and very little of it, especially when referring to merchant shipping, was done by aircraft. The vast majority was done by surface ships and subs.

>>33830277
>implying the US couldn't have made a rocket like the V2 to get the same job done.

fucking frog posters

File: 1467098362831.jpg (49KB, 300x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x392px

>>33830384
>Just like how the bomber won the pacific theater.

Things that didn't happen for 500 Alex!

>>33830386
The Enola Gay was a specially modified aircraft which was never used in a conventional manner so no it does not count as a conventional bomber.

>>33831164
>Strategic bombing worked so well for WW2

It really didn't. Read reports on the effects of bombing after the war. Turns out bombing failed to accomplish the desired reduction in production. In fact production INCREASED during the height of bombing. Strategic bombing also utterly failed to provide any worth in both Korea and Vietnam, other than in the latter case of turning the world against the US and subsequently losing the war. Surprise surprise that high ranking generals will lie through their teeth about their combat effectiveness in order to preserve their career. Who could have guessed?

>It's sorta the reason why all these modern wars are fought vs insergents and guerrilla fights.

And how many of those have been won? None.

>>33831567
The couldn't.

The US did not have rocket technology of the caliber that the Germans had.

File: Japanese naval losses.jpg (80KB, 800x631px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x631px

>>33831550
>surface ships

Also most ships which were sunk by four engine heavy bombers were sitting still at harbours.

>>33829906
Generally speaking, they didn't have as pressing a need for them. France and Russia were by far the more immediate threats and you don't exactly need a long-range bomber for that.

>>33831636

>Just like how the bomber won the pacific theater.

>Things that didn't happen for 500 Alex!

You're right, they practically won WW2.

>The Enola Gay was a specially modified aircraft which was never used in a conventional manner so no it does not count as a conventional bomber.

Hate to break it too you, but airframe classifications don't change that easily.
it's like you;
You can give retard glasses, he's still a retard.

Why are you such a delusional faggot anon?

Luftwaffe's goal was to be a heavy bomber force with enough fighters to escort them. They never got the bomber part right. Ironic, but of good for us fans of freedom!!!

File: G4M_Type_1_Attack_Bomber_Betty_G4M-3s.jpg (22KB, 1005x343px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1005x343px

>>33829906
COming to think of it: none of the Axis had 4 engined bombers.

>>33831636

> The Enola Gay was a specially modified aircraft which was never used in a conventional manner so no it does not count as a conventional bomber.

Modifying bombers for specific weapons was not unusual. The Avro Lancaster had to be extensively modified to use; Tallboy, Grand Slam, and Bouncing bombs yet they were all still Lancaster bombers. The "Silverplate" B-29s were still very much B-29s, especially because in 1945, atomic bombs were regarded as very effective strategic bombing weapons, not a whole new warfare concept.

> Turns out bombing failed to accomplish the desired reduction in production. In fact production INCREASED during the height of bombing.

You're right in that those strategic bombing advocates who believed bombing could win a war without a ground campaign, or that terror bombing would cow a civilian population into surrender were proven wrong, but the German increase in war production proves nothing.

Germany only turned itself fully into a war economy, like Britain and the USSR already had in 1943, so of course its production would increase. The issue was that bombing reduced industrial & raw material output, it disrupted the rail network needed to move materiel & men, it required large amounts of manpower & materiel be diverted to repairing & hardening industry, and it required the planning of German industry to be primarily based around resistance to bombing.

> Strategic bombing also utterly failed to provide any worth in both Korea and Vietnam

How is the bombing of the Korean War strategic bombing? They were forbidden to bomb Chinese troops concentrations North of the Yalu River, and of course the industry in the USSR & PRC supplying the Communist effort was out of bounds to bombing. the failure of strategic bombing in Korea was that the USA had massively reduced its military after WW2 believing bombing would always be the answer. The limited nature of the Korean War disproved this. Similar situation in Vietnam.

>>33829906
>having engines so reliable that you only need two engines rather than four to fly your plane

allies btfo!

>>33830131
The Condor always gets my dick hard. I just love its design. Shame they didn't make enough that more survived.

>>33830351
they didnt catch fire anymore in the end
they got pretty relaible but at that point they lost so fucking many to fire

>>33832387
>Realising that your bombers can lose engines to fighter attacks and/or A.A. , yet still keep flying...

>ITT: people who don't realize that different strategic situations favour different strategies and different equipment

It's quite obvious that strategic bombardment was not a good idea for germany. The western allies had air superiority after 1941 and the soviets had most of their industry dispersed, sometimes well out of range. Also, the bombing campaign over germany proves that strategic bombing was actually not a very efficient use of ressources.
It was still a good idea for the allies because they had ressources in excess anyway, and only so much they could spend on the army. Building an army takes time, and the amount of troops they could put into the invasion of france was limited by logistics.
Meanwhile germany (and the soviet union too) found it far more important to put ressources into their armies. Germany had impressive close and medium range bombers at the start, but they found that those were vulnerable to enemy air power.

