# Reducing Bomber Survivability Again Is a Mistake

Dev Server "Sky Odyssey" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1

Based on the testing I did today, it seems that the developers have reduced bomber survivability again on the Dev Server.

I do not know exactly when this change happened, because during my testing yesterday the bombers did not seem to behave this way. I also have not found a specific changelog describing this additional adjustment, so this particular point is based on what I personally observed during testing.

What we do know officially is that on the September 4, 2026 Dev Server, Gaijin introduced an updated bomber damage model affecting a large number of aircraft, including every B-17 variant, as well as the B-24, B-29, Lancaster, Halifax, Wellington, He 111 and many others.

And this is precisely why I think this apparent reduction in survivability is a negative change.

As I have already mentioned in previous discussions about this subject, before this latest change I considered bomber survivability to be fairly well balanced.

They were not invincible.

Engines could still be damaged, crew members could still be killed, control surfaces and flaps could be destroyed, internal systems could be compromised, and eventually the bomber could become extremely difficult or even almost impossible to control.

The fact that an aircraft remained physically airborne after taking several hits did not necessarily mean that it was still operational.

That level of survivability was especially important because of the current conditions of War Thunder matches.

Most of the time, we do not have large bomber formations. Many matches contain only two or three players using bombers, and sometimes even fewer.

Historically, heavy bombers such as the B-17 did not rely solely on the structural durability of an individual aircraft for survival. They flew in defensive formations specifically designed to provide mutual protection and concentrate defensive gunfire against attacking fighters.

In War Thunder, two or three isolated bombers do not have that same historical protection.

And this brings us directly back to the problem I mentioned earlier in the discussions about bomber durability.

If their survivability is reduced again without also giving them the advantages they historically had — such as large formations, overlapping defensive fire and organized fighter escorts — we return to a situation where a small number of isolated bombers can be destroyed very quickly before they even have a realistic opportunity to perform their role.

I am not arguing that bombers should be able to absorb absurd amounts of damage or become “flying tanks.”

I am arguing in favor of the balance that existed previously on the Dev Server: a bomber could survive several attacks, but it would progressively suffer internal damage and could eventually become severely compromised or completely incapable of continuing its mission.

In my opinion, reducing their survivability again simply brings us back to the same problem we had before.

If a match normally contains only two or three bombers, they need enough survivability to have a realistic chance of actually performing their role.

8 Likes
2

I absolutely agree. When I play as a bomber, and I got 2 other players in bombers on my team, no one sticks together. And even if we do, we still get torn to shreads very quickly. We aren’t asking for flying tanks, we are asking for something that can at the least make it to the target while under fire, or have a chance to fire back.

3 Likes
3

The survivability was fine, outside of a few outliers, but seems they’re pretty flimsy again. Which is tragic, especially given fighter players are provided all the means to engage bombers significantly outside of historical ranges, on top of the myriad deficiencies introduced from gameplay design. Not to mention bombers with multiple defensive cannons are pretty miserable experiences to defend yourself with due to convergence issues, oh and the gunners are limited to a fraction the range fighters are able to strike bombers from.

Unfortunately, fighter players are not the sharpest and failed to grasp that destruction of control surfaces was just as sure a mechanism of downing the bomber as seeing “Target destroyed” directly from cannonfire. So here we are again. Even testing it at someone not particularly fond of air to air in most scenarios, downing the bombers was pretty easy if you targeted control surfaces or came from an angle to hit engines, even with the cannons they claimed less than adequate.

Game’s designed not to support flying in a wing. There’s no area to drop bombs in to convert them to ticket bleed (e.g. large industrial centers), instead we have pin point targets that cannot withstand a fraction the bomb load available to a wing of bombers.

2 Likes
4

Unfortunately, I noticed this change in bomber durability only a few hours ago. Their current durability is still higher than in the live game, but it is lower than what was previously presented on the Dev Server.

The same issues are still present, particularly regarding damage to the tail and wings.

5

Yes, I have seen many comments following this line of thinking, especially from players who mainly use fighters or interceptors.

The problem is that many of them seem to evaluate bomber durability in isolation, without taking into account that War Thunder does not recreate the historical environment in which these aircraft normally operated.

In real life, heavy bombers often flew in large formations, with multiple aircraft providing mutual defensive fire and, in many cases, fighter escorts as well. In the game, however, we usually have only a few bombers scattered across the map, often without any organized formation or proper protection.

Because of this, I do not think it is fair to judge bomber survivability simply by comparing it directly to the vulnerability of an isolated historical aircraft while completely ignoring all of the advantages that historical bomber formations provided.

I also get the impression that part of the resistance to these changes comes from the fact that bombers have traditionally been seen as relatively easy targets for fighters and interceptors. Making them somewhat more survivable means that those players may have to spend more time, ammunition, and effort to shoot them down instead of getting an easy kill.

But game balance should not be based on keeping one class of aircraft as an easy target simply to make farming easier for another.

If bombers do not receive the historical advantages of large formations, then they need some level of survivability compensation in order to remain a viable option in matches.

2 Likes
6

Pretty much where I’m thinking most of the opposition is coming from. I actually found the changes somewhat more engaging that if they went live I would have bothered to play my interceptors lol. Even provided half a reason to carry rockets intended for the role.

Even on their lonesome, the amount of rounds it took to down a bomber before the nerf provided you were aiming half decently wasn’t that bad, HE could knock out engines and control surfaces pretty reliably with 20mm, and AP was quite reliable at knocking out engines (again, if you bothered to aim). Now it really doesn’t seem to matter, we’re back to sneezing on control surfaces knocking them off, even if you’re nowhere particularly near them, and AP igniting engines without fail.

If they’re going to keep this model, I hope we get a significantly greater access to fire extinguishers.

1 Like
7

I too believe this is part of the issue. Bombers for as long as I’ve played this game have been easy kills for many people. Keeping bombers able to be completely destroyed by just a sneeze in their direction, even with a mild durability increase, leaves the actual bomber players in misery, and is also the reason why people don’t play bombers that often.

Keeping something a certain way only makes it more normal. Even if the people complain, they will eventually welcome these new bomber updates, and might start playing bombers more often, which allows for better feedback from the players, as there is now more people playing the bombers, which means better balancing.

2 Likes
9

Bombers still feel fairly durable, more so against guns than missiles now



You definitely need to aim for control surfaces and engines, even with 4 30mm autocannons. Which I suppose is still a lot better than getting hit by a single 20mm and turning into a fireball.
Missiles tend to one shot more often than they did last patch, which is a plus in my book.

It still leaves the issue with bombers being able to body check fighters, but hopefully that is an easier fix (clueless)

10

They are still plenty survivable. But on the dev server they were literally flying battleships. I saw a clip of one tanking 6 missiles like it was nothing.