Well yeah the disconnect between the modeling and people who apply armor thickness sometimes are not on the same page. For instance, the Bhishma T-90’s dozer blade should be of a variable thickness, especially where there is significant overlap of the material from the mounting points and the blade. This effects plenty of other dozers as well.
1 Like
Yeah, I was shocked that he just kicked his perfect chance to buff two soviet bombers, which are overrated because he just cannot accept buffs on B-52H and B-29.
Overrating every aspect of B-29 while disapproving of any aspect of Tu-4.
And Overrating B-52H’s aspect, which becomes worthless in Air Realistic, and only undersells Tu-95.
All of those bombers needed extra care, but he decided to kick it off because he didn’t want to buff B-29 and B-52H.
2 Likes
Btw, if you look it up in the wiki:
It shows the B-29 has more Hp in Wep, otherwise the same.
So @iegaatdao is just straight lying through his teeth, or purposely altering his modifications to bolster his argument, which is even worse.
It’s 2200 HP normally in both.
TU-4 2390 WEP HP.
B-29 is 2500 WEP HP.
But again, it’s so minor it doesn’t matter.
Spin it whatever way you want,
I like to weight things appropriately, which you continue to weigh one aspect much heavier.
It could be 99 better things vs 1 better thing. And to you. That one better thing makes whatever vehicle the br you desire.
Be more sensible.
Merely because it’s logical for the Tu-4 (which has been over br’d for years), and the Tu-95M to go down, doesn’t mean the B-52 has to, or the B-29
I have spaded one, one moment.
will edit this post to add image
Edit: added.
B-29 has slightly better hp on WEP
but both Tu-4 and B-29 are equally sluggish as heck.
Haha, hearing ‘be more sensible’ from a lad who overestimates everything which isn’t soviet, how generous.
Problem of you on that Tu-4 vs B-29 and Tu-95 vs B-52H argument, which we had on Tu-95 topic, was
YOU WEIGHS thing which have NO-USE-AT-ALL features of American bombers in Air Realistic to justify your soviet bias.
In Air Realistic, almost all of the bombers are worthless and have been generally overrated for years,
Both Tu-4 and B-29A are equally awful and share similar problems, so if Tu-4 need to go down, then B-29 also need to move down. It is illogical to keep Tu-4(8.0 → 7.3 according to your suggestion) one step higher than B-29(7.0)
Just like how keeping Tu-95M(8.3 → 8.0 according to yoru suggetion) one step higher than Tu-4(8.0)
2 Likes
What War Thunder needs to add is the rated HP at altitude. This is where the Tu-4 actually has more working HP. I believe the Wright R-3350 the B-29A-BN is using in War Thunder uses the water injection system that boosts takeoff power relatively close the figure shown in game.
2 Likes
You know ai answers are against TOS right?
Tu-4K with an unmanned MiG-15 missile…
Might be a perfect battlepass or event vehicle. peak.
1 Like
But the thermal profile of the tu4s engines is much worse at alt, so you end up having to throttle back significantly. With b29 the engines magically stop overheating past a certain alt and you can pretty much wep indefinitely. Tu4 has significantly worse flight performance overall
He might have just googled it, and Google gave an AI answer.
Correct. (The one thing you’ve said that is factually true). But setting a massive gap for practically the same plane…
Your opinion:
TU-4 7.7
And
B-29 6.7
Which is funny because:
They’re the same all around EXECPT the 23mm.
Which you agreed before, the probability of hitting shots is low in bombers, couple that with the fact the 23mms have much less ammo per belt…
b29 could absolutely go to 6.7, with tu4 I dont see gaijin ever putting it lower than 7.7. They still have ptsd from tu4s introduction that pretty much broke air rb entirely lol
Good, bombers should require team work to down.
2-3 fighters
No?
Don’t invent an argument, please?
What I called about that in that thread was
Tu-4 7.7 (if B-29 remains 7.0)
or
Tu-4 7.3 (If B-29 goes down to 6.7 from 7.0)
I explained two-step gaps.
Having more ammo per belt of 50cal is nearly worthless because Tu-4’s 23mm gives extremely higher DPS than B-29’s 50cal does,
If you aim and hit correctly, Tu-4 doesn’t need to reload before killing the first enemy threat, while B-29 is getting shot down by burning enemy and still has plenty of ammo left on M2.
2 Likes
Google summarizes everything these days. The sources it used were these:
For the Tu-4’s engines. Shvetsov ASh-73 Engine - Nuclear Companion: A nuclear guide to the cold war
For the Wright 3350-57 Boeing KB-29P Superfortress Specifications (1951) - Nuclear Companion: A nuclear guide to the cold war Note there is typos in the HP at altitude section on the B-29 as it states HP correctly, but not the altitude it was achieved at.
Edit- here is a further site that has the water injection wartime power figure for the B-29 which matches the in-game one. Boeing B-29 Superfortress
2 Likes
tu4 has several orders of magnitude more firepower than the b29. 50cals are absolute pea shooters in this game and you just WONT survive an interception unless you get a very lucky pilot snipe. At best you light them on fire and trade kills. tu4 can obliterate opponents from over 2km away.
4 Likes
The only winning thing on 50 cals besides ammo count, is their velocity being higher and for a longer distance.- Just got plenty of hits while spading this thing
That was one of the reasons why Tu-4 stuck to the frozen throne for decades,
Gaijin got traumatised about those death-star. XD
But seems Mr Uniquescorpion cannot admit that difference and wants to keep B-29 on 7.0 while Tu-4 goes down to 7.3, and called “realistically they should be the same BR.”
Yes, Tu-4’s BR should be rethought, but…
He just overrates 50 cal a bit too much.
2 Likes
iirc, ammo’s velocity itself is faster on 50cal than 23mm NR-23
but FI-T of Tu-4 can makes not only 23mm easier to aim, but also makes heavier punch on longer distance if bomber player manages to hit
While B-29’s 50cal cannot sustain significant damage against full metal jet fighters who want to shoot them down. Especially La-200 built for bomber-killer.