Just telling what happens in most matches where said bombers happen to face even single fighter
We know my guy everyone is very aware of it
Which is inside of BR radius of Tu-95 and B-52H.
7.7BR fighter/striker can face both Tu-95 and B-52H in uptier.
Still, having bombs or rockets in those strikers increases efficiency drastically.
50cals carriers are struggle a bit when you need to frag Light/heavy pillboxes
while planes with cannons are generally have few ammo.
if you go ground attack, and enemy pursuit your fighter/ground attacker
Probably you usually end up being fucked, because you used cannon ammo elsewhere.
2 Likes
Totally valid point, but most of the matches, at least in my experience you get either your own br or upper br
Common knowledge but if you have 5 calls go for howitzers not pillboxes.
And for cannons if you don’t or can’t shoot down enemy planes use ammo carefully it’s not hard
Maybe because Korean War-era jets are in a dead zone.
Thanks to the earliest supersonic jets such as F-104A/C at 9.3, which are in 'twisted sweetspot’ which shouldn’t be that low because subsonics are irresistible, while those cannot go higher bc they are no match to A-10A, F-5C, or J-7D.
not many guys play WW2 era jets because those are broken zone (I mean, not as broken as bombers, still), only Sabre and MiGs are meta.
Lots of guys just skip those areas with premium rank 7/8 jets.
If you queue, ofc you will get a lot more uptier instead of downtier.
Just saying, do you really think I don’t know about that…
:|
What I wanted to talk about with that part was,
Acting ground attacker with 7.7-8.7BR fighters/strikers is not that funny to play.
Especially if we think about F-117 or Buccaneer S.1
5 Likes
As stockholm conveniently argued for me, 7.7 is well within 1.0 max BR range.
You do need however need proper ordnance for armored AI targets and pillboxes.
If both teams go for ground targets during the match, in 90% of the cases, pillboxes and armored AI targets are whats gonna be left precisely because everyone goes for howitzers/AAs/MGs/AT guns instead.
That would be fine if the missions were something approaching the type of missions those bombers were expected to fly, and the fighters had to respond as they had been expected to respond way back then.
All stands i don’t disagree with you that’s why i commented on this post with an idea of those bombers having longe range weaponry.
Tu-95 was made into a missiles truck and the B-52 was upgraded with weapons to fit that role too.
So the way i see it the bombers can have fun but if they do decide to shoot again they need to go low and re-arm and be at risk from fighters in my eyes that is somewhat balanced 🤷
Problem is prob three parts.
1- Gaijin hates bombers, especially when they have guided munitions. Look at Tonka on 11.7BR which is identical (or slightly worse since GR.1 has a bit inferior engine due to earlier variant issue) to 11.3BR version except ground guided munitions. So the chance of getting a higher BR cluelessly exists.
2- I think it will not be helpful drastically bc main problem is similar, we have the F-117A case too
3- due to heavy payloads, eeeeh, Gaijin probably unlikely to add those guided munitions because of Ground RB issue, maybe?
1 Like
Another thing that would help is them adding the correct form of EFS for both planes so they don’t burn to the ground after a single hit.
Made a bug repport for the B-52H regarding it’s Incomplete Firewall Fuel/Hydraulic Shutoff Model.
(it has no conventional chemical EFS but rather uses fuel cut off valves to starve the fire)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/x063Lk6osd3h
Every extra vote helps
2 Likes
Something something muh SL earning potential something something muh internal statistics
3 Likes
canberra. It also outturns them.
This things getting matchmaked against Mig-21s and F-104, damn even a su-7 or mig-19 can intercept a bomber easily when they are at the middile of the map, not even possible to reach the bases.
Even if this thing got ECM, that doesnt help you against many planes shooting you with cannons.
Either lower the br or make them spawn way way higher.
Yeah theyre useless, they wont be useful until they add another gamemode
The Tu-95 suffers from wing ripping syndrome, same as the IL-28 or H-8. You have to manage your airspeed, and since it doesn’t have airbrakes you need to be creative in managing that issue when you approach terminal speed which seems easy to do.
I do enjoy the 3 turrets which has allowed me to engage some other enemy buffs, and fighters.
Surprisingly B-52 carpet bombing with 2000 pounders works great i menage to get at least 2 kills every run
Gunshipping has been fun in the Tu-95 but the fragility of bombers is really apparent. Getting my entire tail taken off by a single hispano SAPI round is dumb. B-17s were able to endure 30mm mineshells in WW2 depending on where they hit yet a G91 with .50cals can saw your entire tail section off from the fuselage with only a couple hits. If strategic bombers are gonna be anything other than cannon fodder to the extreme then they need to be able to endure more than a papercut.
1 Like
B-52 IRL: Vertical stabiliser gone, gets home safe.
B-52 in game: Tail randomly disconnects after a little sneeze.
1 Like
Made a bug repport for the B-52H regarding it’s Incomplete Firewall Fuel/Hydraulic Shutoff Model.
(it has no conventional chemical EFS but rather uses fuel cut off valves to starve the fire)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/x063Lk6osd3h
Every extra vote helps
2 Likes
I’ve seen enough, add the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM).
(would be cool but i doubt it cause gaijin)