Wellington bombers are so weak

[Armagedon-100]

in my previous discussion i said bombers are powerless... i was wrong
only wellington is...
why are british plans suck so much?!

[Kuro]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

7call7 a écrit :

Thanks for telling me that wellington is weak, I'm going after them right now.

I'm not saying I support killing all bombers ever, but any red triangles deserve nothing but death.

I'd actually support Gaijin removing all heavy bombers from player control, and putting them in as mobs to escort around for ground strike. Actually, I'd support removing all non-attacker non-fighters that lack forward-firing, pilot operated guns from the general queue (i.e. duckplanes, stuka, A20, D3A1, B25 etc. all good; remove B17, Yer-2, Do 217 non-nightfighters, Lancaster etc.).

Do you mean completely? I agree they spoil ground forces but planes like the ju-87 and the a-20 should be aloud. I think it should be attackers and dive bombers and fighters to intercept them.

[Junos]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

Bombers are bad.

I hope this post helps!

Pleb post, how would a fighter with no bombs take out a base then. lol

[M.Wolfy]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

7call7 a écrit :

Thanks for telling me that wellington is weak, I'm going after them right now.

I'm not saying I support killing all bombers ever, but any red triangles deserve nothing but death.

I'd actually support Gaijin removing all heavy bombers from player control, and putting them in as mobs to escort around for ground strike. Actually, I'd support removing all non-attacker non-fighters that lack forward-firing, pilot operated guns from the general queue (i.e. duckplanes, stuka, A20, D3A1, B25 etc. all good; remove B17, Yer-2, Do 217 non-nightfighters, Lancaster etc.).

We already get nothing but death (not to mention the crap rewards and ridiculous repair billls)
Removing player controlled bombers would piss off bomber pilots that have put a lot of time and money into their bombers, so that probably wouldn't be the best approach to removing bombers.

Concerning the OP, The first two wellingtons have no armour whatsoever, so if a BF 109 shoots you from the rear, it'll go straight through the glass, the rear gunner, and into the pilot (which is complete bs) its also a matchbox being set on fire easily and their Geodetic airframe dosen't exist in this game apparently. SO they're pretty damm weak, but if you can get to the target, that bomb load goes a long way

[M.Wolfy]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

Agreed, that's why I don't actually support that postition (but I would if Gaijin made it an option). I'd rather see midair reloads get removed and replaced with "fly off the friendly side of the map, wait out the rearm timer, and then return in the air". For all planes, including fighters.

As a bomber pilot i wouldn't mind this, also increasing chances of survival from fighters hunting bombers. But the japanese bombers with their bombloads wouldn't really appreciate it (mainly because they don't have their historical bombloads e.g KI-49 should be 1000 kg and the G8N1 should be 2x1500kg)

[GoreTiger]

The British Airforce stuck mostly to night time bombing, While the more heavily armed American Bombers took to day time bombing.

The problem with British bombers is most of them had a playwood frame or thin metal covering. And most of their defensive armaments were nothing more than rifle-calibre .303's. Horrible rounds to try and shoot something down diving on you.

American bombers reigned supreme in terms of survivability and Defence. In-game, The lancaster holds the most bombload. That'l stick until the b-29 is added.

[Kuro]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

Darkwizard a écrit :

Do you mean completely? I agree they spoil ground forces but planes like the ju-87 and the a-20 should be aloud. I think it should be attackers and dive bombers and fighters to intercept them.

I don't like most bombers on the principle that War Thunder is an air combat game. Bombing is an important part of air combat, but I really don't like the way bombers are implemented in WT. I think most of my issues are related to the paucity of things for bombers to contribute toward.

The variety and number of ground targets really needs to increase, with strategic points being rarer and larger numbers of ground units constantly spawning in. I'd rather see a huge maze of quonset huts and other military bric-a-brac to smash up than the boring targets we have now. Additionally, bombing out the airfield also shouldn't end a match. Perhaps disable repairs and spawns at that airfield, but planes in arcade spawn in the air anyway! (justify it as "off map reinforcements" or something)

e: To be clear, planes like the Stuka/A-20G/IL-2/etc. are not bombers. They are attackers.

If bombers couldn't destroy airfields then they would be useless. Take planes like the b-17 for example, it has a pretty powerful bomb load and it would be useless against ground targets. And destroying thew airfield should win the game or bombers again would be useless. And yes thats what i meant. Attackers should be aloud in ground forces but having b-17s is not that fair or even a lancaster (they can have 14,000lb bomb loads)

[M.Wolfy]

KrayToast a écrit :

The British Airforce stuck mostly to night time bombing, While the more heavily armed American Bombers took to day time bombing.

The problem with British bombers is most of them had a playwood frame or thin metal covering. And most of their defensive armaments were nothing more than rifle-calibre .303's. Horrible rounds to try and shoot something down diving on you.

American bombers reigned supreme in terms of survivability and Defence. In-game, The lancaster holds the most bombload. That'l stick until the b-29 is added.

Agree on the terrible choice of guns by the british, but in theory they should be stronger than a B-17 due to their Geodetic airframe[en.wikipedia.org], not saying the B-17 isn't superior (i'd probably choose a B-17 over a weliington due to the armanent) but the weliington has a Duralumin airframe (not wooden}, but a thin covering nonetheless. They were used for night time bombing, but that didn't mean they couldn't take a beating

[E-Man720]

"M.Wolfy" I Agree and as a fan of the old wimpy I was disappointed to see how little it would take, in that I have seen real life pictures of aircraft that shouldn't have still been flying and had large portions of structure missing. But until the devs make them more accurate we just have to learn how to fly them (Look at my pervious post.)

[M.Wolfy]

E-Man720 a écrit :

"M.Wolfy" I Agree and as a fan of the old wimpy I was disappointed to see how little it would take, in that I have seen real life pictures of aircraft that shouldn't have still been flying and had large portions of structure missing. But until the devs make them more accurate we just have to learn how to fly them (Look at my pervious post.)

I do often fly like that, but sometimes its unavoidable.

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

The issue with the Geodetic airframe is that it blocks bullets basically not at all, and the Wellington (and most bombers) lack any sort of meaningful armor for the cockpit so bullets easily enter from the rear and strike the pilot. Pilot KOs from behind are only really common because of mouse aim's precise aiming.

Experienced this a few times too many, but the mouse aim super precision makes killing the pilot really easy (even the higher tiered wellingtons and lancasters don't have enough armour to protect from a 50.cal) in realistic battles and maybe simulator (never flown a simulator battle since my joystick broke) its okay but in arcade the wellington is underpowered for the ridiculous precision of mouse aim.

[GoreTiger]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

Darkwizard a écrit :

If bombers couldn't destroy airfields then they would be useless. Take planes like the b-17 for example, it has a pretty powerful bomb load and it would be useless against ground targets. And destroying thew airfield should win the game or bombers again would be useless. And yes thats what i meant. Attackers should be aloud in ground forces but having b-17s is not that fair or even a lancaster (they can have 14,000lb bomb loads)

I'm pretty sure killing tanks and pillboxes, depending on map, removes tickets and lets your team win in ground strike maps.

Unless you're arguing that tanks and pillboxes* can't be killed by bombers?


*Yes I am aware that pillbox hitboxes are hilariously inconsistent and Gaijin's attitude that it takes direct hits from bombs to break them.

M.Wolfy a écrit :

Agree on the terrible choice of guns by the british, but in theory they should be stronger than a B-17 due to their Geodetic airframe[en.wikipedia.org], not saying the B-17 isn't superior (i'd probably choose a B-17 over a weliington due to the armanent) but the weliington has a Duralumin airframe (not wooden}, but a thin covering nonetheless. They were used for night time bombing, but that didn't mean they couldn't take a beating

The issue with the Geodetic airframe is that it blocks bullets basically not at all, and the Wellington (and most bombers) lack any sort of meaningful armor for the cockpit so bullets easily enter from the rear and strike the pilot. Pilot KOs from behind are only really common because of mouse aim's precise aiming.

Bombing pillboxes & tanks is inconsistant with the purpose of heavy bombers. You'd send out a b25 or something of it's caliber to deal with tanks and pillboxes. Not a b17 aiming from 20-30k up in the sky trying to hit a tiny dot.

[Ihlbit]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

KrayToast a écrit :

Bombing pillboxes & tanks is inconsistant with the purpose of heavy bombers. You'd send out a b25 or something of it's caliber to deal with tanks and pillboxes. Not a b17 aiming from 20-30k up in the sky trying to hit a tiny dot.

So it's impossible to bomb pillboxes with a B-17? That the 8x500 or 4x1000 loadouts are simply incapbable of being used to crush tank columns? Learning to lead airplanes correctly is a big part of learning to git gud at airplanes, learning to lead tanks correctly is a big part of git gud at bombers.

yea, i dont have much of a problem with bombers, or brit planes for that matter.

[GoreTiger]

Wales☪Grey a écrit :

KrayToast a écrit :

Bombing pillboxes & tanks is inconsistant with the purpose of heavy bombers. You'd send out a b25 or something of it's caliber to deal with tanks and pillboxes. Not a b17 aiming from 20-30k up in the sky trying to hit a tiny dot.

So it's impossible to bomb pillboxes with a B-17? That the 8x500 or 4x1000 loadouts are simply incapbable of being used to crush tank columns? Learning to lead airplanes correctly is a big part of learning to git gud at airplanes, learning to lead tanks correctly is a big part of git gud at bombers.

You've mistaken what I said as in-game tactics, when really I was talking about IRL, Which most Air combat games model themselves off of.
In-game you have dive bombing heavy bombers and dogfighting b25s. Something that was not mandate in RL and likely would not of ended well.

On aces high we had dweebs that would dive bomb carriers in b24s. man was that annoying.

[nickfdg]

Never play in a bomber once.i think all of them are weak.just my point.

[Ihlbit]

nickfdg a écrit :

Never play in a bomber once.i think all of them are weak.just my point.

And here we have the uneducated booby.

[[Volk]SpixTalon]

ihlbit a écrit :

nickfdg a écrit :

Never play in a bomber once.i think all of them are weak.just my point.

And here we have the uneducated booby.

Idk man...I ever so rarely play bombers.
But you don't actually have to play them to see that they are surprisingly fragile at times.