Aircraft that Shouldn't be Added to War Thunder
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- ◄► Livestreaming weekly here on CZcams
Every Friday
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Check out our other channel Armor Cast for military reviews and documentaries
/ armorcast
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Support the channel!
pleds.to/thescottishkoala
◄► Twitter!
/ sc0ttishkoala
◄► Discord!
/ discord
◄► Merch!
teespring.com/stores/thearmory
═════════════════════════════════
0:00 Intro
1:21 B-52/Tu-95 Late Strategic Bombers
3:46 Me 262 HG series
6:30 OH-1 "Ninja"
7:31 OV-10 Bronco
9:48 Su-9/11 Gunless Interceptors
12:52 Avro CF-105 Arrow
14:14 B-58/A-5 Nuclear Bombers
15:06 Fairey Gannet - Hry
Nah bro lets add a E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft
As a bot sure
Gotta make the spotting system irrelevant some how
I'm definitely gonna have Ace combat nostalgia if it's capable of giving commands and jamming enemy radar
@@glassfullofmilk AI AWACS aircraft just sounds like it would fix all the spotting system's many issues... real sick of having an ace pilot yet the MiG 2km in front of me is undetected in the middle of the day...
@@theScottishKoala while locking him with radar
A lot of modern bombers and slower planes could be added into the game if only there was a game mode that isn't just constant dogfighting and hunting down the last player. Maps would also need to be at least 3 times larger.
^
Just make it enduring conflict rb, first plane you own spawned is free, and with backups but no back ups and broken plane means you can’t fly.
@@princesscrystal6410 Gaijin is against that for some reason or there's another reason why enduring conflict events haven't happened in RB.
There's a lot of suggestions on the forums about improving air RB but Gaijin hasn't done anything people have asked for except adding SAMs.
I've written an article about it in the forum, in the gameplay section. Take a look at it if you have the time, but in short, my suggestion is using Sim maps with 1H battles, 3 spawns and a 4th helicopter spawn at higher tiers and create a separate dogfight only game mode. The game currently is awful for bombers/attackers, so I'm trying to send my idea to the devs so the players can debate on it.
I would love to see a dynamic map/campaign creator for Warthunder so we could create these scenarios...I mean how much fun would it be scrambling F104s and F6 Lightnings to hunt down incoming Tu95s...
“Vehicles that shouldn’t be added to War Thunder”
Me: ok ok let’s see what this-
*sees OV-10 Bronco*
>:(
Yeah I want it too… but the vid does make a good point. The skywarrior fits with the meta though so I hope it gets added.
Yes i want it :
I love ov-10:(
If they did a hard cut-off for cold war jets I could see this being a decent premium for the US as a ground pounder, but just like the modified Piper Cub its a bad idea because EVERYTHING could kill it so easily.
to be honest, at a low BR it would be interesting to have something other than bombs in cas at like 3.7
There goes my dream of carpet nuking the map with the B-58
Not yet it ain’t!
Aka (sacrifices for the snail for the B-58 and A-5)
nice pfp
MF doom is a W
Well b 58 is fast
A "nuclear war" style scenario where both sides have 8-10 bombers and 2-3 interceptors and perhaps 15-18 targets rather than the usual 3 or 4. Both sides bombers would start off in formation then fan out across the map dropping nukes while dropping chaff corridors and playing ECM games before returning to base to refuel and rearm for the second strike. The side that hit more targets more accurately while maintaining enough bombers for a successful second (and third) strike would win.
Meanwhile the poor interceptor players would have to scramble and get to altitude to whittle down the enemy bomber force all while wondering if a sneaky B-58 or Backfire was racing in on the deck to nuke his radar network (minimap) or take out his airfields.
I would LOVE this style of play !
That sounds epic
Gaijin could test this in the April fools event, and maybe add it if it lives up to its expectations.
This sounds like first-person ICBM or DEFCON.
I WANT!
