@Uncrustable:
Strategic bombers single handily brought an early end to the pacific.
The outcome may have not changed but it would have drug on for many more months.
And Again I will say: stating that strategic bombing was overrated because it did not hamper production is fn ignorant. They did not try that was not their plan.
allied strategic bombing was purposely aimed at civilian population centers they believed that bombing civilians would end the war quickly AND THEY WERE RIGHT. And it I’d
Saying something is overrated that could and did kill tens of thousands of people dozens of times over in single raids (not even counting the nukes) is retard
to quote wikipedia;
Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability and public will to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to an enemy’s war-making capacity.
To say it absolutely clearly, people tend to overrate the value of strategic bombers in achieving these goals, especially their capacity for disrupting production. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY WHERE EFFECTIVE; THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY WHERE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THEY ACTUALLY WAS! (this right here is the definition of overrated)
try to be polite and don’t call people retarded on this forum. there are no trolls in this thread, so don’t behave like that.
They where also by definition overrated at the time, seeing as the british military analysis suggested that more people would die in paris and london due to strategic bombing the first week than died in total during the entire war.
