b-2 won’t be added because it’s stealth.
Well, you got F-105 in the game. Pretty much all later bombers were used to drop conventional loads as well.
If I recall well, Tu-16 was used in Iraq-Iran war where Saddam’s army was happily using FAB-9000. I believe both sides had heavy air defences.
Americans used B-52 in Vietnam war as well as middle east.
Vulcan was used in Falkland war, as power projection, but it was still used with conventional weapons.
Many more bombers which had dual purpose (nuclear / regular) were used during multiple conflicts with regular weaponry.
Just because an aircraft had dual role doesn’t mean we should consider only nuclear role.
How much fun will a Vulcan be with no defence?
The Vulcan (the B.2 anyway, which is what the suggestion about it was) had both over 1000 Countermeasures as well as Sidewinders and some other nifty defences, which id say is hardly “no defence”
Imho your whole reply has 2 major weaknesses:
- There are no dual roles of strategic bombers developed to deliver nuclear payloads. You might argue that the Tu-16 was an exception - i don’t agree as the overwhelming majority of production aircraft were produced in an anti-ship role to fight US carrier groups in the North Atlantic; nuclear bombers became obsolete due to ICBMs and were converted to anti-ship missile carriers. That some bombers (including the other types you mentioned) were used in a conventional role was based on:
- Asymmetrical warfare which means that the attacking bombers faced little to zero opposition of enemy fighters or SAMs
- There was no political will or necessity to use nuclear payloads
- The users had no access to nuclear weapons
- All your examples trying to justify your view on things are actually counterproductive - either due to a lack of reliable data (like Iraq-Iran war as just 8 Tu-16 were sold to Iraq) or due to the nature of their usage (asymmetric like Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.). If you analyse the remarkable flights of the Vulcans you might realize that they stayed out of the range of enemy interceptors in Argentine and there were no interceptors at Port Stanley - so there was no airborne threat and dropping nukes on their own territory would have made the whole exercise useless.
So as long as wt sticks to balanced lobbies there will be no realistic chance to survive a match for the types mentioned in this thread - definitively not with dropping conventional bombs. On top of that a complete revision of map design and sizes plus the addition of stand-off weapons for those cold war bombers would be necessary - same as objectives.
As the Tu-16 was mentioned several times in this thread - i found a story about a Tu-16 (piloted by a guy with real balls) which you might find interesting:
Agreed - but what shall they do against fighters twice as fast using their cannons?
3 Likes
the whole idea is generally a LOT more altitude, most strat bombers operated at far higher altitudes than they spawn in game, although I agree the current AAB and ARB environment is not favourable towards bombers, simply increasing their spawn altitude to a realistic height and adding say Strat bomber only bases would be a band aid solution to the major issues
I think you totally miss the point. How do early canberras or buccaneer S.1 defend itself with no missiles, no cannons and no flares? It’s a game, we’re not designing perfect bomber, you sometimes win, sometimes lose. It is perfectly ok if enemy player is dedicated enough into removing you from the match to the point they go through your missile defences and use guns. Bomber is a bomber, it is tasked with carrying a payload over distance and dropping it on designated target, not to fight the fighters.
This task can be done either by going higher than others or low enough it’s hard to spot you.
Oh and please don’t tell me that bomber pilots do not commit towards victory… If anyone really wants to use that argument, please first of all tell me how does approximately 1/3 of the team which dies with no kills or assists adds to the team score. Especially that on certain maps its possible to entirely win the game with bombers/attackers before the fighters even arrive at the battlefield (sinai was it? low tiers, yes, but with higher tiers its possible to add to the team victory as well).
No, we don’t. Gaijin needs to focus on QOL and in game balancing, not adding in new classes of things.
It wouldn’t make a difference, why add it, if it’s not gonna serve a purpose in the way the game is right now designed. Gaijin stopped adding bombers of this sort because it is 1 a waste of resources as they don’t serve a meta or much of a purpose, If you want a dive-bombing role, you call in dive bombers or fighter crafts with a bomb, strike craft, or multirole vehicles such as the BF-110 which both irl and in-game still serves as a multi-role aircraft.
