Is he a hack?

AGAIN

BOMBER

Reap the whirlwind, Jerry.

>Shitler was a faggot
Shitler was never a junior officer, he barely made NCO.

HARRIS

HARRIS

To provide a non-meme and non-ironic answer, Arthur Harris is a lot like McCellan. Just like McCellan he was tremendously effective at building up an efficient and powerful force from the chaos which existed previously. But just like McCellan he chose the wrong strategies to employ it. Area/terror bombing was not really that effective.
Any Kraut who whines about it deserves to be shot though, I have no sympathy that G*rmans died because of it, it just is a less efficient way to win the war

Effective? Debatable. Entertaining? Absolutely!

>actually somewhat sensible answer
I'm afraid you might be on the wrong board

The Dresden Bombing never happened but it should have.

It's weird, because you'd expect the British historians to be extolling the effectiveness of area bombing, and the Germans to be downplaying it, but it's the exact opposite.

The British historiography is essentially "fuck it, that didn't work" whereas the Germans on the receiving end said it caused enormous logistical clusterfucks.

What would have been a more effective strategy he could have used?

It could be that Brits are actually concerned with finding the best possible way to stop G*rmans while G*rmans are still reeling in pathological shame for something that happened 80 years ago.

Specifically, Nazi leaders who were in charge of arms production and logistics said it made their jobs almost impossible.

>The British historiography is essentially "fuck it, that didn't work" whereas the Germans on the receiving end said it caused enormous logistical clusterfucks.
Who says this? The only direct "work" I'm aware of is Speer's, and Speer has a very mixed review of British area bombing, as it was too sporadic and too unfocused to be truly crippling.

>What would have been a more effective strategy he could have used?
Not him, but one based on attacking economic underpinnings, especially a very focused one (primarily or solely attacking something like oil, or power generation, instead of spreading attacks out all over the place). Plus, transportation attacks could be and historically were effective (something Harris objected too, incidentally).

He's no match for madman Curtis.

It was the right strategy. He ensured that any German civilian, soldier, officer and general with a shred of rationality would conclude they have lost the war and seek surrender. It was a humanitarian action like the use of the atom bomb.

Not nearly as much of a hack as Montgomery or Churchill

And yet they didn't surrender until such time as the country was actually occupied. Douhetian theory failed.

It isn't that strategic bombing is ineffective, although its overrated, more that the British idea of winning by "dehousing" with just bombing cities randomly wasn't as effective as concentrated campaigns like the oil campaign, something which the Americans were opposed to but utterly wrecked the Germans

>a high degree of discourse

have you seen the rest of this board?

>lol just like drop your bombs on whatever
>like it'll scare them into submission I swear lol
Nah, now LeMay on the other hand. There's your superior strategic bombing theorist.

Americans are always superior to *nglos

>one minute between each reply
samefag harder, retard