Nerfs are coming, there was a statement a bit ago from bvvd.
Probably with next big update, just need to wait.
1 Like
The damage model requires a whole heap of additional internal modules to be added to be in any way ‘realistic’. @Morvran did a good list on another thread. Bombers were not hollow empty tubes and the effects of all these components would need to be included in a realistic damage module, which would obviously be a hell of a lot of work (though I’d love for Gaijin to do it!). So what you’re really looking at is whether the current damage model is a reasonable analogue for damage to non-included modules, and I would suggest that it points to bombers being too sturdy as it currently stands.
Heavy Bombers also get very generous flight models which they can use without drawback. Throwing a bomber around like you can in Air RB would bounce the non-pilot crew around the interior and risk incapacitating them.
2 Likes
B-b-b-but dewd did you not see this one photo of this one bomber returning home with every engine on fire??? It just makes sense that bombers can tank missiles and HE cannon rounds.
1 Like
Old 666 was a B-17 fitted with additional .50 cal machine guns and it had extra machine guns in the catwalk incase one of the machine guns failed.
It was flown by Lt. Jay Zeamer Jr. and the bombardier was Joseph Sarnoski and the entire crew were awarded for their unescorted mission in Japan, in which Sarnoski was killed by a 20mm shell but kept on shooting despite his injuries until he succumbed.
The aircraft survived 5 cannon rounds and 187 bullets, had an oxygen fire (that was extinguished by the crew with their arms and rags), damage to controls, the instrument panel and the flaps didn’t work. And managed to successfully land. Without brakes.
It was attributed to 5 kills, but only two of them could be considered kills according to Japanese records. All of the crew of Old 666 were awarded and the mission is and remains the most decorated of any in American history.
1 Like
Probably helps that they don’t keep adding millions more modules that don’t serve any purpose to air vehicles. Unlike with tanks.
But they would serve a purpose, making damage to the aircraft more realistic. Internal fires, burning off ammo, oxygen tanks becoming impromptu internal missiles, hydraulics failures and loss of electrical power would all effect various aircraft to a greater or lesser extent. Without them bombers should have weaker than current overall damage models to compensate for these dangers not being there.
1 Like
Well if they have oxygen fires, I think it should be possible for the crewmen to put them out with rags and their own hands like what Old 666’s crew did.
I present to you: how to kill a bomber:
- Shoot engines. Not the fuselage
- don’t fucking sit in the 6 of a bomber where all it’s guns are pointed.
- congrats, you used three and a half IQ points to kill a bomber!
accept the fact that if you want ARB to be a place for your raging PVP boners to thrive and kill off all PvE aspects of ARB, then all vehicle families must have an ability to influence a match. That 6 kill bomber did nothing that a competent Yak-3U or He162 couldn’t have as well.
Describe downsides?
Ju288 was a fighter-bomber much before.
to be fair he argues not about PvE aspects but the fact Bombers are now fit different role. And ARB never was presented as PvE anyway
Until recently a group of bombers could destroy all the bases, destroy the airfield, and end a match without even having to look at a fighter or even fire off its turrets. Now that gaijin literally lobotomized base bombing, it has to fight other aircraft in order to win. They fucking shredded a bombers’ actual role in a match and are now mad that the bombers do something else to win matches. I don’t really loose sleep over fighters losing the throne for a bit.
1 Like
Honestly?? Skill issue. Bombers are easily avoidable, I’ve even won several matches when the enemy team had only bombers and mine had just a few fighters. Bombers are only a problem for fighters who don’t know how to counter them or who use planes with insufficient armament to shoot them down. Since most players are brainless, it’s normal to get a lot of kills.
Tanking 3000 20mm APHE and IT shells to one wing (outer, more fragile part of it) is somehow realistic?
Tanking several RP-3 rockets with 5,5kg of TNT each is somehow realistic?
Tanking a few 21cm rockets with 9,7kg of TNT each is somehow realistic?
2 Likes
Deadass if you put 3000 rounds of 20mm into someone’s wing and don’t hit their engines then that’s on you bruh
1 Like
That’s exactly my point. I compared the current bombers to the sturdy Zero while skilled or fast players can easily evade them, those who are slower or less experienced can be shot down by a bomber in the blink of an eye.
Did you know that bombers can fire their machine guns forward, too? Depending on the pilot, a bomber can be extremely dangerous—whether it’s attacking from the rear, the sides, or even from above. And for the record, I know perfectly well how to shoot down a bomber; I’ve heard people say “just shoot them down” more times than I can count. My real issue is that bombers often insert themselves into one-on-one dogfights between fighters, and they can also use their defensive turrets to attack fighters that have landed at an airbase—a place that’s supposed to be protected by anti-aircraft defenses—without any repercussions.
And the fact that bombers can rack up kills just as effectively as fighters is a major issue; aircraft like the B-25, for instance, can accumulate kills almost as easily as a fighter.
They get kills as quickly as a fighter because that’s the role they’re forced into. You remove all the bushes and the deer find something new to eat. You make it impossible for bombers to bomb shit and they find a new way to get RP. There is nothing wrong with what’s happened except what caused bombers to resort to pvp in the first place.
1 Like
In addition to the Ju 288, aircraft such as the B-25, B-26, Tu-2, PB4Y, Tu-4, G8N1, T18, BV 238, Me 264 and the Lincoln can also be used effectively in air-to-air combat.
I deliberately avoided the engine, to see how structurally tough the wing is. 3000 and it was still fine. Realistic as hell. But with 21cm rockets 2 hits to one wing caused engine fires, the plane happily continued to fly fine.
Realistic.
50mm cannon?
After about 15 shots of HE with 420g TNT each it was still doing OK.
Realistic.
Well, that’s what happens: both the Soviet seaplane and its Chinese premium copy typically just circle around the combat zone, taking down about 6 to 8 fighters.The only thing that saves you is that they are slow, and you can get away from them if you notice them approaching.