Would a significant number of strategic bombers have helped the

>>35171256
maybe.

realize that German intelligence was shit, and Hitler kept changing priorities.

a strategic bomber only helps if you can focus on carpet bombing critical things. like factories and rail yards.

Depends? Was this poofed out of thin air or diverted from somewhere else?

Eitherway, as long as it wasn't diverted from something important and diverted from something useless (like the Scwhere Gustav) then yes.

A major difficulty of the german army when trying to cripple the russians further following Barbarossa was a lack of long range strategic bombers.

>>35171256
Only if they could have destroyed the factories in the Urals.

Otherwise, no.

File: flying fortress.jpg (40KB, 636x288px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 636x288px

>>35171256

Nope, strategic bombing basically achieves next to nothing relative to the costs involved in doing them - it'd just be another way for the germans to piss away their skilled aircrews.

They are almost, ALMOST, useful if you're absolutely obliterating an already off balanced enemy that's lost most of its production and transport network to a sudden advance, but russia is such a longcat of a country that they could always have rebuilt production in asia outside of the range of strategic bombers of the day.

>>35171256
A significant number of anything would have helped the Germans

File: 1468697744950.jpg (120KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1600x1200px

>>35171664

Yeah but what it lacked most of all was a significant number of victories.

>>35171733
check'd and kek'd

>>35171523

You sound like a man in the know, and I'm a bit of an airpower noob....

Whats the deal with strat bombing these days. Is it even MORE of a fucking no no given satellites spotting take offs at airfields and shit or what? Like, what would a US attempt to strat bomb china, from its current bases, be like? Basically impossible unless the bombers are escorted to the point where they can dump cruise missiles etc or what?

File: 20170915_093752.jpg (700KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 2560x1440px

Only with the help of this ace

>>35174294
strategic bombing doesn't exist anymore.

that job is now done by ICBMs and missile submarines.

any nuclear bombing, is strictly tactical.

File: kskhvhnfv3u8dwfufjrs.png (546KB, 636x591px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 636x591px

>>35171523
Might not be the answer for the Germans, but strategic bombing definitely is useful. German industry was shredded by allied strategic bombing. Yes they were able to continue building some things in dispersed factories, but I doubt anybody can argue that German production was not affected significantly by critical nodes in their production being leveled. Obviously allied bombing targeted the wrong areas initially, but eventually they realized they needed to focus less on cities and more on centers of gravity such as the ball bearing production facilities and their POL production centers.

>>35174362

But its not economically viable to HE bomb with ICBMs is it>?

My assumption was strat bombing WITHOUT going nuclear


So would it literally be "start gearing those fucking cruise missile factories up to full production!" if you wanted to do it?

>>35174362
>What is the third arm of the triad?

File: 1463705356989.jpg (451KB, 1563x1080px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1563x1080px

>>35174362
That is more to do with the rise of SAM systems and IADs networks denying airspace for legacy bombers. Traditional 1000 ship raids on the capital city of your adversary are out of the question these days, but then again you don't need so many planes or direct overflights to achieve your goals.

Look at the gulf wars for examples of strategic bombing alive and well as a doctrine. Stealth fighters successfully penetrated IADS networks and struck critical nodes throughout Iraq's military. The reason so much had to be rebuilt in Iraq is a direct result of coalition bombing out power facilities communications nodes and other key infrastructure. These strikes left Iraqi leadership blind and mute and forward forces were left basically to fend for themselves without the possibility of regenerating compromised units.

File: convair_b-58_hustler.jpg (28KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 750x500px

>>35174377
He doesn't know what hes talking about. Destroying your enemies production facilities, communication lines, transportation hubs, and other centers of gravity is always valuable. Whether you do it with gravity bombs or Air Launched Cruise Missiles doesn't matter. The point is you are using your air-power to bypass the front line and ignore immediate tactical targets with the idea that some strategic assets are more valuable to destroy.

I think in any major war in the future you will see some attempt made to hit strategic targets via air forces, unless either side simply lacks the capacity to do so.

File: Messerschmitt Me 264.jpg (85KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1200x720px

>>35171256
Yes, obviously. Wasn't the main issue, though. Also as >>35171277 said, Hitler did really fuck up with a lot of very bad military decisions, such as:
>attacking the USSR while fighting the UK
>not halting the Wehrmacht but going on the 1941 Moscow offensive despite overstretched supply lines and strong Soviet forces
>sending the 6th Army to capture Stalingrad with insufficient flank protection and strong Soviet forces, not allowing retreat attempts
>delaying Operation Citadel for several months because he believed the Panther would be decisive (the early models used there had horrendous fail rates in that battle, though) - allowing the Soviets to prepare and put reserves in the Kursk salient
>fiddling with tank development, fucking up the Panther by demanding it to be heavier
>retarded demands like making the He 177 strategic bomber suitable for dive bombing or demanding the Me 262 to be used as fighter-bomber
>sending the last couple hundred operational fighters to attack well defended Allied airfields despite his staff advising against that (Operation Bodenplatte - 1/3 losses)
and much much more.

Also, what was really needed at the Eastern fronts was the entire Luftwaffe strenght. Hundreds of aircraft were bound to the Western Front and North Africa (and later Italy) - allowing the Red Air Force to recover after the giant 1941 and 1942 losses and eventually leaving the Soviets with air superiority in 1944.

Btw, German intelligence was lead by this based man, an opponent to the Nazis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris

>>35174382
only the USA, Russia, and China bother with the Triad.

>>35174362
>any nuclear bombing, is strictly tactical.
Bombers still have a strategic nuclear role. While that gets blurred to some degree, they still have strategic missions.

>>35171733
Savage

>>35171256
Not really, as the Germans still wouldn't have the fuel needed to get them in the air.

File: Junkers Ju 88.jpg (1MB, 2095x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2095x1200px

>>35175004
That only became a very important problem in 1944 after the Soviets captured Romania and the Allies bombed German refineries. He's talking about early/mid war, I think.

>>35174401
>Look at the gulf wars for examples of strategic bombing alive and well as a doctrine.
That was Tactical Bombing not strategic. The last real Strategic bombing campaign we did was Linebacker II.

>>35174294
You wouldn't see WWII-style strategic carpet bombing, simply because there's no need for it. It was necessary back then because bombing was very inaccurate, and you had to drop a fuckton of bombs if you wanted a good chance of landing enough of them on a target to knock it out. Nowadays you could accomplish the same mission with a few F-15Es and guided bombs.

It's actually an interesting inversion from the old days, when large heavy bombers flew strategic missions and small ones filled tactical roles. Now the best choice for strategic targets is a small, fast strike aircraft, and the big bombers are most useful for loitering over a battle area and deploying precision bombs as needed by the forces on the ground.

>>35175103
No, that very much was strategic. We were hitting oil refineries, communications hubs, power plants, and the transportation network. Pretty much everything that was a strategic target was bombed.