Why can’t 10.0 - 14.3 not move up by 0.3?
B-66 can’t even be intercepted by most 8.7s if not all.
Mig-17 is the fastest among the 8.7s, and it’s still not fast enough to get a guns intercept.
None of the other planes at its br have been moved up
Not what you said.
So, you are gonna make decompression to keep B-66B on 9.0BR with Gaijin, with a Gaijin.
And how long did you tell them that you need it? Two- three hundred years?
1- Yes, Decompression is needed.
2- But in Gaijin’s pace, it will come in the distant future.
3- As I claimed earlier, B-66B is a worthless deadweight in-game just like F-117A does.
We can send her down first, along with those other overrated bombers, and we can send her up back ‘when everyone goes up in decompression.’
1- B-66B is currently 9.0BR jet, and it seems it can be intercepted by them unless you play the game ineffectively with sideclimbing to raise your survival rate.
2- If this were your attempt to RAA, for proving why B-66B shouldn’t be 8.7BR.
A. Even if B-66B becomes 8.7 in the current meta, it will be easily intercepted in an uptier match.
Supersonic interceptors with IR missiles like F-104A/C or Lightnings, or Supersonic fighters like F-100D.
(Oh, don’t claim that you can evade missiles from those interceptors. It might be true, but you can’t run away from them forever.)
B. There are some jets which are equipped with missiles in 8.7BR (Scimitar F.1, G.91 R/4, A-4B/E).
Maybe you can keep yourself safe from them if you play your B-66B ineffectively by climbing up and maintaining high altitude to reduce enemy threat by sacrificing your overall reward with fewer base frags.
C. Still SARH slinger with air spawn (Vautour IIN Late/R.511) going to be your serious threat.
@Stockholm_Blend
All statements in all of your posts are your views, not mine; If they were my views they’d be in my posts.
If they are not your views, you should remove them.
I’ve never side climbed with these bombers. Climbing reduces bombing accuracy and is easier to spot than being in the lower altitude range.
A bomber has to have a chance of being intercepted when both planes are played perfectly.
Not when B-66’s are piloted by zombers, but when they’re piloted by people better than all of us.
Everything with missiles is ~0.1+ mach slower than B-66.
F-100D and Lightening are borderline OP vs 8.7s and 9.0s in general, which of course includes the bombers which are balanced alongside those 8.7s and 9.0s.
Not sure why your post is bringing up a claim from your mind [I hope it’s not your opinion, but your post is the only one to have such a claim on the entire forum] that Lightening + Red Tops can be evaded… I think only Sea Vixen would struggle against B-66 due to its lower speeds and no guns to stop a B-66 from just forcing a head-on and escaping while the Sea Vixen loses all distance from a failed turn around, but Sea Vixen isn’t a Lightening.
Probably the best B-66 vs fighter situation would be an AIM-9B equipped F-86K.
That’s a perfectly even match.
Coincidentally, F-86K is currently 9.0 where it should be.
And no, interceptor Vautour isn’t even a threat against IL-28s and B-57s. The missiles can’t physically pull enough after their guidance delay to pull lead. There’s a reason it became 8.3, and it’s not because the missiles are good.
I can get in mine and I can show you its limitations in a future day. Only Tu-4 is threatened by it due to its slow speed.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
There is no situation where a F-86K doesn’t just missile the B-66.
3 Likes
Did you say [‘all statements’ in all of your posts], sir?
‘all statements’?
I think you missed the Quote features.
Strange, I think I saw your claim about Yak-28B in July when it was 9.3BR and you were admiring high-altitude defence.
Oh, do you think this one is off-topic because this topic is about B-66B?
Nah, you used [your experience about Yak-28B when it was 9.3BR] to counterclaim us.
So I am also using [your experience and claim about Yak-28B when it was 9.3BR]
Your former claim about your tactics on your Yak-28B can’t be acquired with [low-altitude interdiction].
You claimed that you could evade AIM-9B of F-104 before.
I brought Lightning F.6 with Red tops as nothing more than a Functional Equivalent.
1- Yes, R.511 itself is meh SARH. Maybe only good enough for fragging bombers.
2- B-57A/British Canberra, Tu-14T don’t have RWR.
3- B-57B, B-66B, Yak-28B has RWR.
4- IL-28 didn’t have RWR until yesterday, and it got the same SPO-2 which Yak-28B has.
5- No matter whether it has RWR or not, you need to move to defeat the missile, and it will eventually lead you into Vautour IIN’s gun range.
6- Just telling, if Vautour IIA/B/N(Early) needs to be 9.0BR, there is no reason that Vautour IIN Late should remain 8.3BR with exclusive SARH and interceptor air spawn.
(Edit: Reuploaded captures)
1 Like
I see no reason for the Vautours to not be 8.3 if the interceptor variant is also that BR while being better suited for air RB. After test driving the B-66 more, I still think it needs an airspawn to be competitive, but that seems unlikely. Without one, it should at most be 8.7.
It should also be noted that the B-66 isn’t able to pull enough to dodge Aim-9Bs, unlike the B-57, Vautour(?), and the Il-28 in some scenarios.
2 Likes
@Stockholm_Blend
This topic is about B-66B.
And I’m here advocating for 9.3 decompression as the method to buff the aircraft.
1000 - 3000 meters isn’t “high altitude”, and returning to base isn’t side climbing, that’s going for rearm.
Yak-28’s climb rate was mentioned against all but Mig-19s, because outside of full uptiers into 10.3, Yak-28 couldn’t face anything that had good enough missiles and climb rate at the same time.
