Bombers

[kociakos]

Forgive my ignorance, but whats the difference between tactical and strategical bombers? For example: I am planning my first try as Republican Spain, which type of bombers should I build?

What I know:
>Heavy fighters are better against bomber, but less agile so other fighters can kill them quite easy.
>Naval bomber can attack fleets(?)
>Close air support (no idea, maybe it helps ground units?)
>Fighter - kills the enemies fighters + can kill bombers but it takes more time.
>And bombers? whats the difference?

Thank you in advance for explaining me the air units roles :/

 

[Dr. Frog]

(usually) Strategic = big picture, tactical = medium picture.
In real life, and reflected in-game, tactical bombers are generally medium ranged medium payload planes intended for attacking things directly related to the front, like supply lines, fortifications, or even large enemy troop formations.
Strategic bombers are intended to fly far beyond enemy lines and target things like factories or sometimes just cities (not the most precise at bombing, as they fly at high altitudes).

In game, I believe this is represented with strategic bombers getting a bonus against industry and larger ranges, while tactical bombers damage infrastructure and maybe organization.
Edit: quite a few good answers, but I guess I'm the fastest plane on the block ;D

 

[JRiemer]

Strategic bombers attack strategic targets, like factories, storage facilities, railyards, or entire cities in massed raids, tactical bombers generally attack smaller targets like bridges, fortifications, enemy troop concentrations. It could be that tactical bombers will target regional infrastructure and enemy formations and the strategic bombers will target enemy factories, but that's just my guess.

EDIT: Nice ninja there.

 

[Zankoas]

">Heavy fighters are better against bomber, but less agile so other fighters can kill them quite easy."
Yeah exactly

>Naval bomber can attack fleets(?)
Yep

>Close air support (no idea, maybe it helps ground units?)
Think dive bombers, helping to disrupt enemy unit and this supporting your own units

>Fighter - kills the enemies fighters + can kill bombers but it takes more time.
Yep

>And bombers? whats the difference?
Strategic bombers are designed to damage enemy industry, infrastructure, ports etc, think stationary targets. Tactical bombers are somewhere in between CAS and strategic bombers, able to do both, but not as well as either,

(Also, range and cost should not be forgotten, heavy fighters and strategic bombers have a higher range and cost than interceptors (light fighters) or CAS, again, with medium fighters and tactical bombers in the middle)

EDIT: Lucky you with three answers!

 

[kociakos]

Wow, thanks a lot !!!
So now I know that it would be better to focus only on tactical bombers as a minor country. And if i can't afford even tactical bombers, I should focus on CAS and fighters.

 

[Zankoas]

Or even just fighters, after all, if your fighters are outnumber 2-1, your bombers will be useless, but yeah, that's the kind of choices you have to make

 

[Dr. Frog]

Wow, thanks a lot !!!
So now I know that it would be better to focus only on tactical bombers as a minor country. And if i can't afford even tactical bombers, I should focus on CAS and fighters.

Hmmm, it really depends on your circumstances; interceptors are always important for defense, and some form of bomber is nice, but if you can't hold air parity (where both air forces are roughly equal), it might be best to focus purely on air defense.

 

[kociakos]

So actually the best solution for a medium-sized country is: build as many fighters as you can + some CAS (they can be used as fighters? and they can bomb).

 

[Zankoas]

So actually the best solution for a medium-sized country is: build as many fighters as you can + some CAS (they can be used as fighters? and they can bomb).

I wouldn't say there is ever best solution, just choice, if you are Canada, you didn't need to worry about air superiority, so maybe long range strategic bombers are they way to go, or maybe fighter to help in the Battle of Britain, I would say it depends a lot of which medium country

 

[jockedahl]

I wonder when it pays off to have CAS over more fighters.

Say the enemy has 5 fighters in the sky and I have 3. 5/3 ratio. Is sending tactical bomber or CAS useless? Do i need air superiortity to have some effect? Or if I have good models of CAS/Tac bomber aircraft, can't they still perform missions well just take more losses. In the end, the damage they do to the enemy on the ground might be worth more air losses than manpower losses.

