No, it isn’t.
I will return your word.
"Whoever thinks that Tu-4 is 7.3 material while B-29 remains 7.0, pls play B-29 and then express an opinion. /s
Because the B-29 doesn’t face the SARH radar-homing missile in the uptier,
and Tu-4 almost always facing superior base bombers such as IL-28, Tu-14T, Canberra.
Yes, give the Tu-95M an RDS-4 NOW!!1!
Yes, but it is compensated by the munition difference between 50 cal and 23mm, and 23mm NR-23 has higher DPS
You mean, two extra 50cal mounted on the front top turret?
do you really believe that 12x 50cal is better than 10x 23mm?
When the other five turrets have similar 2x 50 cal on each, while Tu-4 has 2x 23mm on six turrets??
Single 50 cal is exaggerated,
And, if you really believes that Keeping B-29 on 7.0 is fine while sending Tu-4 to 7.3 is also fine
and if we consider that your wing really has been blown by single 50cal
Then, why should Tu-4 should be 7.3BR when NR-23 is drastically better than 50cal in all aspect?
So, you don’t own B-29 on your own account, but you can loan account from someone who has it
And it isn’t spaded, unless friend of you dismounted all of modifications.
Then, I can assume that you don’t have enough experience with B-29. no?
I can’t tell if your being genuine or not.
So why not just make the
B-29 6.7
And
The TU-4 and 7.0
In no way is the defensive armament that great that it warrants a 2 br step gap. 1? Sure. 2? Never.
Also, I’d love to keep contributing to the discussion, but it must be upsetting someone that I am proving a lot of points as someone keeps ghost flagging my posts, and trying to silence me
Suspicious, after I was accused of this, that it’s happening to me :)
Does everyone agree or disagree with this solution?
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
It was a Joke, but I don’t oppose the Idea of a tactical Nuke for the Tu-95 in Air
I replied to you, but no, I was pointing out (likely Iegaatoo) or someone else, but regardless,
It would appear I’m making too much sense.
Like how a 23mm vs a 12.7mm is not worth a 2 step br gap.
And you, ion, and iegaatoo can all keep repeating “the 23mm is better than the 12.7” which, of course it will be. But in no logical capacity, would any scholarly individual ever agree it is reasonable for the previously mentioned gap.
12.7mms: 750 rpm, 2000 round belts.
23mms: 900 rpm, 550 round belts
12.7s have more ammo to them (nearly 4x the amount), and a 150 rpm difference is negligible at best for these calibers… now if your talking 300 rpm or more? Sure.
Round and round in circles we will go.
Since you have fundamentally flawed logic (no offense).
You weigh one pro of on vehicle vastly higher than the many pros of another.
What are a bombers primary functions? BOMBING
What are is secondary functions?
Defending itself.
What does every irl bomber have?
A wing, (multiple other bombers) or, an escort to help protect it.
Does warthunder model bombers correctly?
No, they’re ridiculously fragile for some reason.
please try to even reasonably explained how I am being biased? I weighed the pros and cons of each. In general, most bombers around similar brs have similar payloads and stats across the board. The B-52 is a HUGE outlier here, having well over DOUBLE the payload of its direct counterpart.
again, if you haven’t played 1/3 the game, it doesn’t make sense to raise your validity over mine correct? Just like it makes 0 sense to have someone who plays Fallout 1 to give you well informed opinions on which naval vessel is the best in Warthunder when he hasn’t played it. It just doesn’t make sense, does it?
(Can’t fathom what would cause someone to false report this)
As someone with a lot of experience with the b29, tu4 and tu95 in air rb. My opinion is that b29 is always kind of ****ed because even when it was 6.3-6.7 it was eaten alive by german interceptors with those nuke 20-30mm rounds. the 50s just dont deal enough damage to reliably survive interceptions. Tu4 absolutely NEEDS to go to 7.7 minimum because its unable to counter sarh missiles at all. But gaijin has done a biblical job making tu4 suffer by giving france an un counterrable sarh missile at 8.3 that has no other function in game than to destroy large bombers. Tu95 should also be 8.0 imo. Although I will feel a little bad (i wont) for the 7.0’s trying to fight it
@katyushá
@TestandRecognise
@anastasia001122
Can you tell Iegaatoo to stop spam reporting my replies because he doesn’t agree? Or perhaps to stop attempting to be insulting which is against ToS?
This is for ARB, and I support. really.
And, if Tu-4 and B-29 reaaaallly need to have one step gap (which is one of his take)
We cannot push those rapidly,
Currently, we have a three-step full BR gap. 7.0/8.0
decrease to two, watch effects, and compare statistics (6.7/7.3 or 7.0/7.7)
If Tu-4 really, really acts terribly and they even cannot fight against those ww2 era prop planes (It won’t, because 23mm NR-23 does not struggle to frag Banshee or Sabre, then might fits perfectly to slay P-51H)
Then we may consider making the gap narrower.
I think we shouldn’t push to make the gap radically from 3 to 1 (7.0/8.0 to 7.0/7.3) as he wanted.
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
Its really not bad for a nuclear warhead…
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:
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.
I have done no such thing.
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.
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
It needs cruise missiles.
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.
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.
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:
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.