Can we just have a pause about attacking bombers and come back to bomber gameplay plz
I know we fighter bois love about tactics but Here is for some chilled flying fortresses
2 Likes
I really can’t stand it. I’ve been playing bombers these two days. As long as the enemy plane fired continuously, it would either break its wings or tail, and it would have no power to fight back. My God! Save the bomber. My God! Save the bomber.
Yea cause of the grind for the BP (of which the reward is a bomber daugh) i really got frustrated with the current challenge aka “killing three with bomber without dying”…
I don´t have the PE-8 and I don´t have the Lancaster… So maybe it´s just me but flying my bomber in ground RB always goes the same. Spawn, enemy fighter (mostly big gun yak) closes in and oneshots my He-177, B26 or even B-24 wing… If no fighter is there, then targets vanish and there ain´t noone around to bomb…
I would love to enjoy bombers more. I like it in Air RB but theres the same damn problem - bombers are so weak, they break by a crew member sneezing…
Please Gaijin, you added a few bombers in the last Battlepasses, make them more durable and more enjoyable for the players!
I understand that the game allows it and it’s just a game, but taking four-engine planes into ground unit mode?
From your list, maybe only the Marauder would be bearable, and even that is on the edge… The other planes are big clumsy boxes, so an easy target for ground AAA and ideal for a fighter or fighter attack low above the ground…
Bombers are an addition to the game, the maps in ARB are built a lot on targets in a relatively small area and for destroying ground AI mobile equipment…
Try to find out what the He-177 attacked (the only one is such an early multi-purpose bomber aircraft - ground and sea targets), the army version of the B-24, which is in the game, and the Marauder…
If you exclude the carpet bombing of city infrastructure, which is a war crime in today’s real world and the game definitely does not support it,
then you have military stations, military trains, war factories, military ports, critical infrastructure of cities and ports, bridges, against supply ships, ground convoys of military vehicles …
How many of these targets are installed on game maps?
I have long thought that air maps should have the character of targets, medium to strategic bombers…
Ground maps for attack aircraft of the close air support type and
ship maps for aircraft operating over the sea, coast and oceans, ports, convoys, etc…
But that’s how Gaijin imagines it…
the Formation mod might be good, but i think (my opinion) being able to spawn 2 enemy fighters (1.0 br lower then the bombers so it aint too OP) that have the aim of the current ai ball turrets, the formation mod you spoke about is also good, but wouldnt it be counterproductive? i mean 3 bombers on 1 spot, seems like a free rp alley for an interceptor like the XP-50 (i might be wrong, but i play the XP-50 alot and it shreds planes)
1 Like
I have my own suggestion page for this issue:
including poll options from other people’s comments. If enough people vote on this suggestion (particularly if it is on one of the more easily added systems) then we might be able to badger Gaijin into doing something about it.
I strongly agree with this point.
I have developed a strong dislike of XP-50s and similar for this reason when flying the pitifully defended British bombers.
It works both ways. Three bombers can provide a lot more defensive firepower. They wouldn’t drop bombs at the same time.
But I was talking about how bombers being actual flying fortresses are the more fun (and more PvP-friendly) implementation of them. I mean I started playing War Thunder to fly the B-29 as a gunship, as growing up it was one of the main military aircraft I thought were cool and I knew I’d like “3D naval combat” (for a lack of a better word) from my experience playing Warframe’s Empyrean missions.
1 Like
The B-29 is practically the reason why Germany created R4M rockets and were invested in creating 55mm high and low velocity auto-cannons, which would destroy a B-29 in a single hit.
They already had 50mm Mineshells but opted for an even larger caliber to deal with potential B-29s flying over Germany.
A single fighter has almost no chance to take down a B-29 without getting shot down first.
Of course a Jet with heavy firepower and high speed would give the crew little time to defend and put the odds in favour of the Jet again.
When I read about bomber formations here…
When the game started, the standard bomb bases in the game were the same as they are today.
And players tried to stay in formations of two or three bombers…
The problem started when one player dropped bombs and had to escort a team player over another base…
The player who had completed the task immediately turned back to the airport and left the other one there…
That’s why players stopped flying in formations…
The only solution would be one common target, as shown in the screenshot from the game, a huge train station (it could also be a huge factory, airport, port, or something similar)…
It would be ideal for players to keep the formation when flying to the target.
Absolutely complete destruction would not be possible, such a station could realistically be destroyed, perhaps by an entire squadron of B-29 strategic bombers…
So it would be a single target for all aircraft, bomb carriers…
It would certainly mean a problem for fighters, such a defensive firepower of gunners would find its target …
And as is often the case in this game, there would be a huge influx of tearful players who want to shoot down their four-engine bomber quite comfortably, without major difficulties…
The formation of bombers means an approximation to reality… and reality was harsh… Even though many four-engine bombers were shot down, the pilots who had more were very appreciated.
