[magicalist]

> So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?

More bombs were dropped in Vietnam. Pointless was your word but to address the GP, how effective was that militarily? Stationed artillery is not an occupation.

[hackeraccount]

Vietnam probably was pointless because they couldn't bomb where all the weapons were coming from. Bombing Germany in WWII was less pointless because bombs could have an effect on German war material production - and Germany had to defend it like it did. At the end of the day North Vietnam was getting the means to fight it's war from abroad and bombing it back to the proverbial stone age wouldn't stop those weapons from coming in country.

[melling]

To answer his question and not provide a meaningless comparison, YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective.

Now, if someone wants to digress into Vietnam…

[heavenlyblue]

> YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective.

How exactly?

[Timshel]

Some strategic ones at least appear to have ben effective: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II

Not do much for area bombing (cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_Wor...).

In both case we are talking of multiple years of bombing.

[heavenlyblue]

So not all of them were effective, and the second link specifically mentions bombings of Dresden and Hamburg as controversial.

And it’s very easy to be effective at bombing oil installations as they are not a part of the city.