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

* They were already experienced in carriers. The Germans built very few if any carriers let alone ones capable of launching bombers..
Most of Occupied Europe would be in range of carrier based TBF Avengers. Before U boats are mentioned, the Carrier Battle Group was one of the deadliest combinations in Naval history. The USN always has deployed strike groups; a carrier with escorts a-plenty. Destroyer escorts, escort carriers, destroyers, a few cruisers, a couple battlewagons and a fleet carrier or 2.

Interesting thought: use a carrier battle group for Sea Superiority; strike the sub pens with dive bombers and torpedo bombers. A 2000 pound bomb from an SB2C would make quick work of a sub pen.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 
Dec 2018
51
Australia
Most of Occupied Europe would be in range of carrier based TBF Avengers. Before U boats are mentioned, the Carrier Battle Group was one of the deadliest combinations in Naval history. The USN always has deployed strike groups; a carrier with escorts a-plenty. Destroyer escorts, escort carriers, destroyers, a few cruisers, a couple battlewagons and a fleet carrier or 2.

Interesting thought: use a carrier battle group for Sea Superiority; strike the sub pens with dive bombers and torpedo bombers. A 2000 pound bomb from an SB2C would make quick work of a sub pen.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Yes. That strengthens the don't build argument more-so.
Also once they get Habakkuk up and running they can launch strategic bombers with Tallboys or Grand Slams to destroy the German factories
 
Jul 2013
9,959
San Antonio, Tx
I don't think that Britsh have the enginnering knowledge (theoretical knowledge in engineering), and enough developed infrastructure (advanced wind-tunels) to produce the Victory bomber during the ww2. However ME-264 was an existing bomber.

The biggest problem of British engineering was the lack of enough strong theoretical and more importantly the higher mathematical education in their universities of technology. These huge British disadvantage in engineering education started to disappear only in the post ww2 period.
This whole post is complete and utter nonsense.
 
Jul 2013
9,959
San Antonio, Tx
Hey man, you did not notice that we are speaking not only about simple strategic bombers, but intercontinental bombers? Nor the British nor the Americans had it in WW2. The race for the development of the first intercontinental bomber was won by Germany, similar like the race for the first operational Jet aircraft (ME 262) Which was 2times faster than British ww2 era meteor. Yes, I call it superiority in engineering. How else can you call these facts?
I have to ask: Did this “intercontinental bomber” ever fly to another continent? I thought so.
 
Jul 2013
9,959
San Antonio, Tx
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
The Germans had one (1) unfinished carrier which was never operational, so no, they had no aircraft carriers. They also had no fighters capable of being launched from carriers.
 
The US had prototypes of such a bomber, the B-36 but had no use for it until SAC was created and US planes were all over the world.
The B-36 was deprioritized due to lack of need for it. Clouds of Peacemakers, for a country that could build one heavy bomber every 55 minutes or so all day long and keep it up long enough to have more bombers than aircrew to fly them, would be a simple matter of resource allocation.

Said it before, bears repeat. WW2 wasn't won on the Eastern Front, it was won on American assembly lines and in American shipyards.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 
Sep 2013
4,951
Wirral
The B-36 was deprioritized due to lack of need for it. Clouds of Peacemakers, for a country that could build one heavy bomber every 55 minutes or so all day long and keep it up long enough to have more bombers than aircrew to fly them, would be a simple matter of resource allocation.

Said it before, bears repeat. WW2 wasn't won on the Eastern Front, it was won on American assembly lines and in American shipyards.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Not that simple is it? Somebody had to make the weapons and somebody else had to be in the right place to use them.
 
Not that simple is it? Somebody had to make the weapons and somebody else had to be in the right place to use them.
WW2 was a war of logistics.

ETO, the Mighty Eighth pounding the Reich to rubble.

PTO, Admiral Lockwood's silent warriors methodically annihilating Japanese Empire commerce and Naval power on the high seas.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
 
Sep 2013
4,951
Wirral
WW2 was a war of logistics.

ETO, the Mighty Eighth pounding the Reich to rubble.

PTO, Admiral Lockwood's silent warriors methodically annihilating Japanese Empire commerce and Naval power on the high seas.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
The pounding to rubble and methodical annihilation would not have been achieved without the military forces in place to use the tools. I’m genuinely perplexed why you pursue this argument. No one disputes the importance of the arsenal of democracy but the war could not have been fought without death and bloodshed somewhere.
 

Similar History Discussions