So while I would love to see this in the game, and considering what Gaijin has already been able to create in the game, this would be a small thing for him…
I don’t believe we’ll ever see it…!
As someone already wrote here on the forum, bombers are designed for cheap shooting down and easy SL gain…
You have to have completely top-notch crew training and learned how to properly pre-empt your own shooting with onboard gunners…
Otherwise, you have to come up with all possible methods to fly over the base, remain undetected, etc…
It would be a completely different character of the game…
A different reward budget, all players in a relatively small area, simply something completely different, it would have to be a completely different style of fighter attack… There would definitely be a lot of ramming when the player was overcome by anger, etc…
So it seems to me that it would not be for everyday play, but I would like to see it in irregularly recurring events…
Not only a very good event like Ruhr-Guardian Angel, which is more about air supremacy at 7,000 meters (USA vs. GER), but also this type of event…
2 Likes
I couldn’t agree more, and this has been brought up time and again. I do not understand the choke hold the fighter mafia has on this forum or why it never is approved as a dev suggestion even though it has been submitted many times. See below …
This is from my perspective not correct.
The R4M was the logical consequence of the eternal fight between heavy caliber guns (which added a hell of weight and severely affected flight performance) and easy to use low weight & drag but high speed unguided rockets. Minimizing the time being in danger to return fire (by styying outside of it) whilst granting a kill with a single hit was the driving aspect; and not the B-29.
The idea to put high caliber cannons like 50 mm or more to kill bombers was not born by the LW ifself - you find various claims in biographies / memoirs that this was solely the idea of a famous Austrian artist…
This is a wild claim too. If you look up the insane speed of the Ta 152 H at very high alt with a top speed of 750 kmph at 12.5 km (and a service ceiling of 13-15 km…) you see irl examples able to outclimb it and engage at will.
Imho the B-29 in-game performs way outside irl combat attack profiles (meaning the come in too slow but way too fast) but we saw them years ago dying like flies being outclimbed by almost everybody…at 6.3 in Air RB…
The Ta 152 H isn’t nearly as fast compared to the B-29 to make any difference with the cannon armament it has.
The targeting computer of the B-29 allows it to engange fighter aircraft effectively at 800m from any direction.
But sure, the Ta 152 H has a lot better chances than other fighter but it’s also a purpose built high-atlitude bomber interceptor.
But you need to realize that the B-29 is not only larger than a B-17, has better defensisve capabilities but is also equipped with fire extuingisher systems for the fuel tanks, making it a lot harder to destroy with regular cannons.
So a Ta 152 H attacking a B-29 wouldn’t be much difference than a Bf 109 attacking a B-17.
But it’s also a moot point. Of course you can built a prop fighter that can have decent chances to take out a B-29 but what are you sacrifacing for that?
Firepower, armor protection and high altitude performance are all going to make the plane expensive, heavy and not ideal for a general purpose.
If you want to make sure that you’re plane takes out a B-29, then you might wanna stick a 55mm cannon on it. Even when you get shot down, it’s still a good trade.
If the B-29 wasn’t as weak to structural failure and fires as in WT and the defensive armament was actually as effective as in RL, you wouldn’t even want to engage a B-29 in any prop that isn’t equppied with 21cm or R4M rockets.
Otherwise you wouldn’t survive the engagement heavily damaged or not at all.
Playing with big bombers is what kept me hooked on the game when I first started. In low BR, being a bomber and feeling like a fortress—with multiple engines, a crew defending you, and being a massive target—was amazing. However, as you progress to higher BRs, with higher caliber rounds it feels like any fighter can one-shot you in a blink, no matter how “big” or strong your bomber is supposed to be.
For this at least, what with the massive influx of bombers in air sim this past few weeks - I feel defensive armament of most allied bombers I encountered has been very effective if the fighter it’s facing is limited to: must fly in close enough for visual IFF or the marker to pop in (less than 1 km); must fly in close enough for effective guns range (~500 meters) and stay there long enough to hit sufficient shots to do damage.
Usually my bomber-hunts in the ki-43 III turned into dealing critical damage to a flight control surface like rudder or elevators, my engine turning yellow and oil leaks and both of us limping back to base. Sometimes the bomber crashes like 5-10 minutes after the engagement unable to land with the damage, sometimes engine dies before RTB and sometimes nothing happens.
