I agree that the discontinueing of the 'Euro Bomber' was a huge blunder, but in reality, would the Luftwaffe had enough manpower to man full Bomber wings like that of the Americans and British? It wouldve taken away from their tactical air support doctrine. In reality the Luftwaffe wouldve needed a complete Doctrinal shift in order to support and Euro Bombers they mightve made. CvM
Certainly the VVS made a hefty contribution, but once the strategic bombing offensive got into gear, the greater part of the Luftwaffe's strength was defeated over the Reich by western air power.
It would have to be a really long long range bomber, to reach the Urals and the green fields beyond! If the factory got bombed it would be a matter of moving it a couple hundre km further east and voila, an unreachable factory. And they had the whole Siberia to build plant on And besides look at the trouble the Allies took in bombing the Reich factories to doubtful results, with the production increasing... Would the Germans be able to sustain a similar effort to better results? Nyet.
Za Rodina, Like the 'Ural Bomber' programme??? I agree, the Soviets have WAY too much territory to fall back into! The only way for the Germans to cause serious harm would be to have these 'Ural Bombers' ready at the start of the invasion... But as CVM says, this would require a doctrinal shift! But I agree that the results of a German strategic bombing camapign would be as dubious as the Allies...
Yes the Russians could have moved the factories further east, but the further east they went the less impact they would have at the front. If the Germans had a long range bomber would it not have been successful enough to have made the factories moved east. I suggest this for two reasons. 1. The further East they went the less infrasture there was, roads, rail, and this would have extended the construction time as there would have been delays in raw materials and the finished product being transported. 2. The Germans would not have had to bomb the factories but, rail and roads that they would have been transported on.
1. Why? Another 300km east would mean say a days delay in transportation. All the infrastructure needed for this was the Orient Express line, which was what they used, albeit with other different trains. 2. Possibly, that would be a better idea, but that could be countered as well. It wouln't be too difficult building paralell lines a few hundred metres apart. Did the Hi Chi Minh trail ever stop working? Of course we have no jungle cover in Siberia, but the tedeschi didn't have B-52s either. Also, you need an awfully persistent effort to keep a railway system U/O. The Germans excelled at filling bomb craters and running a few sleepers and rails on top. Why couldn't the Russians do the same? Now you're thinking [ 14. July 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]
I agree that the discontinueing of the 'Euro Bomber' was a huge blunder, but in reality, would the Luftwaffe had enough manpower to man full Bomber wings like that of the Americans and British? </font>[/QUOTE]It wasn't Göring who cancelled the 'Ural bomber' project in 1936, but Kessellring who was the Luftwaffe Chief of Staff at the time. He cancelled it not because he was against the idea as such, but due to the fact that the German aircraft industry was incapable of building both the numbers of medium bombers required for the tactical support of the army, and the numbers of heavy bombers required for a strategic bombing camapign. It wasn't a case of the Luftwaffe not wanting a strategic airforce, it was a case of they couldn't have one.
I would remind of a couple of things here that I consider important: General Major Walther Wever, first Chief of the Luftwaffe General Staff, although he never held that official title, and was killed in a flying accident May 3, 1936. " "Long - range heavy bombers, capable of carrying massive bomb loads, were needed - and the Luftwaffe had neglected their development. The failure was in part due to the death of General Walther Wever, the Luftwaffe's first Chief of Staff. He had been an advocate of heavy bombers, and had launched a program calling for long - range, four - engine planes capable of "flying right around Britain under combat conditions." But Wever was killed in an air crash in 1936, and the program languished." http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x19/xr1970.html As well it was Udet, who was crazy about the dive bombing which was continued until about October 1943 in Luftwaffe ( in a document mentioned the time as Oct 1943 ). http://stonebooks.com/archives/970907.shtml So with Wever in charge it migth have been that Germany might have continued making the Ural bomber. It would have been highly costly to the German industry as mentioned so the number would have been lower, definitely, if compared with the dive bombers built.
The western allies had far much greater production capabilities of heavy bombers and better pilot-training programmes and they had very serious problems when bombing German industries only 1.000 km away and heavily concentrated in some small areas, specially the Ruhr. Could the Luftwaffe had achieved greater success bombing many industries scattered all over western and central Siberian 3.000 km away from the front —i.e. 5.000 km away from Germany? And even if this could have happen, would Soviet industry have been affected so badly to doom the whole Soviet war effort? The Germans were not able to cut a 20 km railroad in the outskirts of Lake Ladoga during the Leningrad battle and this railroad was subjected to artillery fire day and night and dive bombing on day. Did the trains stop rolling? No. Thousands of civilians were put to work in the middle of the winter and the bombing to repair the rails every time they were damaged. With no artillery and 2.000 km more of railroad this is much, much easier to do.
Coming back to this, the lack of inefectiveness of the Allied aerial bombing campaign is something that became known after the war, not during it, so the leaders were unaware of this. We can't blame the Germans if they went after this theory.