Attack profiles for the Hs293
I don’t expect players to do anything other than a low attitude straight in run.
1 Like
I love to play bombers, lol. I literally started playing War Thunder to fly the B-29 (rip me).
Getting a free ton before you get shot down > zero tons before you get shot down
1 Like
Make it explode
thats already in the game i think. or at least it takes damage
Spontaneously
1 Like
You are much better off going into a danger zone with normal payload and dropping even half of that possibly even getting a kill or an assist in the process than just wasting half of the game sniping bases with missiles that have 1t of explosive mass combined.
Not only will you get close to 0 SL and RP for that, but also even guiding them into the base itself will be extremely annoying unless they allow you to controll them from weapon view.
That’s just counterproductive
1 Like
I cant imagine waiting for these missiles to hit, one at a time, from 10km away, while letting a fighter rip me to pieces cuz im not using gunner view
Being able to a) get two whole bases, and b) getting a kill or assist with the B-29’s peashooters (for its BR) is a massive if. You get 0 SL and 0 RP for dying to the first jet that looks at you, and you’re more likely to be found near a base than elsewhere.
we are not talking about B-29 right now though, which still does fairly well when compared to TU-4, but an He 177 at 6.0 which most of the time will easly get to the bases with normal payload.
Trying to use those missiles to snipe bases is just next level of stupidity
So gaijin are you going to:
1.) correct this aircraft to A-3/R4?
2.) eventually add the Peter X & Hs 294 bombs to enable mixed loadouts?:
5 Likes
First time I hear about the Peter-X ! Any more informations or pictures on it ?
1 Like
4x Hs 294’s lets go! Come on Gaijin, no time to waste, lets fix it
4 Likes
Look great cant wait
¿What “numerous issues”? Always bringing up anecdotal accounts from history books. They are certainly interesting; however, in the pragmatism of gameplay mechanics they can’t be more irrelevant. The game’s simplified simulation processes only quantified raw data, not general abstractions like trends (to failure) or patterns of behavior; not even the concept of mechanical wear exists here. For us, the DB 606 engine is, in fact, as perfect as the DB 610 or some theoretical engine from a scrapped project; they only differ in their horsepower and rates input bits.
Still, its a difference ballistically, unlike the identical Shermans, T-34s, Spitfires, il-2s etc which proliferate this game
We’re talking about a forward offensive gun position on a heavy bomber where enemy attacks tend to start or end at the rearward. Whether equipped with an MG FF or an MG 151, it makes little practical difference: it’s rarely used anyway.
In fact, in the way Air RB meta currently works, something like having 30 degrees more coverage in the defensive guns would make a bigger difference than having a damn missile or another bombload. That’s why the He 177 A-1 was a more attractive option.
The A-1 differences were not ‘anecdotal’.
The fuselage was 1.6m shorter with reduced lateral stability and had a significant effect on bombing accuracy especially at high speeds. The crew skills could reflect this. Combined with shorter engine nacelles and CoG differences it should realy have a revised, and worse, flight model.
The original wing design lacked strength even though it was intended for high angle dives. The relevant airframe modelling should therefore be slightly weaker.
The engine changes between A-1 and A-3/5 goes beyond 606>610 with extra hp.The initial model lacked many of the modifications intriduced over time to increase engine performance and reliabilty and improve damage resistence. These would be more noticeable in realistic and sim where overheating would be a real problem and across the board when in comes ro oil leaks and fire chances.
Overall if added, the A-1 would see significant changes to its modelling that go deeper than simply more power and higher speed, assuming done correctly, but also affect its playability and survivability.
1 Like
Just to be sure. So this isnt free choise which one you get?
Just making sure if they fixed it once actually implementing or they really dont care at all what comunity thinks.
You know there are a bunch of parameters that Gaijin doesn’t model. We have many planes (the prototypes) that, in reality, could barely stay in the air without multiple critical failures, but here they are as functional as they are operational. And that’s how it should be, because after all, without the adoption of these hypothetical scenarios and optimistic possibilities, this game would be a burden of unplayable complications.
By the way, I wasn’t claiming that the A-1 is as good as the later versions. It’s about the richness and impactful of variety over cheap duplication. If the A-1 has inferior performance, there’s the BR rating to balance it out…
I clearly explained which differences were important and how they could be modeled. The A-1 would certainly be a candidate for addition in the future but only if the differences were correctly applied, otherwise its just a tweaked A-3 and will be labled a pointless copy paste.
Lower performance, weaker structure, greater fire chance are already capable of being included, but these are just data numbers. It is the visible fuselage modifications that would cost money and would dictate whether its feasible from both a business perspective and selling ut to the player base as a less effective plane vs lower BR.
The max range on the stat card is 8.5km incorrect.
Wiki and 75%of sites says thet the max range AT
X km is X
Pl.: at 5 kilometres (16,000 ft) altitude it is
8.5 kilometres (28,000 ft)
But 2 sites says thet the max range is 12km or 18km
2 Likes
In game at 3km the hs293 has a range of roughly
10km but it explode after traveling 8.5 km
2 Likes