The saddening situation bombers are in

[ZE4L0T]

I think it would be a good idea if everyone spawned in at the same altitude and bombers got access to a squadron of bombers like in the single player campaigns.

[GNDM_Panzer]

@PercussionCap

Sim

This is where you nullify nearly all of your argument.

Sim and RB are different animals. I trust you know this, so why mention it at all?

[PaulDPearl_TTV]

Yes I really think there need to be another way to introduce bombers into general battles so that they’re both useful as bombers and not flying all by themselves into the battle. That goes for all modes.

[PaulDPearl_TTV]

He said he spaded his bombers there…

and I say (as an active sim player) he may not have played as a bomber in sim recently.

The guns are effective but the gunners won’t open fire unless you’re on fire.

[PercussionCap]

@GNDM_Panzer

This is where you nullify nearly all of your argument.

Sim and RB are different animals. I trust you know this, so why mention it at all?

Because that’s where bombers are most useful, where objectives and match length allow them to be relevant. Bombers in RB only truly work at low tier where enemies are too poorly armed or too slow to be big threats.

Also, flying is slightly more challenging and involved than pointing your mouse one way and letting the instructor do all the hard work.

@PCPaulDPearl

he may not have played as a bomber in sim recently.

I played them like… last month? I don’t need gunners to fire automatically when I can (and SHOULD) do it myself.

[Zyranovos]

Sim is the best for bombing, hands down, it could be streamlined, like your bombardier knowing set target coordinates, and mark it on the map where it’s more visible from the bombardier sight.

We are still missing loads of bombers, the Handly Page Victor, Avro Vulcan, Tupelov 95 “Bear,” Tupelov 160 “blackjack,” the massive Convair B-36, and tons and tons more.

[QTip_44]

Flying the bomber and working the guns manually is just too much for a player to handle - especially when there is multiple fighters in the area that are attacking.

Fighters have such a huge advantage being much faster and more maneuverable - their targeting is already controlled by their path.

Bombers need something for sure as the planes at their BR climb too fast - interception BEFORE getting to base is inevitable if any fighter is not too lazy to climb. Once they climb there’s not much doubt about the outcome.

[CleanupOnIL-2]

the big advantage to bombers in sim is the 3rd person gunner view

[SpeclistMain1]

@PercussionCap

Just proved me right lmao

You’re wrong, as tailsitting is incredibly safe.

@PercussionCap

With a low closure rate, being a stationary target, and putting yourself in view of the most amount of defensive turrets? Again, delusional.

Being a stationary target isn’t going to matter if there are very few MGs that can fire at a tailsitter, of which every bomber I’ve ever played specifically has blindspots for most of the turrets directly behind the bomber.

@PercussionCap

Damn its almost as if you could just control them manually like every other vehicle in the game, aside from ships which have TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF GUNS.

It’s almost like bombers have different people doing different things in a bomber, just like in naval (fighters don’t).

@PercussionCap

The B-29 has two belly turrets, two dorsal turrets, and a tail gunner position.
The G8N only has one turret on belly/dorsal positions, alongside a tail gunner and a nose turret. The B-29’s turrets offer much better coverage as they’re closer together and any turrets on top/bottom (4/5 defensive positions) can shoot in a 360deg arc. On the G8N, only 2/4 can do the same.

B-29 Defensive Armament:

• 1 turret of 4x 12.7mm M2 (only AP, API, I, or API-T)
• 4 turrets of 2x 12.7mm M2 (only AP, API, I, or API-T)

G8N1 Defensive Armament:

• 3 turrets of 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 5 (HEF-T, HEF, APHE, FI, T)
• 1 turret of 1x 13mm Type 2 (AP, HE-I, I)
• 1 turret of 1x 13mm Type 2 (AP, HE-I, I)

Would you rather have the majority of your aircraft be covered by 2x 20mm cannons who get access to HE rounds, or the majority of your aircraft being covered by 2x 12.7mm with at best API? How about 2x 20mm with HE rounds at 6.0 BR or 2x 12.7mm with only AP rounds at 7.0 BR?

@PercussionCap

…which the G8N is not. It’s as slow and big as a heavy bomber.

It’s not that far off (<50 km/h) light and medium bombers at the BR.

@Gnza10091441

So what? The B-29’s turrets are just simple and useless machine guns. Sure, they might have twice as many barrels as the G8N1, but you also need ten times more hits to bring down a plane. Just watch how long it takes to kill a fighter with this gun:

Exactly.

