[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

Here is an interesting documentary on a dogfight between A6M3 Zero Fighters (316 MPH, 2x20MM cannons, and 2 machine guns) and some US TcBs defending their carrier.

8 SBD Dauntless Dive bombers (262 MPH and 3 Machine guns) are doing air cover mission against IJN Torpedos Bombers for their CV-5 Yorktown carrier during the battle of Coral Sea.

At the start of the battle there is a wing of TcBs but they cannot hold their part: 4 SBDs are destroyed, except for 1 pilot.
From the beginning to the 18 minutes.

Dogfights - Episode 10: Long Odds (History Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MIRqe4ni_0

This other one, can provide some sense of historical depiction of how Fg provides air support and combined arms to TcBs.
It can be easily see as a two times mission:
1 Fg dogfights on first day, then bombers runs on the second day. (42 min. to 43 minutes)

From 31 minutes to the end. 1944 on the assault on Truk Atoll:
The Zero Killer - Ep 6 - Season 1 - Dogfights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXbwKjOA1ho

I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.

@Captain-Mitchell:

I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.

LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.

I personally don’t like Low Luck. I just prefer rolling dice for everything. I guess I like the chance that I will get an unusually large amount of hits or my opponent will get a really bad roll.
I just really love that feeling when I roll and get a bunch of hits but my opponent just gets one or none. Of course, if it goes the opposite way it really SUCKS!

It does suck when the dice aren’t kind. But war isn’t just some scientific operation that you can calculate down to the T. Reacting to the differences in dice rolls are part of what makes A&A enjoyable. You can have two games with the same players where they use identical starting strategies and both games can be world’s apart in 3-4 turns depending on the dice.

Tac bomers are a niche, “sometimes” unit, similar to cruisers and mech infantry.  They fill a gap, and don’t make sense for some of the countries most of the time when all other options are considered.  And even the countries that can easily afford them, it’s strategy dependent.

Germany, I have purchased them.  I try and maintain a 1/1 ftr/tac ratio when I’m on the offensive.  If the US/UK is closing in, fighters > tac for defense.  I sometimes buy more of them than fighters if I have a giant armor stack pushing for Moscow.  3 tac in the Ukraine happens quite often in that last minute push.  Having extra 4’s in the big battle instead of 3’s is well worth the 1 IC if it means taking Moscow or not.

Russia, I rarely buy them, as you’re usually on the defensive for most of the game.  I buy them more if London falls, which switches Russia to a more offensive position with typically more income due to a delayed/weakened German push into Russian tt.

Japan, I purchase them semi-regularly to help threaten the US fleet and keep them at bay.  Especially when Japan starts out with enough fighters to pair them with, it’s an easy purchase.  Not for several turns though, as Japan starts with so many planes, and their starting income is usually spoken for.

US, usually if I’m going on the offensive against Japan.  If I just want to keep Japan in check, then less so.

UK, rarely.  Their money is pulled in so many directions and locations, that tacs don’t come into play very often for them.

Italy.  Nope.  They have so little income at first it just doesn’t make sense.  Maybe once in a while if I happen to have a factory on Egypt with tanks blitzing through Africa and the ME.

ANZAC.  In the late game, yes.  Early on, if I purchase a plane, it will be a fighter to soften the immediate Japanese threat.  Then later on, I switch to tacs to so they can pair up and go on the offensive.

France.  Heh, never.

@axisandalliesplayer:

@Captain-Mitchell:

I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.

LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.

You are right player,LL is very different from dice,but I like LL,because dice is impractical sometimes.(at least in TripleA)For example, I always ordered one Destroyer and one Figter to attack a enemy Destroyer,but more than one time,I failed,it’s ridiculous,I NEVER hear a such example in real battle, so I decide to use LL. :-)

@Captain-Mitchell:

. . . I always ordered one Destroyer and one Figter to attack a enemy Destroyer,but more than one time,I failed,it’s ridiculous,I NEVER hear a such example in real battle, so I decide to use LL. :-)

I can’t remember the exact Japanese order of battle for the battle off Samar. But the USN had 3 destroyers, 4 escort destroyers (even smaller and less capable than a dd), and 6 escort carriers of ‘Taffy 3’ directly involved and within gun range of 3-4 IJN battleships (including the great Yamato), 4-6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 10-12 destroyers. The Yamato itself easily outmassed the combined weight of all the task force’s screening DDs and DEs.

