Area bombing is not a dirty word.

"B2431" wrote in message
...

snip

You can see where I am going with this. I wonder how many airmen would
have
lived if the Allies changed their methods. I wonder how much shorther the
war
would have been if oil production and distribution alone were the sole
primary
targets early in the war. Secondary targets would be airfields and flack.

I think you'd have to toss transportation into the mix right after the
petroleum industry. IMO the biggest positive effects of the combined bombing
offensive were in the end (1) tying up German manpower and resources in the
defense effort, (2) drastic reduction in German petroleum production
(belated effort, but still effective in the end), and (3) making
transportation even less effective (given the impact of #2) through
disruption of their rail and (less so) road nets, and severely disrupting
transport capability during the critical period leading to and immediately
after D-Day. As to airfields--I doubt there was as much value for the
heavies in that arena, as any flat cow pasture could serve as a fighter
strip in those days (and often did), making the finding of them a bit
difficult. Flak is a non-starter, at least for the level bombers, as the
bombing accuracy of the day just could not ensure taking out individual flak
positions--when your CEP is approaching a mile or more, SEAD just is not a
realistic mission, especilayy when viewed against other targets that could
be effectively engaged (industrial).

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired