Jump to content


Photo

Yer-2 vs B-17 and Avro Lancaster


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

Poll: Yer-2 vs B-17 and Avro Lancaster (279 member(s) have cast votes)

What would you prefer

  1. Lower the Yer-2s payloads (45 votes [16.13%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.13%

  2. Voted Increase the B-17s and Avro Lancasters payload (234 votes [83.87%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 83.87%

Would you fly the B-17s and Avro Lancaster more often if they had their real payload

  1. Voted yes (239 votes [85.66%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 85.66%

  2. Voted no (40 votes [14.34%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.34%

On a scale from 1 to 5, rate this issue

  1. Voted 1 (23 votes [8.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.24%

  2. Voted 2 (26 votes [9.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.32%

  3. Voted 3 (59 votes [21.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.15%

  4. Voted 4 (74 votes [26.52%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.52%

  5. Voted 5 (97 votes [34.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 34.77%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 CrusaderXx

CrusaderXx

    RIP in pooches http://i.imgur.com/PqXiMz5.png?1

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,246
  • 14 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 02:56 AM

The Yer-2s have their full payload, but the B-17s and Avro Lancaster don't.

 

There are endless posts about the payloads, short version: B-17 could carry up to 16,000 pounds of bombs, the Avro Lancaster fourteen 1000 pound bombs or the 22,000 pound "Grand Slam"

 

 

In a few of the Q&As, people talked about that: http://forum.warthun...us-transcripts/

 

Q: Yer-2 and why it carries more bombs then any other bomber in game?
A: Have to be checked with developers, not sure.

 

and

 

Q: Bomb load of some bombers in the game is lower than what bombers could take in real life?
A: That was done intentionally because of balance and necessity to stop bombers from killing all ground units in one pass.

 

and

 

Question 13:

Will we see a bigger bomb than 4,000 pounds?
Borisych: Yes! We will have bigger bomb loads available.


  • 1

    I832Wr3.png          5eRrwyy.gif      


#2 Cuteling

Cuteling

    Adorably Cute

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,260
  • 34 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:06 AM

B-17's bombload is historically accurate; it could only carry 16,000 lbs under max overload conditions under which it had hardly any range, so was never used.

 

Lancaster's bombload is badly undervalued though, and should be increased.


  • 8

QTrRD6r.png


#3 CrusaderXx

CrusaderXx

    RIP in pooches http://i.imgur.com/PqXiMz5.png?1

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,246
  • 14 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:12 AM

B-17's bombload is historically accurate; it could only carry 16,000 lbs under max overload conditions under which it had hardly any range, so was never used.

 

So what?

 

Where would you need the range the B-17 had in war thunder?

Or the fighters, have you ever seen anybody that flies with more than 40min fuel? Or even 30?

 

 

It COULD do that, and I am very willing to give up my 2,5 hours of flight time for double the payload.


  • 0

    I832Wr3.png          5eRrwyy.gif      


#4 turkeybacon

turkeybacon

    Flying officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 863
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:14 AM

Or the fighters, have you ever seen anybody that flies with more than 40min fuel? Or even 30?

I would take 30 mins for my 163 if it had the option


  • 9

9rt3y8.png


#5 MacMalicsarte

MacMalicsarte

    Officer cadet

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 475
  • 1 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:14 AM

They need to add the "Grand Slam" bomb! That would make me buy the Lancaster just so that I can drop that thing on German tanks.


  • 4

sign_d11_zpsbf774c9721u7t.png Thank God for Jim Sterling!


#6 CrusaderXx

CrusaderXx

    RIP in pooches http://i.imgur.com/PqXiMz5.png?1

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,246
  • 14 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:17 AM

I would take 30 mins for my 163 if it had the option

 

I would climb 150 m/s if my 163 was historically accurate :P


  • 0

    I832Wr3.png          5eRrwyy.gif      


#7 Cuteling

Cuteling

    Adorably Cute

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,260
  • 34 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:19 AM

So what?

 

Where would you need the range the B-17 had in war thunder?

Or the fighters, have you ever seen anybody that flies with more than 40min fuel? Or even 30?

 

 

It COULD do that, and I am very willing to give up my 2,5 hours of flight time for double the payload.

