What if: America refuses to attack non military targets in WWII

BigBlueBox

Banned
In a world war factories are military targets. So are ports, bridges, railroads, dams, and power stations. If civilians are killed that’s just collateral damage or a bonus effect, depending on the attitude of leadership.
 
War ends in early 1944 at the latest then.

It's quite sobering how poorly the German Electricity grid could load share in the event of multiple power stations in a given region all being bombed.

Entire regions of the country could have been 'browned out' possibly for months at a time - bringing trams to a halt and creating vast issues with refrigeration and mass food storage leading to even greater shortages

The bombing of rail/canal viaducts and tunnels would have seriously impacted the ability to move coal around the country via barge and railways.
 
One part of the answer to this, is the US policy was to put military targets at a higher priority. Resources usually went to targets that directly degraded military capacity.

A second part is the question of 'what constitutes a military target'? This discussion is liable to flounder about aimlessly attempting to define that.
 
...
The bombing of rail/canal viaducts and tunnels would have seriously impacted the ability to move coal around the country via barge and railways.

Looking at the numbers summarized in the US Stratigic Bombing Survey that is clearly what actually halted German industrial production in the winter/spring of 1945. The Allied air forces were finally able and willing to focus on destroying the transportation net work. by early March the delivery of production material to the factories and delivery of finished product was collapsing. The only thing that kept the German military logistics functioning was that the armies were falling back onto the stranded ammunition, food, and other items. Had they still been trying to fight in France, the Urkraine, ect... ammunition, food, fuel, ect... would have been in fatally short supply.

On a smaller scale the transportation attacks, such as Operation STRANGLE in Italy in 1944, or the railway campaign against the Seine & Loire River bridges to isolate Normandy showed the way. 2-4 months of focused bombing reduced supplies to the field armies below sustainment levels. Kesslering in Italy and his counterparts in France saw their armies combat power shrink from inadequate material delivery.
 
Even if you limit targets to say transportation, most major rail hubs, bridges, and othet logistics nodes tended to be in or near population centers. Given the technology of the time, when they literally had to drop dozens of bombs to maybe land one direct hit, and given how extensive some targets like rail yards are, avoiding collateral damage is essentially impossible.

I think too many people look at this stuff while not using the correct mindset, or really not understanding the technological limits of the time period. It's easy to talk about avoiding civilians or collateral damage today with JDAM, Tomahawk, and other advanced weapons with near pinpoint accuracy. Not so hard to do when you're best technology allows you to get into the general area and drop bombs unguided and hope the wind or other factors doesn't cause your bomb load to miss by a mile or more.
 
Last edited:
Even if you limit targets to say transportation, most major rail hubs, bridges, and othet logistics nodes tended to be in or near population centers. Given the technology of the time, when they literally had to drop dozens of bombs to maybe land one direct hit, and given how extensive some targets like raid yards are, avoiding collateral damage is essentially impossible.

... It's easy to talk about avoiding civilians or collateral damage today with JDAM, Tomahawk, and other advanced weapons with near pinpoint accuracy. ....

The only really effective way to reduce collateral damage significantly is to focus your air operations entirely on tactical targets. That could be a interesting academic discussion, of the WWII US/Commonwealth air forces oriented entirely to tactical missions. An entirely different set of aircraft and tactics. Be interesting to take the tonnage dropped on the German field armies and add in the bomb weight used against Germany, vs the maneuver battalions & division HQ.
 
Maybe the 8th Air Force goes directly for POL and Electricity generation

These are simply factories of another kind, therefore they woule be "safe", ie, no bombing.

The whole premise is bogus, imho. In wartime any industrial instalation becames a target because it contributes to the war effort. Therefore it's on the "blow it up" list.
 
I have a gut suspicion that, in a true existential conflict like WWII, actually achieving a victory that leads to a peace that lasts more than 20 years or so, you have to make the enemy population FEEL beaten. Not 'stabbed in the back' by X's and Y's, but physically unable to carry on any sort of conflict. In that sense, it may actually be necessary to cause massive casualties among 'civilians' as well as military. Sucks doesn't it?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
I have a gut suspicion that, in a true existential conflict like WWII, actually achieving a victory that leads to a peace that lasts more than 20 years or so, you have to make the enemy population FEEL beaten. Not 'stabbed in the back' by X's and Y's, but physically unable to carry on any sort of conflict. In that sense, it may actually be necessary to cause massive casualties among 'civilians' as well as military. Sucks doesn't it?
Is this an allusion to the “stab-in-the-back myth” after the First World War? While I agree that seeing their home city blown to smithereens would make someone feel beaten, I don’t think it’s necessary. Demanding unconditional surrender and then occupying the entire country should be enough.
 
Top