I personally (and I understand the subjectivity of this topic) think that they do. The Bear sits lower than the Buff, which reflects the payload- but it doesn’t sit terribly low thanks to the better defensive capacity of the Bear (not quite, but much closer to 360 degree protection than the Buff). Other than that, they are relative equals; being close in capability otherwise: where one excels the other struggles, and vice versa.
I also would like to point out that (at least in ARB), there are only 4 bases available at any one time; which both aircraft can each take out all 4 bases on their own. So having more doesn’t necessarily help when there aren’t more targets to take care of.
They were im pretty sure, but that’s not my problem. My problem is the fact that bombers are implemented poorly.
IRL, a Tu-05 would have multiple jets escorting it usually. In WT, you are alone. No one is escorting you and no one is gonna save you from the F-106, Lightning, and F104 hordes.
It’s even worse because of how poor the damage the damage flight models are for bombers. In theory, a B-52 should be able to shrug off a decent bit of damage to its body. In WT, a small burst from a vulcan is exploding your plane without issue.
The bomb load is not the only reason to cause a difference.
I would agree the speed difference and acceleration make up for the lack of defensive armament on the B-52. Especially since defensive armament is a secondary characteristic.
Primary is speed and bomb load. In which both are better in the B-52.
But the fact is the B-52 has 2.37906 times the bomb load of the Tu-95… planes have been uptiered for less.
The F-111A is 10.7 and can dump 207,088 worth of damage.
The ability to carpet bomb in ground is more likely to score more kills than the TU-95s big bomb drop.
In sim, this is especially bad, as one B-52 can kill an airfield by itself, and wipe 2-4 bases out along the way.
The TU-95 could probably kill 2 or 3 bases. But will not be able to destroy an airfield on its own.
Yes they both suffer from the same things, but again the B-52 is better in all but defensive armament
It also has an air brake, which can be used to slow the plane quicker, the TU-95 does not.
Lastly, not a huge advantage, but the B-52 has a targeting camera with a thermal stock.
This doesn’t matter until they fix core bomber issues. Just because they should have added tu95ms doesn’t mean b52h needs nerfed, both bombers should be buffed in fact!
Bomb load is the worst balancing metric you can use for balancing bombers in war thunder. There are only 4 bases, and it takes 100k damage to remove them. Those bases also won’t be killed by just one aircraft either.
Moving the B-52 up because it has a useless advantage is a dumb idea, considering it’s already bad at 8.7.
The Tu-95 has 3 3000kg bombs, it’ll be fine in GRB. It may only be weaker in ASB, but its superior turret coverage would balance its lower max capacity out.
That’s what it takes to destroy all bases in an air RB match.
You aren’t getting 7 bases in one aircraft in air RB. It’s different in air sim, but its not like the Tu-95 is massively worse.
It’s almost like one is a higher BR.
Maybe consider that it shouldn’t be allowed to be flown in naval battles.
It depends, this version of the Tu-95 wasn’t meant to carry many small bombs. Perhaps the 6x FAB-250s is because the bomb bay wasn’t configured to carry many small bombs and only a few big bombs. While it certainly could carry that but capacity alone, if the bomb bay isn’t configured for it and could only be configured with hardpoints to carry 6x FAB-250s then there’s your answer as to why its like that ingame. Is it trash? Yes. Is it something that Gaijin can fix? not really, they chose to implement this version of the Tu-95 instead of the later one that could carry more smaller bombs as the Tu-95 transitioned from Strategic Nuclear Attack to being capable of Tactical Strikes and Carpet Bombing instead.
“could carry combinations of conventional bombs, with the smallest stores carried being 250-kilogram (550-pound) bombs – 45 such bombs could be hauled, typically for an airfield attack mission. Bomb-aiming was by a radar targeting system with a backup optical sight.”
As it stands now, there is no reason to have such a small gap between these two planes. The TU-95 performs far worse in every category besides defensive armament.
That alone is not enough to warrant it to be so close to the B-52.
Just as defensive armament doesn’t warrant the TU-4 to be 8.0 when the B-29 is 6.7 or 7.0 now adays.
these balancing changes because of NATO player opinions are getting old.
You weren’t even arguing for both of the bombers to retain it, which would’ve made sense, just specifically for tu-95m to do so…
Like are you really trying accusing someone of being biased?
I could’ve understood your point if the whole b-52’s payload of 2000 pounders would’ve been GNSS bombs but it’s not.
AFAIK B-52 can carry less flares than tu-95 so it’s even worse suited for a higher br than the latter.
B-52’s only ability is “a line of firecrackers” or a “barrage of yellow tracks” call it whatever you want, all while tu-95 can carry 2x still useless, but much better 5000 kg bombs capable of at least clearing a cap. So payload to result ratio is actually better with tu-95 all while b-52 can drop all of it’s payload only in case of the enemy giving absolutely 0 cracks about it’s existence, which is highly unlikely.