Why did they never develop a long-range strategic bomber?

Why did they never develop a long-range strategic bomber?
Why didn't they use Vichy-held Syria to conquer oil fields in the middle east?
Why did they spend a year dropping bombs on random cockneys in bongistan for no reason when he could have used those resources elsewhere?
Why did they send a third of their army to try to capture Leningrad, a strategically useless objective?
Why did they halve the number of tanks per tank division thereby reducing strength across the board?
Why did they waste all their time and energy researching into the most advanced prototypes for tanks instead of finding a reliable system that worked and mass-producing that?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–Lebanon_Campaign
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because they were fucking terrible and everything they did was based on pointless idealism and mad theories rather than practical strategy.

>dude, lets just go across the mediterranean and land in syria instead of a short hop across the water to Libya.

They couldn't compete with superior western liberalism and free market capitalism

Syria was held by Vichy France, which was allied with Nazi Germany. If the Germans had wanted to use it as a launching pad, it wouldn't have been a problem at all, since Vichy French were able to transport troops and equipment there.

>Why did they waste all their time and energy researching into the most advanced prototypes for tanks instead of finding a reliable system that worked and mass-producing that?
I thought it was the Stug assault gun that was produced the most because it worked well. Not a tank but still.

yeah. The RIN would totally allow an invasion force to be transported there.

1447542

>Why did they never develop a long-range strategic bomber?

They did, the HE-177, just too little, too late. They were primarily focused on CAS instead, and given their limited industrial capacity, it was the right call to make.


>Why didn't they use Vichy-held Syria to conquer oil fields in the middle east?

Well, for starters, the "oil fields" we're almost entirely developed post war. Secondly, Vichy Syria fell in 1941, not all that long after Rommel first landed. And Axis ability to project power in the Eastern Med, away from their airbases in Sicily and Italy, was extremely limited.

Lastly, Vichy strenuously objected to German troops in their colonies, it was only after the occupation of metropolitan Vichy France that they got into Tunis and Algeria.

>Why did they spend a year dropping bombs on random cockneys in bongistan for no reason when he could have used those resources elsewhere?

Where? Who else were they at wear with in late 40?

>Why did they send a third of their army to try to capture Leningrad, a strategically useless objective?
They didn't. AGN had other objectives. The troops actually involved in investing Leningrad were closer to 1/10th of the Eastern Front forces. Furthermore, if you get Leningrad, you eliminate the Baltic fleet. Germany did a lot of shipping through the Baltic.

>Why did they halve the number of tanks per tank division thereby reducing strength across the board?

How does having 2x divisions with .5y tanks per division affect overall strength? It just changes your organizational structure?

>Why did they waste all their time and energy researching into the most advanced prototypes for tanks instead of finding a reliable system that worked and mass-producing that?

Because by the time you had that, they were losing, and needed something to turn things around.

The word "incompetent" explains most of these. Apply it as you will.

>Why did they never develop a long-range strategic bomber?
Never had the time, simply. URSS started developing long-range strategic bomber way after the WW2. So yeah.
>Why did they spend a year dropping bombs on random cockneys in bongistan for no reason when he could have used those resources elsewhere?
Blame Goring. They actually thought they were doing some actual damage. Turns out they never hit an airbase having a strategic function. They only hit the fields near the coast, which had to launch aircrafts. The bombings never "cut the head off the snake"albeit they didn't know it
>Why did they send a third of their army to try to capture Leningrad, a strategically useless objective?
Strategically useless? Leningrad produced a good amount of war goods used by the USSR during the war. also, capturing Leningrad would have helped stopping reinforcements and supplies from and to Murmansk, which lead to the failing of operation Silver Fox.
The question should be: "Why did they siege it without trying to capture it?". But noone knows the answer
>Why did they halve the number of tanks per tank division thereby reducing strength across the board?
It was not a bad idea. I remind you that they almost, easily captured USSR at the end of Barbarossa. couldn't blame them if they tried to get more tank divisions that way
>Why did they waste all their time and energy researching into the most advanced prototypes for tanks instead of finding a reliable system that worked and mass-producing that?
This is an interesting question. They just thought that "quality > quantity" I guess. But it's my thought

I fucked up a sentence.
Capturing Leningrad would have helped a lot in completing operation silver fox, a vital strategic plan to stop foreign supplies to USSR

this, the germans were economically illiterate and their authoritarian collectivist socialist ways failed as always

freedom and individualism always wins

>Why didn't they just win the war?

>Why did they never develop a long-range strategic bomber?
They did and it was disaster.
>Why didn't they use Vichy-held Syria to conquer oil fields in the middle east?
Because there was no infrastructure that could allow them to transport that oil. The prize in North Africa, if there ever was any were bases.
>Why did they spend a year dropping bombs on random cockneys in bongistan for no reason when he could have used those resources elsewhere?
They thought they can bring the morale down to the point where they'd surrender
>Why did they send a third of their army to try to capture Leningrad, a strategically useless objective?
It was one of the biggest cities in USSR housing huge industrial base. Not that useless.
>Why did they halve the number of tanks per tank division thereby reducing strength across the board?
To be able to equip more divisions at the same time?
>Why did they waste all their time and energy researching into the most advanced prototypes for tanks instead of finding a reliable system that worked and mass-producing that?
Hitler's fetish mostly. Panther for instance was initially supposed to be around 10 tonnes lighter but Hitler wanted more armour.

