Tu-95M buff

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
319

These really aren’t worlds apart. Even with my terrible aim, given I haven’t flown either in quite some time, I will still able to down the Ai aircraft relatively quick.

I even tried to hit them with one shot (4 rounds) of the Tu-4’s 23mms and was only getting Hits, on the weaker prop planes. (For some reason despite me setting the brs between 8.3, 7.7 and 7.3, 6.7 for the B-29 no jets spawned.)

The footage is quite clear the B-29’s universal belt is rather good at killing targets outright or starting fires.
The TU-4 still takes more than one hit and is better, but still isn’t a 2 step br gap. It didn’t light a fire, and granted I let them get much closer (not intentionally) in the TU-4.

Point of the matter is…
This is more than acceptable:

For Air Arcade / Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.3

For simulator:

TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

For Ground Realistic / Sim:

TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

For Naval Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

If you think the B-29 should go to 6.7 (Which is another topic) then the TU-4 can be 7.0

1 Like
321

Its really not bad for a nuclear warhead…

322

Like i said before it is reasonable for the Tu-4 to be 7.3 while the B-29 is 7.0

Yes they aren’t real players, but I’m glad you finally got the point.

“In a real Air-RB match don’t even give you a chance against them.”
Your words, not mine, so why in any reality, does it make sense to have a 2 br gap?

So like I said before unless it’s a guaranteed hit chance, what on earth does it matter?

.50 cals set easy fires, 23mms do better outright damage. It’s not a big enough gap to make a 2 step difference, and like you just pointed out, it is hard to damage the enemies flying at you.

And pretty commonly I was getting a fire per 1 .50 cal, and a “hit” (likely more non visible damage) from a 23mm.

In either case they’d both be screwed.

Hence, why the TU-95M despite having better defensive armament is still much worse.
Because:

  • its slower
  • turns slower
  • has spread out armament and higher dispersion

I’m all for them adding the Radar to the B-52’s rear gun as well, but again, it should be 2 br steps above the TU-95m in all modes except AAB, and ARB.

326

I have done no such thing.
image

Do you have any credible data that the 12.7mm actually has less effective range in game?

How does it have “more chance to shake them off”? They go the same speed. Any semi skilled player can avoid incoming rounds, also the pilot has to be rather skilled or rather lucky to strike the incoming aircraft.

Easy. Newer air players are almost always playing USA.
Additionally, a lot of people bring the B-29 into grb and nrb. In which it’s not really meant to be.
It also has 10k more matches in it.

More veteran players typically will drift into Russia and others.
Myself included, started by playing USA air, and German ground. I didn’t touch Russia until much later.

330

Pretty sure telling people to go away to against ToS… just a fair warning.

Oh and why you don’t balance vehicles off of stats alone, is simple. Stats do not justify how effective a vehicle it. Nor does its attributes.
Therefore taking both is the best solution.

So you couldn’t find anything concrete to back up your claim?
(All this and we didn’t even mention how the 12.7mms velocity is better than the 23mm
12.7mms: 866m/s
23mms: 690 m/s)

So do you capitulate that this is acceptable?
Like I’ve been extremely reasonable with you.

For Air Arcade / Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.3

For simulator:

TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

For Ground Realistic / Sim:

TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

For Naval Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7

331

It needs cruise missiles.

332

As this is a public forum, Any users are free to engage in this discussion. It is not for anyone here to decide who can or cannot comment.

If you want to argue fully, Then take it to private messages.

While some comments that have been removed did contribute to the discussion. It also had wording that is too argumentative and is attacking certain user(s). So for that reason they will stay removed.

1 Like
334

Sticking to the topic then. Can I just mention that neither of the bombers was ever meant to be anything other than a meme vehicle. Otherwise you’d see more use of them across the board. Realistically speaking. Predominantly stuff like this a bit of fun and nothing more. I think any arguments over fine tuning the BR is thus moot. Otherwise you go into the rabbit-role of trying to ‘fix’ lots of meme vehicles that probably don’t need fixing. Nothing to be gained there.

It also isn’t the highest priority. Substantially more broken vehicles need looking at.

A certain robust AFV at top tier could be mentioned here…

That’s my 2p anyway. I see no reason for the looooooong arguments over a vehicle that isn’t used all that much or having an effect on the game. That is all.

2 Likes
335

There’s meme vehicles all over that are quite good in the game.

For example:
Tog 2
USS Douglas
Obj.292
Z-19E

Just to list a few… but like I said they’re all effective.

