so what is even the point of bombers in this game? they are free kills in air battles and with the bomb nerf they arent as good in ground battles anymore either
Who knows
Not me
Preventing lawsuits, which will happen when they suddenly remove whole bombers out of the game at one single point.
Maybe?
Keeping bomber worthless is one thing, but remove them entirely is another.
Especially when some players spent GE to talisman those, crewtrain ace those, or spent GJN coin to buy community camo.
Can they add the reverse thrust to the Tu-95? It is painful to land without a parachute.
2 Likes
hey uhm a Red top warhead isn’t a sneeze
Of course, a Red Top with its 31kg warhead isn’t a ‘sneeze’—it’s a massive explosive force. However, that’s exactly the point regarding War Thunder’s Damage Models.
In real life, the B-52 was designed with incredible structural redundancy and ruggedness that the game simply doesn’t reflect. Here is some historical proof:
The 1964 Test Flight: A B-52H (61-0023) flew for five hours and landed safely after losing about 85% of its vertical stabilizer due to extreme turbulence. The airframe held together where WT would have granted an instant ‘Tail Cut.’
The ‘In HARM’s Way’ Incident (1991): During Desert Storm, a B-52G (58-0248) was accidentally hit by a friendly AGM-88 HARM missile that locked onto its tail radar. The HARM has a 66kg warhead—more than double the explosive mass of a Red Top. The blast literally blew off the entire rear gunner section and part of the aft fuselage. Despite having its tail ‘sawn off’ by an explosion twice as powerful as a Red Top, the aircraft remained controllable and landed safely in Jeddah.
Vietnam War: B-52s frequently returned to base with hundreds of holes from SA-2 SAM proximity bursts, which carry even larger warheads.
In War Thunder, the moment a proximity fuse goes off or a few 30mm rounds touch the tail, the game triggers an instant ‘Tail Cut.’ It treats a 200-ton strategic bomber like it’s made of wet bread instead of simulating the heavy internal spars and reinforced construction that allowed the real Stratofortress to ‘tank’ massive combat damage. There’s a huge gap between the historical survivability and the fragile glass-cannon DM we have in-game
Jesus that message got longer then intended haha
9 Likes
This is nothing new, the damage models suck and until such time they break the damage models down into much smaller parts… that aint changing anytime soon
This is what happens when they dont update the fundementals of aircraft damage models in 10 years
4 Likes
The models worked when aircraft were bullet sponges, but the community complained and now you get the current damage model shenanigans. If they make super detailed models, the community will just complain again (and they shouldn’t but you know the WT community by this point)
2 Likes
they seem to be doing fine in air sim, any 8.3-7 fighters (played few hours with J29F and Mig15bis )with a single engine have a really hard time chasing down atleast b52’s at 8-10km altitude. If you dont catch one head on you can end up chasing a single bomber for 20-30 minutes until you run out of fuel.
From blue side british javelin can actually chase them.
Would be cool if the Bombers could actually be played without being free XP and a wasted Playerslot though. But I guess that’s too much to ask
it would be extremely cool if ground sorties at top tier had any significant impact on game results so i would have reason to run A2G ordnance on my multirole fighter outside of late game; hell it would be extremely cool if i could play A-7E without being food for fighters.
ARB current state unfortunately does not support either.
Hey, if we got RB EC id love to fly escorts for the bombers, as I would have reason to do so.
dont get me wrong, Im not saying being food for fighters is how things should be, im merely saying thats how things are.