So where is the P-47 meant to sit in the Air RB meta?

[AverageWehraboo]

Any plane can win against Fw-190. That’s like saying it turns well because you win a turnfight against a bomber.

[Metrallaroja]

Not really, it is also pretty decent in a dogfight if you use flaps.

[Metrallaroja]

Just Random Clips

Some examples here.
In ARB is not as much as the pure turn performance of the plane but as how much you can exploit the advantages it has vs regular players.
Fw190F8 and P47D28/D30 for example if vs equally skilled players they would be bad in a dogfight but against regular players you can capitalize on power to weight and flaps to win vs many planes.

[Malekitth]

İt is literally one of the absolute worst for it’s BR, because of how the matches play out
İf you can’t climb fast or turn well, your plane is useless. P-47s cannot do either.

[Metrallaroja]

Players tend to stick to the one characteristc of planes like speed, climb or turn and not exploit the others.
It is what builds passive players that do not exploit their planes to their maximum.

[Metrallaroja]

P47D28/D30 has a very strong climb…
And F8 has an airspawn also

[Metrallaroja]

Easy planes to get good stats with, just by smacking everyone.

[PercussionCap]

@Malekitth

matches were not limited to 25 minutes.

Feel like this is the greatest limiting factor on the P-47. Its a plane that wants you to take your time with it but 25min match timers don’t allow this.

[KillaKiwi]

@Malekitth

There were amazing maps like Norway.

I miss that map 😥

Nowadays maps are all the same. Bombers bomb, attacker ground pound in the middle of the map and fighter kill all targets until it developes into a furball in the middle of the map.
Everyone has the same objectives and it just feels like a game with no immersion.

[AllNationEnjoyer]

These maps had character though unlike the current pool of flavorless bland

[Real_K_Soze]

@GoneToTheAether

Norway was not exactly all that good - it has nostalgia associated with it, but it has fundamentally the same problems as many current maps.

Lots of room to move, but all the ground units are packed into one postal code and nowhere else. The entire north half of the map is totally unused. Bombers on both teams are funneled into kill zones for either the island or the submarine pen. Attackers are worthless since the contested airfield has airbase-grade AAA, so it is physically impossible to protect the landing craft trying to capture it.

Although i agree with most of you points, i loved Norway too, especially after the axis side got an air spawn too.

• The main selling point (compared to today) was the broad variety of targets, so you could actually use torpedoes to kill naval targets. And if you aimed for the cruise/destroyer near the sub bunker you could get a base kill with a torp.
• Creating kill zone for bombers was a matter of the respective pilots - so the smart guys stayed alive whilst the others flew straight to a base an died - on both sides.
• Protecting the landing craft - yes and no.
• After several dozens of 1 hour matches there flying mainly for axis it depended mainly on the experience level of allied pilots - usually half of their fighters dove on the Ju 288s and helped to create a massive disadvantage for the few Spits trying to defend their bombers. If US/UK played smart it was rather easy to protect then, a few 410s tried their luck whilst the main axis force kept altitude. And there were at least 3 or 4 waves of landing craft, even after 50 minutes.
• The island af aaa was compared to todays level of af aaa a joke - at least 2019. Those days 1 or 2 P-47s were able kill all af aaa on standards maps and rtb…
• More than often US/UK teams managed to kill all aaa on the island - and landed there after the ai capture just to get slammed there by high speed low level attacks by the 1 or 2 Ju 288s which survived the 1st run…
• The main flaw: you could not end the match by tickets - if one enemy was able to spaceclimb (B-29s) - even the destruction of all 3 carriers (=no enemy base left) lead not to victory, their carriers simple respawned after ~ 5 minutes…

Have a good one!

[KillaKiwi]

Right. I haven’t used a Torpedo on an attacker in like 3-4 years 😂

One time I had a pacific map and spawned with a torpedo only to discover that our side didn’t have any naval targets 🙄

[AverageWehraboo]

Personal stats do not reflect vehicle performance.

[Metrallaroja]

It shows that I have played them and got good results to back up what I say about this planes.

[Warpig]

Not every plane can be “meta”. That’s just the way it is. Just like in real life.

[Ub3rshadow]

@KillaKiwi

Right. I haven’t used a Torpedo on an attacker in like 3-4 years

If only the very few naval targets you do ocassionally see in ARB gave more than a handful of points :/

[jd_hog77]

Ordnance nerfs are base on bug reports, not complaints.

[Real_K_Soze]

Imho this is now way off topic, so hidden.

Deterioration of average skill and random results whilst playing Air RB

@GoneToTheAether

Oh I liked the broad target variety too, but even so I see it as a necessity for all maps to spread the ground units and bombing objectives intentionally apart so that fighters literally CAN’T just sit on top of them all game and deprive nonfighters of their entire purpose.

I mean you just describe the effects of lack of experience on average and the change from a somehow enjoyable game which required skill, tactics and strategy into a plain shooter.

• Some years ago almost nobody was willing to lose altitude and or positioning to dive on enemy strike aircraft. The matches were long enough to kill all enemy players and early ticket defeats happened just on a few maps like Poland, Tunisia, the old Rhine map, etc…

• Today the first low spot get jumped, enemy plane see a low enemy jumping a friendly too and a few minutes later everybody is low. Unthinkable some years ago…

• And this absence of knowledge is not a matter of BR - whilst spading the HUN/IT Tu-2S-59 at 5.7 i saw dozens of players on both sides dying like noobs whilst using the forward airfield without aaa cover.

• I mean they removed the aaa on forward airfields six months ago - and these stupid id*ots managed to throw away clear number advantages by landing there.

@GoneToTheAether

And one team being totally annihilated means your nonfighter was totally irrelevant since that ticket bleed would have won things for your team had you done literally nothing at all.

I mean usually it is enough to stay alive in such cases. I can confirm this with anecdotal evidence.

• I used the BP Il-8 with a level 1 crew now 13 times - 9 wins and 4 defeats - without the last 2 matches (my team died before i was at 4.000 meters, so i flew back to af and j out) i had a win rate of ~80%.

• There were just 3 or 4 matches which i could actually influence - the rest of the matches ended so fast with ticket wins or the total destruction of the enemy team that i was lucky to score a few points with killing an ai plane.

• And in those 3 or 4 matches i scored a few 3rd party kills and all i had to do was to stay alive (last man on our team) as the other Il-8s (up to 7 more) killed so many ground units that it was impossible for the enemy to turn the tide.

• My mission score to fulfill the BP challenge of currently 6.000 results from 1 good match with 3.000 points killing the last enemy fighter and playing 1 vs 1 vs P1Y1 - he bombed and i killed a dozen medium tanks and some other stuff, but the ticket where so far ahead that he had to kill me to win, and he stayed away as i told him (10 minutes left) that i would leave him alone to do his bombing thing.

• So as written somewhere else: Just by lowering the standards to participate in Air RB with several measures (last significant imho 16 vs 16) and the flood of new players the outcome of most matches became a random event - determined by the number of non-pilots in both teams.

[Real_K_Soze]

@GoneToTheAether

Nah, not really. Every single one is based on complaints from tank mains salty about being bombed, who (presumably) lack the IQ and/or experience to step back from their own salty rage and look at the big picture.

Agree in general to bomb nerfs (despite i haven’t read the corresponding bug reports) - best examples SC 1800 nerf of explosion radius some years ago and stealth nerf of Tu-2s last year - they simply gave them “newer” bombs with less TNT to decrease the overall TNT load, despite that it is imho not proven that production of the old bomb type was stopped or that they haven’t used the old type…

[FeetPics]

"P-47 is literally useless..." Ok then.