@Cmdr:
Really, I thought Tacticals were basically fighters that defended on 3 instead of 4, cost 1 more and could attack naval/air bases….interesting.
The way I see it, it’s a problem relating to naming conventions and historic unit roles. Tactical bombers represent many types of planes: heavy fighters, night fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc, etc. They’re far less maneuverable than an air superiority fighter (though sometimes faster), more heavily armed, and capable of carrying a small payload of bombs (like, 3x500 lb or so) or torpedos. Strategic bombers (which used to represent many of the tactical bomber roles) are now basically medium & heavy aircraft, long range, multiengine (usually) that carry a reasonably large payload.
Originally in A&A, as I’m sure you know, Strategic Bombers were just called Bombers, and were renamed to Strategic Bombers in AA1940 to differentiate from Tactical Bombers. But at that point, only Strategic Bombers could be used in SBRs. And now both types can.
That means a Strategic Bombing Run (which used to be limited to Strategic Bombers) has a name that seems to confuse everyone because Tacticals can now perform an SBR as well. And Tactical Bombers can scramble like fighters (which still makes sense if you know the aircraft roles in naval combat), but is confusing from an abstract view of the rules where tactical BOMBERS can perform some functions with Fighters (scrambling) and some functions with Strategic bombers (SBRs on bases) but NOT as an escort (because they areno air superiority fighters).