Ah no… CM would be OP AF. As in wipe out entire game maps.
CM’s for Air RB/SB? I don’t really think so, as the great RNG gaijin gives us would put luck against skill. I meant it as a base bombing tool, not a AT-CM. One example is the Swedish BK90, which only has 72 sub-munitions, and the RNG of “unexploding munitions” will suck.
i would love to see bunkers added to Air RB that only bunker busters can take out. Right now its a fight to the 4 bases and half the team is going for them. They need to get more ground targets to go after. Yes there are small tanks and AA and stuff to go after but with jets you dont get a lot of time to hit soft targets. with bases its bomb then fight and get good xp and sl out of it.
1 Like
Anyway, what do you mean by “wipe out a whole map?”
Cruise missiles would not be OP at all. If they were GPS guided, then any tanks in GRB would just need to move.
We need more mechanics for aircraft. Way too many mechanics keep getting denied because they are either “too OP” for ground modes or “won’t be of any use in ground modes”
People do play aircraft outside of ground modes. It’s a bit like saying “No tanks can’t get spall liners. They would be no use for planes as they don’t have spall liners”
2 Likes
The relatively old CBU-87 has an area of effect of 120x240 m. Your average high tier aircraft can carry a dozen of them. Do the math.
AFAIK Gaijin has a policy of not restricting any ordinance to specific game mode.
LOL. To twist your own point, its perfectly fair and balanced that a bomber can ripple off some cruise missiles from spawn and call it a day in ARB?
The point being is that WT asitisrightnow, isn’t set up to handle weapons this powerful.
Wasn’t aware the Cookie was just a large conventional bomb neat.
And those aircraft are?
Oh, and to just completely ruin your point, unless it is an Anti-Tank Cluster Bomb, your not going to do much, maybe take out tracks and barrel, but what does that matter anyway. ATCB’s could be added, although, as stated, is most definitely OP, in its range or area, so for example a large group of enemies in a mediocrely sized area could be taken out by one 12k lbs bomb. Cluster bombs (HE) would be useful against open tops and light light vehicles like the Btr-80, BMP’s, and other “ultralight” IFV’s and Tanks. As for cruise missiles, that’s kind of their point, and purpose, take out enemies without risking your mens lives.
They’ll come eventually. Make a suggestion for it if you want to.
1 Like
CBUs are actually the preferred anti tank weapon for the Tornados. Would be the perfect buff for the Tornado WTD61 and a really interesting addition for the others as well. Many aircraft would greatly benefit from CBUs.
Considering they require launch conditions that would make them semi-vulnerable to SPAA (far more vulnerable than GBUs) they won’t be any more OP than large conventional bombs
2 Likes
Vulcan rather than f111. Gotta reduce copy paste whenever possible
1 Like
Yeah, I’d love to see the Vulcan anyway because if it’s sheer size and capacity.
For a direct equivalent to the F-111. Then either TSR2 or an Early Tornado would be better. Vulcan would be more like an equivalent to B-52.
That having been said. Australian F-111C could make an interesting event vehicle down the road.
In the American tree, just like the m1a1 aim
Why?
It could also go into the British Tree along with many many other Australian Vehicles like the Boomerang, Beaufighter, Centurion Mk5/1, etc.
What is the point the US having 2 identical F-111Cs in the same TT
But it’s isn’t Australian. It’s an export American. Like the m1a1 aim.
Its not Australian?
Despite being in Australian Service? In Australia?
Well in that case, no AV-8B+ for the US then, the Harrier is a British Aircraft.
AV-8A and AV-8C need to be moved to the British TT as they are British export aircraft, and thus not american.
B-57 is based upon the British Canberra, so does that make it British?
If ALL export vehicles go to the nation that built them. Then Hunter F58 needs to be moved to UK as well. But nope it didnt go there. it went to… Germany
1 Like
I meant designed in Australia. The other US made vehicle in Australian service is in the US tech tree. Anyways, the harrier was used by the USA since it was a brand new design, and enough upgrades and differences between the British and American harrier to justify it. Idk why tf there is an AV-8B+ in Italy but no USA though. Why can’t 1 decent American jet design stay in the American tree. I don’t like copy paste, and there’s no need for an f111 in the British tree
Ok the hunter f58 is kinda dumb, I agree with you on that
If you dont like C&P maybe the US shouldnt export so much. Deal with, MANY nations will use and will continue to use US vehicles.
Germany, Sweden and Britain will likely get F-18s at some point.
Japan will likely get another F-15, so will probably Israel.
China will probably get at least 1 more F-16, probably a load of F-16s actually
Italy will get another F-16 probably, maybe even the Hungarian one.
many nations will continue to get C&Ps of US vehicles in service to other countries. that is what happens when you export everything and anything.
Britain nearly purchased F-14s, F-117s, F-111s and F-22s. and did buy F-35s. US vehicles will continue to appear everyone. You need to share, do you really want 2 identical aircraft in a single TT
1 Like