@PercussionCap

.50cals are not useless by any stretch of the imagination lol. At least when I’m the one being shot at by .50s from a bomber, they have no issues whatsoever dispatching me with just a few hits.

What type of even-more-paper-than-bombers fighter are you flying?

@Admiral_Pieter

Play B-29, and see if those .50 cals are useful.

Exactly.

@QTip_44

Flying the bomber and working the guns manually is just too much for a player to handle - especially when there is multiple fighters in the area that are attacking.

Fighters have such a huge advantage being much faster and more maneuverable - their targeting is already controlled by their path.

Bombers need something for sure as the planes at their BR climb too fast - interception BEFORE getting to base is inevitable if any fighter is not too lazy to climb. Once they climb there’s not much doubt about the outcome.

Exactly.

[Gnza10091441]

It could be even stronger. In fact, the only reason the BV 238 is at 3.7 BR is that the turrets keep doing this abomination:

The day this plane can make its 12x13 mm + 2x20 mm actually reach the target, it will immediately become a 6.0 BR.

[Admiral_Pieter]

Yeah, thats quite true

[PercussionCap]

@SpeclistMain1

tailsitting is incredibly safe

Delusional.

@SpeclistMain1

there are very few MGs that can fire at a tailsitter

The B-29 can bring, at the very least, the same firepower as a P-51 to bear on someone tailsitting.

@SpeclistMain1

Would you rather have the majority of your aircraft be covered by 2x 20mm cannons who get access to HE rounds, or the majority of your aircraft being covered by 2x 12.7mm with at best API?

*6x 12.7mm due to much better turret placement

@SpeclistMain1

It’s not that far off (<50 km/h) light and medium bombers at the BR.

Up at 7600m, which you’ve said they’ll never reach. At low alt, the A-26B is 100kph faster than the G8N, even faster than some fighters.

@SpeclistMain1

What type of even-more-paper-than-bombers fighter are you flying?

Literally any fighter ever that isn’t something armored like a Bf 110 G.

[SpeclistMain1]

@PercussionCap

The B-29 can bring, at the very least, the same firepower as a P-51 to bear on someone tailsitting.

The B-29 can bring at most 4x 12.7mm M2 MGs with only AP rounds to bear on a tailsitter. That is BR 2.3 level armament. Actually, let’s compare the armament of the G8N1 to the B-29.

G8N1:

• Tail - 4x 20mm (T, FI, APHE, HEF-T)
• Maximum Side (assuming the top and bottom turrets can hit enemies if not blocked by the wing) - 4x 20mm (T, FI, APHE, HEF-T) + 1x 13mm (I, AP, HE-I)
• Minimum Side - 2x 20mm (T, FI, APHE, HEF-T) + 1x 13mm (I, AP, HE-I)
• Front - 2x 20mm (T, FI, APHE, HEF-T) + 2x 13mm (I, AP, HE-I)
• Top Hemisphere - 2x 20mm (I, FI, APHE, HEF-T) + 1x 13mm (I, AP, HE-I)

B-29:

• Tail - 4x 12.7mm M2 (AP, API, I, API-T)
• Maximum Side - 8x 12.7mm M2 (AP, API, I, API-T)
• Minimum Side - 6x 12.7mm M2 (AP, API, I, API-T)
• Front - 6x 12.7mm M2 (AP, API, I, API-T)
• Top Hemisphere - 6x 12.7mm M2 (AP, API, I, API-T)

Oh wow, the G8N1 has much better armament in virtually all areas and is at a lower BR.

@PercussionCap

Up at 7600m, which you’ve said they’ll never reach. At low alt, the A-26B is 100kph faster than the G8N, even faster than some fighters.

Potentially, but the same would apply to the B-29.

@PercussionCap

Literally any fighter ever that isn’t something armored like a Bf 110 G.

Ah, so nothing the B-29 currently faces (as everything it faces has enough armor to render the 12.7mm M2 virtually useless beyond 500m).

[PercussionCap]

@SpeclistMain1

The B-29 can bring at most 4x 12.7mm M2 MGs with only AP rounds to bear on a tailsitter.

3x of its turrets., 6x .50cals. Top ones can also attack backwards, if you’re banking a little or giving it some slip.

@SpeclistMain1

Oh wow, the G8N1 has much better armament in virtually all areas and is at a lower BR.

