Should Bombers get a damage model update?

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
83


It would be nice if my tail didn’t magically disappear.
This is a server replay by the way.
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/461742377692899472?public_key=UOWlwLc8M1wOUKRPSEy9

1 Like
84

Oh that looks totally normal. With planes designated as follows: Bomber, literally any object that gets a little too close to the plane just breaks it apart. Its realistic /s
Because the big bombs on pe-8 and lancaster and such were a bit too strong (especially on some of the classic claustrophoby simulator maps with one lane, 3 caps less than 100 m apart, hell yeah european province) in classic gaijin fashion they went the full circle. Any shell no matter if its he, hvap, aphe just has to break the giant, slow and unmaneuverable bomber in two. Not that flying around in air rb with a plane thats about 200 kph slower than anything it can see is fun in itself, youre also contributing nothing to the outcome of the match.
But that clearly wasnt enough. The bomb radius also had to be brought down to ridicolous amounts where now 3000 kg bombs that somehow never land where the bombsight points at in the tu-14 literally have to direct impact a tank to get one kill.

So you can clearly see how they needed to double down, again, to make a vehicle class literally unplayable and unfun.

Meanwhile YAK-9t with 30 rounds of ap-t and yak 9U with 29 rounds of 47 mm aphe on laser accurate aphe on a fighter that can easily oneshot 7.0 heavies like the T29

Im surely no fan of everything just exploding when a 100 kg bomb drops somewhere in a 20 m radius around it. But there needs to be at least some balance of the capability of these cas tools so you dont miss 90% of 3000 kg bombs (and waste all the sp for nothing) and if these are really too strong just take them out of ground rb.

4 Likes
85

also add artificial gun spread because I suppose a groups of idiots couldn’t think another way to kill a bomber that isn’t standing directly behind it for +5 seconds

86

The PB4Y-2… I’m currently flying it for the sake of spading the tree… its too slow to reach a target, too heavy to climb and is made of of premium grade petroleum soaked explodium…

It’s completely unusable… as soon as someone fires a BB gun in your general vicinity you spontaneously disassemble.

3 Likes
87

All aircraft need a realistic toughness buff. With the current sheer state of the game literally 2x Shvak rounds (arguably the weakest cannon in reality during WW2) will chop “tough” aircraft’s tails clean off. If that sounds like bull I have videos showing me doing literally just that.

Damage needs turning down a notch across the board.

5 Likes
88

Both are likely “AI”.
No one says “hi hi hi” while sounding like they are having a stroke.

This is a better example of B-17s all making it home despite the extremely severe and near-impossible chance of such.

89

No - #1 is a quality channel.

#2 is ai (you see the small symbol below the title) but without major mistakes - at least based on my own knowledge of the aerial warfare in ww2.

If you add RAF BC losses (at least 8,300) to USAAF heavy bomber losses (similar number) in the ETO it should be clear that flying a bomber was no walk in the park - and all this propaganda BS tries to distract from the fact that old men sent young men to die.

Same with the P-51 myth “The fighter that won the war” - absolute nonsense, their 5,000 A2A kills were “bought” with 2,500 plane losses - and P-47s (3k kills) & P-38s (1,8k kills) got barely a 1:1 kill/loss rate in the ETO. For comparison: The Germans lost more than 3,000 109s just in take-off accidents…

As earlier written - irl (incl survivor-ship bias) and wt are not connected.

3 Likes
90

Hmmmm, I see.

1 Like