Why not? Bombers attacked transports all the time. In fact, the entire reason we went for Guadalcanal was to prevent Japanese bombers from hitting our shipping lanes.
Not true…Bomber like B17 and B24 or Avro Lancaster didn’t have the capability to attack transport.
(The German FW 200 condor yes).
Now if you have light bomber. (or Tac bomber) in your game…ah that’s another case.
B25, Heinkel HE 111 are good example…
Those kind of bomber has great success against ships like transport and warships.
But to be accurate Bomber shouldn’t attack transport.
In our game perspective, in which Medium Bombers are part of the Bomber unit (long distance travel and unable to land on carrier, heavier payload “@4”, a crew of more than three members) and not included in Tactical Bomber sculpt (land on carrier, shorter ranger, less payload “@3”, a crew of 1 to 3 members), a Bomber can attack transport, here is a finer analysis and better explanations.
It is based on an interesting description of the Tactical Bombers compared to Strategic Bombers by kcdzim:
Part of this stems from simplified game mechanics and part of it certainly stems from earlier versions.
In the previous games, they weren’t called Strategic Bombers. They were bombers.
And “Bombers” certainly included more than just high altitude heavy bombers.
The nomenclature changed but their roles haven’t: Strategic Bombers still include medium bombers. The fact that Tactical bombers are compatible with carriers, implies they represent smaller planes. Yes, the Mitchell flew off a carrier for the Doolittle Raid, but that was a VERY specialized use of a medium bomber that was essentially stripped to even get off the flight deck. So Strategic bombers still include medium bombers like the Mitchell, and Tactical bombers are more akin to heavy fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc., which were more often single engine or single pilot or pilot/navigator, and not manned with a substantial crew, didn’t carry substantial loads.
Historically, medium Bombers like the Mitchell, Invader, Havoc, etc., were effective in low altitude bombing/torpedo attacks on naval units. Torpedoes obviously worked well, but Skip bombing was also very effective against transport and warship alike and used extensively by the allies in the south pacific (battle of the Bismarck sea being a good example). B17’s even got in on the action. It’s just not a high altitude bombing run that you imagine from “strategic bombers” and movies like Memphis Belle.
Look at the Tac bombers we have: a ground attack tank killer (Sturmovik), 3 dive bombers (Stuka, Dauntless, Val) and a Mosquito, which is a blurred recon/day and night fighter/torp bomber/fast bomber/pest. None of those are really close to the role of the Mitchell (which is certainly a “tactical bomber” by any standard definition EXCEPT this game). There’s no good single name that covers the roles of aircraft in between Air superiority Fighter and Strategic Bomber. Tactical Bomber is what we have, but you NEED to imagine it means heavy fighter/dive bomber/torpedo bomber/ground attack/night fighter/fighter-bomber as well. And NOT medium bomber.
Until the game differentiates further with medium bombers vs high altitude bombers (it’s not likely to as that favours the allies), then “strategic bombers” is still somewhat accurate as they don’t simply represent Heavy Bombers alone and it’s acceptable to use them to represent the role of Medium bombers in Naval warfare.