The moment you wrote “It’s just a game” completely invalidated all of your previous claims you had wrote
The only time you call in a large bomber of any time is for 3 reasons, one is the G8N1 “Death Star”, BV-238 “Boatified AC-130”, PE-8, and Landcaster for your Tactical Nukes incoming. Other you don’t call them in for anything else. Now Gaijin could change this however due to their nature, that would be rather difficult.
1 Like
EDIT: I moved this post to its own thread: A Proposal for Implementing Post-WWII Strategic Bombers
I have an idea for how strategic bombers can be implemented, as they don’t have a place in the game currently (as many here have noted). Thus, I propose a new battle type for ARB which would be tailored to such aircraft. I detail my idea in the linked thread. Feel free to leave comments and/or criticisms!
b-47, b-52, b1, b2, b36… man you are so wrong
Whatever you say young padawan…
The difference between a fact-free opinion and a fact-based opinion is that the later is based on knowledge whilst the first is based on “believes”.
Outside religious faith it makes no sense to challenge others if you try to argue with believes vs facts.
Seeing this:
you might consider to invest way more time in researching aviation history before you try to challenge others - trying to improve your reading comprehension might be a good idea too.
Yeah, and I don’t know if you put it down, but the TU-22 would be great addition.
- I’m atheist so jokes on you,
- all aircraft listed are multi-role (conventional/ nuclear/ guided munitions)
my man what did that quote have anything to do with what you said?
and btw I am knowledgable in aircraft history, in fact I’m studying to become an AMT so.
what about sim battles? i’d very much appreciate heavy bomber in my team and do what i can to make it reach its goal and drain enemy’s tickets
We need a new mode for bombers to shine but yes I agree I’d love to see B-52s B-1s, B-58s, etc.
But we need a mode to support bombers in general. I have some ideas, but we need something.
Your lack of reading comprehension was obvious, that’s the reason why i recommended to work on that.
Example?
You simply ignored completely the reasons why most nuclear bombers were adopted to use conventional payloads or stand-off weapons.
I described the 3 main reasons here - but i try to make it easier for you to understand:
- As soon as land- and sub-based ICBMs made the (strategic) nuclear obsolete there was a need to find another purpose for them.
- The increasing threat by SAMs resulted in the change of attack profiles - from high alt bombing to low alt penetration attacks.
- The appearance of fighters with PD radar and LD/SD capabilities killed this option in the 1970s. Imho the only exception: B-2 thanks to stealth tech.
- So if there is no realistic chance to perform the nuclear role due to zero survival chances against equally equipped opponents there was a need to find another role for them as the conventional payload (with some modifications like B-52s above Vietnam) could be increased rather easy and was good enough to bomb more or less helpless guys (in asymmetric wars) back to the stone age.
- Stand-off weapons are useful in mildly contested airspace - as they allow the carrier plane to stay out of any danger and the larger types could carry a lot of them. Even in in highly contested airspace the total number of launched stand-off weapons might be suited to overwhelm enemy air defenses.
I hope this helps you to understand the weakness in your logic - it is not about the usage of certain bombers in asymmetric warfare, it is about the usage in their intended role as nuclear weapons carrier.
The ability tp perform an oil change does not promote a car mechanic to be an expert in automobile industry. Same as with becoming an AMT. My father in law maintained Nato jets in several European countries during the Cold War - easy going (his words) as (almost) everything is regulated in this area.
Good luck for your studies!
Just give me the B-58 and the Vulcan. The Doritos of Doom. The Triangle Twins.
in real world they can defend demselves also they can be escorted by fighters, we can create new modes, some players with these bombers and others as fighter jets to defend them,
It could work if they added BR appropriate A.I escort fighters with basic pathfinding that follow you around. You could upgrade them the same way you upgrade crews. Start out with 1 then work your way up to having 4. Just make sure they don’t have aimbot, don’t have OP missile loadouts, and make them leave the area if the player they are escorting gets shot down. It’s better than just being fighter food.