 

[potski]

some CAS (they can be used as fighters? and they can bomb).

CAS can only carry out close air support and naval strike missions. They can't do air superiority or interception missions. Only fighters can do those missions.

 

[Zankoas]

" In the end, the damage they do to the enemy on the ground might be worth more air losses than manpower losses."

Exactly, no right or wrong answer, just trade offs

 

[xtfoster]

In a nutshell? In game Strategic is anti-industry (plus they are the only way to drop nukes), Tactical is the Jack-of-all-trades of the bombers but not best at anything, CAS are (surprise surprise) best at Close Air Support, and Naval Bombers are anti-shipping.

 

[Volodio]

If it will be like DH, HoI2 and HoI3, CAS will be better to kill the soldiers and especially the tanks but they'll have a short range. Tactical will be very effective to reduce the organization of the divisions, and when they move their manpower. They'll can also destroy infrastrure and industry but they won't be very good at it. And they'll have a good range. The strategical'll have the best range and they'll be very good at destroying industry and infrastructure. And only them can carry nuke.

Personally, I prefer the tactical, and have some strategical, especially if I want nuke, but I never research CAS. I don't like them, not enough polyvalent and too short range. But if you want to make them, I suggest you don't research tactical. I don't think it's very useful to waste his time on searching two planes with similar purpose. You could research something else I think.

 

[kociakos]

So what kind of planes would you build, for example as Poland? I would go for as many fighter as I could build + some CAS to destroy tanks. Strategical bombers, naval bombers would be useless. I don't know if researching tactical bombers and heavy fighters is that important for Poland. What type of plane would you spam, having those 3 years to prepare?

Comparison - the polish air force during the invasion: (really small and outnumbered)
Fighter (Pzl. 11) 200 (+ -)
CAS: (karas) 250
Tactical Bomber: (Los) 36

Just to show you how challenging it is, the germans had over 400 Messerschmitt Bf 110 and over 200 Me 109 e-1 Bf (those are just fighters)

Spoiler: The polish planes

 

[Volodio]

So what kind of planes would you build, for example as Poland? I would go for as many fighter as I could build + some CAS to destroy tanks. Strategical bombers, naval bombers would be useless. I don't know if researching tactical bombers and heavy fighters is that important for Poland. What type of plane would you spam, having those 3 years to prepare?

Comparison - the polish air force during the invasion: (really small and outnumbered)
Fighter (Pzl. 11) 200 (+ -)
CAS: (karas) 250
Tactical Bomber: (Los) 36

Just to show you how challenging it is, the germans had over 400 Messerschmitt Bf 110 and over 200 Me 109 e-1 Bf (those are just fighters)

Spoiler: The polish planes

None. The Luftwaffe is too powerful and can destroy the polish air forces in one week only I think. It's a waste of time and ressources. Better make a lot of infantry divisions I think with more support.

 

[JRiemer]

None. The Luftwaffe is too powerful and can destroy the polish air forces in one week only I think. It's a waste of time and ressources. Better make a lot of infantry divisions I think with more support.

Sounds like the truth, even if you start in '36 the factories you'll spend cranking out enough fighters to make a difference against the luftwaffe would probably be better spent on asstons of border forts or hordes of infantry divisions with AT companies, or both.

Maybe if you start out intending to befriend Germany and take it to the Soviets the Polish air force would fare better, especially against a freshly-purged early war SU air force.

 

[Leinad965]

Interceptor - best against airplanes including bombers; with its short range is not very suitable in bomber escort role and in areas with low airfield density
Heavy fighter / multirole - good against planes, good against army, long range
Close air support - best against tanks, good against infantry, short range
Tactical bomber - good against tanks, best against infantry, long range, universal bomber
Naval bomber - best against navy, long range
Strategic bomber - best against factories and cities, extreme long range

 

[potski]

There are no interceptors or multi-role planes. Interception is a mission of fighters. Their other mission is air superiority.

 

[HamHamJ]

There are no interceptors or multi-role planes. Interception is a mission of fighters. Their other mission is air superiority.

What is the difference between interception and air superiority?