of course they are not relevant, thank you for pointing that out! I was worried I had forgotten, of course. :) However - there is no reasonable way that they would have continued making bombers whatosever if any one of them could be slaughtered and turned inside out by a simple fart in the wind by a 20mm autocannon. You do know that right? Do you need me to spoon feed it to you?
If somebody makes twenty large airplanes, but somebody can destroy one large airplane with the mild suggestion of a few tiny rounds that cost very little to manufacture, do you know what happens?
People make airplanes that can climb as high as the bombers, and just use those tiny rounds. If warthunder was even close to the reality, then Germany would have won and we wouldn’t have to suffer with warthunder being the ‘only’ mass-multiplayer, easy access mass-vehicle simulator. Among a few other ‘unsavory’ things. Does that make sense?
Do I understand correctly that you are switching to tail gunner?
I tried this in AAB, on various bombers, including those with fairly powerful defensive weapons. But if I play as a gunner, I can’t maneuver at the same time. As a result, I just get shot down faster than when I play as a pilot and try to actively maneuver, albeit on a heavy bomber.
Whereas when actively maneuvering, for example on the Pe-2-31 (aces crew + all defensive skills 10/10), AI gunners periodically shoot down inexperienced players, sometimes even two per match. While I’m spinning like a squirrel, at the same time trying to get to the base or ground targets.
You are spreading myths created to tell a certain narrative which is misleading at best.
I am not following this narrative which is simply trying to hide the brutal truth of war: Hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted in a war of attrition. So i see this from two sides: The airmen which were sent to (almost) certain death without having the necessary accuracy to hit their targets - and the civilians burned to ashes if they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Long version:
Hidden as iimho off-topic
The US oil embargo forced JP to die either slowly due to a lack of oil or violent in a prolonged war they could not win. That’s why we saw Pearl Harbor (as a high risk gamble) which was solely aimed to neutralize the Pacific Fleet in order to get a negotiated peace.
The Germans were stupid, but not that stupid - google the vid “WW 2 War for Oil” by TiK. The war was lost latest mid 1943, others say in 1942 as they were unable to conquer the oilfields in the Caucasus. The RN sea blockade prevented oil imports and Romanian oil plus their synthetic fuel was never enough to allow any offensive operations after mid '43. Even the Battle of the Bulge was a one-way trip as they thought they could capture US fuel depots in order to keep their tanks operational.
U-boats: Look up the french civilian casualties in the fruitless attempts to bomb the U-boat bases in France.
General production: Another myth - depending on which sources you want to cite the industrial capacity of Germany remained to 75-85% intact. Bomber raids killed mainly logistic infrastructure like railyards which had the additional benefit that they could flatten residential areas as the most logistic hubs were in city centers.
So even in case that allied bomber fleets hit here and there a tank, u-boat or aircraft factory - the Germans never had a real shortage of equipment, they simply had no fuel to train soldiers / airmen / tankers and operate them. I mean there is a reason why the Italian Navy was parked in harbors, they had no fuel to operate them - and the LW had in March 1945 the highest number of available fighters in the entire war…
I recommend looking up the total amount of bombs dropped on JP and Germany. You find out that the majority was dropped after the LW ran out of pilots and fuel or because JP had no effective home defense fighters vs B-29s at day and night.
Swift end:
The Casablanca Conference in January 1943 determined the goal of unconditional surrender (the allies were fully aware that they outproduce and outfuel the axis and had already won) which prevented a negotiated peace with the axis powers and was extremely helpful to keep the US war machine running and delivering supplies to the USSR in order to allow them to die whilst taking the majority of combat casualties.
As long as you stay in mouse aim mode the plane tries to auto center itself which makes evasive action way less effective.
This:
is a common misconception.
A reply from an older thread:
And this is still valid today.
I watch frequently my replays if i got hit by gunners - and in >90% of my bomber kills i killed them whilst their player was in bombardier view and the ai gunners were still able to get a few shots off…
I mean just try to use common sense and remember the bomber bot invasion - you saw B-25 / B-18B / Ju 288 bots with thousands of matches and hundreds of kills. Even the biggest fighter noobs have enough gun time to kill a bomber before they close in to 210 meters, so it is logical that the effective range is way higher.
Btw: I met frequently a guy in a PBJ (for several weeks now) and a B-18 B with bot scripts. The PBJ is quite successful as long as enemies approach from behind. Ofc i watched the replays (no manual player input, checking pilot view - option 2) and reported them weeks ago…
I think you need to spoon feed history to yourself - you forget that the people making the large aircraft thought the same thing and got proved wrong on several very costly operations.
So they also made smaller aircraft to escort them, or went to night bombing - where it was harder to find those large aircraft and shoot them down, but even at night they still managed to lose about 8000 such aircraft to combat.
