Bombers can’t boom and zoom bruh… or well dive bombers can but not that well and they could have a lower spawn height.
Actually now that I think about it it would make sense to add more spawn heights for different aircrafts, some bombers need more altitude than others
1 Like
I’m an Air RB and Ground RB player, the only reason why I’m playing bombers in the first place is for Ground RB lol. Thx for the advice, I’ll try my best! :)
1 Like
too hard to do considering Balance issue it would bring,… a NC223 (currently 3.0) could be 5.3 if the bomber spawn is set at 8km(max altitude the bomber can fly),… see the problem coming in now?
just making the tail section:
first–> more than 1 section(Like wing roots and wing tips)
second–> add tail spars for more durability
third–> just buff the bomber’s module health, maybe get people to shoot the engines rather than putting 6 bullets into the tail and have it fall off.
2 Likes
I’m not asking for bombers to spawn in space I’m just asking for them to be a bit higher, currently fighters can reach up to bombers quite easily which gives them very little chance or survival
2 Likes
just need more sections:
adding more sections to bomber aircraft will give them good enough damage resistance.
of course, but as said earlier :
nah 6000m at 4000m somhow the entire enemy fighter is already above you
False : Not every bombers were at such altitudes, and the high altitude bombing you’re refering to is mostly US ones in Europe, with B-17’s / B-24’s (and not B-25’s or other medium size bombers)
He-111’s:
in 1940 battle of france and britain:
in 1944
To attack B-17’s/P51’s landed in Russia side, after a deep strike high altitude bombing over germany, and coming from the UK.
B-25’s:
2500m - 3700m altitude → pretty low
Pe-8’s operated at 16400 ft = 5000m
https://warhistory.org/fr/@msw/article/petlyakov-pe-8-tb-7-part-ii00m altitude
The infamous G4M Betty, was intended to operate at 3000m altitude, when mitsubishi got asked by IJN to produce the aircraft, but it usually flew between 3000m and 8000m for bombing operations. depending on the variants (7 different engine were used within all variants)
worth noting that G4M2e Model 24 Tei, responsible for MXY-7 OHKA launch, flown between 4000m and 5000m for such launches.
We can also take into considerations:
A-26C’s invader - 20,450 ft =6200m
Ki-49-II - 13000ft = 3962m
B-17’s - 23000 to 28000 ft = 7000 - 8500m (usual)
Lancasters - 12000 to 16000ft = 3650-4900m (Tallboy bombs) // 22000-23000ft = 6700-7000m(normal bombs)
Blenheims - 11000ft = 3400m altitude (done in 1942, while attacking IJN CV Akagi)
B-24’s - 23000 to 28000 ft = 7000 - 8500m (usual)
B-29’s - 31850ft = 9710m altitude (High altitude raids over Japan) (was also used at night, with incendiary bombs, at medium altitudes)
What i’m trying to explain is that every bomber models aren’t made for “high altitude” like you thought they were.
The Main Reasons are :
- Bombing Sight Technology
- Intended Precision of the Strike
- Threat Level (G4M changing from 3000m to 8000m during the war)
- Performance level of airframe
- Non-Pressurized aircrafts / Air systems for the crew
So as we can see, the altitudes for Medium/heavy bombers are various, and none exceeded 10000m, but only a few truly were used over 6000m.
2 Likes
No idea where you got these myths.
- (1) The combat boxes (sizes varied and changed during WW 2) just reduced the losses - there is a reason why the USAAF lost more than 5k heavy bombers in the ETO and stopped daytime bombing of Germany after the 2nd Schweinfurt raid in October 1943.
- (2) There is a difference between scared and attacking with tactic and/or determination. Look up combat losses of heavy bombers - until the beginning 1944 (=with working air defense by fighters) it was almost impossible to survive 25 combat missions in a B-17…
- (3) The only nations with a severe lack of high altitude fighters were the USSR and JP. Look up combat reports of the USAAF and RAF BC - even the heavily armored “Sturmboecke” (= Fw 190 A-8 R/2 - with additional armor called 190 A-8 R/8) used by the Sturmgruppen had no problem to reach the combat altitudes of Bomber formations.
The only 2 planes used in combat (in remarkable numbers with existing combat reports) at 10 km were the UK B-17s (very short) and B-29s as long as they attacked during daytime - the Ju 86 P is a special case.
All others flew lower and slower and with way less payload as wt allows.
Would I like to see this yes. Do I think Gaijin will make it happen, no…
I love bombers like most of the player base but there and other plans whif ai gunners are not playbill at all ships aa guns in navel can shoot at plans 10 kilometres plus depending on the ship but when it’s plans I’m getting shot from 2 kilometres away when my 20mm cannons from a p38 on the pe8 has the range i look at the wiki but as a disabled player and general bomber game play doesn’t work i would like to see stronger bomber aircraf and a togel that will make the ai start to shoot from max range of the calibre and gun and the close the emey gets more accurate the gunners get anything from the community can be added P.S. I’m a xbox player
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
cp?
A physical disability that can make movement difficult like for example mh right side dosint work as well as my left which on keyboard or controller for a game like this can be difficult to use that why I’m saying what i am for a rework
I don’t have an issue with Gaijin making bombers more realistically damage resistant but for Simulator battles they need to realistically nerf or remove mouse aim gunners.
Bombers (especially the Ju288) have highly suspect flight models at times and in SB scumbags use and abuse them as heavy fighters in the capture zones due to the 360 degree stabilized gunner view. Adding a much tougher damage model on top of this would make things even more toxic.
Sounds like a WT problem.
Which means it’s an artificial problem created by the developers not being willing to spent time to change it.
Just deal with it ;)
2 Likes
No.
What they need to do is better model internal spaces, including the turrets. No idea how’d you not make it very very annoying to select the right turret, but then have the player limited to first person, firing from the turrets. Mouse aim is fine, you are a heavy bomber, flying solo usually, some advantage I think is acceptable. The issue is the third person giving you a massive situational awarness advantage that means fighters cant be sneaky
2 Likes
The issue is making the first person gunner views work without being janky. Switching to the tail gunner in an IL-2 is easy, imagine cycling through views on something like a B-17 against a moving target.
I’d also model the gun sights correctly and remove the in game aiming sight.
2 Likes
General discussion