WW2 Bombing Questions

Writefag here, coming up with a scenario for a Strangereal 1940s. Basically, it's a fairly isolated war between a much more populated and industrialized Australia and the Empire of Japan, and specifically the air war between them.

Basically, could a strategic bomber campaign be prosecuted with medium bombers? Presumably with both sides bombing at night.

Since the not!USA is sitting it out at the sidelines, how how plausible would an Asian Sealion be?

How would carrier aviation, primarily from not!Japan factor into this?

What would be some plausible divergences from historical designs?

Attached: nells_over_singapore.jpg (777x427, 28K)

Of course it's a redditspacer who makes this shitty thread.

> Weaboo here. Gonna draw a shitty manga on how honorubru the japanese master race is while fighting the Australians. Also Australia w i l l be nuked.

I was actually thinking daring night bomber raids by the Australians against the Japanese.

Just make all planes pusher planes for the aesthetic and shove various obscure experimental weapons systems on them instead of real ones.

>all positions get owen guns

How about Vickers Wellington night fighters?

>could a strategic bomber campaign be prosecuted between two countries whose population centers are 5000 miles apart using ww2 tech?

Presumably most of the actual fighting would be over Indonesia which could base aviation to hit those targets

You'd basically need 2-3x the raids for the same level of destruction

Do you even know what strategic bombing is?

Using airpower to weaken the ability of an enemy to fight by destroying industry, national logistics, and dehousing the civilian population, right?

>>Presumably most of the actual fighting would be over Indonesia which could base aviation to hit those targets
You should look at a fucking map before you start your little fanfic project.

They would mostly be fighting over an island chain to the north which is within the combat range of enemy bombers. Does that make you happier?

The answer is no, medium bombers simply don't have the range to carry a useful payload over long distance.

If you are bombing a target 1200km away from example, B-17G can carry 2000 kg of bombs that far. A Ju-88 can only fly that carrying only fuel.

In this case it actually makes more sense for the two sides to repeatedly Pearl Harbor each other. Sneak a carrier battle group in, then bomb with single engine fighters.

>If you are bombing a target 1200km away from example, B-17G can carry 2000 kg of bombs that far. A Ju-88 can only fly that carrying only fuel.

Cool. Are there any resources with that sort of payload vs range data? Or a rule of thumb?

>The answer is no, medium bombers simply don't have the range to carry a useful payload over long distance.

Given that the two countries would have basically the industrial capacity of historical Japan and the British Isles, would 4-engine strategic bombers make sense?

>They would mostly be fighting over an island chain to the north which is within the combat range of enemy bombers.
Are you literally incapable of rational thought? Here, have a try. If Japan and Australia are fighting over Indonesia, and they bomb each other's positions in Indonesia, that's not strategic bombing. Is this hard? My suggestion is you write about dragons and wizards, or at any rate nothing that requires you to have any knowledge about the real world or history.

Maybe I didn't explain the general idea clearly enough. notJapan would use these Northern Islands to base bombers to hit Australia. At the same time, not particularly liking getting bombed, Australia would be trying to raid if not eventually invade these islands.

Is that believable to you?

>notJapan would use these Northern Islands to base bombers to hit Australia.
That's simply not possible with the technology of the time. It's not possible to base 1000+ 4-engine bombers on some bumfuck nowhere island that you just occupied. It's not possible to supply such a base. It's not possible to fly the 4000+ miles you need to reach Australian industrial centers. You are stupid and your idea is shit.

What would your worldbuilding look like?

just let him ree. Medium bombers would be more of a tactical target type run honestly.
questions

Basically, could a strategic bomber campaign be prosecuted with medium bombers? Presumably with both sides bombing at night.
>Maybe. It wouldn't make sense for the bombers to really be based on what medium bombers are (not as much bomb payload)
Since the not!USA is sitting it out at the sidelines, how how plausible would an Asian Sealion be?
>with your industrialized, bigger australia, likely.
How would carrier aviation, primarily from not!Japan factor into this?
>Not very well. The japanese were having constant infighting with the branches, and also carrier vs. battleship.
What would be some plausible divergences from historical designs?
>need more fuel. Need more bomber load. Probably see some kind of fuel conservation, especially from japan.

>What would your worldbuilding look like?
It would be based on some knowledge of the actual history and military technology of the day. It would mostly not involve two nations conducting strategic bombing campaign on targets over 5000 miles away, aka 10,000 miles round-trip when their bombers could do 1200 miles round-trip on a good day.

this seems like an unreasonable quibble given it's already been stated that strangereal analogues are in play. Not!Australia and Not!Japan don't actually have to be as distant as they are irl. I mean Ace Combat's Strangereal stuck Not!America right beside (as in, sharing a land border with) Not!Germany.