"Winged Giants and Sky Sentinels:heavy bombers for war thunder

Machinery of War Discussion
,
1

Hey everyone

This game lacks heavy jet bombers so i decide to write this post

As we navigate the ever-changing skies of War Thunder, the conspicuous absence of jet-powered heavy bombers stands as a strategic deficiency that demands rectification. Here’s why these formidable aerial assets are indispensable additions to our arsenal, complete with insights into their engines, radars, crew dynamics, payload capabilities, production history, suggested Battle Ratings (BR), and accompanying interceptors:

B-47 Stratojet:

  • Engines: Powered by six General Electric J47 turbojet engines, renowned for their reliability and power.
  • Radar: Equipped with the AN/APG-41 bombing/navigation radar for precise targeting and navigation.
  • Crew: Pilots, co-pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and gunners.
  • Payload: Capable of carrying various ordnance types, including conventional bombs and nuclear weapons.
  • Pros: High payload capacity, extended range, advanced radar systems.
  • Cons: Vulnerability to interceptors and anti-aircraft defenses.
  • Production: Over 2,000 units produced, served from the early 1950s to the mid-1960s.
  • Service: Entered service in the early 1950s and ended in the mid-1960s.
  • BR: 8.0-8.7

Tu-16 Badger:

  • Engines: Propelled by two Mikulin AM-3 turbojet engines, known for their efficiency.
  • Radar: Fitted with the RBP-2 “High Fix” radar for advanced navigation and targeting.
  • Crew: Pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and gunners.
  • Payload: Versatile payload capabilities, adaptable to various mission profiles.
  • Pros: Robust performance, extended endurance, advanced radar systems.
  • Cons: Vulnerability to enemy defenses, logistical challenges.
  • Production: Produced in significant numbers by the Soviet Union.
  • Service: Operational from the late 1950s to the late 1980s.
  • BR: 8.3-9.0

Vickers Valiant:

  • Engines: Utilized four Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet engines, known for their power.
  • Radar: Featured AI Mk 17 navigation radar and AI Mk 21 bombing radar.
  • Crew: Pilots, co-pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and gunners.
  • Payload: Flexible payload options, including conventional and nuclear ordnance.
  • Pros: Exceptional power, comprehensive radar systems.
  • Cons: Vulnerability to enemy defenses, limited maneuverability.
  • Production: Served from 1955 to 1965.
  • Service: Active from 1955 to 1965.
  • BR: 8.5-9.2

Interceptors:

  • Soviet: Su-15, renowned for its high-speed capabilities and potent armament.
  • American: F-106 Delta Dart, a supersonic interceptor equipped with advanced radar and missile systems.
  • British: English Electric Lightning, known for its exceptional speed and climb rate, equipped with advanced radar and weaponry.

This took me One hour to write,this game lacks of heavy jet bombers so why not add them?

3 Likes
2

They’re cool and I’d play them, that’s all that’s needed for me. :)

2 Likes
3

Imho 10 minutes of forum search would have been a better investment. You might also think about rephrasing your post from “heavy” into “strategic” bombers - the “size” was a result of lang range requirements (=fuel).

This topic pops up every few months and the usual outcome is always the same.

They don’t fit in the current wt meta.

An old thread with a poll for a hell of bombers:

And old reply dealing with actual challenges for gaijin & players flying them, reflecting about history of strategic bombing, dealing with the main purpose (=delivering a nuclear payload), changes of doctrine and necessary changes within the game necessary to make them flyable & enyoyable:

Summary

I am fully with you. And i like bombers too. But have in mind, that the majority of the player base is fighter driven, looking for fast player interaction. For them bombers are food and not allowed to fulfil any other purpose than to be easy targets.

In my initial post i wrote the strategic bomber was dead with inventing SAMs. This is valid for their earlier role as high flying carriers for nuclear loadout. Thats why they changed the doctrine to low level attacks penetrating enemy air defenses. And later just to stay outside any kind of air defenses. The B52 was not designed to deal with or fight enemy fighters. Its an early 1950s design to fly long and high to nuke some guys of the red team. They added ECM and everything else later, the turret in the back was more a kind of moral support of the crews and vanished later.

If you think broader the strategic bomber role was already almost dead in WW2.

The brits were unable to attack by day due to fighter defenses, their attacks by night were highly ineffective due to lack of accuracy and still very costly for them - check out Nuremberg raid. The B-17s attacked by day much more effective but lost thousands of planes due to flak and fighters. Later analysis - depending on which sources you quote - confirm that around 80 to 85% of the German industrial capacity was still intact at VE day.

They lost the war (besides lack of other major topics) latest 1941 as they were unable to defeat the soviets quick which would have gained them access to oil in the caucasus. They ran out of fuel 1942. If you refer to B-29s: They flew almost unmolested above Japan as there was no fighter able to catch them. They have been killed by Mig15s above Korea with ease, the result above Europe against Me262s would have been the same. The last German attacks with 177s on England were conducted by flying around England, coming from the west and extend in a shallow dive hoping to outrun spits and tempests.

Coming back to the reality in war thunder:

I got your point that with a certain number of chaffs and flares and using ECM you can fend off some missiles. But the fighters are as twice as fast on alt than a B52, they will just gun you down from any angle. And then you are still back in the food role. Like the B-29 right now. I played against them years ago when they were at 6.0 or 6.3 - a challenge to kill them fast enough to avoid the usual af kill by them on small maps - but now…

If you really enjoy the level of realism, you were forced to implement high alt SAMs, Wild Weasel planes to kill these SAM sites, implement EF-111s to jam ground radar, Awacs and so on and so forth. But this level would require also that u use your B-52 realistic - either low level which would expose you to various kinds of midfield aaa and SAMs or as carrier for long range missiles staying far away of any threat. At this point only a few people will support your proposal.

My recommendation:

If you really want to continue with this, go for a realistic target - the implementation of a plane where is no need to change anything else in the game. Your plane should have at least the chance to kill one base and rtb safely - despite being chased by fighters with AAMs.

Everything else will not be played by the majority of the players as without a realistic chance to survive it would make no sense.

A good example would be the B-58 as they were really fast high AND low.

Try to contact some of those smart guys who implemented user made planes, find out the effort and decide then if its worth your time to proceed.

Anyway, gl and hf!

4

Honestly the best we could hope for is maybe the B-36, and thats pushing it.