In perspective of prop tier air sim at least, defensive armaments feel quite adequate. Even the PBM felt quite deadly when I flew it and people took out HVAR to deal with it after getting tired of how much more survivable it was with those limitations. My last Ki-43 game, the allied team relied entirely on tail-gunner armed planes (B25, B26, A26, P61, PBJ) to gunboat about the air superiority points.
I’m not sure how to make the defensive armament actually effective in an environment where you can prop hang snipe bombers from 1.5-2km out with incredible precision and ease though. Especially without it, in gaijin’s greatness, also transferring to air sim (as proven by their “missile evaded” and other red text affecting both modes indiscriminately…)
1 Like
As a B-29 pilot, I can confirm; the targeting computer does jack sh*t
1 Like
No offense, but you are trying to defend some ideas whilst following a myth of defensive capabilities the B-29s which was a result of experiences solely gained in the PTO.
Don’t get me wrong, i love the B-29 from a design perspective (and it was my first 1/48 scale model decades ago) and read almost everything about them - but you missed the crucial parts of my response.
- Speed
-
Arguing with speed of B-29s makes no sense as you have to consider theoretical top speeds vs reality; the key to long ranges was fuel efficiency based on way lower cruise speeds. In addition the maximum speed and range is determined by bomb load and altitude.
-
So if you want to carry a massive payload you can’t fly very long distances, fly extremely high or extremely fast as the more your plane weights, the more you need engine power to keep it at level flight as you AoA produces more drag.
-
So a fighter able to out-climb the average formation of around 100 B-29s at 9-10 km (and their escorts at 11-12 km) whilst being faster than every allied fighter above 10 km AND having a two stage supercharger with 3 gears and GM-1 injection for 30 minutes on WEP is fully capable of attacking a B-29 with the best tactical approach possible.
- Armament vs bombers
-
Your points are not convincing: Nobody is willing to carry a 5-600 kg heavy 50 or 55 mm cannon to 9-10 km altitude whilst being there nothing more than a snack for escort fighters.
-
So in theory the idea to stay outside the gunner range and sniping them with high caliber and high velocity cannons is not bad (and it worked sometimes) but the escort fighters killed this option.
-
The sole idea of fighting bombers is to limit the time whilst being a target during an attack on them whilst providing the most lethal punch in the smallest time frame possible.
That’s why the high RoF of the MK 108 made sense - even considering the poor ballistics as a few hits kill every known bomber - including the B-29.
- Defensive turrets of B-29s & effectiveness
-
Iirc the analog targeting computer was an extremely expensive part of the B-29 project and was proven ineffective above Korea due to way too high closing speeds of MiG 15s. Based on the fact that ~ 45 % of JP attacks in WW 2 on B-29s came from 12 o’ clock you might acknowledge you have high closing speeds also much earlier. So either the system worked only vs tailchasing prop fighters with way too low access speed or it did not work vs very fast attacks.
-
The B-29 gunner claims (as reference why the system was effective) are as reliable as B-17 gunner claims - overclaiming was the logical result of the lack of actual observations (e/a crashed or not) due to rather high altitudes, stress within combat and multiple ships firing at the same targets at the same time.
-
In other words: The official K/D ratio of B-29s of 11.7:1 is actually a joke. Same as the Mustang with 11:1 as they counted ground kills too. A short reminder: The initial claims of F-86s vs MiG 15s was 10:1. With some digging you find more convincing values between 1.3 and 2:1…
Have a good one!
As you might like rockets:
The so called “Grosszerstoerer” He 177 with a Battery of BR 21 derivates - task was to fly below (and slightly offset) bomber formations and break them up with 33 (!!!) 21 cm rockets…
1 Like
It was useless against Jets but we are talking about props. A Mig 15 is leagues ahead of a Me 262, so whats that even supposed to prove?
I’m putting up the B-29 against prop aircraft of WW2, which have little chance of succeding to take out the B-29 without getting shot down in return and a lot of them will not even be able to take out the B-29.
I didn’t even start going into kill claims. I’m sure a lot four engined bombers were claimed destroyed as well, when they actually made it back to base.
I generally am talking about a War Thunder scenario, comparing it to RL.
Of course a Ta 152 H can put itself into a situation which drastically increases the chance to succeed in taking out a B-29 but that takes time and preperation.
In WT you won’t find a bomber at 10km, unless he wasn’t engaged and climbed away.
If a B-29 in WT wouldn’t lose it’s wing or tail from a single 37mm HE round but were able to tank as many hits as they could in RL, having targeting computers for the crew and fuel tank fire extuingishers, the chance of taking out a B-29 without getting shot down in return would be very slim in most cases.
Unless you going for a head-on approach, which would have the best change to succeed while escaping unharmed.