But making these exact technical WI's and just saying that it won't change the outcome of the war is rather boring, isn't it?
true, but being boring doesn't necissarily make it wrong
But making these exact technical WI's and just saying that it won't change the outcome of the war is rather boring, isn't it?
As for putting more eggs into basket I'm not that sure about it. While heavy bombers were more expensive than light bombers they were also capable of carrying larger load farther than medium/light bombers. When WW II heavy bombers were used in tactical role (for example B-24's in Indochina) they proved to be quite effective.
true, but being boring doesn't necissarily make it wrong![]()
1) Killing your own troops. Strategic forces didn't usually work together with the tactical ones and weren't trained for it. Lack of FAC etc resulted in a lot of friendly fire, even in '44.
2) Completely ruining the infrastructure.
IIRC after Cobra the Allies mostly chose to stop tactical bombing with strategic bombers and used fighterbombers and medium bombers instead with lighter bombs.
So IMHO the effectiveness of strategic bombers in a tactical role is debatable.
No, but all these WI's are basically meaningless as they won't change the fact that Earth will be grilled by enlarged Sun in some billion years....It's just that whatever WW II what-if there is someone is quick to point out that Axis will lose. Gee, what a surprise...
That's a question of training, no specific problem in itself. Finnish bomber force, although used almost exclusively against infrastructure targets before, was deployed in 1944 within space of some six months in night-bomber intruder role (during winter), tactical combat air support, interdiction, anti-shipping and reconnaissance roles, all with same airframes (Blenheims and Ju-88's as mainstay) and, with exception of anti-shipping strikes, in level bombing role. Badly trained aircrews (Bomber Command and 8th US Air Force) result in friendly fire.
In Dien Bien Phu, for example, French Navy Privateers (B-24 variant) were prized over French Air Force B-26's because they could be guided in by radar and had very high bombing accuracy due to combination of Norden sight and radar correction information. Even more importantly, their combat load was impressive.
But making these exact technical WI's and just saying that it won't change the outcome of the war is rather boring, isn't it?
But that's the real point. WWII is an extremely boring war. About as exciting as Godzilla vs Bambi.
But that's the real point. WWII is an extremely boring war. About as exciting as Godzilla vs Bambi.
The Mosquito night fighter would have had no problem with the speed and altitude of the Greif.
Historically though the Mosquito nightfighters did have huge difficulty intercepting the He-177 during the Steinbock raids of early 1944.
The He-177 formations climbed over Europe and then entered shallow high speed dives over Britain. British nightfighters found it impossible to intercept them.
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Heinkel He 177.htm
http://www.transportbookshop.co.uk/...itz-on-britain-january-to-may-1944-4595-p.asp