I think bombers are completely fine where they are, or are mostly undertiered according to the principle of “historical matchmaking”, that many people advocate for, when defending bombers performance in the game.
They are unhistorical BR
Many bombers in the game are undertiered, if we judge by the standards of “historical matchmaking”. The B-29 fought MiG-15Bis at Korean war, but this is not reflected in the game.
“Weak” quite the opposite
In real life, bombers flown in large groups, which produced extremely dense fire “net” against fighters. Accuracy in real life is lower for fighters, but also for bombers. Bombers in the game are artifically buffed to make them more survivable.
IRL they were less survivable than some fighters
546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7%.
The B-17 losses were 1.64 % per sortie.
Bombers outperform some fighters
I need to say no more. One of the best planes in its BR is performing with a kill per spawn of 0.42, outperformed by the “Death Star” which did not had ballistic computer in real life and would not perform half as well as it is simulated in game.
Community opinion
I found a video detailing this exact “problem”. HIs point was that bombers took less skill to play, therefore should not be as rewarding. In fact, they are still too rewarding for what they are.
Using any american plane for stats like that is a bad idea due to the average skill level of US mains at and around that BR.
The B-29 was also active during WWII. Should a T-34-85 face Korean war tanks just because it fought there IRL? The later Corsairs also fought in the Korean war too.
Yea, I’d like to actually play my bombers. And i know this is bait but
A few things though,
Spoiler
First point,
Like Ion said the b29 fought during ww2, so it should have a battle rating of around 4.0-5.0 if we go by amount used. (3,970 during ww2 and around 500ish for the korean war)
2nd & 3rd,
With the increased accuracy of mouse aim and the limitation of bomber counts, Bombers are currently under performing in terms of defending themselves against most fighters in this game (at least with their dated aiming system and like of friendly aircraft.)
They should also be either more durable, or have a more complex damage model so there entire tail doesn’t fall off from one shot. (really noticeable in a bv238) https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/15vsq5u/ww2_footage_of_a_bf110_shooting_30mm_autocannon/
For your 4th point, your using one of the few good bombers in terms of turret caliber and lethality. Though i would like to see some of the other bombers stats in the last month or so if you can provide it.
And your 5th point. Sorry I have to do this but from what I’ve seen your only time playing Actual bombers has been 3 times with the Pe-8. Though do correct me if im wrong.
So the fact you think they’re too rewarding can’t be takin into account without you actually experiencing their rewards for yourself.
If your willing, please play 10 matches in a bomber, Hopefully a b29, bv238, or b17. I’d like to see what your thoughts are after these.
The B-29s got clapped in the Korean war - and were relegated to perform night attacks because they had zero chance vs jets in daylight (=wt game set up) attacks.
If you can name a single prop bomber in the game which got “buffed” regarding its defensive capabilities or damage model - i kindly ask you to provide this example.
Arguing with loss rates is playing with statistics. Everybody with actual know-how about the air war in the ETO (=European Theater of Operations) is fully aware that loss rates are plain propaganda. Until the end of 1943 the US 8th AF and their fighter groups suffered extremely high losses. The sharp drop in loss rates in '44-'45 is based on vanishing LW fighters and 10-30:1 numerical superiority at this stage of WW 2.
Bombers outperform fighters is the joke of the week. They beat just the average fighter rookie without actual experience & skill. Every decent fighter pilot goes for difficult to kill bombers (like G8Ns or B-18Bs) last - as they have little to zero game impact. And the difficulty to kill a bomber relies mainly on the involved players.
Finally:
Imho you have to acknowledge that bombers and fighters have symbiotic relationship; so bombers are optimized for PvE and fighters for PvP.
Gaijin sets the parameters like SL/RP rewards for both vehicle classes and the required skill to use them.
There is still a kind of semi-historical MM active - especially in 6 vs 6 - 8 vs 8 lobbies you have axis vs allies or JP vs US/UK. But as long as the BRs are not related to introduction / service of aircraft your thread is a dead end.
It also flew so high over Japan, Zeroes couldn’t touch it. It has napalm, or some kind of firebomb, I think it should get that in-game too. Hell, why not give it nukes if historical accuracy is so important
1.your undertiered statement is just bad, because a6m´s has seen in b29 and mig15 also has seen b29, so to your logic a6m has to fight mig15(we overlook the wyvern at 4.3)…
2. your large bomber formations arent possible in the game. and adding the fighters for realism into this formation good luck finding a game.
3.Bombers were focused most of the times by fighters and the bombers pretty much always were covered by foghters so those numbers dont prove anything.
4. most times bombers have the energy advantage, which results in stalling fighters so I wouldnt compare those 2 stats.
