deploys 10 BI’s
Proper nightmare fuel
Oh, yeah, of course they’re awful. They’re bombers in WT, what did you expect?
Strategic bombers after 2.7 really just go off the deep end, you have to remember that. You WILL get violated, VIOLENTLY AND PUBLICALLY, by EVERYTHING with a pulse if you fly a bomber in Warthunder - and at 8.3/8.7? It’s missile hell, it’s endless radar pings, and it’s getting the Epstein treatment from two (2) autocannon rounds while your gunners sit with their guns up their… you know what. Honestly, I blame you for this. Why did you THINK bombers were a good idea to begin with? Why are you even playing them? If it’s masochism, you’re in the right place.
And I say that as someone who loves and adores the B-29; believe me, if ANYONE knows what it’s like to get diddled sideways as a bomber, it’s a scumbag loser chuddomite failure like me. I’ve hopped in the seat of who knows how many RB matches with the B-29 and thought to myself ‘this time will be different!!111!!’, only to get reminded in my bed at night that Gaijin would spit in my dead mother’s ashes if it meant making sure bombers still sucked.
1 Like
Yes, those are worthless for playing meta
Tu-95 might not see MiG-21 with radar missile because 8.3BR Tu-95 cannot see 9.7BR MiG-21S R-13-whatsoever even if we think about mixed match.
Still, F3H Demon can easily gun both of them down ig
Can’t you just chaff the missile from the mig?
I was referring specifically to the scaling of the bombs blast radius in game, the actual realism of the modeling is a separate issue.
Basically due to the way the shockwave expands to gain the same overpressure at double the distance from the detonation you need to cube the amount of explosives. Which seems to be about how the “kill radius” in game increases after the change.
well Gaijin did claim:
So it’s not too surprising that people assumed it would make the biggest bang, not that it just weighs the most.
The TU 95M is made only for nuclear strikes. Only need one bombay to fit a massiv bomb. Later versiins has mire bimb cabability.
Thus, if they give it a small yield nuclear bomb, it could fix the bomb load issue.
.50 cals overall overperform, even on the ground.
Should have 20mm pen, instead of 30, including soviet 12.7.
So, from what I found in terms of more info, it appears the TU-95M can hold 42-45 Fab-250s, I’m not sure if that would close the gap anymore so… but unless they add a small fictional nuclear bomb. Even the one the MiG-23 MLD carried from the event would suffice.
Thoughts oh thoughts
I kinda like the idea of that though.
B-52 gets the biggest payload, with individual drops, the Bear gets to retain a small nuclear bomb.
Unfortunately I think the smallest Soviet/ Russian warhead was the RDS-9 at 3KT minimum yield, the equivalent of 600 FAB-5000s, that might be a little much.
no guided weapons for balance reasons in b-52 but they have pantsir and 38mt’s … yeah typical gaijin.
2 Likes
Hmm… GDS-2 lol gaijins own 0.2 KT nuclear bomb.
I wouldn’t care if they toned down a small nuclear bomb for the sake of gameplay.
I just want a comparable payload. 2.3x difference in payload is too much for a mere 0.3 br gap.
Something like the USAs W54 might be ok, it could be dialed down to 10 tons TNT equivalent, but I don’t know of any Soviet/ Russian equivalent, there may be an experimental one that I don’t know about however, I’m by no means an expert on the subject.
Another alternative would be to add the Tu-95s cruise missiles, but then the B-52 would need to get it’s missiles and we would be right back where we are.
and how should that work in air realistic and ground realistic? Both strategic bombers are getting shreeded by F106 and lighting and other britsh jets. And in ground, you will kill the entire map. You already have the FAB 9000, a mini nuke, its enough. Maybe wait until further bombers are getting added.
Then they will just gun you down.
Well, both B-52H and Tu-95M are better than Tu-4, which cannot even notice R.511 or AIM-7C coming for death. /s
Nah, I don’t want to see nuclear bombs on Tu-95 or B-52H. (Just mentioning B-52H for I am not siding with US)
Giving nuclear bombs to bombers kills the iconic role of killsteak nuke bombers. B-29/Tu-4, Su-7 and such.
with due all respect, more payload of B-52H worths nothing.
Look at B-66B which is infinitely worse than IL-28 in Air RB even though they are having superior payload.
Look at Tonka IDS, which can arm more than 10 1000lb bombs but is a worse bomber than MiG-23MLD, thanks to overperforming soviet ZB-500 napalm bombs.
Look at Buccaneer S2/S2B, which can carry 15 1000lb bombs in total, but all they can do is be easy prey.
I am just curious about why you are complaining so much about the payload differnce when Meta just doesn’t let you use those advantages.
You will just carry the lightest bomb payload for a higher chance of the bomb, and will be gunned down by supersonic interceptors anyway.
(X)
Fix bombs instead, keep br as they are.
And give B52 that rear turret radar lead what it supposed to have.
Heck, even some Tu95’s got radar lead for guns also. And I wouldnt mind both of em getting em.
Bonus. ECMS pod should be also included for both and keep the br where it is.
USA can’t get anything remarkably better or popular than my favorite and already pampered enough nation without either a nerf or buffing my stuff: the post.
I’ll keep it historically accurate, no matter how many bombs it have.
Has bro ever tried intercepting one with a gunfighter? Interesting experience to say the least