Man I wonder why the slower bomber with a fraction of the bombload is a lower BR

@SpeclistMain1

so nothing the B-29 currently faces

Again, bomber mains are delusional. Thinking 6x .50s does nothing when I just saw a Ki61 get obliterated by a P-61’s rear gunner (4x .50s) in seconds takes a special kind of mental problem.

[SpeclistMain1]

@PercussionCap

That’s not from a tailsitting position.

@PercussionCap

Man I wonder why the slower bomber with a fraction of the bombload is a lower BR

I wonder why the B-29 is at 7.3, then, since besides bombload it is massively slower than everything at its BR and does not have equal or favorable armament compared to the fighters around its BR.

@PercussionCap

Again, bomber mains are delusional. Thinking 6x .50s does nothing when I just saw a Ki61 get obliterated by a P-61’s rear gunner (4x .50s) in seconds takes a special kind of mental problem.

The Ki-61s -

• Ki-61-I Otsu: 3.7 BR, no frontal armor
• Ki-61-I tei: 4.3 BR, no frontal armor
• Ki-61-II Otsu Kai: 4.7 BR, no frontal armor

What the B-29 faces -

• Me-262: 7.0-8.0 BR, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the engines and the (extremely small) cockpit sides immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m
• Su-9: 7.0 Br, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the engines, nose guns, and (extremely small) cockpit sides immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m
• MiG-15: 8.0-8.3 BR, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the sides of the engine immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m

While these are not all of the opponents the B-29 faces, and not all of the planes that it faces have armor, but all of the opponents the B-29 faces can pen the B-29 from farther away than the B-29 can pen them.

Also don’t forget that the B-29 is facing against planes that go 1.3-1.6x as fast as the Ki-61s.

[PercussionCap]

@SpeclistMain1

The Ki-61s -

• Ki-61-I Otsu: 3.7 BR, no frontal armor

As is the case with the vast, VAST majority of fighters. Even the ones considered to be “durable” don’t have frontal protection, that only being granted to the pilot due to the engine being in the way.

@SpeclistMain1

Me-262: 7.0-8.0 BR, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the engines and the (extremely small) cockpit sides immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m

The fuel tank is unprotected, and any hit to the 262’s wings will make it almost unflyable due to a bad FM. It was designed to exclusively shoot at bombers, and its no surprise its good at doing it.

@SpeclistMain1

Su-9: 7.0 Br, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the engines, nose guns, and (extremely small) cockpit sides immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m

Again, the fuel tank is unprotected and like the 262, it can easily be hit from the front. No early jet engine is resistant to damage.

@SpeclistMain1

MiG-15: 8.0-8.3 BR, frontal armor that makes all of the aircraft except for the sides of the engine immune to the B-29’s bullets at 500m

Unlike the other two, hits to the fuselage will also result in engine damage. Also, this is now a full uptier for the B-29, and a situation where even with escort fighters and formations in real life, they suffered great losses.

[Gale_Cleven]

I agree!

[BOMBAY9997042-live]

@PercussionCap

This is also true for the B-29 and G8N.

also the b-25’s and b-17’s cause they also got tail gunners

[Admiral_Pieter]

Dont forget, some planes in the B-29 BR range apparently also carry Air to Air missiles…

[KillaKiwi]

The main issue is that a single 37mm HEFI will take off a B-29s wing or tail.

Germany considered 55mm cannons and ultimately used the 55mm R4M Rocket to down B-17 and B-24s in a single hit.

The R4M carries an insane 520g of explosive over a 37mm 40-50g and even the 55mm cannon shells carried 420g. Of course the 37mm can absolutely destroy a B-29 in a single hit, except the chances are very low, as the round would either need to disable the tail controls or explode inside the fuel tank to completely rupture it. Which non-realistic can only happen from an attack from below or above.

But since every aircraft in WT has the structural integritiy of a wooden toy aircraft, they just fall out of the sky after a few explosive rounds.

37mm HEFI-T from NS-37

Now that would be a hole with an area of whooping 0.56m² which is just a fraction B-17s tail controls and even making a square meter hole wouldn’t be detrimental.
But in WT you can say goodbye to your wing or tail.

B-17 Size

Now of course the 37mm entire point was to be an effective anti-bomber weapon but it’s still just one gun, and a 37mm isn’t a 50mm firing Mineshells with 350g of explosive.