To compound this discrepancy, the Japanese had complete surprise and all the carrier planes were loaded out for ground support operations, so they were loaded with light bombs vs torpedoes or armor piercing munitions. They had to launch immediately as they feared the carriers would soon be sunk and were unable to change their load outs. The DDs and DEs charged in straight into teeth of the IJN formation in order to launch their torpedoes and then dueled with their little 5" guns vs the enemy fleet and their 8" or larger caliber guns.

Air from Taffy 2, a similar task force as Taffy 3, had time to properly load out for ship killing and helped beat the Japanese forces back. Other than Taffy 2, Taffy 3 really didn’t get support from anywhere else as Taffy 1 dealt with large Japanese air attacks during the battle and all the fleet carriers and BBs of the USN were too far north chasing IJN carriers or too far south plugging a strait as the north ‘should’ have been covered by Halsey’s 3rd fleet.

A battle that should have resulted in the complete and immediate destruction of Taffy 3 lasted for over two hours before the Japanese forces withdrew. 3-4 USN DDs and DEs and one CVE were sunk by the IJN that morning and most of the other screen units were heavily damaged as well. Against that, Taffy 3 sunk/heavily damaged 4 of the heavy cruisers and damaged several other Japanese ships. On paper escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts should not have survived such a close encounter against that much firepower. So there’s one very real and dramatic example of heavier forces suffering a defeat against an outmatched force. And don’t think that it’s just an isolated case either, Midway comes to mind and there are plenty of other examples from WWII or history in general.

Returning to A&A, in a regular dice game just think of how many dice are rolled over the course of a single game. Sure one battle might have 90% odds. But if you string enough 90+% battles together you’re going to run into one that you lose. Say in one turn you perform 7 battles that each have exactly 90% odds of you winning. The mathematical odds that each of those turns out in your favor are actually only 47%. Which means there’s about a 50-50 shot that one of those battles will result in a loss. That doesn’t take into account battles that maybe you should have won with say three fighters left and instead you go home with only a single fighter.

And us being human, we’re going to focus on those times when the dice ‘screwed’ us because that was a 90% battle! I do it quite a bit myself before I get back to rolling some more dice.

@Variable:

I will offer up a rationale for the tac/tank combo. Think about Panzers and Stukas for a moment. The Panzers are used to pin down the enemy in known locations. Then Stukas are sent in to finish off enemy defensive positions before the Panzers blitz the line. If it weren’t for the Panzers pinning the enemy units, they would be harder for the Stukas to hit.

I may be talking out my a$$ though…

Is it a realistic depiction of Tank bonus toward Tactical bomber?
What do you think?

I read this about Stuka:

The dive-bomber was a purpose-built aircraft, designed to drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy on frontline battlefield targets. To support their panzer offensives, the Germans developed close air support into an art form and the Stuka was central to this effort. The secret of German successes in this field was the close integration between air and ground units. Stuka squadrons worked hand-in-hand with ground units so they could intervene rapidly at the decisive point of the battlefield. These highly specialist squadrons were in the thick of the action and developed an impressive reputation. The need to fly deep into the heart of battle meant Stuka pilots suffered some of the highest casualty rates in the Luftwaffe, and as a consequence became some of the most highly decorated German servicemen. Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most famous Stuka pilot and squadron commander of the war. He was also the most highly decorated German soldier of the war, being the only serviceman to receive the Knight’s Cross with Golden Oak Leaves with Swords and Diamonds.

This give the general tactics. Does Variable depiction a special case of the above Stuka tactics?