If the gap between the Canberras and the homegrown bombers was such an important issue to address, why wait (the better part of) a decade to swap the roundels to bridge said gap?
2 Likes
Add both so there’ll be less whining about ‘copy-paste’
why do sound mods stop working in the “WIP” version?
I appreciate every “new” prop aircraft in wt.
Thank you for that.
What i miss is that gaijin also invests some thoughts how to use these aircraft in the former “crown jewel” game mode Air RB.
So even if we talk here about a Rank V plane - trying to enjoy (heavy) prop bomber game play is basically an attempt to make something work despite that gaijin ignores basic game design mistakes which kills any purpose to use such an aircraft.
Examples?
1. Non consistent contrail altitudes across several maps
-
Contrails are an invitation for every desperate (fighter) player for a rather effortless scoring opportunity - and kills any attempts for sneak bomb run / attacks by flying detours / wide loops in order to avoid opposition.
-
So whilst gaijin adjusted contrail altitudes at prop BR ranges on some maps to 9,300 meters there are still a lot of maps (like Smolensk 5, 900 meters) with much lower altitudes.
-
That means that even highly skilled bomber players have on certain maps little to zero chance to get undetected to their targets just because the too low contrail alt prevent this.
2. Air Spawn for all props on some maps
-
Around half a year ago a lot of maps had a bug - in order to fix that gaijin provided an air spawn for all aircraft. Unfortunately gaijin forgot to increase the bomber spawn altitudes for medium and strategic bombers (3,500 and 4,500).
-
A lot of (previously non-airspawn) fighters are now (depending on map) able to get at co-altitude with bombers before they are in drop range. So the drop chances for bombers decreased significantly.
3. Bugged 3 bases (Frontline) maps
- Since the bugfix with air spawns (see #2) some old but revised 3-bases maps (= “killable” enemy airfield) are bugged. If you play (example) on the revised Frontline Mozdok map the enemy airfield never becomes a bombing target when all 3 bases are destroyed. So if 2 or 3 strike aircraft rush in the 4 guys in bomber aircraft can now try to drop on aaa on arty or tanks but this is not their purpose.
4. Daily and special tasks focus on bombers as target
-
Technically seen the fulfillment of daily or special tasks should have balanced requirements regarding time investment and difficulty.
-
Anybody having the choice between killing 26 fighter aircraft or 8 bomber aircraft in order to get 5 point BP progress will choose the 2nd one.
-
The design of such tasks implies that bombers are tough targets and hard to kill and killing fighters is rather easy. I mean the reality looks different…
I could add way more stuff like bugged conversion of bombers with multiple turrets or increase bullet dispersion of defensive fire (Q4, 2022) but you might get the point.
For all of the things mentioned you will find bug reports or forum exchanges - that’s why i would appreciate that gaijin would look at important things around new hardware.
Thx for reading!
4 Likes
@dan_rafbc has found mention in 15 & 35 Sqn ORBs of 500 lb MC bombs being used.
I dare say that all MC-series bombs would be compatible with the bomb racks found in B-29A, on the basis that the US AN GP bombs can be fitted in the first place using identical lugs. Bomb lengths and diameters should of course be checked.
Words to this effect are found applied to every MC-series bomb in the below document;
The 2000 lb HC has very different dimensions to the 2000 lb AN-M66, being considerably longer and thinner than the US bomb.
Central suspension of the 4000 lb HC, and 8000 lb HC is something I’m looking into, should be possible with the right type of bomb carrier but sources are few.
B-29 has two bomb bays, with the following measurements;
- Forward bomb bay - 162.5 in (4.1275 m)
- Rear bomb bay - 180 in (4.572 m)
The 4000 lb HC (110 in or 2.794 m) and 8000 lb HC (133.6 in or 3.393 m) bombs would fit lengthwise, and their diameter is considerably less than the 4000 lb AN-M56 so a central installation is in theory viable. The question of suspension method does remain, though plenty of larger centrally-suspended bombs have been fitted to B-29 using experimental configurations (eg. the 12000 lb “Tallboy”).
