It’s also fast enough to reliably get bases before being intercepted. Has good enough self defence to fend off most fighters and has survivability that dwarfs most bombers. No other aircraft in game can soak damage as effectively as a Ju-288 except for the Su-25s. Usually they take being set on fire at least twice, usually 3 times
1 Like
Again?
Ki-45s was used to intercept B29s. Make it 2.3!
The player aims. The plane is pathetically fragile.
Fact 1: AAA works against formations
Fact 2: They are not survivable in wt
Fact 3: Stats told us skilled players play G8N1, brainless mericans play f8f. And f8f is used in GRB.
Community said bombers are too pointless and weak.
4 Likes
Yup, let’s just bring the asu-57 to 7.7, it would be “Historically accurate”
Somebody got mad his base got stolen by a bomber (his supersonic premium fighter wasn’t fast enough to compensate for the skill issue)
10 Likes
I appreciate these arguments cause they expand my mind in the perspectives of others.
Like I imagine someone using the French Bearcat as a bomber, and out-speeding the other 6.3 bombers, making the bombers less effective.
Of course bombers have air spawn so they’re balanced based on that.
Of course I disagree with the premise that bombers are over performing.
the person who started the discussion doesnt play lowtier bombers or bombers at all… he maybe bombs bases in his hightier premiums…
2 Likes
Make bombers worthless to play so my fighter can get more bases! Trust!
The B-29 fought Zeroes and cities over Japan in WWII, this is not reflected ingame either.
If we want to start talking about historical BRs, then let’s start by making the Swedish ground tree into another Israel, drop the F-16C down significantly in BR, drop all the Abrams down, make your precious MiG-23ML face Tomcats more often, remove multipathing, and while we’re at it let’s make it more historic and remove the Maus, E-100, Panther II, Ho-Ri Production, Obj 292, Obj 279, Leopard 2AV, XM1, and so on cause they never saw combat
I’m honestly starting to think we need the ability to flag posts for just being utterly stupid
4 Likes
Post summarize:
4 Likes
People want bombers to be useful. Noone is asking for historical matchmaking.
Bombers as of now are incredibly boring to play and something has to be done about it.
With how overtiered zeros are, we will soon see it fighting b29s
Maybe even tomcats.
let’s make it more historic and remove the Maus, E-100, Panther II, Ho-Ri Production, Obj 292, Obj 279, Leopard 2AV, XM1, and so on cause they never saw combat
Unironically I support more “fake” tanks/planes as long they’re reasonable and not OP. Better paper planes than copypasta. Far too late for gaijin to go muh historical anyway. It would be so cool to get all these late war German jet paper prototypes.
Plus, lots of stuff in the game are downright made up anyway. Just run through some 3d models into a virtual wind tunnel software
I can only say bomber gameplay is really boring, and they’re too fragile in game. There was a post about this.
Because you bomb with a fighter plane and don’t play bomber, you also can’t see the differences between [bombing in bomber] and [playing fighter and pretending to be bomber].
(No offence. It just seems so.)
Bombing with a fighter is optional. There are plenty of other ways to contribute to winning with better efficiency.
Bombing with a bomber is essential. There is nearly no other way to contribute to winning unless you fly, with some exceptions, like B7A2 or SB2C, which can do well in A2A.
Things get even worse if bombers get bigger and bigger.
In gameplay side, current status of bombers in ARB are clusterfuck.
Either one of
- Complete revamp of ARB to make them useful again
- or Complete removal of bomber and full refund so nobody suffers ever again.
is needed.
No?
Arthur Harris, is that you?
In WT, bombers can’t fly in large groups and can’t create an extremely dense curtain fire against fighters.
Also, Yes. Accuracy is lower than WT in IRL, but you completely ignore the fact that it made both sides engage closely than WT.
In WT, both sides can open fire within 2km away. 20mm HE from fighters are still lethal on that range, but 7.7/12.7mm machine guns from bombers can’t send a lethal blow on that range unless the bomber pilot-sniped the fighter’s pilot.
If both sides were limited to fight within 400m-ish due to limited visibility, bombers could deliver heavier blows than WT.
Imagine how brutal Spitfire or Hurricane is in close-range dogfights.
Currently, a 50-calibre or lower machine gun can damage the radiator of a fighter’s engine, which can be nasty. But it isn’t enough to defend bombers from enemies. Oil or coolant leaking is a serious problem, but the fighter still has enough time to shoot the bomber down.
YES.
Have you heard about Black Thursday in 1943?
IN WT. EVERY MATCH IS 'BLACK THURSDAY. ’
Every bomber player was forced to play daytime and fly into the suicide zone.
Honestly, I think comparing G8N1 and F8F-1 is heavily biased for ashaming bomber.
in G8N side, it is one of very few bombers which can utilize 20mm autocannon for defensive weaponry. unlike rest of bombers does.
in F8F side, American fighters are having stats problem due to famous and low average skill level.
And, I also heard F8F-1 also used for 1000lb CAS plane on GRB which will makes stat even lower.
(if we consider A2A in ARB only)
Lastly.
So, you want to Revert B-29 back to 7.3?
I am 200% sure that you never faced Vautour IIN Late’s infamous R.511 ‘B-29/Tu-4 fragger’ while flying those.
B-29 in 7.0BR is still bit too high.
‘B-29 is undertiered and it need to face MiG-15bis’??
I just can’t get why you hates ‘bomber’ so much even though you are ‘base bombing eurofighter’. :/
And, why bombers need to be punished once more because bad interceptors fed the kill too.
4 Likes
There’s one form of bomber where I find myself agreeing with OP.
Air simulator EC, light/frontline bombers and attackers that are sufficiently agile to pass for a twin-engine heavy fighter.
Why?
