Yes, this is exactly what happened to every single bomber in the game my friend.
Please have a wider perspective, just because you would do it, doesn’t mean everyone would give up.
For example take into consideration the B-52. I assume it would not be higher BR than 10.3, likely placed around 9.7. It has enough bombload to destroy 4 bases, however it is slower and less maneuvrable than fighters. What would you do in this situation? I would fly away from the main battle gaining altitude, once the two sides meet and start fighting, I would turn towards the bases. Of course, some would be bombed already, but the planes that initially bombed these bases would either die already or fight the fighters. While by the time I arrive, new bases would spawn already.
It’s exactly the same I play lower tier bombers or the buccaneers (with exception buccs are low level bombers). It’s how many players who actually enjoy bomber gameplay do it.
Regarding teamkilling, well, can’t do anything about that. Found out recently that having red smoke is big enough reason to get teamkilled, so nothing will help with that.
To argue that the sheer number appearance of bombers in Air RB matches would imply an interest in bomber game play is imho more than misleading.
No offense, but based on my experience 99% of those guys are just on selfish grinding journeys. They are neither passionate bomber pilots or really interested in the game play.
Gaijin created these “pilots” with the introduction of respawning bases and their reward structure. As long as a base kill produces ~ 3 times of RP compared to an A2A kill nothing will change.
If i watch my son playing top and tiers above 10.0 the total number of fighters killing bases in stuff like F-4S is amazingly high - those guys are the equivalent to prop bombers flying straight to a base…
We the players have to stop asking for new vehicles and ask for new game modes, because atm bombers
are pointless to bring into the pvp tdm we currently have
Therefore argument that bombers are for selected few is invalid.
That’s truth. Even I flew with incendiary bombs in F-15A or F-16C just to research some upgrades for them. Mind that most of the strategic bombers likely wouldn’t be higher than 11.x in BR.
Can’t agree with that. Maps are „just the right” size for those machines. They still have a way to go around or simply climb to avoid fighters. Radars of the era are not potent enough yet to be serious harm.
The further you go with BR the bigger the maps are, with operation maps being entirely sufficient for any kind of machine to enjoy.
technically I have had 2 but only cause I forgot my password for my original and had used a school email but it got deleted when the email got deleted I’m pretty sure
What you do with a load of mostly unarmed nuke carrying bombers? Many of them were mage for end of the world one way trips anyway.
People don’t think before they make suggestions.
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.
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”
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:
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).
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.
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!
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.