Thank you thank you, for proving to the audience, that you are in fact biased!
I try to be a nice guy, but sometimes you do make it difficult
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?
3 Likes
Spoiler
you will need to. This dude is practically a kid, “wins” every argument by throwing 1 incorrect point over and over like if its the best flawless response ever.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
A nice and upstading guy doesn’t play deaf to push an agenda.
That you have a bitter resentment to other nations you don’t play should be kept to oneself.
A 20 mm FI-T can already black out a wing section in one round, what does a 23mil FI-T do?
I will also mention Tu-4 recieves a full belt of these, while the B-29 recieves 1 incendiary round, which can’t pen the skin of reserve aircraft reliably and will only start a fire if you shoot an air-cooled radial from the front where it is exposed.
Even if 23mi FI-T and 12.7mm API aren’t worlds apart as you love to lie on about.
23mm NR-23 still beats in the 12.7mm M2 in firerate, which means even if the NR-23 only fired API it would still beat the M2 in simply dicerolls for a fire per second.
B-29 and B.1 to 6.7
Tu-4 and Tu-4 (china) to 7.3
1 Like
You say I lie all the time which is hilarious.
Show where I’ve lied? If you’re sooo certain I have.
You say I don’t play other nations, when I do. Check my stat card.
Oh, and from you own post, check YOUR OWN screen shots. Because you said:
Which shows the Universal belt to have:
AP-I/ I / AP-I / AP-IT
The universal belt is so goated for lighting fires.
Lastly, no, I’m not deaf and I’m not pushing an agenda because I disagree with you and many others that commonly like to try and nerf Russian vehicles.
I have played pretty much every nation besides Israel, and have a good amount of time in each game mode.
I reckon you should’ve just told us you lied, because if you hadn’t lied, it would mean you lack an understanding of the general gameplay of bombers.
You are severely overestimating the firepower of the 50cal while drastically underestimating the firepower of the 23mm NR-23.
Effective range, raw damage or DOT damage via fire, how to take the enemy down generally, or the enemy’s gun/cannon range, and such.
I hope you were intentionally lying because it would be sad if it were concluded by mistake.
Ohhhh, you found his mistake, great work, that is how gish-galloping and sealioning works, and how to use it.
Spams tons of questions, tossing the burden of proof to others, making them tired, and nitpicking the little mistakes to run ‘Fallacy Fallacy’.
‘Single La-200 armed with triple 37mm N-37 singing the choir to get free kill named as B-29A’
Even if the universal belt of B-29A is goated to lightning fire as your take says, just for arguing’s sake.
1- It is worse than the M20 API-T Tracer belt, which can be used on other planes such as P-51H or F-84B, F-86A for light fires
2- It doesn’t have a chance to light fire against enemy interceptor jets because they will almost always outgun you and outrange you.
3- It is worse than 23mm NR-23’s FI-T belt, which is filled with full of FI-T or a stock belt that contains both AP-I and FI-T in a 1/1 ratio. Even if we consider it as 12.7mm NR-12.7 hypothetically for argument’s sake.
Commonly like to try and nerf Russian vehicles?
Mate, you are biased as heck, or deaf. According to your statements, we all were intentionally trying to nerf Tu-4 further, no?
But we all were talking about how to buff Tu-4 ‘and B-29’, we were talking about buffing her, but you came up and backstabbed everyone because you simply don’t want to see buffing B-29A, by making silly take about the firepower of 50cal and such.
If you are not deaf, then you might be biased, because you saw everything but cannot agree with others because you just cannot admitting about B-29 needs a buff.
If you are not biased, then you might be deaf, because you backstabbed allies who tried to discuss how to buff it.
So do I.
No, it doesn’t seem that you have a good amount of time in Air Realistic, especially about bombers and strike aircrafts.
You played 28hour 26min as a bomber in Realistic, and played 83 hours 28 minutes as a strike plane.
Total approx 112hours.
I played 228hr 16min of bomber gameplay, and 243hr 9min as a strike plane in Realistic
Total approx 471hours.
I excluded other game modes because this discussion is tagged as Realistic Battle and Air.
So, you have drastically less gameplay time than us about mud movers and ground grinder, but somehow want to frame us as ‘Americans who want to nerf Tu-4 badly’
This is quite ridiculous. No nice and upstanding guy plays like this.
2 Likes
already told and adressed a lot of times already by a lot of people already.
Spoiler
Spoiler
We are literally doing the opposite, trying to buff the Tu-4, that scorpion wants to sabotage the thread to screw over non-soviet planes is another topic. Which could then be used to justify a buff into the Tu-95 which is met by a brickwall currently if it wants to come down, which then can be chained into the B-52.
Pretty funny he’s trying to frame us as the agenda pushers while he does it over and over and over again.