>They did, the HE-177, just too little, too late
it was unreliable garbage that ignited itself out of sudden before it could reach its target more often than it reached it.

Well, yes. It also came out late in the war and was well behind British and American bombers even if it wasn't blowing itself up.

But they did try to develop a strategic bombing arm, it just took a backseat to tactical bombing.

>The question should be: "Why did they siege it without trying to capture it?". But noone knows the answer

I thought the general consensus was that they lacked the manpower/supplies to outright capture the city, so they decided to Starve it into submission.

It wasn't really a question of manpower. It's more that the city is enormously hard to approach from the south, where is swampy as all hell, and there were a lot of Russian troops in The city. They had enough trouble assaulting cities in general; close urban combat negated a lot of the Wehrmacht advantages, which is one of the main reasons Stalingrad turned into such a mess.

Leningrad was one of the hardest points in Europe.

>Why did they spend a year dropping bombs on random cockneys in bongistan for no reason when he could have used those resources elsewhere?
>Where? Who else were they at wear with in late 40?
This is probably the only sensible question he asked, and the answer isn't that. Hitler was trying to bomb the peace out of the Englanders. Since Hitler knew he would need to attack Sovjet he shouldn't have wasted his air power like that.

Why didn't Hitler go around Russia?

>. Hitler was trying to bomb the peace out of the Englanders.

Which is why he committed forces there and not elsewhere.

>Since Hitler knew he would need to attack Sovjet he shouldn't have wasted his air power like that.

No, he didn't. He did not in fact "need" to attack the Soviets for any reason other than ideology. They were his single biggest trading partners at the time, and he could easily have called off the invasion if he didn't want to actually invade.

Plus, the losses sustained in the BoB were relatively small. The Germans lost about as many airplanes over Russia in the first 6 months of war, and that's counting the winter, when a lot of them weren't flying.

t. mad bolshevik

Why didn't hitler just not be a paranoid schizo anti-communist and just perform operation sea lion, there's no way nazis would lose that war no matter what sneak attack with a pro-axis british government

Do you want your invasion force sunk by the RAF or the Royal Navy, Mein Fuhrer?

>No, he didn't. He did not in fact "need" to attack the Soviets for any reason other than ideology.


>he hasn't read Icebreaker

It was invade the Soviet Union or get invaded by the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no other way the reality could have played out. The former option is obviously preferable.

>Icebreaker
>The book of a guy who admits that he ignores evidence that contradicts his theory in order to focus on the little, weird things that seem out of place.
>The book that is resoundly trashed by every professional historian who reads through it
>The book that claims that a USSR attack was imminent despite no organic transport being attached to the units that would have had to make said attack.

When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.

>Soviet Union invades Poland in 1920
>Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (two jews and a georgian) promise to spread the revolution to Germany immediately if they succeed

>he wants me to believe that 20 years after that the Soviet objective of a world communist state was no longer in effect

every day i pray that the bolsheviks would leave my board but my prayers are never answered

And the Soviets hadn't invaded another country since Poland, at least until they sign an agreement with Hitler to expand their sphere of influence, so he can hardly claim surprise when the Soviets go into Finland, the Baltic states, or Romania.

I don't know about you, but in most circles, 18 years of peace is enough to think that your neighbor isn't an ideological millenarian who can't be reasoned with or deterred.

>(two jews and a georgian)

You know, I don't really want to believe in the /pol/ boogeyman, but you're really starting to resemble him.


But even, on the off, ridiculous chance that you're right, what did Poland demonstrate? That the Soviets were unable or unwilling to attack countries that could actually pose a threat to them. That they could indeed be deterred. Which means that Hitler once again, did not need to invade, as a show of strength alone would suffice.

>cite a discredited revisionist
>get told
>change the subject and call the poster a bolshevik

i wonder who could be behind this post

>When in doubt, just call their sources "revisionist"
History is set in stone, anyone who does not believe the documents from the KGB archives and the Ministry of Truth is stormweenie.

Not the guy you're replying to, but you're quite wrong about that. The hate for communism was intense among right-leaning governments/populations in Europe. Germany even had a freaking civil-war that ousted commies and led to many massacres. The soviets were meanwhile very explicitly committed to spreading 'revolution'. It is extremely naive to suggest they could just shrug off deep ideological differences and all live happily ever after. They viewed each other as the supreme menace.

Hitler made the first move in this case, because USSR was a bit of a self-purging basketcase, but it was always assumed USSR was going to attack at some point in the next decade or two, once they had built up industry even more.

Why didn't the eagles fly Hitler to Moscow?

t. Gandalf

Because this fucking happened you dipshit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–Lebanon_Campaign

The Axis had no measurable way to transport large amounts of troops by sea, let alone keep them supplied.

They signed the MR pact. The bulk of the pre-war German military forces were trained in the USSR. Germany and the Soviets were each other's biggest trade partners. It is not clear at all that the USSR would attack, let alone in a "decade or two" when the entirety of the old revolutionary guard would have been gone.

General ineptness.