We all know USA cas mains know what to do in this thing if ever added.
1 Like
Peacemaker - no
Yes- a better life underground
Vault tech calling
3 Likes
Have to be 9.0 of a player vehicle, so will always face missiles.
Be good as a nuclear bomber - not for anything else.
1 Like
The one thing going for the peacemaker and other Cold War bombers is for enduring confrontation naval as you can fly high and have a lot of on station time. They have also been test beds for so many weapons I’m sure there is stuff that can easily sink your battleship.
Also sea mines. Gaijin makes them a set and forget your game plan in naval enduring confrontation is over. I think the peacemaker got airdrop mines due to how effective they where against Japan at the end of the war.
The cockpit with all the gages, dials and stuff would be awesome to have but knowing Gaijin it won’t happen
Decompression is the answer. Air RB 8.0-10.0 is a complete mess. I’d agree that the B-36B Peacemaker can work well in the naval battles.
I doubt the B model will go to 9.0 in the air RB. Unlike the B-66 Destroyer, the B-36B Peacemaker has a large profile and is slower, allowing you to spray your guns from miles out to snap its wings or tail off. The B model doesn’t have provisions for chaff dispensers. It will be more vulnerable to radar-guided missiles. More than it will be vulnerable to IR-guided missiles, since its heat signature should be on a similar level as the B-29/Tu-4 does.
B-36F and B-36H come with chaff dispensers and auxiliary turbojet engines, which can easily find their place at 9.0.
3 Likes
Even Superprops are compressed, which the B-36B kinda is. There def needs to be more BRs to smoothly transition late-45 and immediate post-war aircraft with early jets. That and 8.0-10.0 needs like 2-3 more full BRs with everything above raised accordingly. All-Aspect IRs vs flareless aircraft is awful, and it feels like anything interesting or new to add into that range will be DOA, especially any 1950/60s interceptors like the Su-15 or F-101.
+1 so pretty
1 Like
unfortunately they massively nerfed really big bombs before this was added
The chaff dispensers surprise me as ww2 bombers had them though it was hole and the dispenser was a human.
1 Like
The damage models are not extremely weak. They are almost identicle to the real life aircraft. The problem currently is that the damage models for aircraft is not granular or atleast segmented greatly to similar structure sections like fighters. Because of this you always notice a wing coming apart and so forth at the same joint when it reality the damage was somewhere else.
Keep in mind bombers have a high wing loading with the fuel and bomb-weight onboard (if applicable). Because the bombers are not mono
coque in design with spars, if those spars get damaged the wing collapses.
A great example of the reality and fragility of bomber aircraft being shown, is in the award winning tv series Masters Of The Air.
Anybody who presumes bombers were very durable vehicles are buying either conciously or unconciously into survivorship bias based on an image or few showing immense damage + extreme skill of the crew the airframe someone got back for an emergancy landing. They are the extreme exceptions statistically not the rule.
At the height of bomber losses in around 1943, you could see half of a squadron be lost per sortie (per flight).
All I am saying here is if we get more bombers in future which I really hope they do, they NEED to allow far greater segmentation to the physics model along elevators, rudders and aeleron surfaces + flaps (not just the wings), so players can be more aware of how much damage anti-bomber cannons actually do and understand what many of us do. Which is that War Thunder just like DCS is simulating these vehicles very well and that realism is increasinging every year.
1 Like
Absolute +1
I would love to see more bombers finally come to the game as I have been a bomber main since 2013.
We need more bombers, and for bases at all brs to go back down to 30 second respawn timers not 5mins. So us bomber players are not loitering around for 5mins each time, waiting for an interception to occur before we even drop one bomb.
I would absolutely love the B-36B ingame, just like the B-50, Washington Mk.1 and so forth. Hopefully going forward other than the B-24D and He-111 cockpits, we will get more bombers and cockpits.
Even gaijin acknowledges they’re underperforming and plan to buff/fix them:
Perhaps they’ll even buff them in the way you suggest to levels of realism that these aircraft currently lack. My problem with your message however is how you started off saying that they’re not underperforming, which is disingenuous when you literally even when on to say how they literally are underperforming in your own message.
1 Like
If I remember right DCS is a little better more or less you can get stress damage. If your wing spar is damaged and you try to pull a hard turn you might lose your wing when you would not have before the damage.
1 Like
Gaijin wanted to add fatigue stress damage, but the community seemed slightly against it )vocal minority) so it wasn’t added.
1 Like
I didn’t say they weren’t underperforming. Not at all. I was against the presumption they are “extremely weak”. And I explained how they are almost realistic, there are just not granular nor segmented enough.
1 Like
Maybe writing a suggestion for this might be smart. Most planes don’t just fall apart when over stressed but the planes structure is messed up so its likely off to the salvage yard or to be a gate guard.
Again they aren’t monocoque structures, so if a spar fails the entire wing crumbles. Wings have to sustain the weight of the airframe, and any forces above that value due to turbulance and changing velocity vectors.
1 Like
Either the B-36 or the YB-60.
If there isn’t already one, make a suggestion for the YB-60.
Edit: actually he’s seen the suggestion he replied to it so I will remove the @
1 Like