Yes, but they have added many cruise missiles to it of new generations. And they had experimented with the notion turning it into a missile truck with aim-120s
For example; 10x AGM-158
Though I do partially think it would have made more sense to add the B-1B & Tu-160, for this event. But I’d guess that they may well be holding onto them as Capstone Airframes for the Bomber line of their respective Tech Trees.
3 Likes
Unfortunately gaijin’s current stance has already denied JDAMs and the sort, they called it a “Pre-1991” model… Ie basically no guided ordinance besides like AGM-86Cs.
They’re interceptable ingame too, even with guns
So i just did a google search to see when the b52h used agm 142s so please take it with a grain of salt seeing as its google but it said they integrated the agn 142 into the b52h with the 1988 upgrades so we could see the agm 142 on it if we get a bug report out for it but it also means they would have to add the agm 142 to israel
you dont need to make a report
becasue gaijin wont give it any standoff weapons
bc it sits at 8.7
Who said i was making a bug report i just said its an option if someone wanted to because it would be historically inaccurate but that probably doesn’t go for american because the Russian would have something on par
Precedent: “Even though F-100F IRL can be equipped with AIM-9J/P, we decided not to give it.
We wanted to see that the Chinese player uses this event vehicle as a CAS machine”
Result: Became an inferior F-100A/D, which nobody plays.
Super high flying bombers with loads of bombs are going to be hard to touch by anything other than MiG-21’s or MiG-19’s in fact, the MiG-21S(R-15) with the R-3R’s aren’t going to be hard to CM or dodge. Even the Vatour won’t stand a chance with its radar missiles.
I don’t think they need it personally. But I do think Nuclear Thunder, or a similar, non-nuclear, battle mode should be introduced over the standard Air RB/AB/EC
Either way I want to see new strategic bombing targets, missions, and maps. Along with their respective bombers at different BR’s. The B-1B and Tu-160, and the Tu-22M.
More’s the shame, given they don’t have to be dead. Actual game modes instead of quake but with aircraft would go a long way to redeeming most attackers and heavy bombers.
The F-117?
Ah. Neat.
I assumed it was a built-in targeting pod like on the F-117.
last time i checked the F-117 dosent have cruise missiles in WT
It’s got JDAMs, which can definitely provide standoff against SPAA encountered in its bracket, due to their absurdly high glide ratio.
i guess in a perfect world i would want every aircraft and tank at there top in real life but that would throw balance out the window…
1 Like
I am guessing it will eventually get some form of ECM and sit at a higher battle rating with standoff weapons.
It does need the ECM, mainly to be used against AA in ground RB/Simulator; The main problem is what BR both bombers would get for ground RB/Simulator?
As seen in the vietnam’s operation Rolling Thunder, earlier versions of the b-52 were almost immune to AA’s Radar guided missiles, so the main threat would be IR missiles with IRCCM that are in their range 9.3/9.7.
I would vote to give Buff all features pre-1991 and all TU-95M features before Tu-95MS.
I see no problem in letting people have their fun on simulator or ground RB with those vehicles.
And last but not least, Russian Bias is real.
I have to ask something : why dont dews just give it EEGS? why are they doing AHR guidance for the turret? EEGS could work also for the B-29s turrets
I think there should be no compromise on any vehicle feature or it’s defects, but War Thunder has several fake vehicles, weapons and features.
Also, B-29s turrets were computer guided, technically the player would only need to keep aiming to the fighter and it’s crew member would adjust inputs to the computer to correct all turrets. Possibly the more time the player keep the aim at the fighter more accurate the turrets shots would get, but its up to you to imagine why it didn’t got added after all this time.