No…no no. There are plenty of cases where a single fighter took down a bomber.
And, SIM most planes already suffer the handicap of losing 360° vision. Therefore, giving bombers access to a gunner view while still restricting the pilot’s vision is necessary for SIM.
The original appeal of Simulator Battles was meant to place a reasonable emphasis on realism, foster high skill, and offer high rewards for it.
Allowing bombers to have full 360° vision is essentially the same as undermining what SIM is supposed to be.
But bombers did have an almost full 360° view of their surroundings. With gunners at the stern, port, and starboard who would have called out if they spotted an enemy.
It’s not realistic for them to have a huge blind spot like fighters do.
Since you can switch viewpoints with a single button press, it doesn’t seem like a major issue.
There’s a considerable amount of time between detection and engagement, so you can prepare your response as soon as you spot the enemy. Therefore, demanding a 360° field of view is pure laziness and a skill issue.
As I’ve said repeatedly, one of the joys of SIM is its high difficulty. Please do not deny the reason for SIM’s existence.
Besides, bombers already have AI gunners, so they effectively have no blind spots right?
Have you ever fought TIS MAs in Air RB? This thing is a nightmare to kill - as soon as i play in a 3.7 plane and see a full uptier against USSR i load 2 x 1,000 lbs bombs and wait until they rearm on their forward airfield. Imho the only reliable way to kill them. I tried this 2 times before i got one with this strategy. Bomb exploded ~ 10 meters near his plane - pilot snipe.
Your Pe-2 example is misleading - the initial claim by gaijin that the this TIS MA would have been based on a bomber lacks any historic evidence. In other words: Days without Russian bias: 0
Size of an aircraft plays no role - the P-61 was a US attempt to built a night fighter - not a bomber.
irl TIS MA existed as two prototype project. Its designation was Heavy Escort Fighter. Its not an attacker and wasn’t ever intended to shot at tanks. What we have ingame is just a Gajin.
I agree. But as discussed above, for consistency it would have to be applied to planes of different roles that share the same airframe, Me410s for example.
Meanwhile single engine fighters shouldn’t have their wing completely blow off by a single .50cal round either. Different story with HE cannon rounds with sufficient explosive filler ie. minengeschoß.
There are cases of this happening, not many though.
That same logic should then also be applied to bombers; someone needs to present evidence that same percentage of bombers, was able to take as much damage as the percentage of bombers do in-game currently.
I acknowledge there are pictures of bombers surviving massive amounts of damage and being able to land, but find it hard to believe the percentage of them is the same as in game.
Sounds impossible, based on physics alone, that a bombers wing would survive 100+ concentrated hits from 20mm and/or 30mm cannons to a 2x2 meter area on a single wing, without the wing becoming structurally compromised and ripping off. Even when shot directly from behind at the trailing edge. The volume of rounds hitting the trailing edge would quickly remove said trailing edge and anything in it’s path, before reaching the leading edge.
Admittedly the visible damage model in-game is simplified since most if not all planes have 2 wing snapping points modelled, but that should not make a difference.
Operational role only describes what doctrine intends to do with the aircraft. It tells nothing about airframe robustness. For that, you have to look at the technical specifications.
If the specifications show that the P-61 is 12 tons heavier than a Fw 190, it will logically be more robust, regardless of whether they share the same role.
Let’s not pretend not to get something this obvious.
