Wow. Two GS on any kind of fixed defences would ruin anyone's day.Mandatory photoView attachment 897340
"I'm sure there was a bunker complex here somewhere."
Wow. Two GS on any kind of fixed defences would ruin anyone's day.Mandatory photoView attachment 897340
Japanese air defences were nowhere near as formidable as German ones. The bombers can afford to go in lower.
Tell that to the people of Dresden and Toyko.Incendiaries do nothing against bunkers and tunnels, they also don't collapse bridges and viaducts
Fire bombing cities is not under discussion hereTell that to the people of Dresden and Toyko.
The bombing campaign for the home Islands started the Summer of '44, and took off in Feb. '45 and lasted until the end of the war 6 months later.Fire bombing cities is not under discussion here
Attacking hardened targets is
Spoke like a Brit ... Just remember who saved your royal keasters.the yanks are gonna need some Lancaster bombers! Of course, the USAAF didn't really have the accuracy they pretended to have so would need the RAF to do the actual precision work....................
;-)
I am questioning even these. Roving aircraft were routinely shooting up the rolling stock enough to paralyze system without dropping the infrastructure.
- Major Bridges, Viaducts and Tunnels
True but, for example, the RAF Tallboyed 2 railway tunnels (Saumur and Rilly La Montagne). No more traffic from those. The Saumur raid, in June 44, caused massive delays of german reinforcements to Normandy, including a panzer div. That's one raid at altitude, against one single target, vs dozens of raids of planes at low altitude, having to find something to shoot up.I am questioning even these. Roving aircraft were routinely shooting up the rolling stock enough to paralyze system without dropping the infrastructure.
Just think "Fritz X". Don't think you need the rocket, tbh. HMS Warspite was almost sunk by one Fritz X, which penetrated almost all the ship; another blew up close enough to damage it more. The battleship Roma took 2 hits and blew up...I've always wondered about the potential viability of say 14 inch or 16 inch BB shells being modified Tiny Tim Style with powerful rocket motors. Something like a semi AP bomb with a reinforced nose.
Nazi incompetence? 😝Spoke like a Brit ... Just remember who saved your royal keasters.
took you long enough to pick a side ;-)Spoke like a Brit ... Just remember who saved your royal keasters.
That was a big part of itNazi incompetence? 😝
This is true, target needs would be the primary concern that standard bombs weren't able to take care of.took you long enough to pick a side ;-)
I am, of course, being factious. The Lancaster or Lincoln wouldn't really be suitable for the distances involved in the pacific without refuelling and without USAAF logistics and basing support which would be only grudgingly offered ( see British Pacific fleet)
The answer would have been modified B29's, IF suitable targets really existed in Japan.
The Lancaster or Lincoln wouldn't really be suitable for the distances involved in the pacific without refuelling and without USAAF logistics and basing support which would be only grudgingly offered ( see British Pacific fleet)
agreed - however that technology was VERY cutting edge & still doesn't reduce the requirement for USSAF support in basing and logistics which I think would only be very grudgingly offer.They were well involved in trying out air-to-air refueling and were nearly picked to drop the atomic bombs on Japan until the above mentioned converted B-29's were converted.
I've always wondered about the potential viability of say 14 inch or 16 inch BB shells being modified Tiny Tim Style with powerful rocket motors. Something like a semi AP bomb with a reinforced nose.
...woooow...