Didn’t most napalm bombs used to have far more drag than they currently do? Maybe I am miss remembering but I recall it used to be better to carry regular bombs, even though it took more to kill a base, as they would slow the aircraft far less than napalm canisters.
I dont know, but the main change and the reason it became so popular was a massive buff to the base damage it did. I cant find the changelog for it though
Edit found it
As I remember when it was added it took 4 250kg canisters to kill a base to kill a base and they slowed the plane by something like twice what a regular bomb would.
Looking in game I think it’s just the original MK77 canisters, 5 of them have +0.35000 kgf parasite drag and slow an A-4 by 190kph, while 5 1000lb’ers have +0.21000 kgf drag and only slow on A-4 by 84kph so it’s likely its just the newer more streamlined canisters that are doing it.
1 Like
well, arent the USAF napalm bomb much more streamlined? makes sense no?
anyways, napalm shouldnt be nerfed since it is very real and effective weapon used by many strike aircraft
No idea, I was just trying to work out why napalm wasn’t slowing planes the way it used too.
As for whether or not it needs a nerf, I would say either it or strike aircraft need a bit of a rework to give strikers a better chance to actually do their jobs.
That would, in my opinion, be better done by letting strikers/ bombers spawn on the forward airfield (like Gaijin said they would do a year ago) so they can reach objectives before fighters destroy them, rather than nerfing weapons.
Introducing a mix of different base types that where more/ less resistant to different weapon types could be another approach.
3 Likes
It takes about 3 250kg Napalm, while it takes 2 500kg of Napalm to destroy a base.
Meanwhile it takes about 4,500kg bombs to destroy a base.
In Arcade, it takes 5 250kg, or 4 500kg of Napalm, whilst it takes about 9,000kg of bombs.
I see the issue but the solution is bad, artificial restrictions are too zero sum. Better idea would be to simply make the bases either respawn in 30 seconds and/or add more bases. I still think napalm and rockets should be nerfed against bases simply because it makes bombs borderline irrelevant in over 95% ARB matches that lack worthwhile AI targets for bombs, unless you have high power AGM/GBU bombs.
Napalm is useless outside of bombing bases anyhow. At least bombs can be used in GRB, GSB, and all three air battles. Rockets are just meh in general, used to be good, but then “waaaaah, nerf rockets, they’re too good!”
Napalm is the only bombs worth bringing.
99.999999% of players dont realize like 5 years ago gaijin nerfed bomb loadouts so the more you bring the less rp/sl you get per base. Bringing enough bombs for 3 bases cuts your reward per base by like 66% so you get barely more than bringing enough for just 1 and have to secure 3 bases which is unlikey.
So bringing anything but just enough napalm for 1 base is extremely dumb. Why napalm? Because its the lightest loadout, so you are faster than bringing enough conv bombs for 1 base.
Also if the rp nerf is when you load in, so you cant even bring extra ordinance to ground pound or you nerf your rp/sl.
And finally whatever plane can carry 2 500kg napalm and is fastest is the best base bomber for rewards on any br bracket, modt of these arent even strike planes or bombers.
2 Likes
Recently I’ve been playing A32A and Super Mysterie. Imagine napalms getting removed. These planes would be worthless overnight.
and this is precisely why Napalm needs to be reworked and quite heavily nerfed.
If nothing else, it massively screws over aircraft that dont have that option, like the Tornado IDS. In fact a few nations like Britain dont have a single F2P napalm carrier.
I personally feel napalms won’t change much for high weight high thrust airframes. They’re already heavy to begin with, so bomb weighs almost nothing to them.
I mean, it’s on Britain for not getting on the napalm program. Its funny how both US and Britain tested napalm on the same region (Peninsular SEA) and produce two extremely polarized conclusion where US goes on with BLU-77 and britain stick with the dumbass Mk. 82.
Reworking it by massively increasing the time it takes to fully burn and deal damage would probably the simplest/best way of doing that, without nerfing it drastically.
Right now, they destroy the base way too quickly, often before other planes can even reach it.
1 Like
The point is that a Mig-23ML can run 2? napalm bombs and beat an equivalent premium (let alone TT version) such as the Tornado WTD61 to a base and get the kill. Despite the fact the Mig-23ML is one of the best fighters at 11.7. Meanwhile, even at 11.3 the Tornado IDS is a tad underpowered.
The only carriers that truly benefit from Napalm and the fighters that could and should be doing A2A.
1 Like
Just nerf the impact damage by dividing it by 50. it’s supposed to be a short term area denial weapon, giving it a high impact damage makes no goddamn sense.
Yep,
- Reduce the intial impact damage heavily
- Increase the damage over time to partially compensate
- Increase the number of Napalm bombs needed for a base kill by 50-100% (so where it currently takes 2, make it more like 3 or 4)
That should rebalance them rather nicely whilst still leaving them an option for base bombing
Yeaah lets get them tornado indirectly buffed to shit and contribute even less to the team after popping 5000 flares in a straight line and lawndart 30m away from the base.
Most people when given the choice of good missiles OR bombs, they would pick the missiles. Examples: mig 21 bison and j7d.
theree a reason why so many mig 23ml users, myself included, just dump the r60ms and go for bombs.
Also what about stock grind? You would need to give the fighter planes all best missiles then, otherwise people will still bomb.
Well…
Buc S2 has a 3+ year old bug report to get Napalm as its specifically listed in the manual. (Sea Vixen too)
Harrier Gr3 could probably get them on the grounds the Harrier Gr1 has them
Other nations get weapons because the airframe could use it, therefore all nations get it (look at the Gripens) So the Phantoms at least could get them
Also Britain reserved the right to use napalm and pilots were likely trained how to use them in the Jaguar and Phantom, but just never actually used them
But ultimately Britain heavily used CBUs, on pretty much everything, which could be added and tuned to be a Napalm rough equivalent.