You can aim it manually and 2km is quite a good range for showing the might of the FI-T laser beam in ARB. I fragged some Sabres and Banshees with it.
50cal can sustain some damage but cannot instant kill the enemy unless you pilot snipe him
And end up with letting you get killed by their last resort.
0.7 BR gap might fit better
The only difference is a 12.7mm vs a 23mm.
So by your and @Ion_492 ’s own logic, since the B-52 has
please.
think about the lethality difference.
Tu-2S with soviet 50cal UBT staying 5.3BR while Tu-2S-59 which has 20mm B-20 on her top turret is 5.7BR.
23mm NR-23 produce lot better damage than bombers’ western 50cal.
I am not going to parroting all over again that those becomes stale real quick at air RB.
I won’t mind that you push your idea on air sim
No. You are not getting our logic correct, unless you are being sarcastic as intended.
By your guys logic a simple defensive armament is worth 1.0 or 0.7 br difference.
The defensive armament is in no way guaranteed to kill an incoming plane. (Aiming is way easier on M&K but regardless)
Can you land your plane in ARB? Yes.
Is the B-52 better. Factually, not opinion wise? Yes.
Mate, think about how both B-29 and Tu-4 were designed.
Full aluminum, sliver fuselage
Filled with tons of gunpoints which theoretically give you no blindspot.
Western 50cal is not good enough to kill an enemy jet before you got shot down unless you pilot-snipe him (The effective range of autocannons is longer than 50cal. You still can damage them but cannot deliver the lethal blow then enemy has wider windows for opportunity to shoot you down.)
Whilr 23mm NR-23 is good enough to kill an enemy jet because its FI-T belt is goated. Can shoot the enemy back with a longer range.
That makes a difference.
Unlike the Tu-95 vs B-52H case.
That is why the B-52 in ARB has 0.3BR higher BR than Tu-95
It might be better on paper stats but those advantages don’t make things better drastically thanks to current compression and meta of Air RB.
Again, there’s a logical fallacy. Your second one.
How can the TU-4 and B-29 be 1.0 apart, yet on “paper” as you say, they’re identical?
23mms are nice sure, but with my time using FI-T in the BI, they’re good against props (3-6 shots to kill) but jets? It’s like 12-20 shots to kill.
.50 cals btw have more ammo per belt due to the smaller size, meaning you can have a longer burst mass more often than a 23mm can.
The .50 cal is also widely known for setting fires.
So as to compare the B-52’s defensive armament to the TU-95’s
The TU-95 has better 360° protection, but arguably similar if not very marginally worse rear protection.
This is again under the assumption your actual
Hitting the attacker coming for you.
(Something harder for the attackers chasing a B-52 since it’s faster, and has better acceleration)
Logical Fallacy? I don’t think so, and it looks like a fallacy fallacy but okay.
1.- I prefer 0.7 apart over 1.0.
2- and nearly all other aspects are the same.
They share the same fuselage design.
They have similar payload (bombs built from US/Soviet/ and Brit if we get Washington B.1 on the next update, if they read the bugreport and suggestion)
They still generally work better than 50cal to shoot jets down.
More ammo per belt of B-29 usually dimmished by heating, lower damage per bullet, inaccuracy of every bomber’s gun due to awful zeroing.
Also, don’t forget that only Fighter planes can access 50cal tracer belts with M20 API-T which is also known as Laser Beam, and given their widely known infamy, Bombers are not allowed to have those, so 23mm are better for not only direct damage, but also setting fires.
That is why Tu-4 need to remain higher BR than B-29, at least for the two-step (7.0/7.7 or 6.7/7.3)
First, I am a little bit tired of explaining the same thing again and again and again.
Yes. B-52H is better than Tu-95M in many parts, as you know. But thanks to twisted meta of Air RB, those better payload and such quickly become outdated and stale.
(of course, don’t forget that Gaijin loves to dimmish reward multiplier if you go heavy in Air RB. which ends up with forcing B-52H carry a similar payload as Tu-95 does)
So, long story short, the difference between Tu-95 and B-52H in Air RB can be summarised as
B-52H has better acceleration, speed and better tail gun, but has larger blind spots, and faces more brutal enemies
While Tu-95 has worse acceleration and speed, and AM-23 might be worse than M61, but has a smaller blind-spot and faces slightly less brutal enemies.
Other differences quickly went meaningless thanks to the strangeness of the current status of Air RB.
Both are similarly worthless in air RB, so I am suggesting that both Tu-95 and B-52H need to go down.
I don’t care or disagree about your Air Sim opinion, because in that gamemode, payloads truly matter. Maybe they can have a larger BR gap between them in Air Sim or something.
But in Air RB? No, 0.3BR single step gap is the maximum that we need to give.
If Tu-95M goes from 8.3 to 8.0 in Air RB? Then B-52H also should follow the same treatment in air RB because both work awfully
I also continue to forget the B-52 can target vehicles using its onboard thermal camera.
But I continue to disagree.
Why?
Because you’re giving one way street mentality.