Now, yes, bombers are a meme in and of themselves because they do this when hit once:
image

However, people like myself do legitimately enjoy flying them.

The problem is how high in br the TU-95M is despite it not being nearly as good as its counterpart the B-52.
Especially in simulator and yes I know I keep harping on this one mode, but people severely underestimate what goes on in sim, it’s typically where all the bomber players are.

And say it’s an 8.7 match. (In sim you can kinda pick the top br) if you’re trying to outbomb a B-52 with a TU-95, good luck… your game will be over so rapidly.
And you might say, well, why don’t you just wait till 8.3 is top? Well, since the 8.7 B-52s aren’t able to bomb, they get into fighters and aggressively hunt down the TU-95s.

Fundamentally speaking it makes 0 sense to have the TU-95 be at 8.0 and the TU-4 be at 8.0
Therefore,
Making the TU-95M be an 8.0 opens the door for an actually balanced
TU-4 at 7.3

Because the TU-4 is not 8.0 worthy simply put when it’s only marginally better than the B-29.

Why I continue to harp over the issue, is purely because the TU-95M is a very bad vehicle in comparison to the B-52 which is outstanding.

I’m just looking for a bit more fairness, but as it seems no more weapons will be coming to the TU-95M, they should just make it an 8.0 as I suggested a few times before.

336

the 279 is more of a meme tank the 292 is kinda normal

337

Yes.

But these bombers are useful. They just need to be buffed so their less fragile and a slight br adjustment and they’ll all be fun

I’d personally like to see 2 ai planes accompany the player who spawns a plane.

IMG_3029

In the case of anything huge the B-29 / TU-4 / TU-95M / B-52 they should get an air escort fighter appropriate to their br. Just 1 though.

Tu-95m? (If it’s an 8.0) gets an 8.0 escort. (Perhaps the player can assign one they’ve unlocked?)

B-52 would get an 8.3 in ARB, and a 8.7 in ASB.

And in order to get the 100% reward an incoming player would have to kill all 3 vehicles.

if the main player vehicles is the first taken out have it swap to another one, such as how the scout planes in naval work kinda. Give all the planes the same decals as the players vehicle (unless it’s a fighter escort) and make it so in ARB or AAB, the name that appears above the player is above both vehicles to not show which one they’re controlling.

I think this is the best solution to all problems.

1 Like
338

whats genuinely hilarious to me is that gaijin disabled a cannon on the single most important turret on the vehicle, so there are MANY times that your only defense is a single cannon. One of the ventral cannons is disabled for flares. There is NO reason for this, because the main 1000 chaff dispenser should be able to dispense flares anyways. Should be able to split 500/500 on flares and chaff while still having all guns

2 Likes
339

my lord, they also just fixed the ventral turret lol. Glorious. But the flares are still spawning a lightyear behind the tu95 so aim9b’s will still straight up ignore your large caliber flares

1 Like
340

Where even are the chaff/flare dispensers on the plane now? The flares were supposed to eject far behind in the back because they’re fired as 23x115mm shells through the AM-23 cannon , sharing the same propellant charge as a conventional round. But what’s the justification now?

1 Like
341

“Coding is too hard :(”

1 Like
342

What is the justification to keep it at 8.3? Because I don’t see any.

Should’ve been moved to 8.0 with the update.

344

Tu-4 also has a similar case but with a KS-1 Komet (repurposed mig-15)
image
image

1 Like
345

A tldr? Nothing will be changed and the 6 bomb load of Tu95 stays?

346

There is speculation that it could hold 24 fab500s which would allow it to destroy 5 bases in air rb in one go which would be extremely good. Physically it can absolutely carry it in the bomb bay, the frustrating thing is that information on the early bears is rather scarce. So while its entirely plausible for it to carry a bomb load like that, the soviets may have just opted not to build bomb racks that can carry that kind of load, which sucks for us.

1 Like
347

To reinstate my points: Gaijin did the Tu-95M so dirty
1. Where is its radar?
image
Not even modeled nor in the systems.
image

2. Why was the EEGS shadow removed?
image VS image

3. It lacks its spall-eating composite armor/computers aren’t even modeled in the cockpit.
image

Where are the computers? Where’s the radar? Where’s the spall liner for the equipment? All of this counts as armor, and the Tu-95M doesn’t have it in-game.
image
4. If the FW 190 F-8 can get missiles, this should too, the Tu-95M-55 variant exists specifically to equip the Tu-95M with Kh-55 missiles.
image

image

5. The model is soo low quality 🥀
image
Like the glass is not even close to the real thing why is it so bad?

1 Like