bombers did not effect the fighter war except to draw the more timid/outnumbered countries fighters up to engage in battle.
Oh my gosh! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this. This has got to be the most skewed view of history I've ever seen, even from you, Lazs, ol' buddy. There
was no "fighter war!" The sole purpose of the existance of air power, then and now, is to put bombs on target...to smash things and kill people (on the ground, not in other fighter cockpits). Fighter development was driven by the need to counter this...period. The fact that they eventually added more air to ground capability to fighters was tacit acknowledgement that some targets were too pin-point in nature to use bombers efficiently against. By the way, I can provide numerous accounts of the 8th Air Force attacking German airfields using formations of heavy and medium bombers. Many were area targets quite suitable to area bombing. Plus, the defensive ack was so intense that JABO's paid too high a cost to hit them. AH doesn't reflect these historical facts of course, and this as well as the strategic effectiveness of bombers is what this thread is trying to address.
sabre... yur view of history is a strange one.. "bombers were required to be countered"?? sure.. if you didn't want your cities bombed all to hell but they sure didn't need much countering against the targets available in AH...
I'm sure to you it is, based on your earlier statements. However, you've exactly made my case here. Bombers
don't need countering in the MA right now, for exactly the reason you've stated here. There, we've agreed on something.
However, dtango is right; let's talk about solutions, such as the idea of making structure targets such as hangers and town/city buildings require bombs and rockets to kill (or at least making guns much more inneffective against them)? Also increase the "blast" effectiveness of those bombs when targeting structures. Consider along with this the idea of making enough of them at the field towns and strat targets that makes level bombers the more efficient platform for attacking them. I understand your opposition to tying field supplies to strat target damage, even if I don't agree, so let's set that one aside for the moment. Lastly, add the idea of no resupply for strat targets.
There! A complete proposal. This would seem to fit the furballers' requirement that the bombers not be any more immediately impactful to fighter ops than they are now. Yet it gives them a role more in line with their historic capabilities. It gives bombers a role in base attack (both strategically and tactically) by making the bases easier to capture, while not making it any easier for a single bomber pilot to pork field supplies for aircraft launching from there (still possible, but also still a better job for the Jabos). Jabos could still kill structures, but not as efficiently as before. This would of course also reduce the fighters' unfair porking of bomber operations that regularly goes on now;).
The above suggestions not only give bombers a better role in the MA, but makes them more of a threat to those who care about more than just the next kill. This makes them more worthwhile and satisying to kill. This in turn makes the bomber formation itself a combat generater, as escorts become more prevalent.