Case 1:
Fly P-61c, A26, T18B, B25j, Me410 etc low to the treetop level during a capture point or on the way to the enemy team’s airfield from capture points and use mouse aim tail gunner and third person view to act like flying SPAA.
Why is it overperforming?
Third person view gives these people far greater situational awareness while flying so low prevents estabilishing a proper approach to avoid the tailgunner outside of a frontal or high aspect side-on attack. Normally, you avoid tail gunners by “blowing through” the bomber and diving past them and then looping around for a second pass
Case 2:
Fly a P61C, T18B, Me410, A26 within a crowded dogfight knowing that your airframe will at-glance pass for a p-38, Bf110 or XP-50 - close inspection obviously reveals it’s not the case for most, but in a heated fight to survive it’s easy to “German twin engine aircraft acting like a fighter = tailgunner-less Bf110!” “Allied twin-boom acting like a fighter - must be P-38!” and so forth.
You notice you can gain position on them, you go to sit on their six and wait until you’re within effective gun range and by the time you recognize it is a plane with a tailgunner - you’re dead.
Why is it overperforming?
Third person view gives a significant advantage in situational awareness in air simulator. However, that alone isn’t as frustrating in such a situation.
What is frustrating that as a fighter, you must use a joystick - be it virtual/emulated or real and deal with various propeller torque, gyroscopic precession, shaking and your nose being in the way (and in case of winter maps - contrails blinding you). Whereas the player in the bomber has third person view and point and click mouse aim where the game automatically compensates for the aircraft maneuvering and shoots exactly where you tell it to shoot.
Yes, I’m posting in this thread because I’m salty about the above two happening to me within recent period.
However, I’m not the only one raising issue with this -
Normally, a bomber doing bomber things using its tailgunners is not that big of an issue because you approach it as a bomber and fly carefully. However, when disguised as a heavy fighter and performing pretty violent maneuvers - you aren’t going to expect to get clicked on by someone with third person view.
Fixes in my mind:
- If it’s a front-line/light bomber or attacker with a single gunner, force first person view
- If it’s a multi-gun aircraft, third person view may be retained BUT maneuvering should introduce accuracy penalties to off-set the ease of pointing a mouse and clicking
- In all cases, if a tail-gunner armed plane is on fire, experiencing significant G forces, experiencing rapid rotation (ergo: lost a wing and is spinning to death) - disable tailgunners because it’s a bit ridiculous that you can get sniped by something that could never land such a shot if they had to aim it from first person even if it was multiple players manning the bomber (since they’d be spinning like crazy or blinded by smoke)
- Remove automatic gun slew when switching pilot/gunner views. This allows people to use swapping between views to act as IFF - while sure, gunners would be doing visual IFF… when they can automatically ID 2 black dots without any distinct silhouette or camoflague as one friendly, one enemy… that’s not exactly realistic and causes issues with copy paste bombers especially (since you need to get in close to confirm hostile while they know you’re an enemy kilometers out).
Maybe haha. But I rather keep a few bombers that way so I can complete the “mass destruction” task more easily with a “bomber” like B7A2 or SB2C.
Whilst i agree with some aspects of your post, a small addition:
-
Your firing distances strongly depend on the TAS of the chased bomber and the chasing fighter. So in very fast bombers you can outrun 20 mm shells if you fly extremely fast and if they are fired from ~ 1.4 km or further.
-
US 0.50 cals and the Swedish 13,3 mm version are able to score hits, crits and kills up to 1,8 km if fired by a fighter on a very fast bomber - whilst 0.50 cal return fire from a bomber is able to score hits, crits and kills at ranges > 2.5 km.
-
In the old forum i read about de-rendering distances of 2 km for 20 mm and 3,5 km for US 0.50 cals & the Swedish 13,2 mm cannon. Maybe gaijin had modified these values; you might check the current ranges in these “datamines” - i have no access via Xbox.
The main issues i see (besides the already mentioned artificially increased bullet spread for gunners) regarding manual (defensive) gunnery are:
- Smaller calibers (7.5 - 8 mm) simply de-render at longer ranges. If you look at effective combat ranges of MGs used in infantry combat their bullets de-render way too early.
- You can’t create or use realistic or custom belts for your turrets. If you dig deep enough you find out that almost all US bombers used late war AP-I without tracers…
- The penetration values of AP bullets / shells are way too low.
Imho gaijin is either unable or unwilling to use realistic penetration values if bullets are fired on an approaching target. If you apply common sense penetration values should increase as the kinetic energy of the bullet gets a massive boost by the speed of the approaching fighter.
Regarding penetration values:
-
Penetration values depend on kinetic energy of the projectile which is determined by mass of the projectile, its shape and its velocity.
-
If you fire at a target behind you and the bomber and the fighter fly with the same speed, the muzzle velocity and the speed of the approaching fighter add up.
-
In other words: Even as the velocity of the bullet gets smaller over time the penetration values should increase due to the speed of the target flying towards the bullet. This effect is absent in wt.
WT and irl are 2 separate worlds. I mean if you look up historical convergence settings of the 2 mentioned fighters:
Finally:
I agree with too high - but not just “bit”.
Some years ago the B-29s were at 6.3 in Air RB - and they were fine at this BR.
Imho the current player material (on average) simply lacks the patience and necessary skill to kill a rather difficult target - as you needed time to outclimb them and some experience to predict flight paths - we had no contrails which are simply a kind of training wheels for clueless point & click players.
Same as the weather conditions changed drastically in the recent years. In the current dusk / dawn weather conditions it is impossible to detect zoom climbing enemies in time - whilst you get a marker as chasing fighter. So as a bomber you are forced to fly way above the way too low contrail alt in order to trigger their contrails to see their dots as you won’t get a marker.
Have a good one!