Harris's "unimportant targets" were actually the stuff hurting the Germans.
Strategic bombing, until the very end, did not slow down industrial weapon production much.
The whole fleet of Lancaster could have been replaced by Mosquito's in late 1943 dropping fewer bombs in the right place, all over the place.
Germany without a bridge, tunnel or railway junction would have been severely impaired.
When you read German accounts of US daylight bombing, you get the impression they feared the strafing P47's coming back from escorting the heavies more than the heavies themselves.
The heavies did work very well sometime, for example tactical bombing of Japanese Air-force and Navy during the island hoping campaign.
Mass bombing cities just pisses off your opponent's population.
You could argue that the drain of running the mass strategic bombing effort balanced out the damage done.
(, Mon 18 May 2015, 23:08, Share, Reply)
I think it is impossible to actually measure.
Yes, the main effect was to piss people off, but if you have been up for five nights running and just learned your sisters had been killed, how efficient are you as a worker the next day?
Some will be even more determined, but after 6 months it is going to get you down, surely.
I would certainly agree that the loss of aircrew didn't make up for that effect though.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Mon 18 May 2015, 23:52,
Share,
Reply)
in Total War, pissing off your opponents population to the point where they don't want the war to continue is an objective in itself
(, Tue 19 May 2015, 3:31, Share, Reply)