no bombers on carriers?...what the

[vee4473]

Of course having carrier based strike fighters be AS effective as land bound heavy bombers would make one wonder why to ever build land based bombers at all.

But that could be balanced out by having the carrier based fighters cost significantly more I suppose.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
It essentially means that bombers can damage naval units pretty well, but not completely rape them.

Exactly. IRL land-based aircraft do completely rape ships.

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Exactly. IRL land-based aircraft do completely rape ships.

They do now, anyway.
In the old days it was a different story.
In WWII, B17s, for example, struggled unsuccessfully to hit anything at Midway.
Nowadays, all it takes is one missile like an exocet or silkworm launched many miles away to ruin a very expensive ship's day.

[Kuciwalker]

AIUI land-based fighers and bombers were always far superior to carrier-based fighters and bombers, simply because they can carry much larger payloads.

[LordShiva]

AIUI?

[sydrian]

Originally posted by vee4473


Which I guess is why I had the initial reaction that I did.
I saw "bombers can't be stationed on carriers" in the manual and all I could think of was that I would be stuck with ineffective fighters for long range land bombardment. I like to have effective air support for a potential invasion on another continent.

But, I may have over reacted. Time will tell.

If you want effective air support on another continent, you can base aircraft in cities you are allied with from what Ive read in the manual. Think Saudi Arabia for US during the war in Iraq.

[vee4473]

Sydrian, you are missing my point.

I understand what you are saying, but capable bombers on carriers is life.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
AIUI?

As I understand it.

[Generaldoktor]

I recall from Civ3 that I could do a fair amount of damage with fighters, particularly the jets. From history, I recall the Jap carrier bomber was still a one-engine, low payload vehicle. I'm pretty well read on WWII and the only U.S. bombers off carriers I know about were the B25's of the Dolittle Raid, a tactical "medium" bomber. German Condors and B24 antisub planes were the only exceptions to poor heavy bomber performance agin ships. As far as now, I haven't been in the air force, but it appears from my reading even A6's and F18's, at least as far as mission intent goes, are not used for STRATEGIC targeting.

[Dis]

I agree bombers should not be on carriers. I served on an aircraft carrier (Enterprise) for 4 years. We had f-14 tomcats. F-18 hornets (now days they have super hornets), and A-6 Intruders (since disbanded). The A-6's were called bombers, but they don't have the bombload of real bombers.

A possible solution is to create medium bombers that can land on aircraft carriers. But the thought of a B-52 landing on an aircraft carrier just turns me off. Even a B-17 couldn't do it.

The Doolittle raid was performed by smaller bombers than the B-17's.

[ieolus]

Originally posted by Dis
I agree bombers should not be on carriers. I served on an aircraft carrier (Enterprise) for 4 years. We had f-14 tomcats. F-18 hornets (now days they have super hornets), and A-6 Intruders (since disbanded). The A-6's were called bombers, but they don't have the bombload of real bombers.

A possible solution is to create medium bombers that can land on aircraft carriers. But the thought of a B-52 landing on an aircraft carrier just turns me off. Even a B-17 couldn't do it.

The Doolittle raid was performed by smaller bombers than the B-17's.

I dislike the no bombers are carriers, so I added torpedo bombers (a bit less effective than bombers, smaller operating range) which upgrade to fighter/bombers in the modern era.

Don't know how it works yet though, haven't gotten that far.