Will gajin add he avro vulcan to british bomber tree ever?



I hope so.


I’d love it, but fear it has no place within the current game. Its hard enough for a strategic bomber with turrets to do anything, an unarmed bomber, that would be slower than anything else at its BR, wont stand much of a chance.

What we would need is either to get an ultra-high air spawn or a new gamemode designed for bombers.

1 Like

The Vulcan isn’t as defenceless as the other bombers though because it carried a massive amount of chaff, flares, and ECM. A single Vulcan was also tested with a pair of AIM-9G Sidewinders during the Falklands War, so in theory Gaijin could add that.

It could also carry Martel and Shrike anti-radiation missiles, which would make it quite useful once that class of weapon are added.


WT map design and scale of combat is such that ECM’s only function is to frustrate enemies who rely on missiles, by forcing them them to tail-chase and gunfight.
No amount of flares and ECM is going to stop any plane in WT at medium altitude in the vicinity of where all the bases are clustered on the map, with performance equal to or greater than a MiG-15 from simply climbing to where it sees those nice white contrails in the sky and putting a few dozen cannon rounds through that big delta wing. Vulcan’s not going to outrun or outmanoeuvre anything like a low-level fighter-bomber might with the help of such countermeasures.

It could work to some degree in ground battles since surface threats can’t drive up to the sky and hose you with MGs (so you only have to worry if someone else has spawned air). But in air battles, Vulcan and other bombers of this type are only going to be worth anything if big, big maps appear with targets spread out over much bigger areas and ECM obfuscating the position, direction and likely target of a bomber makes interception a matter of luck to some degree: Not simply a matter of time and persistence like it is now.

Maybe fits the mould for a freebie grind event, quirky-but-deathtrap vehicle like the Sturmtiger and BM-31-12. Then it’ll have limited exposure and gaijin don’t have to justify it being borderline unplayable like they would if it was in the TT or something people might spend money on

I have been a bomber main since 2013 and spent thousands of hours playing different bombing aircraft. If you want to have an aggressive attitude towards this suggestion please do not post. Since you can see there is interest in the gameplay loop of bombing and future strategic bombers being added consider that your opinion may not be the end all and be all of statements to stop people from voting.

He does have a point though, implementing strategic bombers might not be something really easy to do, specially considering in the current game modes (EC might be a bit better for them).

I really wish they could add them, but I don’t think that they’ll be very enjoyable, it will mostly depend on the BR they are given (too low they would be very hard to counter, too high theyll be too easy…)


Yeah, an event or optional tree aircraft would have to be a requirement for the Vulcan, and others like the B-52, forcing people to grind them, would suck

Even EC I’d fear would be too small, I think we’d need the maps being twice maybe even four times larger before something like the Vulcan would show real value, and even then, few targets worthy of the massive bombs loads that the Vulcan or B-52 could carry

If I want to have an aggressive attitude I will post whatever I like that is in accordance with the forum rules.

If it troubles you then that’s your problem, not mine.

Ah - more prototype loadouts added to he mix - yes WT definitely needs that!

A minor addition against ground missiles from airfield and other AI AA - not going to be useful vs a/c with guns.

Basically the Vulcan is a very pretty, but very LARGE, plane -it is manoeuvrable for “PLANE OF THAT SIZE”, but it is defenceless vs all the gun-fighters of the 50’s onwards - pretty difficult to miss once in range, and slow as a wet week so unable to run away.

The unarmed smaller smaller bombers demonstrate just how bad it will be.

There are a limited number of British aircraft that could carry Anti-Radiation missiles (which could be rather useful in ground battles). The Vulcan is one of those few aircraft.

There are loads of prototype loadouts in game. What’s wrong with one more?

I really dont know if Ground RB is gonna be a practical place to use a strategic bomber for CAS…btw, there are other options, the Buccaneer and Harrier had the AS-37 homologated…those might be a bit better options than the Vulcan.

As long as its balanced…

It would be neat to see

The Vulcan works fine in ground rb since it only has 5 more bombs than the buccaneer, and the buccaneer doesn’t nuke ground rb.

I’m well aware, but having more options at different battle ratings isn’t a bad thing.

1 Like

In terms of large strategic bombers going forward that have much larger payloads than the Vulcan, Victor, Valiant and B-47’s. An option would be to make them greyed out in ground rb above a certain br bracket. So that people won’t carpet bomb entire landscapes. Just how Helis are blanked out for air rb and boats for ground rb.

For larger bombers with larger payloads they could just add respawning airfields just like in sim enduring confrontation. And have the airfield respawns be random so that people won’t so easily predict the path of such bombers.

It’s a simple solution as bombers with giant payloads can hit targets of that scale reliably if allowed to reach them, and they won’t be abused to carpet bomb entire ground rb maps.

1 Like

Though it has only a slightly larger bomb load to that of the Buc S2 btw. 21 x 1k bombs I believe

The Buccaneers is 16x 1000lbs of bombs. The Vulcan and Valiants payload is 21x1000lbs and Victor’s is 35x1000lbs.

Does only the amount of bombs matter? its a plane way larger than the Buccaneer, slower and less maneuverable…not sure how that could work great in the current ground RB more.

Its not, but, what BR exactly is it supposed to be? (at least in your opinion)