.50 BMG M2 (AP), M8 (AP-I), and M20 (AP-IT) can all penetrate 20-25mm of RHA at 500m. Gaijin uses a formula to calculate penetration over historical values meaning the penetration can get to 29-33mm at point blank.
Sounds like a Soviet Skill issue for not integrating Megabombers into their tactics.
But in all seriousness, the US gets big bomb loads because we designed whole planes around carrying big bomb loads, like the F-111. Whereas on the other hand, Russia did not necessarily. Not to the degree of things like the F-111, at least. I mean think about it; the F-111 can carry so many bombs it can’t even sweep its wings. So that is important to keep in mind.
Did you get the TU-95? Dropping the Fab-9000 in the middle of the tanks in the test range doesn’t even kill them. Like it’s that bad.
They could limit the small yield nuclear warheads to air rb / sim.
Why does it matter? In air, sim especially, the reward amount for dropping 21x 2000 lbs bombs is going to be good, despite not being premium (like I wish these were), and it can wipe an entire enemy airfield away in one pass. Depending on the map you get between 3-7 airfields.
The spaa cannot shoot them down. The enemy jets will have a tough time seeing them.
Btw if you think the Russian napalm bombs are op, check out the USA ones, they’re even more op.
I don’t think they’ll ever be meta. But the 8.3 br and 8.7s are too close for planes not similar in capability.
If that’s how you think I’m thinking, you got it twisted. Or you just are naive to the fact the B-52 is vastly better.
Right, but I’m not talking just a USA vs Russian plane here. But all nations.
I get some didn’t develop any and they are sadly out of the running, but the brs should be adjusted adequately for them no?
Wiki doesn’t show the 9k in full detail but that’s the stats I can get outside the game
1 Like
Yes I know. The fab 9000 is worth less.
The best loadout is the Fab-3000 x4
But even then, that less than half the damage the B-52 can cause
They’re correct stats afaik.
If the Fab-9000 was TGAG-16 or TGA-16 it would be way better
1 Like
I’m not sure why they gave the B-52 the wing racks while the Tu-95 is restricted to an internal load but it might be down to a balancing concern?
If they’re worried about that, then balance it off br.
As it stands now there’s only a couple options that are reasonable.
- Move the b-66 to 8.7, move the B-52 to 9.0
- Move the TU-4 to 7.7, move the Tu-95 to 8.0
- Give a small (even fictional) small yield nuclear warhead to the TU-95 to somewhat close the gap in total damage (168,000 would be perfect) and this would allow the TU-95 to sit comfortably at 8.3 while the B-52 sits at 8.7 (still a 60k~ gap, but at least it gives them similar enough capability.)
- Nerf the B-52’s bomb load (I dislike this the most).
I’d like them to get other weaponry aside from bombs as well to make them more viable. Gaijin should also look into BR placement based on loadout rather than the plane itself. For example the A-10C without 9Ms or any of its exclusive weaponry would basically be just an A-10A Late with a MAW.
Kinda. But then what about the Su-25sm3? It’s crap, like genuinely. You only get 2x aam.
But that’s off topic.
I think the wing pylons are for later variants only, for those who bring the cruise missiles like the MSM, might be wrong though.
Ik it’s a later variant thing but why choose the last variant built (not upgraded) but not the same for the Tu-95? It just seems like not a lot of thought was put into the capabilities of each aircraft.
Eh I know, thing is we’ll never know when a later variant could be added, since it was an April fool’s event.
At least they opened the box by adding these two, so hopefully they have plans for newer ones, even supersonic ones.
Gaijin probably won’t allow that because Historically inaccurate if we limit those nuke warhead to ‘acceptable power’
It may matter in Air Sim, but IT WON’T MATTER IN AIR-RB ffs.
Every player is forced to have a lightweight payload, which is just enough to frag a single base
And both B-52H and Tu-95M will not reach the base within the time
Because both Tu-95M and B-52H will die meaninglessly in the air by those supersonic interceptors.
You need to see the context.
US Napalm bombs might better than ZB-500 in paper stat.
but problem is, ZB-500 allows MiG-23M series bomb the base without wasting R-23/24.
Planes which sent Tonka IDS into hell is MIG-23 variants with ZB-500.
not goddamn F-4E/J/S with BLU-1.
So, you want to send B-52H to 9.0BR?
Serious?
Rejected.
B-52H don’t have any capablity to fight against Su-7 with ZB-500 in base bombing in ARB.
Then B-52H also needs to be 8.3, and B-66B needs to be 8.7
So, you want to have even better, real nuke instead of FAB-9000?
Having nuke exclusively for soviet?
Do you really think I am going to agree with this?
Counterpoint: take timemachine and force Tupolev to make payload of Tu-95M bigger.
Again
You are just stabbing guys who can be your best allies, by claiming that B-52H which are already ass need to be nerfed further.
3 Likes
How am I stabbing anyone? I’m stating facts.
Fact is:
The B-52 has 230k worth of base damage.
It can carpet bomb with 21x 2000 lbs bombs in ground.
It has a better rear armament, but none on top or bottom.
Its faster
Can go its max speed at sea level
The TU-95 only has 96k worth of base damage
Is nearly 50 mph slower
Has to be at 8000 meters to reach its max speed.
Has a slower climb rate.
Has better defensive 360° capability
Less individual bomb drops
there’s no reasons to have only a 0.3 br gap between these nor does the B-52 need a buff or to go down in br.
You want to get Tu-95 buff, right?
Then who can be your closest friends?
Those B-52H drivers who are also Cold War strategic bomber players. right?
But you decided to claim 'we need to nerf B-52H because they are way better than Tu-95M.
You just stabbed guys who can be your closest allies.
Which Filled with worthless data.
Which is worthless in Air RB.
Both only need to have 25k-ish worth of base damage.
I reckon that I explained the ‘base reward multiplier’ mechanism.
Which is inaccurate as hell. if 21x 2000lbs can be meta, then there is no reason that Buccaneer or Lincoln, which can bring 15x 1000 lbs, cannot be meta.
And we both know Lincoln and Buccaneers are awful planes.
What will be your next post? Nerf H-5 is needed because it can have twice the amount of base damage compared to Soviet IL-28?
This is why B-52H has higher BR than Tu-95M.
No no no.
If Tu-95M need to be lower, B-52H also shares similar problems, so if Tu-95 needs a buff, then B-52H also needs a buff.
Is this too hard to understand?
4 Likes
The only similar problem they share is they’re huge, and they’re bombers.
What you’re lacking to agree with is the fact that the B-52 is better in many more ways than one.
What I said earlier:
Not all these need to apply. Hence why I said “ As it stands now there’s only a couple options that are reasonable.”
There, I put an “or” between the numbers to make it easier to understand
there in lies the core issue of nothing else even mattering because both get absolutely demolished by fighters in the current air rb gameplay loop. I want both of these bombers to get buffed but as it currently stands there is no real big disparity between the two because they both get demolished.
1 Like
B-52H is probably better in many more ways, but almost all of those points are basically worthless in Air RB.
Because none of those is a need to apply, and none of the options seems reasonable to me.
Option 2 might be plausible, but
B-52H to 8.3 and B-66B to 8.7 also need to be followed.
You are overselling invalid points of B-52H in Air RB to make an inappropriate nerf on B-52H.
2 Likes