Harris was, however, not alone in targeting civilians. All sides did it during the war, none more successfully than the U.S. XXI Bomber Command which spent the last seven months of the war burning down Japanese cities with the acknowledged effect of killing massive numbers of civilians (although the stated goal was to burn down the small home based shops that produced much of Japan's machine parts).
Here, I call off-topic. The question was "German powerplants", not Japanese factories. You're not wrong in either assertion, tho. Neither was it as effective as hoped: at Nagasaki, IIRC, the factories were a) mostly on the outskirts & b) mostly unaffected by the Bomb.
Aircraft production was easier to scale up then some others (like tanks) for several reasons, not the least of which was materials. Steel was a bottleneck even in the U.S. supply pipeline (hence the "steel crisis" that caused a number of major surface combatants construction to be delayed or cancelled so the steel could be diverted to making landing ships and landing craft) Aircraft used a much smaller amount of steel than a tank, being made mostly of Aluminum. Aluminum was not in short supply, at least not compared to high quality steel.
Thanks for helping clear that up. I should have thought of steel.
The Bomber Offensive vs. the ASW effort was less of an either/or than this post indicates. Yes, for a short period after the introduction of the B-24, the Coastal Command was unable to get as many of the aircraft as they wanted, but this was for a fairly brief period
It's not just B-24s. CC fought Harris for priority on everything for the duration. BC got ASV.II before CC, & it promptly fell into German hands; it wouldn't have, had CC gotten it, & it could've stopped a great many U-boats. Neither were Stirlings turned over, despite BC disparagement of them.
and was no way detrimental to the defeat of the U-boat.
That's just flat wrong. Just 3 squadrons of B-24s or Stirlings in Newfoundland in 1/40 could have dramatically cut convoy losses, at a time when escorts were in desperately short supply. The knock-on effect lasts the duration & increases the longer the war lasts.
Even the B-24 was unable to cover the whole of the Atlantic; the defeat of the U-boat was by carrier airpower, inproved escort tactics/weapons and signal intel not by heavy bombers acting as patrol aircraft, and would not have been, even if they had been available in massive numbers.
I don't claim either B-24s or Stirlings could cover the whole Atlantic, nor decisiveness, just it wasn't "bombing or nothing". As noted, any air cover had impacts, the earlier the better. And I take Winston's view winning the Battle of the Atlantic should have been top priority: survival must take precedence over victory. (As racers say, you can't win if you don't finish.) So, ASW patrol, with radar & Leigh light, could have dramatically improved the delivery of supplies, including aircraft & fuel to BC...not to mention the buildup of troops in Britain for invasion. Furthermore, lost & damaged ships have to be replaced/repaired, & yard space, labor, & material could have been used to build (for instance) LCs.
Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was utterly dedicated to killing German civillians, reasoning famously, that it was easier to "get Fritz in his bed than on the job". At best you could say that Harris was committed to the overall strategic campaign, at worst you could say that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN committed over the strategic campaign. It is interesting to note that, even when the bombing was proved to be less than effective in dropping German morale, Harris never adapted and continued to take horrific crew losses throughtout the war (I've seen several sources that indicate that for a large part of the war Bomber Command crews had a shorter life expectancy than junior officers on the Somme, based on loss rates for days in combat). This is in contrast to the USAAF which did, mostly, make a successful switch to oil production facilities and other "area" military targets where pinpoint accuracy was not needed.
No argument. The problem was in not adapting. Also, in taking effectiveness entirely (or almost) on faith.
To make a point that has been mentioned briefly by another poster, the OVERALL Bomber Offensive was much more important than the actual success of the strikes themselves might indicate. The Germans were forced to dedicate massive amounts of resources (resources that, unlike the Allies, Germany did not have in abundance) to blunt the bombing. There were literally thousands of 88mm & 120mm guns (along with their crews) diverted from the Eastern Front and Atlantic Wall to act as flak batteries defending German cities. The German also used huge amount of material to construct "flak towers" (possibly the most impressive constructions of the entire war) in Berlin, using material that could have been put to use in building defenses along the Atlantic approaches or on the German frontiers. The Allies made it a point while in talks with Stalin that there was a Second Front against the Germans in Europe, it was just at 25,000 feet.
...They failed to defeat the Germans by destroying their civilian morale and the country's industrial base, but the effort DID greated diminish the Reich's ability to defend against the ground forces closing in on the Reich from both East and West, by doing so the Offensive did hasten the end of the war and recuce overall Allied casualties..
This is the usual argument, & I'm not convinced. I'd equate the bombing campaign to Haig at Verdun: throwing men against known targets, where the enemy knows you're going to come back, where defenses are going to get increasingly stronger, & ignoring other available options. I call that immoral. Never mind the civilian casualties; there's a war on, & civilians are contributing to the enemy's war potential. It's immoral for the wanton waste of
Allied lives.
Anybody aware as to how often Sewage Works were targeted in The Second World War?
...
Not only that but sewage plants aren't the easiest things to repair, the water goes through stages of treatment, including biological treatment (possibly not at this point in history), that isn't that easy to replace (it requires cultivation of microscopic organisms).
That's a
very interesting idea...

Okay lets just go nuts. Let's assume someone maps out the major power-plants for germany and gets those earthquake bombs all loaded up and ready to fly. In theory I suppose using such a weapon could ensure the destruction of power plants, but it is more costly, and in a smaller scale then regular bombardment. Thus more likely to have a single chance at being accepted.
That's pretty interesting, too.

You'd have to hit them, & accuracy wasn't great even in '45. Mossies could maybe do it in '44-5, but couldn't carry the Tallboy; max load was a 4000pdr, which might do it. Getting it approved is probably the hardest part.