B-29 and Tu-4 b.r

As i’ve seen there was topic on apr 19 with similar discussion, so that is not only mine problem(It’s fun how developers ignoring it). Nearly ago researched b-29 on it’s 7.3 br and in first batttle met Saab-105g. Now let’s discuss pros and cons between b-29 and Saab-105g. Saab105g has: air spawn, air-to-ait missiles, 2 get engines, 2 30mm autocannons, first built in 1960’s. What b-29 has: good bomb load, great amount of tail gunners(armed with m2 browning lol). So how developer think i should reach god damn 15g overload on full loaded(+9,7 tons) bomber? Imo it’s max b.r. is 6.3 and for Tu-4 is 6.7(has better load and better guns in turrets). Ur opinion?


All vehicles suffer in a full uptier. The B-29 isnt balaned strictly for air combat, and it’s immense bombload is what keeps it at 7.3 for now. This may change once they do the ground/air br split though.

In terms of facing the SAAB 105G, yes it isn’t an even playing field and isn’t designed to be. If you were talking about another 7.3 plane having these IR missiles, then it would be a much stronger arguement because the B-29 is rated at 7.3.

The Tu-4 is a different story because it has quite effective 23mm dual mounts all over the place for defensive armament, and would stomp over lower tier aircraft. It also suffers from the bombload boosting it’s BR. The Tu-4 facing prop planes at 5.7 to 6.7 would be absolutely nuts because of the absurd number of 23mm guns for defense.


The B-29 suffers in a full downtier currently.

They should just lower the base damage by like 50% or something, imo.

1 Like

It doesn’t suffer against 6.3 more than any other US (or any nation’s) bombers would. The defensive armament is fine against the slower climbing, slower aircraft at 6.3. The struggles come from airpspawn jets that can rocket to altitude because they spawn at higher altitude at high speed, which is an issue at any rank below 6.

It isn’t about the damage, it’s about the ordnance it carries. It has the 2nd (if I remember correctly) largest bombload in game after the F-111. Hopefully it is fixed with the splitting of air and ground BRs that they have planned.

1 Like

That’s debatable, imo. The AI gunners don’t do anything, and even when manually firing you’ll have at best 4-5 12.7mms able to fire at a time which is worse than pretty much any fighter in the game past like 1.7-2.0 BR.

What I’m saying is that the damage done to bases should be lowered, not the ordnance it can carry. Essentially on bombers with bombloads that currently only take out 1-1.5 bases have the damage done to base hp be 100% (as it is now), for bombers with the bombload to take out 1.51-2 bases lower the damage done be 75%, and then for bombers with 2-4 bases’ worth lower the damage done by 50%. Either that or have base damage done scale by percentage of your plane’s total bombload, not the kgs of TNT.

Bombers just suffer in general. There every select few that don’t, but for the most part they all suffer. Doesn’t matter if it’s an uptier or downtier

Well it isn’t a fighter and isn’t designed to deal damage. It is for DEFENSIVE fire in formations, not being alone with no other friendly planes. Also, if the B-29 (and most long range bombers) spawned at the altitudes they would actually operate from, it would be excessively difficult for them to be intercepted. Imagine climbing to 9700m to intercept one, probably wouldn’t be fun for a prop plane or early jet to do from an airfield.

So a 500lb bomb from a striker would now be stronger and more rewarding than a 500lb bomb from a long range bomber. Backwards logic. The same bomb shouldn’t do different amounts of damage to begin with, and long range strategic bombers should do MORE damage to the targets they are meant to attack not less. The chances of htting a single base in a bomber is bad enough, and hitting two bases with the bombers capable of doing so is quite the difficult task. Hitting 4 bases with the B-29 is virtually impossible even in a full downtier because they are easily intercepted at their low altitude.

How they balance all heavy bombers needs an overhaul. Only thing keeping Lancasters at 5.3 is the big bombs for GRB. For air they are nearly unplayable currently. It’s a shame.


Of which there are no formations, so lowering the BR (or buffing the damage to only bomber armament) to compensate for that is warranted.

I mean true, that should happen as well, but they’d still be at an armament disadvantage due to formations not being a thing.

The only reason the B-29 is so high (as far as I know) is because of their large bombload. If they change the hp damage dealt by long-range bombers, then it could go down easily without people complaining that “the bombers will just one-pass all bases and win the match for doing nothing.”

