Why didn't the Americans & Brits produce so powerful long-range ww2 heavy bomber like the ME-264 strategic bomber?

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,603
Australia
"Former USS TUSK (Balao class) and USS CUTLASS (Tench class) were still in service with the Taiwanese Navy as of 2007(!)"

And this is relevant because?
 
"Former USS TUSK (Balao class) and USS CUTLASS (Tench class) were still in service with the Taiwanese Navy as of 2007(!)"

And this is relevant because?
Robust and well designed boats. The US Navy had the best carriers and subs of WW2. The last Essex class carrier decommed in 1991, and the WW2 designed Midway launched air strikes over Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. And given the last USN Legacy Hornets are only now going out of service,(Marines will be flying F/A18Cs) the Midway class could still conduct combat missions TODAY.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,603
Australia
Robust and well designed boats. ..............
Yes they were, and were very effective in their role, but they were not the best submarines of WWII. In fact they were more surface vessels that could submerge for short periods rather than true submarines. The Type XXI on the other hand was designed to operate mostly submerged and was the closest thing to a true submarine that any nation had during WWII. It's technological advances and innovations were copied by the allies and their influence can still be seen today.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,608
Stockport Cheshire UK
The Type XXI on the other hand was designed to operate mostly submerged and was the closest thing to a true submarine that any nation had during WWII. It's technological advances and innovations were copied by the allies and their influence can still be seen today.
The XXI was a very advanced design, but it had a major flaw... they leaked, a major problem for any sea going vessel let alone a submarine.
Out of 118 of these vessels completed they were only able to find 4 that were fit for operational use, the rest leaked so badly they couldn't be used.
The reason for the problem was how they were built, thanks to the bombing attacks on the ship yards and in an effort to speed up construction someone had the bright idea to build these boats in sections which fitted together in engineering works which had little or no experience of this type of work.
However it soon became clear that these workshops were incapable of the fine tolerances needed to ensure these parts fitted together properly, so they ended up with 114 U-boats that were more of a danger to their own crews than the enemy.
 
Dec 2018
51
Australia
This whole thread has been answered multiple times.

In the scenario where Germany didn't take over Britain, then it was a waste of time for the Germans. This has been answered over and over again in this thread.

In the scenario where Germany did take over Britain, then there is a multitude of reasons for the Allies not to make these bombers.
  • They can operate bombers from Iceland against the German Front Line. The Germans can't reliably hit the mainland United States without such a bomber
  • They might be able to operate bombers from the Azores and North Africa. Again the Germans can't reliably bomb South Africa or India without such a bomber.
  • They were already experienced in carriers. The Germans built very few if any carriers let alone ones capable of launching bombers..
  • The Allies had a prototype Habakkuk on the way. With another one capable of being built. The Germans didn't have the necessary technology or resources.
The Allies should never have built one of these unless all of the above failed.
The Gerrmans had to build one of these as they had not other options, apart from Carrier Submarines
 

Similar History Discussions