>>33833101

The Germans did have their equivalent of strategic bombing, which was shipping interdiction. Most famously and successfully the U-boat campaign, though there were also E-boats, aircraft (mostly early on), and least successfully the commerce-raider Deutschland-class heavy cruisers.

The U-boat campaign against the convoys in the Atlantic and Arctic was pretty successful. If there were more resources put into this effort (and if Allied code-breaking wasn't so effective), it could have done even more damage.

>>33831636
I have a question. In what manner was the Enola Gay not conventional?

What defines conventional?

>>33830489
>M1 helmets are universal and adjustable
and terrible

>>33830088
who had lend lease from usa

File: PicsArt_05-02-08.05.49.jpg (161KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x720px

>duck tapes and glues 37mm cannon to (ugly) jeep cherakee
>saws a hole on the roof
>artillaryjeep.jpg

>>33830131
>''bomber''
>actually a converted transatlantic passenger airliner instead refitted for combat
lurk more

File: IMG_3790.jpg (63KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x492px

>>33831636
>Mom! All these people on the czezhoslovakia muffin board I post for funsies on are making fun of me and calling me retarded! Why isnt anyone on my side?!

>Dont be so wrong faggot

>>33833290
>terrible
nothing wrong with the M1
it provides just a little less protection than a Stahlhelm, but the significant advantages of only having one shell and liner size to manufacture greatly outweigh any slight protective advantage the Stahlhelm provides

for fucks sake, we used the M1 from the interwar period through Vietnam and Grenada with only minor changes to the shell and different liners (and camo covers)
if the M1 was terrible, it would've been replaced postwar instead of staying in service for another 30-40 years

>>33830351
This is the most accurate answer.

Germans were doctrinally obsessed and when they found something they liked, they used it to death. This also meant that, doctrinal changes didn't come easily during the war itself. Especially when Goering was so fucking arrogant.

They just never thought it'd be necessary to use because they were so confident in their light and medium bombers.

File: Heinkel_He_177A-02_in_flight_1942.jpg (541KB, 1227x787px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1227x787px

>>33829906
They did! (Yes 4 engines, don't be fooled by the two props)

But it was shit and had a nasty habit of catching fire. Anyway, military realities meant that German industry was focused on building tactical aircraft to fight in the east and fighters to defend against the west.

>>33830131
Don't forget Daimler Benz projects and the ju390

>>33830088

Germany had the problem that their _everything_ sucked balls. Agriculture. Mining. Smelting. Motorization. Infrastructure. Every single part of the German economy was woefully underdeveloped and unable to sustain a large army.

Their chair force, in a rare moment of clarity, realized that before the war, and made the decision to settle on a very small amount of designs to be able to AFFORD assembly line production. Yes, Germany didn't eschew assembly line production for most of their hardware because of retardation, they were literally TOO POOR to afford it.

So the air force decided on restricting the bulk of their air force to the Bf-109 and the Ju-88, so they could afford buying into the advantages of fixed tooling and an assembly line. And they sucked Hitler's dick hard enough to keep the lines open. Other parts of the military tried the same in the early 30s, but even then Hitler's demands changed so often that any attempt to set up assembly lines nearly bankrupted the companies involved, because Hitler had a tendency to cancel orders before they were even finished with the necessary tooling.

So, plus side: The air force had lots of (at the time) decent fighter and light bombers that were excellent at tactical support missions.

Down side: Everything else was underfunded, delayed, or both. So both were built until the end of the war, despite being hopelessly outdated by that point.

There were other problems, of course: The air force didn't see a need for a heavy bomber (Seelöwe will remove Breton quickly anyway, r-right?), their metallurgy sucked so much they couldn't make high-performance engines (protip: next time, don't attack your ally who is your only source of alloy metals), and even if they had fixed that, those bombers would have been sitting ducks, because Germany sucked at developing escort fighters too, for much the same reasons.

(And have some motherfucking source while you're at it: Toole, The Wages of Destruction)

>>33833413
2/2

So while it wasn't *just* the economy, it played a much bigger part than people realize.

(It's also why Germany was desperate enough for what was essentially pig-iron jet engines with a 10 hours life expectancy in the Me-262: It was still better than "no engine, because our elaborate süperiör übermensch engines need alloys we literally don't have any more".)

>>33833413
see
>>33830489

Germans couldn't even do simple shit like make helmets adjustable
if you click around the website, you'll see that they didn't introduce hot working in production of helmets until halfway through the war

>>33833533
Of course. They were too busy crippling their conquered territory down to 10% its pre-war industrial output to care about making use of what little resources and industry they had left.

I completely understand the Germans not going for 4+ engine planes. They were in the same place as the British; engine production was at an absolute maxout - some planes types were built simply because they could utilize other engine type. That the Americans could sit tight on their unbombed continent with engine factories left and right was simply what happened.