The B-52 should be 8.3 according to you. In ARB, sure, fine. Again, TU-95M should by all means be 2 brs under it.
Since according to you guys the TU-4 should be 2 brs above the the B-29.
The problem is the B-29 is so similar to TU-4 that arguably they should be the same br. But I’ll concede 7.3 is fine for it, as its primary factors are the same as the B-29.
However its secondary factors are slightly better in one regard, defensive armament… which is not so OP it warrants a 0.7 br gap that’s just madness.
And again, in terms of br difference of the B-52 and TU-95M…
they’re on paper stats are much different.
The B-52 out performs the Tu95M in both primary and secondary factors with ease, other than armament. (Better in rear, worse in front and sides).
So you admit it’s only against USSR vehicles that need to be higher in br.
Also, to tack onto the Tu-4 you said previously that the B-52 could see 9.7s in ARB, which reduce it’s effectiveness.
A Tu-4 (B-29 at 7.0) is 8.0 and can see 9.0 aircraft… which is just insane to think about…
A belt, or whatever you believe doesn’t make it reasonable for its br.
If they must remove whatever Fi-t belt it has to make it be 7.3 so be it, but as a result. They should make the TU-95M 8.0 in all modes, and somehow slightly buff its bombing load to be around 150,000 base damage. Still 80k less than the B-52.
But at this point we are just going to go in circles because you aren’t seeing any reason.
Another goddamn feature which is basically completely worthless in Air RB unless they add somewhat kind of cruise missile.
one way street mentality? really?
With due respect, I am thinking this part is a projection of yours.
Yes, of course it is, because both Tu-95M and B-52H are underperforming in Air RB as much as rest of bombers do.
6.3? (-2.0BR) or 7.7(- two steps of BR)?
Neither way can be agreeable inside Air RB.
I explained that both are equally worthless, and both primary and secondary factors, which ‘outperforms Tu-95M in paper’ gone stale in the air RB.
If we are strictly thinking about Air RB, which
-Both of Tu-95M and B-52H usually end up being shot down mid-air without reaching bases on time
-B-52H has a bigger maximum payload bout forced to equip the slightest bombs, which are barely enough to finish off a single base(which ends up being similar payload weight as Tu-95M) because of the base reward multiplier penalty
B-52’s fancy new equipment loses its advantage very quickly in Air RB meta.
They are probably worthwhile outside of Air RB, but not in Air Realistic gamemode.
It is completely fine to keep a gap between Tu-95M and B-52H as it was(+0.3, one step gap) in Air RB.
Mate, I played more than 200 hours of Bombers in Air RB, and spaded all three of B-29 Variants (B-29, Tu-4, Tu-4[CN]), while your total playtime of bombers are approx 100 hours.
(Well, you are the one who started mentioning that I didn’t play Air Sim)
23mm FI-T giving 0.7BR gap isn’t madness. especially when B-29 cannot access the 50-cal tracer belt as other 50cal bombers do.
Also, there are quite a lot of bombers which shares similar fuselage but have different defensive weaponry and end up with different BR
-Wellington Ic and Ic/Late are almost the same bomber. The only difference between them is changing waist gun from Vickers K to Browning. and Ic/Late has 0.3BR higher.
-Lancaster Mk.I and Mk.III are almost the same bomber. Major difference between them is changing the tail gun from 4x 7.7mm Browning to 2x 50cal via swapping the turret, then Lancaster Mk.3 has higher BR.
-Yer-2 with M-105s shares similar flight characteristics and bomb loadout, but Yer-2 M-105R LU has higher BR than the older one because one of the 7mm shkas has changed into 12.7mm UBT.
-(As I mentioned earlier)
Tu-4 isn’t special in having a higher BR because of defensive armament.
Yes, they are having very different paper stats, which quickly becomes meaningless on Air RB.
no no no, I really wonder why you are playing the victim mindset now.
I never told you that Tu-95M need to have higher BR than B-52H.
“Both are equally awful, so if we need to buff one, then we also need to buff another.”
I believe that I said I prefer the Tu-4 being 7.7 and having a 0.7BR gap between B-29 than 1.0.
It won’t change much, because the Basic belt of defensive NR-23 is also neat.
1:1 mixture of AP-I and FI-T still works like a gem.
FI-T belt is a monster, but removing FI-T belt won’t drastically change the damage output of NR-23.
Okay, go on, then, but we both know that Tu-95M shouldn’t be same BR with Tu-4, so probably sending Tu-4 down to 7.7 should be done first.
I think I told about this here for countless time,
Base damage only works outside of Air RB.
In Air RB, you only need 25k-ish damage, which guarantees an 8x base reward multiplier, and can frag a single base.
Because if you carry a larger payload, your reward multipliers will be doomed.
So, if we only think about air RB, it wouldn’t be needed.
Improvement of the stock bomb loadout is more urgent.
outside Air RB? I won’t mind.
we are going to go in circle because YOU aren’t seeing any reason. not me.
I am fine with sending Tu-95M down in Air RB if buff on B-52H follows, because both bombers are drastically underperforming in air RB.