 

By that logic, every single bomber can carry much larger payloads; even the Yer-2.

 

The simple fact is, the B-17 didn't carry all that heavy a bombload for a heavy bomber; the USA's daylight bombers lost a LOT of bombload for their armor and defensive armaments.


  • 4

QTrRD6r.png


#8 SHARKFORCE

SHARKFORCE

    Officer cadet

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 313
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:23 AM

The Yer-2s have their full payload, but the B-17s and Avro Lancaster don't.

 

There are endless posts about the payloads, short version: B-17 could carry up to 16,000 pounds of bombs, the Avro Lancaster fourteen 1000 pound bombs or the 22,000 pound "Grand Slam"

 

 

In a few of the Q&As, people talked about that: http://forum.warthun...us-transcripts/

 

Q: Yer-2 and why it carries more bombs then any other bomber in game?
A: Have to be checked with developers, not sure.

 

and

 

Q: Bomb load of some bombers in the game is lower than what bombers could take in real life?
A: That was done intentionally because of balance and necessity to stop bombers from killing all ground units in one pass.

 

and

 

Question 13:

Will we see a bigger bomb than 4,000 pounds?
Borisych: Yes! We will have bigger bomb loads available.

Now all of a sudden historical accuracy needs to take a step back because of game balance? Are you kidding me? :?s  :Os  :facepalm:


  • 5

#9 LancasterMaster

LancasterMaster

    More posts than postman pat.

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,643
  • 17 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:25 AM

In my Yer-2 I can kill a airfield with 4 reloads.

 

And it's a lot faster than the B17 and Lancaster...

 

https://fbcdn-sphoto...627519749_o.jpg


  • 0

4RJ928j.jpg


#10 CrusaderXx

CrusaderXx

    RIP in pooches http://i.imgur.com/PqXiMz5.png?1

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,246
  • 14 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:26 AM

By that logic, every single bomber can carry much larger payloads; even the Yer-2.

 

The simple fact is, the B-17 didn't carry all that heavy a bombload for a heavy bomber; the USA's daylight bombers lost a LOT of bombload for their armor and defensive armaments.

 

Sooo, B-17s are easy kills for their enemys (G-6/10, sometimes K4s and in 1.33 Fw190 a-5 with 6 20s and fw190 f-8 with 2 30mms)

 

30mms dont care about "armor"

And devensive armaments aka gunners dont hit floral, and I say that as a person with a 100/100 ace crew.


  • 0

    I832Wr3.png          5eRrwyy.gif      


#11 Cuteling

Cuteling

    Adorably Cute

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,260
  • 34 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:29 AM

Sooo, B-17s are easy kills for their enemys (G-6/10, sometimes K4s and in 1.33 Fw190 a-5 with 6 20s and fw190 f-8 with 2 30mms)

 

30mms dont care about "armor"

And devensive armaments aka gunners dont hit xxxx, and I say that as a person with a 100/100 ace crew.

 

That can be fixed with buffs to the bomber damage models and defensive armaments.

 

Heavier bombloads won't make any difference to bomber effectiveness if bombers are getting shot down before they even reach their targets.

And heavy bombloads will make it even more likely for them to get shot down, due to reduction in climb rate and speed.


  • 0

QTrRD6r.png


#12 Desu_Ex

Desu_Ex

    Flight lieutenant

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 992
  • 6 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 03:40 AM

Now all of a sudden historical accuracy needs to take a step back because of game balance? Are you kidding me? :?s  :Os  :facepalm:

Welcome to Warthunder, where historical accuracy is only used when convenient.


  • 12

qbxn.png


#13 BeefJerkyHunter

BeefJerkyHunter

    Group captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,517
  • 6 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 04:13 AM

I voted that the Yer's bomb load should be reduced.

 

I personally think that raising the bomb loads on the other bombers will only wreck the game.

We can be thankful that only the Yer currently has 5000 kg of ordnance, any more bombers with 5000 kg will make the game cheesy.

I understand that many players want bombers to be more effective but beyond that 4000 kg limit of the other bombers, the only other purpose of that extra 1000 kg is for base bombing and the B-17/Lancaster are already effective enough at that.


