Bombers were worse before the update cause nothing could shoot them down; albeit, you could, it was just a pain.
Now they are still a pain, but not to the degree of being the Incredible Hulk.
War Thunder players don’t bail to save their lives as real people do. Furthermore, War Thunder has the Instructor, which helps with the damaged flight model.
I will send the actual US bomber loss statistics against flak again. You’re arguing with numbers that do not have a source, while I do.
https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistory/usaaf/digest/t159.htm
Sure, that’s totally the full quote and not maliciously cut short lol
Note that I did state it crumpled the fuselage, but the airframe did not split into multiple pieces like prior to the Bomber buff update. Context is important, and you’re maliciously misquoting me.
Part of that was that missiles were bugged and not doing damage to regular aircraft before, as seen in the recent “it’s fixed”.
It’s also hard to say how the AIM-54 would have performed against large strategic bombers, since its only tests were against the QT-33 and BQM-34. The point of impact is also important, as a head-on would likely be sufficient, but an impact to the wingtip or tail at fuse distance wouldn’t likely be a catastrophic kill scenario due to the size of the aircraft. The only combat example we have is an Iranian claim of hitting MiG-23s, which aren’t the size of a Strategic Bomber.
Seriously?
Everybody knows that the table is misleading like hell as it covers mainly the 8th AF (ETO) - totally ignoring the 15th AF attacking more or less the same targets; the difference is that the latter numbers are assigned to the MTO whilst the first table is covering the just the ETO.
Check:Army Air Forces in World War II
Arguing with statistics is not as easy as it looks.
The change is still not substantial enough to prove their claim of bombers splitting into pieces like before.
I’m really not though… the quote says “only” as if that isn’t a bloody significant event.
A direct hit from an Aim-54 is comparable to a 100lb bomb going off inside the aircraft… show me an aircraft that can survive that, I’ll wait…
I will not concede bombers coming apart to be a rare occurrence when I was able to so easily provide so many photographs of it happening… ignore your lying eyes if you please but don’t expect me to pander to your willful delusion… Even if not from the blast itself then from the aerodynamic loads upon the now mangled structure within a matter of seconds.
If a direct hit from a Flak shell is demonstrably capable off removing a wing with a mere ~1kg (~2.2lbs) of explosive mass what do you think the 130lbs in an Aim-54 is going to do?
Edit:
Where in your table does it show a breakdown of aircraft coming apart in flight vs those that didn’t?
You’re not actually demonstrating anything useful with this source… All your table shows is that AA is generally more dangerous than fighters, that doesn’t really relate to the capabilities of missiles developed 20-30 years later…
You are very much mistaken if you think the only aircraft downed by Aim-54’s in the Iran-Iraq war were MiG-23’s. The Tu-22 they bagged is a bomber last I checked, medium by the standards of it’s day but beyond strategic in scale by WWII standards.
The Aim-54 was explicitly designed to take down large bombers and have a sufficient blast radius to kill smaller targets from a “near” miss, the warhead is deliberately over sized. There is simply no way in H€ll a B-29 is surviving a single hit never mind the 5+ they can i game.
So then what purpose do you expect bombers to have if, using “realistic DMs” they:
- can’t dodge incoming fire/missiles due to being big and heavy
- if they have defensive weapons at all they are outgunned by most fighter armaments (guns or missiles)
- can’t even really run away due to fighters being faster and faster-accelerating
- can’t even hide for that matter due to either red idiotmode markers or in higher tiers also radar.
If a bomber can’t run, can’t fight back, can’t dodge, can’t hide, and is made of glass, you have a fundamentally worthless vehicle the moment it is seen. And current gameplay guarantees it will be seen at insanely long ranges in higher tiers.
Take a look around at how many countries use large strategic bombers, you’ve just explained why.
The solution is ECM, as shown in the original Nuke event, not making them functionally invulnerable. Also worth mentioning they have countermeasures, perhaps they should try using them.
Bombers are sitting ducks, that’s just the nature of what they are, big, slow and vulnerable. Hence the few nations that still use them have them generally employ them as cruise missile trucks.
^Obviously this applies to mid 1950’s onwards.
1 Like
And that only works for missile-era bombers.
How exactly are bombers in tiers where guns are the primary or only weapons supposed to achieve anything at all? We had “realistic fragility” for a decade and they were all target practice without question.
Go back and read every comment I’ve left in this thread, let me know when you see me discussing anything that isn’t cold war era or beyond.
Simple, they’re not…
There are no meaningful objectives for them in the game, until that changes they have no place.
Used to be you could bomb the airfield to win after the original base targets were destroyed, that condition has been almost entirely removed from the game. Unless it comes back or bombers are given a new useful task then they have nothing to contribute.
None of this changes the fact that the bomber DM’s are currently firmly grounded in science fiction fantasy.
Fair enough.
I’ve been playing this for the past 11+ years, I remember very clearly when that was a thing. But for over half that time it was so practically unachievable to even do that functionally they had no purpose even then.
And yet when they’re stuck in a “Dumb Fucking Deathmatch” box with “Idiotmode Red Enemy Markers,” I can frankly see the damage model change as just compensation. More and more rounds actually last the full 25 min, which as far as I’m concerned is a good thing.
You may not like it, but nobody’s forcing you to go chase the bombers. You could just…ignore them and do another objective your plane is able to do.
The number of games where there are only bombers left in the enemy team, 7 minutes remaining on the clock, and there’s no target left to strafe just keeps increasing, so, no, that is not an option.
And don’t the vast majority of modern jets have pretty substantial amounts of ordinance they can equip in such situations? I understand that yes the AI-controlled MBTs are a bit annoying to kill, but everything else is very soft and easy to kill. Nobody goes for the AI-controlled ships these days because as far as I’m aware they’re still bugged to where bombs bounce off and do no damage while torpedoes are iffy at best.
i think the update that made the bombers OP was just fine, the only thing that had to be enhaced was the fire mechanic spreading towards other areas, in my experience as firefighter you can put out a small fire by using wind but once its out of control wind becomes a major factor of its spreading towards other regions, so if there was only one engine yea wind could actually do it but multiple engines on fire is a different story.
buffing it and then nerfing by the next patch was making a step forward and one step backwards in my opinion
1 Like
It just makes sense bro. Bombers were just built so different and so tough and strong bro they should just tank multiple missile hits bro it just like works like that bro
Playing the American Spitfire, I emptied my cannons into a Brit Lincoln B. Hit at least 2 engines with wing and body dmg. I rtb to rearm after he peeled off toward his base. He then turned back and followed me to my airfield and strafed me to death at about 500 feet or so. Seems legit/realistic. They were too weak now they are op derp wagons. They need brought back inline.
So climb and shoot em.
That’s the damage from a direct hit with an 88mm shell. The Air
Here’s a different B-17(G) variant hit by an 88mm shell on the side.
You said, 3 bros. You only needed to use it once. At the end of your incomplete sentence.
Cool one off’s. What was the avg life of a real bomber crew over Germany again? It was under 11 missions! Also, show me one doing a strafing run on an active airfield after taking serious damage and while AA is concentrating on it.
Roughly 37% of B-17 bombers were lost. That means B-17s had a 63% chance of heading home.
Also, B-17s were often under consistent flak 88 fire for the entire duration of the war.
8 Flak guns in-game don’t compare to just how many were firing at them irl.