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
Well, that’s not exactly accurate either. Gaijin’s model has entire wing structures as one model. Realistically, wings can sustain far more damage as multispar design and stressed metals are what provide that strength. However, Gaijin simplifies it but making the wings into large sections and all spars as one damage model in said section.
+111111111111 PLEASE YES IVE WANTED THIS THING FOR SO LONG
Yes this is a complete sentence
Considering we do not have stressed skin bombers in the game, only spar based wing structures, if the main forward or rear spar fails, the wing normally folds or deconstructively due to resonance tears itself apart.
Bombers used to be stronger back in the olden days but Gaijin did make the change. I do not know if it reflects real life though. But from readings it does and does not as there is proof of bombers eating a few mine shells and buckling but also the ones that limp home with lots of damage. But also equally a large amount that suffered a slow death.
…what? Most of the aircraft, to include bombers, are semi-monocoque design. The wing loads aren’t strictly on the stringers/spars/ribs (which the stringers and ribs aren’t even modeled in game). That’s how you have IRL photos of B17s missing CHUNKS out of its tail but still returning like this photo.
B17 #124406, known as the All American, was rammed by a Bf 109 on a Tunis mission and flew back. Seeing how it’s missing a good 10+ feet of framing support, Gaijin would make you believe the tail would come off. Fun fact, she actually managed to return home using the bombsight autopilot as the normal control wires were severed. The Nordon autopilot actually used electrical motors to adjust the control surfaces, which was unaffected by the collision.
Or, B17 #238078, known as Sweet Pea, who got cracked open by a flak burst and flew the 800 miles home. Granted, some of this damage is from the landing (in regards to the bend), but that’s a massive chunk missing out of the section holding most of the stress of the tail forces.
Or this interesting one of a B17G attached to the 91st Bomb Group in the same section. It actually has the ball turret replaced with a radar system, H2X. This was actually done to permit “blind” bombing through clouds. There’s some pretty interesting B17 designs with radars (H2S radar, the original H2X design had the radar behind the 17G’s chin turret and then the SB-17H)
1 Like
That is body damage where the spars and braces reflect a similar level of structural strength. When it comes to the wings, most bombers in the game except the Lancaster did not have the skin handle a large portion of the load still relying on the main spars. Even in the Lanc’s case, if the main spars got hit badly the skin wouldn’t support the weight.
Again you are showing extreme examples of airframes that survived whilst thousands with similar damage didn’t.
I have nothing against the skill of those crew and especially their luck not to encounter strong turbulance or cross winds. But the untold other bombers that got hit with similar damage never made it past france, let alone across the channel.
My point is, there’s plenty that are semi-monocoque.
Depends. The Lancaster was also dual spar so hitting one wouldn’t damage the other, which is how Gaijin does it now. Sure, the G-load tolerance would drop, but that doesn’t mean the wing would break in half from it as the Lancaster also used stressed skin. Hell, we’ve seen plenty of WW2 era bombers (especially B17s) be grounded in the last few years due to broken spars and those were caught under inspection, meaning they were flying with them damaged/broken before being caught.
That’s exactly my point though, they can make it back if damaged if the right conditions are met. Which, currently, War Thunder doesn’t do at all. I remember back in the day flying back bombers that were torn up and barely flying. Now, you get hit a handful of times and there goes entire tails/wings because they’ve nerfed damage models into the ground.