That’s why Yak-28 deserves to be 9.3 again at minimum.
AIM-9Bs for the most part are a non-issue on airframes that have… different characteristics.
And no, I never used my experience in Yak-28 to counterclaim us. In-fact, I never counterclaimed us.
I shared my perspectives and talked about B-66’s capabilities.
I am not sure why all of your posts are arguing against your own invented strawmen.
RWR does not matter when there’s a giant diamond that shows up. They are not BVR missiles.
"I’d end up at 8000 meters and cruise to the airfield. sometimes I’d climb to 12000 - 15000 if a MiG-19 climbed for me. "
No…?
You used your experience in Yak-28B as indirect proof of why B-66B shouldn’t be buffed.
to counterclaim us.
I think I claimed that RWR does not matter.
Sir, I gently propose that you need to accept you lost this arguement.
2 Likes
@Stockholm_Blend
Me: “B-66 should be buffed by decompressing 9.3.”
Me: “My experience, nor papersheet data does not matter about B-66. Raw data of real-world testing matters.”
Sorry, but we are not wrong no matter how many times you claim.
I have added more context to my first post:
It is wild that anyone was arguing against me for wanting B-66 to be buffed via decompression…
WILD. Utterly wild.
Edit:
Granted, the majority of this topic’s arguments have been Stockholm’s posts inventing things to argue against, and me saying “No, that’s not what I meant/said.”
At the end of the day, all 8.7s and 9.0s need buffed by not seeing 10.0s anymore.
And I’m unsure why we’re even arguing when I don’t think we even disagreed on this.
I think I gently proposed that you need to accept that you lost this argument before.
I didn’t disagree about decompression itself, I am telling you that why decompression without any extra care can’t solve the problem of B-66B.
Also, ‘We’?
I think it was only you here who couldn’t accept that B-66 should be 8.7 with an air spawn of 8.3 without air spawn, and invented things to argue against.
Strange, I think all I saw on your initial claim was a lot, lot shorter.
Sad that I didn’t screenshoted that one.
Because of two points.
1- My memory can fade, and being inaccurate
2- I wasted the window of opportunity to keep evidence.
No offence, but this really, really sounds like your projection. :(
Drink an Ice-cold water, and chill down. and read the whole argument again.
Then you might see something you missed.
1 Like
To reiterate some points before I continue:
1- I support buffing bombers around 8.0 - 9.0 by decompressing 9.3.
2- I exclusively use raw data from in-game, using real bomb loads.
2a- Papersheet stats are irrelevant, especially without bombs attached.
Rhetorical question: Should IL-28 be 7.3… 0.3 higher than B-29.
To me the answer is no.
The IL-28 is over double the speed, 3x the climb rate, and far more maneuverable.
840kph, 17 meter/sec climb rate around 3000 meters.
In the same light, B-66B is 2x the climb rate, 32% faster, carries 2.5x more bomb load, and retains energy better.
This disparity between B-29, IL-28, and B-66 is why I say that decompression remains the answer.
Other examples brought up was Bucc S1: This aircraft gets 1 base of bombs, is mach 0.04 slower than B-66, and has a climb rate 3 meters per second worse. Obviously worse than the B-66.
8.3. People have claimed that the Bucc S1 is as ineffective as a Canberra… However, real test data doesn’t show that.
Canberra Mk2 can carry 2 bases of bombs for sacrificing mach 0.12 speed, and ~3.5 meters per second of climb rate. Notably better than an IL-28, notably worse than a Bucc S1.
Bombers are decompressed right now, as they should be.
This is one of the why’s that decompression of 9.3 is important.
Not just for bomber buffing, but for helping out the weaker fighters as well.
For those wondering how fast a Sabre Dog goes… Mach 0.92 at 4000 meters, and 0.91 at 3000 meters.
It’s not catching a B-66 or Bucc S2 in a race.
LIM-5P is the one jet that can match B-66’s top speeds… it doesn’t have missiles though.
Obviously there needs to exist some threats for bombers. F-86K when played correctly can threaten a B-66.
However, when it’s so obviously more powerful than the bomber, such as with F-4C, Mig-21S, or F-100D, there should be more separation between the bomber and those aircraft.
F-100D should probably be 0.7 higher instead of 0.3.
I can’t speak on F-104s cause they’re… special.
And there are countless other powerful afterburning aircraft with decent missiles, and powerful non-afterburning aircraft with powerful missiles that these bombers shouldn’t face.
Strange, I think claimed that we need to buff ‘overrated bombers’, not ‘overated jet bombers’ only.
As long as the base reward multiplier goes down when you carry more bombs than required for destroying a single base, there is no need to carry heavier bombs.
More bombs = slower acceleration & fewer base reward modifiers = lower chance & fewer rewards per base.
(Nine 500lb for Canberra Mk. 2, 5 1000lb bombs/or four 1000lb while using wing pylon only for Bucc S.1 recommended)
I told you that you need to read the whole argument again.
:|
Ciao.
hay didn’t the b-66b carry 16 of the m117 750 pound bombs instead of 14?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
yea man i feel u on that
I wouldn’t know.
It’s 7 per base anyway, so it’s not like the 2 extra would matter.
I’m half way to getting my B-66B, and I already know the tactics I’m going to use in it.
Gonna apply my Buccaneer tactics but able to go a bit faster.
1 Like
Yes decompression must happen but that would only help if gaijin did a whole BR overhaul instead of decompressing small br ranges one at a time they should just make it a major update where they just rip the bandaid off and if they keep adding more advanced vehicles also add to the BR ceiling