Yes, but it might have taken that long to negotiateWell, if we're considering Barbarossa, the moment to make the agreements with the French is surely the time Directive 21 was issued, i.e. December 1940, not as an afterthought at the time it was starting to sputter.
What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Well, e.g., the Panhard 178 A production ENDED in October 1940 ...
Looks to me that Nazis wanted French weapons production to cease completely EVEN for weapons germans were using.
That may make perfect sense after a ceasefire (at a minimum) is reached with the world's largest Empire, but makes no sense when in addition to continuing the war with the said Empire simultaneously and at the same time one is also going to invade the largest country in the world.
Looks to me that Nazis wanted French weapons production to cease completely EVEN for weapons germans were using.
That may make perfect sense after a ceasefire (at a minimum) is reached with the world's largest Empire, but makes no sense when in addition to continuing the war with the said Empire simultaneously and at the same time one is also going to invade the largest country in the world.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
But think what the Armistice was about It was about taking France out of the war, and preventing it ever entering the war again. ( Ideally! ) It was about taking weapons out of the hands of Frenchmen as far as possible, and preventing them ever acquiring any again - except in the colonies where what they had could ony be moved about by German permissionLooks to me that Nazis wanted French weapons production to cease completely EVEN for weapons germans were using.
That may make perfect sense after a ceasefire (at a minimum) is reached with the world's largest Empire, but makes no sense when in addition to continuing the war with the said Empire simultaneously and at the same time one is also going to invade the largest country in the world.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 03 May 2014, 06:05
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Unless it had the range to reach the US and could be built fast enough to survive the attrition, it's effect would have been limited. A heavy bomber would have been able to cause more damage to Britain and the USSR, but they were being supplied by the US.
Lieutenant S. Chuikov
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
If you can't make it in numbers the effect may actually be negative. I'm not sure that Germany could afford to give up 4 fighters, dive bombers, or fighter bombers for each heavy bomber especaily when one looks at the historical loss rates such aircraft sustained especially when they lacked a good escort.
-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 03 May 2014, 06:05
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Exactly. It wouldn't do much else that other bombers could do. Even if it could reach the US, it would need to be mass produceable to replace losses.LWD wrote:If you can't make it in numbers the effect may actually be negative. I'm not sure that Germany could afford to give up 4 fighters, dive bombers, or fighter bombers for each heavy bomber especaily when one looks at the historical loss rates such aircraft sustained especially when they lacked a good escort.
Lieutenant S. Chuikov
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Again, they made some 1200 He177s historically.LWD wrote:If you can't make it in numbers the effect may actually be negative. I'm not sure that Germany could afford to give up 4 fighters, dive bombers, or fighter bombers for each heavy bomber especaily when one looks at the historical loss rates such aircraft sustained especially when they lacked a good escort.
-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 03 May 2014, 06:05
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
That's out of close to 120,000 compared nearly 300,000 by the US.
Lieutenant S. Chuikov
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
- Cantankerous
- Member
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: 01 Sep 2019, 22:22
- Location: Newport Coast
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
Just like the B-17 being only capable of reaching Germany from England, the operating range of the Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89, had either of them entered production, were definitely not designed for intercontinental strikes on the US.Lieutenant S. Chuikov wrote: ↑25 May 2014, 03:46Unless it had the range to reach the US and could be built fast enough to survive the attrition, it's effect would have been limited. A heavy bomber would have been able to cause more damage to Britain and the USSR, but they were being supplied by the US.
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: What if Ural Bomber designs as good as B-17?
The Do 19 and Ju 89 suffered the same, and even worse, problems when they were developed than did Boeing's XB-15 that was a contemporary and better aircraft. All three suffered from being underpowered, as did any very large long-range bomber being developed in the mid-30's.
That's not to mention that Germany's aircraft industry would never be able to produce more than maybe a couple thousand over the next roughly 10 years if they were brought into service.
That's not to mention that Germany's aircraft industry would never be able to produce more than maybe a couple thousand over the next roughly 10 years if they were brought into service.