Sources;
- TM 9-1985-1 BRITISH EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
Cover
Page 29, 500 lb MC
Page 31, 1000 lb MC
Page 32, 4000 lb MC
Page 37, 4000 lb HC
Page 39, 8000 lb HC
- AN 01-20EJ-1 PILOT’S FLIGHT OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARMY MODELS B-29 AND B-29A AIRPLANES
Cover
Page 1, Section I, Description
4 Likes
Will the Washington atleast replace the B-29A for low-tier Britain nukes?
1 Like
In fairness the B-29 is unmarked so I would assume no but also maybe?
Many thanks to @dan_rafbc for finding both sources.
@Smin1080p_WT is this enough proof that the aircraft should be equipped solely with British bombs, or only proof that it should have 500 lb and 1000 lb MC bombs added to or replacing its AN GP bombs?
I think the opportunity for adding the Washington with a British bomb load rather than purely as a copy of the US vehicle should be considered.
500 lb MC
AIR 27/2609/23, 35 Sqn RAF Summary of Events 0-31 Aug 1952
AIR 27/2609/23
1000 lb MC
AIR 27/2441/73, 90 Sqn RAF Summary of Events 01-30 June 1951
5 Likes
For these two types, yes this should be sufficient for a report.
Okay nice, I’ll get that done.
What’s your source that the Washington B.1 used the 2000 lb AN-M66 and 4000 lb AN-M56 in RAF service?
And that would need a new model. Resources are limited. This did not come instead of a Vickers Windsor or Short Sperrin or whatever. It’s a reskin of an existing aircraft and frankly a welcome reskin, not copy slop.
It better
no it is copy slop, doesn’t matter if we did use it or not, its not british and when there are options such as you mentioned that could be added it seems stupid to just to ignore them
It’s not quite a straight reskin. The model has been changed from the current B-29A, to add the APQ-13 bombing radar between the bomb bays.
The US B-29A should probably have a radar as well. Either the early retractable radome in the photos below, or the later fixed one seen on this Washington
A lot of wartime publicity photos for the B-29 photographed from angles to hide the radar, or even had it edited out for security reasons. And many of the remaining airframes are planes that were converted to TB-29 trainers without bombing radar. But operational bombers had one
1 Like
Alternative to the US AN-M56 4000 lb bomb;
US-production of the 4,000 lb HC Mk V! This is a two-lug version of the British 4,000 lb HC specifically designed for fitting in US aircraft, 38,805 of which were manufactured in 1944-45.
Sources;
- OFFICIAL MUNITIONS PRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES, By Months, July 1, 1940 - August 31, 1945 (1947)
Page 228
- OP 878 (2nd Revision), GENERAL DATA ON NAVY, AN-STANDARD, ARMY, AND BRITISH BOMBS, 1944
Cover
Page 37
3 Likes
yeah but it hasn’t come instead of them. It takes a lot to modela full new aircraft
Fantastic find, hopefully this can be sorted on the Dev server and the Washington can have its uniquely British bomb load ready for when the update releases.
On a separate note, for those complaining about a bomber being a pointless addition because of the current state of bomber gameplay, I’d like to point out that gameplay deficiencies are temporary, but securing important historical vehicles for the tech tree is permanent.
Sure, bombers currently suck, but nuclear thunder/strategic bombing was a huge success for gaijin and it will almost certainly be making a bigger return and expanding to different BR brackets. If/when that time comes, it will be fantastic to have already secured our post-war strategic bomber for the tech tree.
4 Likes
Washington never carried nukes in RAF service.
1 Like
They were sent over as a nuke bomber stopgap though.
They are described as a “medium bomber” in the Operations Record Books, and only carried conventional bombs. They were only a stopgap until the Canberra entered service, and I haven’t seen any info on them being modified for carriage of nuclear freefall bombs. They’re just regular B-29As.