I remember several docus that said the opposite - the Allied bombing campaign was very well aimed at trying to shatter public morale as well. While hitler certainly tried the same when he launched against the British, Poles and Russians.

The US generals involved wanted to enforce this strategy entering modern war doctrine. So while you are right on the industrial effects of the bombing war, the attempted braking of morale was absolutely an intention here, too.

But all this led to heated debates already during the war, and even more so after the war. Even today military hawks think they can brake public morale by tyrannizing the civil population. Quite the opposite was true back then, and as I see it: is still true today.

P.S. :Hm, I realise that my memory maybe fails me, it could be that I mix up the different strategic preferences of British and American air generals here. I'm too lazy to check it out in the books now. Could be that it was like you said: "Also let's not forget the differencel, at least initially, between US bombing in Europe was not aimed at moral but "precision" targets, while the British went for area bombing."

Oh I agree with the ineffectiveness of trying to break the moral by bombing, just adding other factors that need to be considered as well.

Bombing non military targets achieved very little as we know, I suspect it's more to do in the propaganda war and making our citizens feel better and of course pay back. Military targets like factories, industrial plants, transport and so on would have indeed been more affective.