It’s pretty weird that some of the fighters are determined as attackers, even though they are interceptors, such as ME262a1u1 or a1u4. some attackers are determined as the fighters, like F4U7, however, we do have the almost same thing(AU-1), but the type is an attacker, is there any standard to determine the type of planes? This is really important for GRB, when you need to respawn the second plane, the same type need to spend 2 times of RP.
It’s cause Interceptor as a role really doesn’t exist in the game. It would be easier if they just do Attacker/Interceptor or Interceptor/Attacker would better define some crafts. But shrug.
1 Like
I think roles in this game are more of a balancing factor then anything.
The squadron 262 and narwhal probly got it as a soft buff + they actually kinda do well in their roles.
F4U-7 with strike aircraft spawn would be op af, also I’m pretty sure it was classed as carrier fighter by the French while the AU-1 was a purpose built Ground Attacker in the first place.
And gaijin have shown that they would switch vehicles role as a way to balance them. Cough M18 cough
1 Like
Fine, just very confused because they are almost the same thing, even the F4U-7 has a better loadout like SNEB rockets, we have much more such kinds of things happen in jets, like FJ4B…, like you said, firstly the US NAVY makes it as carrier fighter…
In the FJ-4B case, i think it just a legacy thing, Gaijin did it so that it get airspawn along with it counterpart in the tree ie. A-4B but after they removed strike aircraft airspawn it got stuck with the role and no one really cares about that nor does gaijin really give a damn so it stay that way since.
The designations are for the game - not reality.
IRL the 50mm gun on the 262 was there to blow bombers apart - in the game it is pretty useless for that because bombers don’t fly in a straight line and you only get a minute or 2 before they are dropping their bombs.
Don’t confuse anything in WT with real life!!
2 Likes
It’s pretty funny that Me262 with mk103 is still an attacker, but the ho229, which is a real attacker in the game is identified as a fighter
Ho229v3 was a prototype for a day fighter - other versions were going to be attacker or bomber types - but not that one.
Gaijin has made a lot of such kinds of cases, I don’t understand the standard, if they are based on the real or game, it seems that Gaijin doesn’t know it as well, especially for the jets, Harrier, mig27k, and Iseral F4…
V3 was a testbed for serial production, not a prototype for a day fighter, the rest of 2 tests for engine or as a glider, you can even find the V3 could carry bombs.
2 Likes
There is only the very sketchiest evidence the V3 was ever designed to carry bombs - some unsourced statements in a book IIRC…no such capability is in the existing components or shown on available plans.
The V7, otoh, is well documented as designed for that role.
And the serial production was to be for day fighters.
because they just make stuff up.
There is no standard, most stuff are based on what they are designated as irl while others are reclassified for gameplay reasons. Take for example the M18 Hellcat, it was a TD before but they make it a LT as a nerf to increase it sp cost.
Also i think i was mistaken about the FJ-4B as the B variants was actually built as a ground attacker. mb
they call it whatever they want, even they think jet bomber R2Y2 is jet fighter
like how they call tank destroyer a light tank
how they give tank destroyer scout ability like light tank
etc etc
it’s just matter of inconsistency