Yeah, it would be happy if heavy bombers spawned at a higher altitude, but it wouldn’t happen because I saw some fighter pilots who complained and wanted me to J-out or leave the match because they couldn’t climb up to catch me when I did the sideclimb thing.
Things would be even worse, and the complaint will be larger if we spawn higher,
I am a bit happy that Washington B.1 has added this update because I waited for the British B-29, which was part of our history, but frightened too much to spade it XD
But he said “But B-29 has more ammo per belt and it makes longer bursts, so it is equal.”
I mean yeah the sideclimbing was an issue and still is with things like Yak-28 pilots, but now we got plenty of things capable of getting to the strategic bomber altitude. Not to mention the playerbase has largely learned to climb compared to years ago when half the team would beg the other half to actually gain altitude.
Its incredible how lazy jet jocks are, they love to accuse anyone of spaceclimbing when its just a bomber at 30k ft that would take them 2 minutes to reach. They expect you to just j out and die. WT has been catering to the cod minded players for too long
Exactly. If it takes a Me-262 less than 5 minutes from the start of the game to do a suicide climb at my nose, it should not take more than 7 minutes to properly get to my altitude or higher and just remove me from existence. Plenty of aircraft outclimb the 262 as it is and I’m glad the A2D’s are on my team because those things climb up past me in less than a minute with their airspawn.
yeah, the fi-t 23mm shell has a high amount of explosive filler so its deadly out to its max range, where 50cal depends a lot more on velocity, and its damage really drops off. velocity definitely is the Achilles heel for the 115x23mm belts.
I disagree. Generally prop planes are easier to kill, and to add to that affect, it still took 4-8 rounds minimum to kill a target.
And don’t mind my accuracy, I hadn’t flown them in some time, and test flew them to make sure I wasn’t incorrect.
Wdym I’ve admitted time and time again the 23mms are better… you’re literally just making up nonsense at this point.
But the better defensive armament is not justification enough to be 2 br steps above the B-29.
Answer me this, if you removed the defensive armaments from both, are they, or are they not the same plane?
(Yes I know the B-29 has more WEP power, and 8k more~ bomb load)
Test fire against AI plane, which open fires to you at 400m-ish, brang it into argument which we talks about real match…
Glad that you quoted part of my counter-reply, so no need to say it again.
B-29 with 50cal cannot have a chance against interceptors with autocannons
While Tu-4 with 23mm can resist against interceptors with autocannon, and can deal with some American jets with 50cal, unless they shoot missiles at you on uptier.
It is worlds apart, and everyone except you agrees it is a major difference.
I wonder why you just want to backstab everyone who tries to buff Tu-4.
Because of your hatred against American planes.
Because player-controlled fighters will decide when to shoot at longer distances.
and B-29 will be outranged and outgunned by enemy jets armed with autocannons
(Because 50cal cannot deal significant damage over 500m unless you pilot-snipe him, and even if you lit fire on enemy jet, they still have time enough to shoot you down before their hull burnt into a crisp.)
While Tu-4 can shoot them back because Tu-4 also has autocannons, which have similar range, and can just cut their wing off, which makes them instantly unable to shoot you down because they lost control of their fuselage.
I really wonder how many times I need to explain the same thing.
From there, and here,
At this rate, I reckon I need to think that you are ragebaiting me to get me tempered hard.
Yes arent worlds apart. Means it’s not an instant win for the 23mm.
12.7mms lights more fires upon a hit generally. (Which typically results in a vehicle burning down)
23mms do more raw damage
Maybe it’s because I’m the only one who isn’t blind?
But yet you say I am biased against American planes which simply isn’t true… I quite love the IRIAF F-14A among others.
No, it is worlds apart and means it is instant win for 23mm compared to 50cal.
Because 23mm’s API-T or FI-T doesn’t even need to light fire to kill the enemy plane because they can deal drastically better raw damage, it also has a chance to light fire. Because it is
Armour Piercing Incendiary-Tracer, and Fragmentation Incendiary-Tracer shell.
Reason why do you see 23mm NR-23 lights have less fire is that you don’t even need to.
If we just think NR-23 was 12.7mm instead of 23mm and deals the same raw damage just for arguing’s sake, NR-23 could light more fire than M2 because
-If we think about 12.7mm UB, you might have more ammo per belt because 50cal ammunitions are smaller than 23x115mm ammo.
-and NR-23’s belt contains more incendiary shells compared to M2’s belt.
-also NR-23 has a higher rate of fire compared to M2.
Congratulations to you for simply backstabbing everyone else who can fight for the buff Tu-4 down
Because you just don’t want to see American planes get buffs.
You should have to answer that, because you make it seem like the Tu-4 is better in every category over the B-29 when is simply isn’t.
As I said previously, sure, I’ll agree a 1 step br gap is perfectly fine to me for the defensive armament difference because it is more powerful, but it like the B-29 need to hit the incoming enemy first.
So since they’re the same plane just with 1 minor difference, how can you still stand to justify this:
“B-29 6.7 and Tu-4 at 7.3” as you’ve said before. Please try to justify it reasonably now.
No? How in the world is telling that 23mm NR-23 is stronger than 50cal M2 considered biased?
NO??? What is the problem with you?
It isn’t 1 step br gap,
And both are same plane with 1 MAJOR difference.
Think about Spitfire Vb and Vc
Mk. Vb have 2x 20mm and 4x 7.7mm, and staying 4.0BR, and Mk.Vc have 4x 20mm and are stuck at 5.0BR
Both have the same engine and similar fuselage, except for slight wing changes
But thanks for that, Spitfire Mk Vc has significanlty higher BR than Mk.Vb. because of 2x extra 20mm.
Or, you can think about some legacy soviet bombers such as Yer-2, or some british bomber such as Wellington, or Sunderland.
Those are literally the same aircraft, but they get a BR increase of ‘one or two gun changes or an extra 7mm defensive gun’
But Tu-4 did full change, changed all of turrets with from 50cal to NR-23, somewhat similar to change gun of sherman from 75mm to 17pounder.
If Tu-4 only swapped their tail turret and other turrets still uses 12.7mm, then it might be one step BR difference, but it swapped every turret’s weaponry to 23mm, and if we consdier other precident bombers, it isn’t 1 step br gap difference.
I already explained this before, probably in the comments on the last thread, which is now deleted.
I explained it reasonably before, but you are the one who didn’t listen last time and doesn’t listen now.
I don’t need to explain spec difference between 23mm NR-23 and 50cal M2 all over again, right?
