How would world war 2 have been different if the Germans had developed a long range strategic bomber early on?

>Eh, if they had a functioning war economy before Speer's apointment, they might have outproduced Britain in terms of aircraft

Extremely unlikely; Britian plus her colonies had a far larger overall economy than Germany did.

>Would they have won it?

Almost certainly not. Pic related depicts tonnage of bomb dropped on Germany. It neither wrecked the German war economy to the point of impotence nor did it force a surrender, you still needed land attack and occupation.

>but, as user said, without an increase in production it wouldn't have helped them all that much.

Actually, the point I was building towards is that development of strategic bombing almost certainly involves sacrificing some or all of your tactical bombing ability, which would probably result in a net negative, not a positive.

Ju-88 was a decent light/medium bomber, nothing remarkable. Allies had literally 20 different equivalents

Ju-87 was flying scrap metal, only useful when there are no enemy fighters around. Too slow to live.

The He-177 was their only attempt at a heavy bomber, It has only two engines to enable it to divebomb.

And both bombers were extremely effective and integral to their massive successes in France and the early war with Russia. (In part because air resistance was generally ineffective) Getting rid of them to develop a strategic bomber is probably a bad trade.

Tactical bombing plated to the strength of the Wehrmacht as a whole, good levels of coordination between different branches of service. Strategic bombing doesn't, it's just a pure match of industry as your air arm tries to win the war more or less on its own.

Regardless, Albion officially decided to bomb civilians in May 1940. German civilian bombings started in September.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II

So, you mean, after the Germans decided to officially bomb civilians.

Tactical bombings supporting the artillery. Rotterdam had like 800 civilian casualties. But yeah, Britain good boy.

>Tactical bombings supporting the artillery.

Yes, 2 weeks before the artillery showed up in Warsaw. Clearly, tactical operations.

>But yeah, Britain good boy.

Of course not. But it's factually incorrect to say that they started civilian bombing before the Germans did.

Never started because Germany would not have an army.

You cannot just deviate from this board's narrative just like that. Britain good boy!

My actual point is that I don't buy the selfless act GB is trying to sell. Britain started bombing civilians half a year before their own civilians were bombed. Hrris actually said that he went for the inner cities on purpose and industry was just a bonus. GB suffered like 60k civilian casualties while the Reich suffered 300k to 600k dead civilians from those bombings.
Start shit get hit and all that, I don't buy it. Britain has acted as a warmonger for centuries and only a few decades ago was surpassed by their former colony. Yet the narrative is always pointing to someone else being at fault.

>My actual point is that I don't buy the selfless act GB is trying to sell

WHo the hell tries to sell that? For fuck's sake, the terror bombing doctrine was developed towards the tail end of WW1, ages before the war started, and the primary reason it was so ineffective early war was because of conflicting ideas in how to carry it out.

But trying to whitewash the Nazis is patently ridiculous.

>GB suffered like 60k civilian casualties while the Reich suffered 300k to 600k dead civilians from those bombings.

This one, however, shifts from the moral to the practical. Aerial bombing killed more Germans than Brits because the Brits (and Americans, don't forget them, they contributed almost half of the tonnage dropped on Germany) had more industry to throw around and consequently dropped more bombs. If the shoe was on the other foot, I very much doubt that the Germans would have balked at eliminating Manchester or Sheffield from the skies.

not trying to whitewash Nazis. To paint the whole story black and white is quite annoying though.

One other thing that occurs to me; in a lot of ways, the British strategic bombing focus wasn't even strategic. It wasn't some cold-blooded calculation of a way to win a war at least cost to Britain.

It was embarked on primarily because the RAF in general and Bomber Command in specific wanted to become more independent from the traditional branches of British military service, the RN and the Army. Strategic bombing offered a way of them to win the war on their own terms and without playing second fiddle to those muddy low-class bastards who dug trenches.

Hasting's book is amazing at going into the internal politicking that led to it all, and it's pretty horrifying; the actual chain of information and decision that led to the policies.

>WHo the hell tries to sell that?
Britain does. Harris got a monument in London in the early 90s. Imagine there would be one erected for say Kesselring in Berlin.

Hastings is a pop historian who should not be read seriously.

And you're basing this rather sweeping criticism on what exactly? Especially as I'm only bringing up one portion of one book.

0

Luftwaffe got rekt, they would not have enough fighters to support them.

Not the guy you're talking to, but Britain already bombed civilians in their colonies during the inter-war period. Churchill himself suggested using gas on them.