2 Likes
You’ve been the one whining the TU-4 cannot be 1 br step above the B-29, as well as the one complaining about the 23mm.
I said, and I’ll say it again, maybe you’ll read it this time… (probably not, knowing you)
The B-29 can be 6.7
And the TU-4 can be 7.0
Or
The B-29 can stay 7.0
And the Tu-4 can be 7.3
You openly admitted that the B-29 is identical to the TU-4 and vice versa, in all but defensive armament.
Nor did I ever call you an American player. Just saying you have a history of hating Russian vehicles.
Why are you getting so heated?
Is it because I actually look at every aspect of a vehicle?
Or maybe it’s the fact I use actual facts, experience, and logic to dictate good decisions for the game?
Can you show me the universal belt on the B-29 again?
Oh wait…
Hmm… seems to be more than 1 incendiary round, I must be lying again
Dig your hole with Stockholm deeper.
Because you two are?
How am I screwing the B-29 in any sense? Please, enlighten me. I have not advocated for any nerfs to the B-29
No no no no no no no no.
You are the one who cannot accept that 23mm NR-23 acts drastically better than 50cal M2.
I explained that it is a MAJOR difference and presented precedents such as Spitfire Mk.Vb vs Vc or Wellington and such, and I explained why B-29 and Tu-4 cannot have 1 step above.
This cannot happen because the weaponry changes from B-29 to Tu-4 are drastically bigger than the weaponry change between Lancaster B.1(Uses 4x .303 Browning on tail turret) to Lancaster B.3 (uses 2x 50cal M2 on tail turret) and many other bomber examples in this game.
You claimed you love playing bomber, eh? Then how in the world can you not notice the BR difference between defensive armaments?
AND IT IS WHY B-29 AND TU-4 NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO BR STEP DIFFERENCE.
What will be your next step? Claiming F-14A IRIAF(13.3BR) needs to go back to 12.7BR because it is nearly identical to F-14A compared to USN counterparts on 12.7BR and having Fakour-90 while changing AIM-9H to AIM-9P was the only difference?
There are some aspects that need to be considered more than a single br gap; you are just ignoring it because you just don’t want to admit it. because it doesn’t seem to you for biasing Tu-4.
Don’t frame me into russian hater. If I really hate russian vehicle at all, I WOULD NEVER SPADED EVERY RUSSIAN BOMBER IN THE TECH TREE at all, and probably yapping about nerfing Tu-4 further up to 8.3 and such instead of telling Tu-4 needs a buff.
See? You are the one who backstabs players who wants to buff russian buff because you just cannot accept that you need to let some American vehicles face the same fate and need similar care.
Because you are doing neither of those. You are doing ragebaiting instead.
You are looking at aspects that are completely invalid in air realistic mode (according to Tu-95M vs B-52H debate)
You are not using facts and using logic to dictate a bad decision for the game.
If you had really looked at every aspect of a vehicle, you would’ve noticed how superior 23mm NR-23 is to 12.7mm M2 decades ago, and if you used actual facts, you probably would have led to the same conclusion.
Tu-4 can be 7.3BR if B-29 becomes 6.7BR
or
Tu-4 can be 7.7BR if B-29 stay 7.0BR
Current 8.0BR is a bit too much to keep Tu-4 there, but you are just pushing an illogical idea to bias russian vehicles, and eventually will lead to keeping Tu-4 forever stuck in 8.0BR, because you backstab every potent ally who plays bombers for bad faith, then nobody else will side with you and would fight for Tu-4 buff.
You are the one who is killing Tu-4 and helping Gaijin to Ashame bombers further.
2 Likes
Everyone seems to forget the history of battle ratings between these two planes to begin with. When the TU-4 was first added in 1.59, it was the same 6.3 br as the B-29. By update 1.63, the Tu-4 was at 8.0 with the B-29 at 6.3 still. The b-29 only came up to 7.3 during the bomber spam era as a way to stop people using it so much. All bombers during this time also got nerfs to ai gunners.
Dude
I talk about the I round, M23 I Belive, that is the round that it’s basically useless, if you want to use the best belt you have to load 1 of those
NR-23’s best round is the FI-T / FI round, which it recieves a full belt of.
Your reading comprehension is below the floor pal.
If I wanted to talk about the AP-I, I would have mentioned the “API” and not attached a picture that supposedly “contradicted” my point right below it.
B-29 to 6.3
Tu-4 to 7.0 or 6.7
Not sure about a B-29 at 6.3, even if it is a heavy bomber it has very good performance, climbs very well and it is pretty easy to make catch a nice fast-y pace.
Basically make it as playable as the G8N1
It does. But we have to look at how that performance compares against what it faces. A Ki-83 (6.0 br) shouldn’t have any trouble with it, right?
And I wish the game would give high-altitude interceptors the attention they deserve by actually letting them fight other aircraft at altitude, the way they were designed to.