  • 0

8898101369_80f216580b_s.jpg


#14 Haechi

Haechi

    =StB= Camp Master

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,274
  • 25 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 06:04 AM

This is stupid. We're already lucky the B17 has access to its short range payload and not the long range one.

 

The maximum payload you're talking about was never used. The trade off is better armament and armor.


  • 2

WT_sig517_zps4a611915.jpg 5MqFD5P.jpg

Head commander of the Strategic Bomber squadron =StB= My War Thunder movie channel http://www.youtube.com/user/sphaxi


#15 Jonotallica

Jonotallica

    Guitar Fiend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,378
  • 2 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:14 AM

Historically accurate and balance are two words used when it's convenient to do so.  It's more or less along the same lines as a parent saying "because I said so".


  • 0

7ojj.jpg                                                fm1t.jpg                                                      bhyx.jpg


#16 ShermanTheTank

ShermanTheTank

    Officer cadet

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 478
  • 1 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:23 AM

So what?

 

Where would you need the range the B-17 had in war thunder?

Or the fighters, have you ever seen anybody that flies with more than 40min fuel? Or even 30?

 

 

It COULD do that, and I am very willing to give up my 2,5 hours of flight time for double the payload.

Me, in my mustang, I don't have a choice....


  • 0

Don't get mad, get even.

WT_sig368_zps7b7c7d6e.jpgWT_sig364_zps074d28c7.jpgWT_sig363_zps877a1bf5.jpg


#17 Jakt80

Jakt80

    Warrant officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPip
  • 275
  • 5 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:30 AM

This is stupid. We're already lucky the B17 has access to its short range payload and not the long range one.

The maximum payload you're talking about was never used. The trade off is better armament and armor.


I think the greater issue is yers carrying more than b-17's and lancasters. Reduce yer bombload imho.
  • 0

#18 f86destroyer

f86destroyer

    Aircraftman

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 10
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:31 AM

I wish they could buff the bombers :(


  • 3

#19 Pacifica

Pacifica

    All Your Base Are Belong To Me

  • Forum Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,379
  • 40 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:35 AM

The Yer-2s have their full payload, but the B-17s and Avro Lancaster don't.

 

There are endless posts about the payloads, short version: B-17 could carry up to 16,000 pounds of bombs, the Avro Lancaster fourteen 1000 pound bombs or the 22,000 pound "Grand Slam"

 

 

In a few of the Q&As, people talked about that: http://forum.warthun...us-transcripts/

 

Q: Yer-2 and why it carries more bombs then any other bomber in game?
A: Have to be checked with developers, not sure.

 

and

 

Q: Bomb load of some bombers in the game is lower than what bombers could take in real life?
A: That was done intentionally because of balance and necessity to stop bombers from killing all ground units in one pass.

 

and

 

Question 13:

Will we see a bigger bomb than 4,000 pounds?
Borisych: Yes! We will have bigger bomb loads available.

 

all the bombers have something like 1/3rd of their full operational bomb loads...

 

 

Q: Bomb load of some bombers in the game is lower than what bombers could take in real life?
A: That was done intentionally because of balance and necessity to stop bombers from killing all ground units in one pass.

 

 

and this is total Bullshit... Fighters can kill everything in a matter of minutes as it is... :facepalm:

 

The Devs need to wake up from their fantasy land that they live in... and start doing Real fixes for bombers...

 

 

Welcome to Warthunder, where historical accuracy is only used when convenient.

 

The Devs have lost any Historical Accuracy Credibility a long time ago... :facepalm:


  • 7

MyMC205PlanViewItalianSig001.jpg

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1st Wave Ground Forces Closed Beta Tester....


#20 Rumpullpus

Rumpullpus

    Marshal of the Air Force

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,049
  • 20 Thanks

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:33 AM

This is stupid. We're already lucky the B17 has access to its short range payload and not the long range one.

 

The maximum payload you're talking about was never used. The trade off is better armament and armor.

its kinda silly that people are saying this because the stock B-17 off the factory floor had the pylons under the wings to carry the extra bombs (like the yer-2) the only reason they weren't used was because it was common for B-17 crews to take them off because they were performing long range missions and they were so sluggish and slow with them on. it has nothing to do with armament or armor, merely a preference of the crews.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users