B-52 bomber /=/ Tupolev Tu-95

[bollocks]

Can these be added?
Redfor Tupolev
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vtafF5516_c/maxresdefault.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
20-30 -- 1000 kg bombs
700 km/h?
Speed comprimised with 15 total health points, with 1 armour side/back/top/front
Bluefor B-52
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Boeing_B-52_dropping_bombs.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress
20-30 -- 1000 kg bombs
850 km/h?
Speed compensated with 30 ECM, 15 total health points, no armour.
Thanks, God bless the U.S.A

[GrandHardy]

Out of scale probably, I doubt its the first time they've been suggested.

[bollocks]

Автор сообщения: GrandHardy

Out of scale I believe, I doubt its the first time they've been suggested.

Do you mean OP or out of scale in terms of the map?

[Hash_Slinging_Slasher]

Автор сообщения: David

Автор сообщения: GrandHardy

Out of scale I believe, I doubt its the first time they've been suggested.

Do you mean OP or out of scale in terms of the map?

I think he means they are theatre level assets, and would never be used in an area where there was active AA threats

[bollocks]

Автор сообщения: Hash_Slinging_Slasher

Автор сообщения: David

Do you mean OP or out of scale in terms of the map?

I think he means they are theatre level assets, and would never be used in an area where there was active AA threats

A lot of bombers and helicopters in the game wouldn't be used in areas with active AA threats yet they're still added.

[DasaKamov]

The developers have stated several times that long range strategic assets like Strategic Bombers will never be a part of Wargame; partly for the reason outlined above (incredibly vulnerable to high-altitude SAMs and enemy Interceptors), and partly because the only payload they would realistically use in a "Cold War gone Hot) scenario would be nuclear ordinance, which has also been stated will never appear in a "Wargame" game (at least, during tactical combat).

Also, the fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters we currently have are on a completely different level than what you're proposing.

[Mashsmouth]

Those two bombers are strategic bombers. Not something you'd call in for CAS.

[=37th= minepagan]

Автор сообщения: Who Goes Thar

Those two bombers are strategic bombers. Not something you'd call in for CAS.

Are you sure? In Vietnam the US military used B-52s with conventional munitions to provide close air support...

[DasaKamov]

Автор сообщения: minepagan

Are you sure? In Vietnam the US military used B-52s with conventional munitions to provide close air support...

Operations Linebacker and Linbacker II weren't exactly "CAS", since you don't want a carpet-bomber dropping its payload in an area where your own troops are fighting in. ;)

Also, the use of B-52s in Vietnam were of...questionable effectiveness, at best. It was Nixon's attempt to show the NVA how powerful the US was, and it served that purpose in some small capacity, but after the initial use the "shock and awe" effect faded away. Also, given that carpet-bombers are intended to indiscriminatly destroy everything under their drop point -- including civilian population centers -- the use of B-52s justifiably outraged anti-war activists at home and arguably turned many Vietnamese against the US.

For ACTUAL CAS missions, the US usually turned to the F-4 and the F-105.

EDIT: Also, the previous posters' points about the vulnerability of Strategic Bombers is emphasized in the Vietnam War, during which the US lost 32 B-52s (17 in combat) and raised the question of "If we lost these many bombers to an ill-equipped guerilla army, how many more would we lose in a head-to-head battle with the Soviets"?

[meanderthal]

This suggestion crops up more often than wasps at a summer picnic.

B-52's et al, are strategic assets beyond the scope and scale of this game.

That said, the F-117 is also widely considered to be a strategic asset yet that is in game, flying during daylight too !..... go figure. :)

CAVEAT: B-52's were used rarely in the combat support mode. such as in the defensive Battle of Khe-San during the Vietnam war.

See vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQjdNK6lhdM

[meanderthal]

Автор сообщения: DasaKamov

Автор сообщения: minepagan

Are you sure? In Vietnam the US military used B-52s with conventional munitions to provide close air support...

Operations Linebacker and Linbacker II weren't exactly "CAS", since you don't want a carpet-bomber dropping its payload in an area where your own troops are fighting in. ;)

Also, the use of B-52s in Vietnam were of...questionable effectiveness, at best. It was Nixon's attempt to show the NVA how powerful the US was, and it served that purpose in some small capacity, but after the initial use the "shock and awe" effect faded away. Also, given that carpet-bombers are intended to indiscriminatly destroy everything under their drop point -- including civilian population centers -- the use of B-52s justifiably outraged anti-war activists at home and arguably turned many Vietnamese against the US.

For ACTUAL CAS missions, the US usually turned to the F-4 and the F-105.

EDIT: Also, the previous posters' points about the vulnerability of Strategic Bombers is emphasized in the Vietnam War, during which the US lost 32 B-52s (17 in combat) and raised the question of "If we lost these many bombers to an ill-equipped guerilla army, how many more would we lose in a head-to-head battle with the Soviets"?

Nailed it mate.

Linebacker and Linebacker 2 were political statements more than they were effective military strikes.

