Anybody interested in the subject probably is aware of Gaijin’s recent announcement of a bomber survivability rebalance:
But I really want to discuss the potential scaling of survivability between two of my benchmarks, that being the B-17 and the Tu-95M.
The B-17 is already well known for its survivability while being very well researched. As for the Tu-95M, it currently represents the “pinnacle” of gunship-style bombers in the scale, while offering a great comparison.
Now to derive possible “survivability,” or more so structural integrity (strength of the aircraft not getting ripped apart), we need to do some math and educated guessing.
BS labeled as math
1. Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) based on public sources
| B-17G | Tu-95 | |
|---|---|---|
| MTOW | 29,700 kg | 188,000 kg |
| Empty weight | 16,330 kg | 90,000 kg |
| Wingspan (b) | 31.6 m | 50.1 m |
Weight ratio (MTOW): 188,000 / 29,700 = 6.33x
2. Educated guess at load factors (kinda BS)
Neither manufacturer’s structural design load factor is public (I am not using or accepting of classified documents). Using typical class values for heavy bombers of each era (fighters run +6g to +9g; heavy bombers run lower):
- B-17: limit load = 3.0g → ultimate = 4.5g (limit × 1.5)
- Tu-95: limit load = 2.5g → ultimate = 3.75g
3. Ultimate load (total force the airframe must survive without failure)
Formula: Ultimate Load = n_ultimate × W, where W = MTOW × g (g = 9.81 m/s²)
- W(B-17) = 29,700 × 9.81 = 291,357 N
- W(Tu-95) = 188,000 × 9.81 = 1,844,280 N
- UL(B-17) = 4.5 × 291,357 = 1,311,107 N (≈294,700 lbf)
- UL(Tu-95) = 3.75 × 1,844,280 = 6,916,050 N (≈1,554,400 lbf)
Ratio: 5.28x
4. Wing-root bending moment (this is the number that governs whether the wing rips off)
Formula (elliptical lift distribution):
M_root = 0.106 × n_ultimate × W × b
(0.106 derives from: half-wing lift = nW/2, acting at 4/(3π) ≈ 0.4244 of the semispan from centerline → moment arm = 0.4244 × b/2 → M = (nW/2)(0.4244)(b/2) = 0.1061·n·W·b)
- M(B-17) = 0.106 × 4.5 × 291,357 × 31.6 = 4.39 MN·m
- M(Tu-95) = 0.106 × 3.75 × 1,844,280 × 50.1 = 36.73 MN·m
Ratio: 8.37x — bigger than the weight ratio (6.33x) because bending moment scales with weight × span, not weight alone.
5. Estimated structural mass (airframe only: wing + fuselage + tail + gear; excludes engines/systems/furnishings)
Assumption (BS): structure = 40% of empty weight (standard statistical baseline used in aircraft conceptual design, e.g., Raymer-style weight breakdowns)
- Struct(B-17) = 0.40 × 16,330 = 6,532 kg
- Struct(Tu-95), flat-scaled = 0.40 × 90,000 = 36,000 kg (this is the naive/wrong number, see step 6)
6. Correction: split structure into wing vs. non-wing, scale each by its own driver
Assumption: wing structure ≈ 33% of total structure, non-wing (fuselage/tail/gear) ≈ 67% — typical statistical split.
- Wing(B-17) = 0.33 × 6,532 = 2,156 kg
- Non-wing(B-17) = 0.67 × 6,532 = 4,376 kg
Wing mass should track the bending moment ratio (8.37x), not the flat weight ratio, since that’s what’s actually loading it:
- Wing(Tu-95) = 2,156 × 8.37 = 18,046 kg
Non-wing mass tracks the weight ratio (6.33x):
- Non-wing(Tu-95) = 4,376 × 6.33 = 27,700 kg
Total corrected structure (Tu-95) = 18,046 + 27,700 = 45,746 kg
7. Final comparison: structure as % of total aircraft weight
| Structural mass | MTOW | % of MTOW | |
|---|---|---|---|
| B-17G | 6,532 kg | 29,700 kg | 22.0% |
| Tu-95 | 45,746 kg | 188,000 kg | 24.3% |
Now the Tu-95M has somewhere around 45,745 kg of structural mass compared to the B-17G’s 6,532 kg.
Now we can do some further, more educated guessing:
| Structure group | Est. landing gear (steel) | Est. aluminum portion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| B-17G | 6,532 kg | ~980 kg | ~5,550 kg |
| Tu-95 | 45,746 kg | ~6,860 kg | ~38,890 kg |
To deduce a very rough figure, keep in mind I take these figures as educated guesses with a lot of salt, but it’s good enough to get the point across that the Tu-95 has around 7x the structural mass. This may seem irrational, but the reason I did all of this was to talk about something in particular: given the multiple times more excessive amount of structural mass (aluminum), you would reasonably expect there to be some sort of better durability.
To be clear, more structural mass doesn’t linearly translate to more damage tolerance. Where a hit lands and how load paths are architected matter more than aggregate tonnage. This is meant as a directional “more material to absorb damage into” argument, not a claim that the Tu-95 is proportionally X times tougher.
This means I can reasonably claim that “the Tu-95 has substantially more structural material and margin at the airframe level, which is a reasonable directional input toward expecting better survivability.”
This finally gets me to the question and conclusion I want to make: if in-game modeling is anything like the video above, how would airframe durability get handled? There are cases where missiles in-game already don’t do that “much damage.” If we follow the durability logic from the video above and assume Tu-95M ≥ B-17 in terms of durability, then the Tu-95M, already with countermeasures, would be very hard to take down with missiles.
I frankly have no idea how there going to go about it without making bombers battleships or not dis-servicing the data, I’d to hear y’all thoughts regarding the potential balance of the rework.
