Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
Bomber Command's war against German cities may have represented "the art of the possible" and may have "led in the end to victory", but had all of the resources been devoted to tactical bombing (which actually resulted in real effect, against more than the odd cow), would we have won quicker, and with fewer losses?
Had every Wellington been a pair of Whirlwinds, and every Halifax, Lanc, and Stirling a pair of Bostons, Beaufighters, and Mosquitos I suspect that we'd have done MUCH more damage to the German war machine, with much lower losses.
Pretty much my point, perhaps better stated
Granted, this is all with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. I don't doubt that those in command thought what they were doing was the best way to win the war. A better analogy might be the old saying that if all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.