You can’t even properly use them as bombers in ARB because bombers as a whole were entirely nerfed due to fighter players (remember when gunners were useful? lmao), the only possible way you can have fun with a Lancaster or PE-8 is doing this
1 Like
Also google Operation Cobra (Normandy, July 1944). B-17 and B-24 bombed german troops which included tank columns (Panzer Lehr Division)
The use of estrategic bombers was historically used for destroying tanks.
Not even mentioning vietnam and modern era.
2 Likes
When there’s a war, a lot of equipment is “diverted.”
In every war, you find rather “incongruous” uses for all sorts of equipment.
Maybe he got killed by a 12,000lb bomb.
Like for real I never saw someone complain about the use of pe8 and lacaster as cas. Its at some point funny from both team perspective. Also gaijin encourage this by putting pe8 clips in thunder show.
2 Likes
most of them dont have napalm too. US WW2 and Cold War aircraft especially should have more access to incendiary weapons
1 Like
The bombing on the german tanks were useful tho. (If we ignore the friendly fire).
The same applies to Vietnam, if we disregard the air collisions that brought down two B-52s during the operation.
Or the 3 Lancaster raids on the Tirpitz
And the B-17 attacks on Japanese landing forces, ships and aircraft carriers at Midway
1 Like
I was talking about Close Air Support, not Battlefield Interdiction. Attacking ground forces behind enemy lines is (as I understand it) not the same like attacking enemy ground forces that are already engaged and in close proximity to blue forces. Those BUFF’s didn’t carped bomb the enemy while friendly ground forces were just in the next alleyway over, unless I’m badly informed (which I never rule out, hehe).
Exceptions may have occurred, but in WT, CAS via strategic bomber is not the exception, but the rule. With massive ordonnance actually intended agains heavily armored targets like battleships, submarine dens, etc…
But never mind, game meta, I know.
1 Like
Actually, no, I don’t think that ever happened to me. It’s just the idea of it that rankles. I also am strongly opinionated against the nukes in ground battles.
Yeah, there’s also the unrealistic aspects like WW2 vehicles fighting post war vehicles, but there it’s halfway understandable because of the capabilities. But in the limited scope of WT gameplay you simply can’t match vehicles historically in a way that it is playable.
I see the detonation radius is a problem. But the main reason why bombers are DOA, are exploding bomb loads. Especially vs cal50 or Shvak. It crazy, how often I lose bombers in an instant, cause bombs detonate so easy. Either inside the bay or when you just droped them.
1 Like
Enduring Freedom = Afghanistan.
Arc Light = Vietnam
In Vietnam B-52s were not uses as CAS . Most sources describe bombing as AI (=Air Interdiction) at best whilst using standard bombs (so no blockbuster) with saturation bombing from high alt on assumed VC troops or supply routes.
The usage as CAS in wt implies attacking enemy armor - neither North Vietnam nor Afghanistan had MBTs or IFVs in noteworthy numbers.
Afghanistan = asymmetric war = no air defense. Using a B-52 as cas is suicide, even the way more precise A-10 is the leader regarding blue on blue casualties.
Imho the USAAF and the RAF BC were mainly successful in killing French civilians in 1944 - the death toll of those attacks is higher than all British civilians killed by German bombs and cruise / ballistic missiles 1939-45.
As written above - no B-52 CAS in North Vietnam - and technically speaking are modern strategic bombers are off topic.
And even if you would include them: Imho a dead end as the criticism of the OP refers not only to props - also to the blast radius nerf and in modern warfare these bomber deploy stand-off weapons outside the range of enemy air defense systems.
The US did try that in Normady, but it did not go well to say the least
Killing a lot of civilians and also quite a few US troops
1 Like
Oh, btw, another case where I’m strongly opinionated is the use of any and all aircraft with a tailhook on aircraft carriers. Completely different topic, but similar level of cringe like strategic nukes or bunker busters in streetfight scenarios… ;-)
1 Like
Sigh, big bomba should be left alone. Pe8, Lancaster, JU 288C, let them do their thing (CASing some poor souls in GRB).
1 Like
They use it for cas.
And no, the CAS is not only with armored vehicles.
In 2001, the B-52 contributed to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom, providing the ability to loiter high above the battlefield and provide close air support through the use of precision guided munitions. The B-52 also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom by launching approximately 100 CALCMs during a night mission March 21, 2003.
It’s not a chemical formula. It’s not necessarily 30 meters above the ground.
It refers to the use of aircraft or helicopters to support troops close to the enemy. This type of operation requires both precise use of firepower, rapid reaction time, and good synchronization with ground units.
I would second that. Bombs explode way too easy by cannon or machine gun fire. Is there a study or some references out there that investigated dumb bombs vulnerability to fire? I some how don’t believe the current explosiveness.
Regarding the radius before and after. I never had a problem with the giant radius but i also think the the new one is still enough. The most annoying feature for me is, that you get killed behind giant rocks, large apartment buildings or large structures, because you stand in an imaginary circle. That is what really needs to be improved. But i guess this is means too much hard work.
Ok but still the carpet bombing was able to destroy some german tanks (as intended).
Talking about civilian and friendly cassualities its off topic to the discussion.
Then stop trying to persue that impossible historically accuracy. It just decrease the fun. Not like it is possible to achieve anyway.
1 Like