Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Artur Rehi"
channel.
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
The British cracked Enigma.
About bombers vs ships. It was discovered early in the war that high altitude bombing by medium and heavy bombers was ineffective against ships which were underway and able to maneuver (this mode could still be used against ships at anchor). Moving ships had time to see the bombs coming and maneuver to generate a miss. Alas, this battle was part of the discovery process. Before the end of the war, new techniques for medium bombers for a half diving low level attack (which was the closest a medium bomber could get to dive bombing) proved more effective. No ship underway was sank during the war by a high level attack, so heavy bombers (which couldn't attack any other way) played no anti-surface ship roll. The bombers conducting the initial attack on the invasion fleet were B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, which later became effective against ships after the new bombing techniques were developed for it. Later in the battle, they played a role by persuading the strike fleet to rearm for land attack, which made them a sitting duck for the dive bombers (with fuel bowzers, bombs and half-fueled aircraft all over the Japanese decks).
Dive bombing is another story, both on land and at sea, it was already at the start of the war the WW2 form of "precision" bombing, practiced by smaller carrier based bombers, and some small land based bombers like the German Stuka, and was reasonably effective throughout the war, both in close air support of ground troops and against ships. This early in the war, the Americans had not yet found out that their torpedoes were faulty, which they later corrected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1