Also your argument from absurdity is very illuminating - thank you for the insight.
The Strategic Bombing of Germany in World War II: Costs and Accomplishments, Kenneth P. Werrell,
The Journal of American History, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Dec., 1986),
There has never been a time where civilians were not killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time - the scale of this one was large, but not unusually so - cf massacres of populations after sieges in ancient times, or during rebellions
It is not about sides or historical comments - it is about common sense. I described in detail in my previous post why you are spreading myths.
The difference is just that you refuse to accept that history is biased by definition and you have to take a look at the whole picture.
You might be able to google old ads, studies or papers recommending smoking as good for your health - that does not make them true.
As this thread deals with bombers and the “fragility” this debate is completely off-topic.
Off-topic
I see it from the perspective of an airman drafted to fly in the ETO and being part of the 16,000 bombers (USAAF & RAF BC) which were lost there - or from the poor souls getting bombed.
So the question is: Were those casualties necessary / justified or not?
Your cited sources are either just repeating old narratives (source #2 is a joke) or try to justify evil actions just because the other side did that too - all singing the song of “it was a good war”.
As soon as you acknowledge that history is biased it makes zero sense to look up papers citing other (and older) papers - you need common sense.
So i can check the books in my basement and can provide you with an even longer list stating that strategic bombing in WW 2 was necessary, effective and justified - and they all use the same narrative.
If you want to take the red pill:
Read about economic developments in the US and Europe before, during and after WW 2 and the shift of the US from a economic world power to the sole military superpower in 4-5 years - despite the US citizens were not interested in being involved in any kind of trouble.
Hi, I think what is so easily lost in these discussions - given the nearly autistic obsession that we passionate Snail addicts have for technical and historical accuracy - is that the central point of buffing bombers is to make the game fun again. Right now they have been so over nerfed, that they are just straight up unplayable. Hello ----> it’s a game, it’s about the fun.
I just finished an Air RB match in my B-18 B - and i saw two main factors which are making playing bombers so miserable:
Nerfs of gunner accuracy and damage output of gunners
Low skill fighter pilots dedicating their entire match to kill a bomber
What happened?
Long version:
In this match (replay link) a player spotted my contrail after 3 minutes and tried to kill me until he had to break of at 15:45 game time.
Summary
His effort out of these 12 minutes was 25 points for a hit, just a scratch.
My mission score was 350 points for 8 hits and one crit.
I saw him after around 4 minutes, checked his player card and decided to break off and turn away with a distance of 5-6 km. By looking at his stats (28k player kills vs 20k deaths in Air RB) it was obvious that he would go for me - whatever it takes.
I mean a high and very fast B-18 B is one of the most difficult targets to kill - especially if you get peppered from 2.5 km and the pilot has a level 75 crew and an aced plane - this means 10 seconds reload time.
Trying to go for a B-18 B with a Yak-3 (4.3 Air RB) is just brain dead; the Yak-3 is too slow above 6 km (=not suffient excess speed for an attack) and you have to get within 1.4 km to score a hit with the 20 mm ShVak. Otherwise the shell will de-render before they can reach a very fast (>650 kmph TAS) enemy.
Zoom climbing does not work if the B-18B dives slightly as most guys have no clue that things like wing rip speed are connected to TAS values (585 kmph IAS is more than 720 TAS above 6 km) - the Yak-3 scratched his rip speed in such an attempt.
After the Yak-3 broke off i bombed my two bases in order to get the research bonus and finished the match at 2nd place…
Short version:
Until late 2022 a single hit with the Swedish 13,2 mm auto cannon killed reliably any single engine fighter. The shells fired had an HE filler which caused pilot snipes and or engine / fuel fires and the gunner was accurate at ranges even > 3 km.
Out of of nowhere i was unable to hit anything at longer ranges and planes like XP-50s or Yak-3 are able to tanke 8-9 hits within 2 km without getting slower…and it looks like the cannon just fires AP rounds; i made the pilot yellow…
Pilots going exclusively for bombers are not really new - but from my perspective their numbers increased like hell.
With reference to the title “too fragile to play?”:
Yes. With just a few exceptions.
But - most bombers suffer also from artificial spread added to their turrets. That gaijin has done this on purpose is imho obvious.
I still see a need for a reversal of this spread.
If you fly fighters you might have noticed that gaijin has reduced the artificial spread for the 50 mm Me 262. Time for them to do this for bomber gunners too.
In one of the recent AAB battles I shot down a P-47D in a dogfight in a Soviet Ar-2. It took 8 or 9 laps before the single 7.62 ShKAS gradually ate it. And this was a Marshal with more than 30 days of playing the fighter!
