It’s not just fragile but maps are a problem as well. WTF am I doing in the middle of the Pacific in a B-17 with no where to land. I mean seriously, you would think you would at least get theater correct maps or give you somewhere to land. If you are only going to provide aircraft carries then only aircraft suited should be in that map.
“B-17 Flying Fortress bombers in the Pacific Theater primarily flew from bases in Hawaii and Australia”
idiot, when you are flying at 8 kilometers up, the area your bomb can land in is completely MASSIVE compared to the largest targets you can bomb - the bases.
200lb bombs are useless for everything better than a heavy tank, you would need 20 of them to slightly damage a base. Base bombing rewards need to be increased, and bombers need to be buffed to spawn higher, not explode the whole tail off after a single 7.62mm MG hit, and be MORE accurate, not less. Bomber rewards in Air RB should be the same as CAS rewards in ground RB. clearly you are a smoothbrain 12 year old incel who has never played bombers before.
Definitly to weak. They still work in Sim and Realistic so far as i know, but are completly pointless in Arcade. Bombers and strikecraft need a overall buff and the worst is, its noticable just some setting between Fighters and every other aircraft.
If i get close to a fighter, my gunners can´t hit and if they did by some mirecal. They do no significant damage. Meanwhile that fighter has the easiest time hitting me and mostly clips my wing or rips of my tail, the moment they hit.
If i have the same encounter with another bomber, my gunners hit like aimboters and do good damage, but not in the same instant kill way as the fighters. No, it takes alot of hits, just they actually hit. I notice that on my own bomber tanking tons of rounds from the other bomber gunners.
It actually is, like it should be.
Gaijin just has to remove this unbalance.
Its generally that fighters just dominate everything. What ruines everything.
Bombers should be flying tanks.
Strikecraft should be dealing insane amounts of damage.
Interceptors should be fast climers
and fighters should be nimbel.
obviously there is alot of mix and match between the many different aircrafts in this game.
But it shouldn´t be: Fighter is best at everything, everything else just dies.
Like it is right now.
Gajin fix your game
Let’s put it this way
If bombers were this weak in reality then Americans/Brits/Soviets would each have lost million bombers just to destroy few factories in Germany.
Big Nerf started with update 1.29 and they nerfed them every single update since then …most of those being stealth nerfs.
tanks being able to survive 1700 kg of explosive going off five meters away from them is just laughable.
and again to mention the bombs now exploding by enemy gunfire in bay or in-flight
1 billion %
This sucks in Assault Air when you kill a big bomber and it explodes in your face or someone kills one with a rocket and you are the collateral damage. As they increased the amount of the AI, that also increases the falling debris that will hit your plane. The funny thing is most of the time you cannot see a fat bomber (just the marker) until it is less than 2 km away… when it suddenly just decloaks in front of you. So many things are screwed up in this game for years. All they do is just implement more crap that makes gaming harder for you (less income). Really tired of this.
Ehhhhhh…
Bombs are in a very wierd niche in AB. They absolutely suck, especially when engaged, but can completely turn the tide of the match if they get through. A B29 or G5N1 at high altitude can win you the game if they survive the initial mergers.
I noticed this as well. Was wondering if it was issue with my graphics card or something. But… that was a year ago or so. Haven’t player Air Assault in quite some time.
But this is just a hypothetical.
Why are defenders only focused on ground attackers? They certainly have a choice to pursue (and kill) the bomber. Not to mention the fact there are always many more fighters than bombers. Some fighters can defend the ground area while others attack the bomber.
It’s not black-and-white like you suggest.
First off this thread is arcade… so no landing to re-arm.
Secondly, smart bombers do side-climb… but it can take so long to get to safe altitude, there are times the bomber doesn’t even get involved before the battle is over.
Thirdly, fighters have much better climb rates, so even when a bomber side-climbs to get to a “safe” altitude, they are met by enemies that went up high right away with the intent of spawn killing. Plenty of smart fighter mains out there that go up immediately - not all of them attack ground units. Already up high in the air they see a nice fat bomber target and what do they do? They divert from their first objective and kill the bomber.
Clearly Gaijin policy. B-17 Flying Fortress, known by its durability, is an Flying Paper plane in Warthunder, it is so RIDICULOUSLY fragile!
Mate, no way. I play practicly only arcade and pretty evenly between air, ground, naval and helis for around 7 years now (over 10.000 hours playtiime on steam).
I can still count the times on my hand where Airfields have been destroyed.
Bombers are laughable useless in arcade.
Its not airfields…?
Its ground targets and bases. Nail those and you win, and a competent bomber (If not intercepted) can wreck havoc on them.
Bombers win ground strike matches if not intercepted.
In arcade you need to destroy the airfield to win.
no, its only optional - most battles end before the airfield is destroyed
What makes Bombers even more useless.
Not that i am against multible conclusions for a battle, but what does your argument even stand for ?
Of course there are multible ways of ending the match.
Because they have been nerfed into a joke that shatter like a broken bottle when hit by a 20mm. I used to bomb bases and airfields regularly, and win matches by doing so before the “BIG BOMBER NERF” happened. And, mid-tier and low-tier air arcade was hella fun. Now … Yup your totally right: it’s total crap fighter spam.
The flying fortress was named for it’s great defensive compliment of turret positions, so just like a fortress it had many defensive guns.
But the survival rates of B-17 crews was bad but not as bad as the others, so the crews who survived or mamaged to somehow fly back with critical damage were lucky.
Media produces wierd amounts of survivorship bias as they don’t look at the statistics and only show images of aircraft that managed to get back. (But don’t show the loss rates of all the aircraft in that mission).