Simple.
Playing bombers in ARB is honestly not the play to begin with. The best most for bombers is hands down sim.
What needs to be changed with bombers as a whole is they need to spawn in bomber groups.
Aka you get 2 ai of your same plane to fly with you and bomb with you, and if you lose a vehicle (your primary one) it swaps to the next one until all three are destroyed.
Additionally they need to fix bomber fragility.
Then, lastly…
Make the TU-4 a 7.3
And the TU-95M a 8.0
And everything would be well balanced.
I do love how you resort to saying things like “projection” merely because I’m pointing out a fact that USA bombers are lower in br than they likely should be. Or Certain Russian bombers being too high.
Despite @Thomas_Belgium already warning you to discuss the topic, not the user.
So, if we follow your takes,
ARB player giving an opinion about the bomber in ARB is invalid
Because ‘sim is the best mode to play, and they didn’t play air sim?’
Mate, if playing bombers in ARB is not the play to begin with, then we need to fix ARB, not silence someone by mentioning [you don’t play air sim so your opinion is invalid]
It just cannot be solution, because
You will lose all three of bombers in a a single pass, and nothing will ever change,
because AI gunners are 300m-ish blind. even if you notice enemy who want to shoot you down, they will just watch you burn, while they are burning along with you.
They really need to fix bomber fragility, without that, your ‘three bomber group’ solution can do nothing but just end up giving fighter player extra reward.
7.7 if B-29 remains 7.0. 7.3 if B-29 goes down to 6.7
B-29 itself also overrated badly. I would rather fly with G8N or Shakelton instead of B-29.
B-52H also need to follow buff down to 8.3 in ARB. Both bombers are equally worthless at the clueless level in Air RB unless overall fix drops.
No, no, no, you want to bias spcific soviet bombers while neglecting other bombers’ counterparts.
Every bomber needs similar treatment in Air RB because almost all of the bombers, except some air-spawn abusers like B7A or SB2C, are off-meta.
Because
1- nearly no USA bombers are lower in BR than they likely should be, as much as soviet bombers are.
2- Certain russian bombers (X) bombers are generally (O)
Warned me only?
I think he warned both of us.
And you are the one who called me that
and lit the fire.
You are not listening to any of my comments for two-goddamn-months.
And it is extremely funny that you are acting innocent.
‘I do love how you resort to saying things like projection merely because-’
pff.
Yes, Tu-95M need buff in Air RB and such because she is overrated as much as other bombers such as B-66B, B-24D-25CO, or Majority of British bombers do.
But no, Soviet bombers do not require special treatment, which you call.
We need to buff not only those soviet bombers, but also other overrated bombers.
I spaded almost all of bombers in Regular Tech Tree except B-66B and Hungarian IL-28, so I believe I have more experince on bombers than you, so it is extremely frustrating when you wanted to silence me off by ‘you are not playing Air Sim so your opinion is null’ when I was strictly discussing about Tu-95 and other bombers in Air RB, in Air RB contexts.
So, in conclusion, I agree that Tu-95M requires BR buff on Air RB mode, but I am disagreeing about majority of your solutions.
I’m going to only reply to this, as the rest of your reply was nonsense that I already refuted.
Are you under the assumption I haven’t played AAB or ARB? Because I have aplenty.
Lastly, yes, why would you be more correct in this situation? You have less play time overall, less matches, and 0 sim games. Like I said you haven’t experienced 1/3 of the game.
Just like it would make no sense for you to comment on either ground, or Bluewater.
Really…?
I don’t think the rest of my reply weren’t nonsense.
No? Of course you played… I don’t assume something when I can check how it is.
Mate, we were discussing the bomber
and my sole ARB bomber playtime is twice more than your whole lifetime bomber experience…
Also, I was strictly talking about Tu-95 in Air RB…
So, with your own goddamn theory.
your take makes no sense for you to comment on bombers in Air RB
You played bomber
57hours in AB
28 hours in RB
16hours in Sim
101 hours in total.
I played bomber
72hours in AB
228hours in RB
0 hours in Sim
301hours in total.
So, it seems you need to taste your own medicine.
With your theory, which you used because you want to silence me,
You have drastically fewer playtime than me on bombers, so your points are automatically invalid (Of course I don’t think like that, but if we use YOUR theory for argument’s sake.)
To lower one youd have to lowet the other, simple logic
So if the abrams went down in br so should a T-90?
No that line of logic makes no sense
Better than the logic of only moving a single nations stuff
That’s a narrow perspective.
TU-4 should’ve been 7.3 for years. (One br step above the b-29)
It’s just a good example to bring up since the TU-95 is so close to the B-52 for no good reason.
Btw the Tu-4 is in China too. So it’s not just for Russia.
TWO step above the B-29
if we think of superior lethality of NR-23 autocannon compared to pos 50cal of B-29
(If B-29 can be equipped with Tracer belt it would be better)
shouldn’t be 8.0 but 7.3 is too low
Then why would you say:
“Single”