[bollocks]

Автор сообщения: DasaKamov

Автор сообщения: minepagan

Are you sure? In Vietnam the US military used B-52s with conventional munitions to provide close air support...

Operations Linebacker and Linbacker II weren't exactly "CAS", since you don't want a carpet-bomber dropping its payload in an area where your own troops are fighting in. ;)

Also, the use of B-52s in Vietnam were of...questionable effectiveness, at best. It was Nixon's attempt to show the NVA how powerful the US was, and it served that purpose in some small capacity, but after the initial use the "shock and awe" effect faded away. Also, given that carpet-bombers are intended to indiscriminatly destroy everything under their drop point -- including civilian population centers -- the use of B-52s justifiably outraged anti-war activists at home and arguably turned many Vietnamese against the US.

For ACTUAL CAS missions, the US usually turned to the F-4 and the F-105.

EDIT: Also, the previous posters' points about the vulnerability of Strategic Bombers is emphasized in the Vietnam War, during which the US lost 32 B-52s (17 in combat) and raised the question of "If we lost these many bombers to an ill-equipped guerilla army, how many more would we lose in a head-to-head battle with the Soviets"?

Yet we have the NK's b-5, the aussie's F-111C, the soviet IL-102, the SU 24M, must I go on..
These are all carpet bombers, even though I don't see that as a reason as to why these planes should not be added.
Needless to say even in-game you could evacuate units from a treeline or forest before sending in a B-52, as many do with B-5s already.
Many planes in this game aren't CAS.
I think it'd be awesome to see a B-52 extirpate an entire town (a couple blocks of buildings).
Stop dancing around possibilities, B-52s were widely used by the U.S airforce, as they are today.

[meanderthal]

@David:

I humbly disagree with your comparison between B-5, F-111c, Il-102, SU-24M and the B-52's.
F-111 and SU-24 were dedicated all weather precision strike aircraft.
IL-102 was designed as a dedicated ground attack close support aircraft.
B-5 was a Medium bomber.

The B-52 however was a dedicated strategic bomber capable of hauling up to 30 tons of bombs.
None of the aircraft you compare it to could get anywhere close to that capability.

15 x B-52's were shot down with the rather crude (by modern standards) SA-2 during the Vietnam war.
It's survivability on the Red Dragon battlefield (even with established air superiority) would be so poor as to negate any advantage deploying said aircraft would confer, due to the massively improved performance of Surface to Air missile technology since Vietnam era.

[axnone]

Автор сообщения: David

Автор сообщения: DasaKamov

Operations Linebacker and Linbacker II weren't exactly "CAS", since you don't want a carpet-bomber dropping its payload in an area where your own troops are fighting in. ;)

Also, the use of B-52s in Vietnam were of...questionable effectiveness, at best. It was Nixon's attempt to show the NVA how powerful the US was, and it served that purpose in some small capacity, but after the initial use the "shock and awe" effect faded away. Also, given that carpet-bombers are intended to indiscriminatly destroy everything under their drop point -- including civilian population centers -- the use of B-52s justifiably outraged anti-war activists at home and arguably turned many Vietnamese against the US.

For ACTUAL CAS missions, the US usually turned to the F-4 and the F-105.

EDIT: Also, the previous posters' points about the vulnerability of Strategic Bombers is emphasized in the Vietnam War, during which the US lost 32 B-52s (17 in combat) and raised the question of "If we lost these many bombers to an ill-equipped guerilla army, how many more would we lose in a head-to-head battle with the Soviets"?

Yet we have the NK's b-5, the aussie's F-111C, the soviet IL-102, the SU 24M, must I go on..
These are all carpet bombers, even though I don't see that as a reason as to why these planes should not be added.
Needless to say even in-game you could evacuate units from a treeline or forest before sending in a B-52, as many do with B-5s already.
Many planes in this game aren't CAS.
I think it'd be awesome to see a B-52 extirpate an entire town (a couple blocks of buildings).
Stop dancing around possibilities, B-52s were widely used by the U.S airforce, as they are today.

One main problem,payload.

B5 had a max payload of 3 tons,SU-24 had 8 tons,slightly lesser than F111,and 9 tons for IL-102,how the heck is this comparable to B-52's immense payload?

Too imbalanced for the game,unless it's gonna be made incredibly expensive,which brings up another problem,it's vunerability.

the B5 is already very vunerable in-game,most fighter jets could easily shoot it down.with a massive HVT like B-52,the enemy could scramble every fighter jet he has,turning your B-52 into scrap metal in seconds.

oh,as everybody knows
,B-52 was called the stratofortress,while the highest altitude you could achieve in WGRD is something like 4000m when planes evac.B-52 would be way off the scale.

sorry,no strategic bombers.

cheers

[世界征服]

balbal

[kasatka]

Air crafts come off map any ways why cant we have cruise missile jets like TU 22m and heavy bombers like lancer and TU 160 there are already units like destroyers and naval ships