You can’t just “balance” a PvE vehicle in a PvP mode. Also gunners vs normal guns is also impossible to balance, since bomber doesn’t need to ourmaneuv3r you in any way to get a shot. Bomber has ALWAYS a chance to spray you down and experience bomber users are a nightmare to fight against, they will take damage, but you will die too. Super fun indeed.
3 Likes
Yes it can, 2 x 2500 internally, On top of this, gaijin also has conveniently omitted the ETC 2000 wing racks which would look like this:
Again, gaijin has mixed and matched or nerfed the crap out of the defensive weapons as well. In this game, the aircraft is referred to as the “Ju 288 C” with no number. In reality, there were three different C variants, the C-1, C-2, & C-3. If the thing in the game were a Ju 288 C-1, then the H-Stand tail weapon is clearly incorrect, as it should be an MG 151/15 not 20. If the thing in the game were a Ju 288 C-2, then the B & C-Stand MG 131s are all incorrect as they should be MG 151/15 cannon. If the thing in the game were a Ju 288 C-3, then it should have only one C-Stand turret as the C-3 was a night bomber with reduced armament:
2 Likes
I’ve been sayin this for a while but gaijin should lower the B-29 to 6.7 and raise the JU-288 to 6.3 so that there will be an equal amount of bombers on each team. Being an American aircraft in a 6 player game with 4/6 of them being ju288s is not fun. being a German fighter at the same BR in a 6 player game where its just you and one other fighter against all American superprops is painful. If there were an equal amount of bombers on each team at least it would be a little more balanced encouraging more people to play the superprops again… Also a premium B-29 at 6.7 would help too…
3 Likes
Giving the B29 it’s 20mm tail turret could be interesting.
1 Like
You should create a post in suggestion about this, it is essential information, it must reach gaijin.
It already exists
2 Likes
I mean, also about the weaponry. That historical accuracy would be an excellent nerf for the ju 288.
It would be an improvement, not a nerf:
1 Like
Fully agree, the 151/15 should have far better ballistics and range than the much heavier M-Geschoss of the 151/20 with this insane bullet drop…not sure if ROF increases too…
I mean if a B-17 tailgunner gets hits, crits and kills up to 2.4 km (just check out Jengar’s last B-17 vid as an evidence) the Ju 288 (if flown by a “real” player using manual gunners) should benefit from that.
2 Likes
If you have played BF109f2, you won’t say mg151/15 is better… MG151/20’s damage for fighter is amazing especially when someone on your six.
1 Like
Sorry mate, maybe i was not precise enough - I wrote not better, i wrote about better ballistics and range, so they should be easier to use whilst in gunner mode.
The key of using manual gunners was always to keep the chasing fighter as long as possible inside your, but outside his gun range. So an increase of range and better ballistics (so increasing potential accuracy) should be an advantage.
I only used the 151/15 in gun pods in the IT 109 F-4 and with AP-I belts (800 meters convergence) i was quite happy with their damage output and ballistics. I used them first just as additional punch but as soon as i got used to to them mostly for engagements >600 meters; below i used the 151/20.
The “useful” range of the 151/20 (if i chase somebody in my SM 92) is rather disappointing, at least i am usually unable to hit anything (except 4 engine bombers) further away than 0.9 km due to the “adjustments” of ballistics some time ago…
Yes, I understand what you considering…
And we have another example to explain why bombers need bigger guns, on the USSR planes, B20 and 12.7mm gun are close to MG151/20 and 15’s relationship, for bombers, we will always choose B20 instead of 12.7, because of the damage.
By the way, on bombers, we usually need to consider the relative speed, when the bomber are chased by fighters , the shells from bomber will easily hit the fighters, because the fighters and shells will have a higher relative speed, so the ballistics is ok.
yes, i cant do anything in my spitfire when they are at an high altitude, decent speed, and decent armament
That post you replied to has no claim, only opinion.
So what you’re saying is you’re going to ignore all War Thunder players and only trust yourself.
Edited it since I forgot to after the correction was posted.
1 Like
If you looked a little lower you’ll realize that I accepted the correction from someone. Just I forgot to edit the original post to match that correction.
Me, on July 28th: “My bad. Thanks for the correction, Wick.”
2 Likes
@HYPNOSYS2002
Stop with the insults.
Wick & I are correct that the Ju-288 can carry 2500kg bombs.
Stop insulting us just cause a post was mistakenly unedited after a correction was presented.
I’m not infallible, no one is.
1 Like
never started.
wick is, you were wrong before you tried to hide your false claim by edit
there is no “us”
Wick & I: The Ju-288 can carry 2500kg bombs.
We cannot be both correct and incorrect as we’re stating the same thing.
Just cause past someone made a mistake doesn’t mean their current beliefs are wrong.
1 Like
did you not say it cannot carry them? (without proof)
yes you did whether you hid the statement or not.
that is what im saying.
end of story
Which is irrelevant to current time.
Bringing up old stuff that doesn’t matter today is purely provocative.
Sorry for not having my OG post edited day of correction.
And I’m sorry for my involvement in this misunderstanding.
1 Like