This isn’t a game where buffing a weapon used by multiple vehicles should only apply to 1 vehicles that uses them. Buffing the .50s doesn’t make sense when you’d have to buff all of the late M2s on every vehicle that has them.

They can’t change damage like that because the B-29 isn’t the only airframe with those bombs. It would have to change for ALL aircraft with them or it wouldn’t be a fair change. Same as the .50 cal deal.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This is a video game. Formations don’t exist. Bombers are some of the most underpowered vehicles this game has ever seen in general in their current state. You are being a nuisance by parroting gaijin quotes that don’t make any sense and basically saying “the plane is bad and should be bad now feel bad about it”

this has not mattered in YEARS

Yea, things not meant for direct combat are usually weak.

Oh boy, you’re hurting my feelings so hard bro. I surely can’t take the immense weight of your harsh words because you disagree with what I say. Oh wait, yes I can because you’re just some random person on the forums that has no bearing on my life other than claiming I’m a Gaijin shill because I enjoy myself on Warthunder unlike most of the people on the forums.

1 Like

Make this make sense lol:

Oh, ok, so then something should be done to make up for the lack of armament due to ahistorical game design, right?

So what you actually mean is that bombers should be sitting ducks because copy-paste is surely too difficult for Gaijin?

If the game can keep track of who is firing what bullets and who is dropping what bombs (how else would the game know who to give the SL, RP, and score to?), why wouldn’t it be able to adjust the hp damage done by looking at what vehicle dropped it?

Yea, the splitting of ground and air BRs for aircraft that they are CURRENTLY WORKING ON. That should alleviate this issue some if done correctly, big IF there but we have to wait and see.

This isn’t a “not possible to program” thing, it comes down to balancing and fair use of weaponry. For example, if the M2 Late used on the B-29 gets a buff, that buff should apply to ALL M2 Lates in game not just the B-29s. Consistency for vehicle weaponry is important.

The bomb load thing is the same way. It makes no sense that an AD-2 that carries the same exact bombs as the B-29 should do more damage to a base. The bombs don’t change in effectiveness simply because a B-29 drops them. That would actually make strike aircraft and fighters with bombs even more powerful than they already are in comparison to long range bombers. That logic doesn’t track because you’re making bombers WORSE at their job then they already are.

I would also like to clarify something because it seems like some people misunderstand. I AM NOT saying that I agree with how they have done things. I am saying that they are how they are and my understanding of why that is. The B-29 WAS one of my favorite aircraft, and this game ruined that because I absolutely hated spading it because it is worthless. Shit, the same thing happened with the F-111, started good and then absolutely destroyed. I still stand by my points that it can do well against 6.3s, and that the weapons shouldn’t be balanced SPECIFICALLY for the B-29 and not ALL vehicles that use them.

I am aware that the changes made to the B-29 in the past were to keep them from instantly winning games. The BR increases mixed with the bomber limit in RB to solve the problem of bombers effortlessly winning games before they could be stopped, correct @Balanced_Game? If I am not correct with this, do tell so I can not be wrong anymore.

1 Like

Why? The issue with bombers is that irl they would be in formation with a dozen or more times the firepower, therefore their armament should be buffed. Fighters that use the M2 aren’t sitting ducks in game due to an ahistorical lack of formations, so they don’t need a buff.

Due to how to tickets system works, their bombload is generally too much as it would bleed the other team of a large amount of their tickets in RB and in AB they can just straight up win by taking out the airfield.

You drop their br then practically every bumber in the game beneath them would also have to go down.

Video game, DOES NOT MATTER.

Way to get super offended instead of seeing what I was trying to tell you

Consistency. Consistency. Consistency. One of the nice things about this game is some things are decently represented and weapons that are shared by more than one vehicle perform the same on each vehicle. An M2 Late should perform like and M2 Late regardless of vehicle, same with the bombs. Bring the B-29 down before you give it specific buffs that can’t be given to other vehicles that share the same weapons.

Yes, that would be possible but the reason it is 7.3 (and 8.0 for Tu-4) is because that used to happen quite often. As of right now, it is almost impossible to position a B-29 or Tu-4 in realistic to do anything because jet striker intercepts you before you can get to the battlefield. The current state is a poor attempt by Gaijin to balance their ground strike capability by bringing them higher than they needed to be. This is a sad reality of most of the bombers.

1 Like