the 279 is more of a meme tank the 292 is kinda normal
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.
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.
2 Likes
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
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
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
“Coding is too hard :(”
1 Like
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.
Tu-4 also has a similar case but with a KS-1 Komet (repurposed mig-15)
1 Like
A tldr? Nothing will be changed and the 6 bomb load of Tu95 stays?
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
To reinstate my points: Gaijin did the Tu-95M so dirty
1. Where is its radar?
Not even modeled nor in the systems.
2. Why was the EEGS shadow removed?
VS 
3. It lacks its spall-eating composite armor/computers aren’t even modeled in the cockpit.
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.
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.
5. The model is soo low quality 🥀
Like the glass is not even close to the real thing why is it so bad?
4 Likes
Also the gauges on the instrument panel are very basic…
I agree it’s done dirty, especially for sim
Then of course it’s extremely fragile… even 12.7mms can easily take a wing off
i have seen better models in mobile games like how is it this bad?
Don’t get mad at gaijin get mad at gemini using to many tokens.
The size difference for anybody wondering.
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EYvh7Zf9pCOj
i made a bug report regarding the missing Tu-95M missing radar&gun-laying radar if anybody interested
1 Like
Stanky leg
1 Like