Moreover, from the very beginning of the battle I deliberately went towards a distant side base, in a shallow dive, trying to achieve the maximum possible speed. And I tried to hide near the ground, using the mountainous terrain. But this bastard tagged along with me halfway to the base, although he could have taken the ground units, which was on the way and got more points.
In another similar situation, I ran away for a long time in a Pe-2, bombing three bases along the way, and in the end my bomber rammed an F4U, which could not shoot me down. I asked him: why was he sticking to me and got the answer “I’m just learning to play, fighters shoot me down quickly”. Snail made bombers such a simple punching bag that even noobs can see it.
Back in the days, it was “simpler” for new players to attack bombers…not necessarily “easier”. Bombers cant BnZ and manouver a lot…so it is easier to see the problem…it wasn’t necessarily easy to SOLVE it (back then).
It is also easier for new players to PLAY bombers…something you should also consider.
BUT i can admit that good experienced players are better at dogfights…
Nevertheless…it was fun and i played interceptor and bomber roles…i recall that attacking a Wellington was tricky and could never be done from behind…BUT german bombers were not so tricky as long as you didnt get above the bomber. I had fun learning deflection shots (as the fighter) and positioning for a good side attack.
THAT SAID…attacking the bombers was always a good option “for the team”…and far more interesting than going on ground attack…not sure why you resent fighters that try to do their job.
If i took 8 or 9 laps to kill a bomber, then i was not playing well and deserved the loss…that was the fun part…
NOWADAYS you need to get the kill on first lap…second at most…not because the bomber will get you…mostly because some other fighter will get the bomber.
Bombers should be able to defend themselves…but not go the other way and become fighter killers…that would also not make sense…IMHO.
Because they choose the easiest punching bag: the bomber. In 2013, for a gunship like the B-17E, they would be a self-farming RP/SL flyer and that was fair enough for those who just wanted to play the bomber for fun.
Since normal PVE hasn’t appeared in 10 years, all that’s left is to play on superlow BR, hindering newbies, or use the few bombers that still aren’t too weak, like B7A2.
Fast forward to 2025 and the B17 is masochistic joke that shatters like a bottle thrown at a brick wall when hit by a single 20mm. An unplayable piece of worthless trash whose gunners are incapable of landing a single hit, and then do no damage. Congrats on rewriting history Snail, the 8th USAAF just lost WW2 on the western front.
It’s so sad. A lot of cool planes are almost unplayable in terms of getting fun out of the game. I strive to spade all planes, but with all my love for playing on the bomber, with some I am not ready to do this, even if I am given a permanent 500% RP booster for them.
In reference to what you replied too. It is never just 1 20mm round. And I don’t think people realise how extremely fragile bombers were (Wellington Geodetic/geodesic design not taken into account for weight reasons and not standard).
Warthunder added bombers and made sure that the cap was only 4 (originally more were allowed at first). 4 was never enough in real life to defend themselves against 1 or 2 fighters if hit.
People complain that from their perspective “I was hit once and my tail was cut off”. In the replays you will note 2-6rounds actually hit their tail and the overpressure by those explosive rounds cut the tail off. Is this unrealistic? Short and Long answer No.
There is alot of evidence showing bombers that had 1 strafe against them, a couple of rounds hit their tail, overpressured the compartment enough and dynamic forces tore the entire tail clean off like ingame.
The only difference is that the destroyable segment numbers on bombers are abit few in number when they should be similar sizes to fighters. We understand that this would increase file sizes per bomber damage state models so the health being pooled together into larger sections makes sense.
But hopefully someday we get to see much more intricate damage model segments so that damage is shown to be more fluid in where it breaks. For most bomber players seeing a wing break off 9/10 in the same place or the tail will ofcourse give the wrong impression that there is something wrong with the model.
When in reality a section of the wing or tail near that segment damage model point was overstressed with damage registered and the closest segment breaking point is where the game registers the loss.
If you want a reference image on how just a few 30mm rounds will overpressure a tail clean off and how multiple more 20’s on a normal fighter attack against a bomber could. Here is 1 example recorded of a B-24 reportedly losing it’s entire tail to an Me-262 attack run:
You are writing about 20, 30 mm guns, but exactly the same thing happens with 7.62. Moreover, in the game it may be displayed as a slightly damaged wing edge, but the bomber loses normal controllability.
The second point: defensive weapons. AI gunners do not shoot normally even being aces, although in NAB similar AI shoot accurately at the target from several miles. Obviously, this is done intentionally, otherwise noobs who bought vehicle packs for themselves will suffer. The Snail needs to give them the opportunity to kill someone.
And finally, nothing prevents Snail from making normal targets for different types of vehicles, thoughtful map design. Something more interesting than a tangle of 30 planes in the center. The problem with bombers is that they are essentially forced to either fly into the general pile or get about 0 points per match. Everything is so “talentedly” designed.
