I have a question...

I understand the failings of "precision strategic bombing" in WWII... less then 7% of ALL munitions delivered fell within 1000 feet of intended targets, which pretty much removes "precision" from the equation all together.

However, these precision bombing strategies went into effect beginning in May of 1942... the P-51 wasn't entered into the USAAF as a service-ready fighter until early in 1944 (late '43 for the Brits). That is more than an entire year of strategic bombing that cannot be blamed on a "bait and hook" strategy from the CIC of the US Eighth Air Force like Doolittle. More to the point, the bombing strategy was tabled until such time as an adequately capable fighter escort should become available at the end of '43... and the P-51 was that fighter. Sending the bombers over the cities unescorted was a controversial move, I'm sure... but it was always my understanding that the daylight bombers of the US command (B-17s mostly) were intended to fly higher than escorts could anyway... to avoid AA and enemy countermeasures (ground-level smoke screens are less effective if viewed from higher up, I guess).

My question is: How can the "percision strategic bombing" strategy have been a lie fabricated to cover the use of US and British bombers as bait so that Allied fighters could beat up German fighters... when prior to the start of '44, there were no fighters available that could escort even as far as the actual German frontier? Spitfires and P-38s didn't have the legs or the guns to go up against the Germans and win consistently... so there must have been an actual "plan" behind the plan, right?

Look, I'm really asking... I didn't see the show you guys did, and while I understand the argument that strategic bombing was NOT the success that it was proported to be at the time, the utter destruction of places like Hamburg, Dresden, Bochum, Mainz and Cologne due to such efforts cannot be completely ignored, can they? 305,000 dead, 7.5 million homeless, 91% of the survivors stating that the "bombing" was what told them the war was lost (beginning in early '44, by the way) and 75% of them blaming the Luftwaffe and the Nazis for not stopping it... surely these numbers show that SOME effect was had on the morale of the enemy due to the campaign, doesn't it? My source is HERE, by the way...

I just want to be sure that no one is suggesting that the effort to bomb Germany into submission by the Allied air forces was a complete fabrication, and that the real effort was to draw out the fighters... even if it cost the Allies 169,000 men to do it. That seems like a lot to swallow, to me.