Replies

In a time where our stand-off weapons possess the accuracy and precision required to do the job. The 'indiscriminate' attacks on civilians was a result of civilians co-locating with military targets within the CEP of the weapons available at the time. Mass bomber raids were used because cities were the only thing that could be reliably hit. The weapons required a large target area to have effects.

If planes can attack cities, they can attack anti-aircraft positions. They also can attack military air installations.

Flying over draws up enemy aircraft to resist, which was done even in WWII.

Contrary to popular belief, it actually was and is possible to hit military aircraft installations. It was actually done in WWII, runways were destroyed and aircraft were destroyed on the ground, as well as supply and maintenance at the airfields.

"Trouble was", if you do that "too much", the enemy's air force is completely put out of service, and the war ends very quickly, as ground forces without air defenses are easily destroyed by ground forces with overwhelming supporting air power.

"Trouble was", if you do that "too much", the enemy's air force is completely put out of service, and the war ends very quickly,

So is it your contention we didn't want to end WWII? During that war we did kill the Japanese air force from the prospective of force on force. Since their stocks of aircraft remained, they were compelled to switch to asymmetric warfare and use their aircraft in the kamikaze role.

as ground forces without air defenses are easily destroyed by ground forces with overwhelming supporting air power.

'Easily destroyed', like at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, where the situation you described existed?

If planes can attack cities, they can attack anti-aircraft positions. They also can attack military air installations.

Which they did btw. The industrial targets that we were after were in cities, or is it your contention that unless one is wearing a uniform, they can't be supporting the war and they can't contribute to the war effort of that country? You really need to take a targeting class. There are many types of legitimate targets. It has only been in the last 20 some years that we could attack individual targets located within civilian populations with a relatively small (2000#) or less payload with any hope of having successful effects on the target and minimizing collateral damage. That is deaths of civilians. The death and destruction of military equipment/personnel is additional damage.

“Contrary to popular belief, it actually was and is possible to hit military aircraft installations. “

You must get your ideas of what was possible from Hollywood.

‘Precision bombing’ in WWII parlance meant that you hit somewhere close to what you were aiming for.

In theory the top secret Norden bombsight was capable of delivering a bomb to within 75 feet of the target. In actual practice bomb accuracy was only within 1,200 feet of the target. And not every plane was equipped with a Norden sight.

When Naval aircraft attempted to hit a ship they would employ dive bombing or skip bombing and a lot of hope. The Air Force relied on the Norden sight and a whole lot of planes.

"Trouble was", if you do that "too much", the enemy's air force is completely put out of service, and the war ends very quickly, as ground forces without air defenses are easily destroyed by ground forces with overwhelming supporting air power.

Oh? Like in Vietnam?