Search results

Yeah, as Garrison says, I think you need to be a bit more specific about which society you mean by "ours", and whether it really is prevalent in that society. I think most people where I live see the use of atom bombs as a way to end the war.

On point 2, you may want to provide some reasoning for why this would be the case. You may easily be right, but just saying something would happen is less persuasive than adding "because of X and Y and Z" to the end of it. On point 3, people tend to underestimate the logistics requirements of...

This is a very good point. It's fine if the U-boat doesn't get killed; as long as they're not sinking ships that's just as good. And any U-boat commander who has depth-charges going off around them, even small ones, is likely to be far more worried about escape than continuing their attack.

The railway guns and Tigers weren't much use, granted. But Tirpitz actually did quite well: as a 'fleet in being' she forced a great deal of RN and RAF resources to be devoted to a) making sure she hadn't left Tromso, b) couldn't leave Tromso, and c) couldn't do anything important if she did...

Avoiding the V-1 would free up resources, yes, but in fairness the V-1 didn't need much for what it did. They were a very cheap way of delivering their payload, the problem was they couldn't deliver it very far or very accurately. They could also use much lower grade fuel. I personally think the...

Bomber Command burning and demolishing German cities, and the 8th AF flattening every German industrial site within B-17 range didn't force the Germans out of the war. Even if V-1s were as effective as the Allied bombing campaign (press X to doubt), it's not clear that would be enough to force...

Amazing. I wonder how they planned to recover the aircraft?

Not that I disagree, but how much of that proportional change is because other nations' economic output had been bombed flat, occupied, set up in open-air workshops, or starved of raw materials (including operators)?

I'm confused, then. It is powered by a jet engine, so why is it not a jet aircraft? The reason I'm asking about this is that it seemed to be claimed that aircraft could kill battleships even before jet aircraft came along, but the example given was of an aircraft which used a jet engine. If the...

I wonder... do you perhaps think that turbo-prop aircraft don't use jet engines?

Just so I'm clear on this, are these all examples of prototype aircraft that didn't have problems?

Only if there's a carrier and air group in position when you need one. With only two carriers and world-wide commitments, that situation may be quite unlikely.

Oh, of course. That's why, if you want to drop bombs accurately, you need a bomber. But with PGMs, the "basket" in which the bomb needs to be released is much larger. And in permissive environments it's much easier to get an aircraft into a position in that basket where it can release a PGM with...

I think the point being made is that, for the CAS role you identify, an actual 'bomber' is not necessary. Any aircraft with a long loiter time, similar size payload capacity, and the ability to drop PGMs - a converted C-17, for example - would have done the job just as well. Rolling JDAMs out...

Probably the answer is "not very". For a slow bomb truck, you probably want a converted cargo hauler. Something with a high wing (so the spar doesn't get in the way) and a heavy lift capability. Volume isn't so important, bombs are pretty dense. Maybe something like a C-17?

And a galley. And a bunk, in case any of the crew need a break from the excitement.

In order... Manufacturing them, shipping them to where they were needed, keeping them supplied with fuel/ammo/parts, doctrine and tactics for using them. Japan struggled with all of those with the tanks they had IOTL, the German models won't be any better (and are likely worse in at least the...

Yes, but they require different levels of refining from crude oil. Fuel oil is easiest to refine - you don't need to do as much to the crude oil to make it ready for use in boilers. Kerosene, diesel, and especially petrol all need more work, and you get better results from better starting...

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Operation CHASTISE did what it set out to do - if it had been followed up with other attacks on the German electrical system, or even the occasional followup attack on the dams themselves, it could have had huge impacts on industrial capacity. We...

This is a good point. Most nations, in most places, don't need a seriously capable navy. Two of the UNSC permanent members - Russia and China - are going to be far more capable of supporting land forces than naval, which makes me wonder if they would support the creation of such a force. There's...