• @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

    Well, what I think people are saying is bombers can be perceived as overrated in that many times countries believe they can break the will of another country purely by strategic bombing.  We can see this is not the case, with possible exception of the nuclear bombs in Japan- but even that was after a 2-3 years of continual defeats.


  • @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.


  • @Kreuzfeld:

    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.

    Of course not - look at the definition of strategic bombing according to wikipedia.
    We haven’t been in a situation of total war since WWII


  • Well, you could use some small examples such as the Iran-Iraq war or the Arab-Israeli wars.


  • eh??? dont do strategic bombing?
    what about bombing iraq in 1996?
    bombing of serbia in 1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
    bombing of libya in 86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon
    destruction if iranian oilplatforms in 87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nimble_Archer
    attack on training camps in 98 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)

    plus, I assume there is probably many strategic bombings in the war against terror against training camps and other stuff.

    every time the Ho Chi Min trail was bombed it was definitly strategic


  • the oil refineries where definitly strategic

    and the bombing of serbia was not to stop them from killing albanians, it was to destory the public will for war.

    also, the bombing of hanoi should probably be viewed as strategic

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Strategic Bombing targets things like resources, power plants, roads, bridges, etc.

    Tactical Bombing targets things like Tanks, Planes (On ground), and small scale military units/equipment.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    What part of:

    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.

    Do you not understand?

    Bombing of off-shore oil rigs, is strategic bombing.


  • I would vote for the entire Italian army….not specific men of that army, mind you, but the entire command structure as well as the fact they were effectively fighting with spears and rocks against the Allies. You know you have a problem when the enemy targets YOUR armies because THEY know it is the weak link.

    Truthfully, Germany would have been better off if Italy had remained a non-participating Ally in the war…


  • Hehe - good point Miami
    No one had mentioned the Italians in this thread yet

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12
  • 7
  • 52
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

111

Online

17.5k

Users

40.0k

Topics

1.7m

Posts