Someone post this in the forums
Gaijin is ass and most definitely wouldn't do this, but yeah it would be extremely fun, and I think they should.
I'd love to see the vulcan, but it falls into the same problem as the b52. Might be nice to have in game as just the 2500sp nuke carrier.
I think they could be added if gajin made a bomber style game mode
@@daltonbest9320 Just sounds like another way of saying "single player"
@@theScottishKoalaperhaps a bomber only PvE mode?
@@theScottishKoala perhaps some kind of RB Enduring Conflict, focused around strategic bombers and bomber escorting with lower-BR jet fighters. Give it a nuclear war theme and it'd be a joy, maybe.
@@johnib5905 RB EC could work, I talked about this in the F-5E video the other day, I recommend giving it a watch
Modern heavy bombers would be a great addition as AI mission targets, given the increasing number of high tier jet interceptors. Gaijin hasnt shown any interest in developing the RB air game mode in any meaningful way tho.
Avro Arrow is in this list: **Angery Canadian noises**
Really tho, the Arrow was designed as a bomber interceptor, and it would've been amazing at that role, except ICBM's became a thing making the Arrow pointless, and it has no role as a superiority fighter, as it was never designed to fill that role
I like to consider the arrow as the Canadian cousin to the f-106
Oh no, MAPLEBOOS!
@@spartanx9293 Difference being the F-106 had a gun. And could be plausibly given the XAIM-4H version of the Falcon (a more maneuverable version with a proximity fuse, so at worst it'd be equivalent to an AIM-9B). After all, we've already got the Hunter F.6 and Harrier GR.1 carrying prototype missiles, so why not let the F-106 do the same?
Thus, the Delta Dart would have decently functional armament, and would at least be a better fighter than the F-104C. Whereas the Arrow would be such a mismatch between flight performance and armament that it's a nightmare to balance. The AIM-4D would just be terrible, and the Arrow would need to try using volume of fire to make up for this. It could carry 8 of the missiles, so you'd probably fire several at a single target and hope at least one would hit.
@@RedXlV delta dart
@@spartanx9293 Huh, I was sure I'd typed Delta Dart. Somehow I said Dagger instead.
My main complaint with the Avro Arrow is that IMO they threw the baby out with the bathwater by also cancelling the Orenda Iroqouis engine which seems to have had a great thrust to weight ratio thanks to advanced alloys used to save weight.
Facts and it was not a complete waste of time because most of the engineers that worked at Avro left and went to work in the USA so it wasn’t a complete waste but I agree when they shut it down Canada's aviation industry was destroyed
3.7 BR 1960s plane with sidewinders sounds very Gaijin to me 🤣
The thing Is early sidewinders suck at locking up props
They aren't that stupid(yet)
@@spartanx9293 There's still no way they will add Air to air missiles at 3.7...
@@spartanx9293 marine OV-10 ain’t carrying early sidewinders. The variant with a 20mm turret would be fun though
The game should have a lot of aircraft and ground vehicles added, as long as they existed and worked to an extent. However, I do think that some shouldn't be added to typical ground or air RB. As I know Koala agrees, I'd love to see more game modes or at least game mode depth to allow for more interesting and immersive gameplay. New or changing modes could possibly permit new types of planes and ground vehicles into the game. Until then, I agree that vehicles that break the game should have to wait to enter. That's just my two cents.
Holy shit The Sauce Guy
@@drzyzdek1514 holy shit weeb TEC guy
I want a B-52 just to flex size in CBs
However, B-36 would be great
Antonov 225 in Warthunder?
or a Lancer, faster w/ larger payload
@@avregecenturion5719 its defenseless and would almost certainly be 11.0
@@spartanx9293
But it's a stealth aircraft, can't see it on radar, lets hope you can spot it visually
@@sam8742 it's not stealthy at least by actual stealth bomber standards
i get the feeling the hg3 262 would make for a good april fools, an april fools not focused around testing. Just fun.
i’m thinking a 1947 ww2 kinda with wunderwaffe having superior technology to defend against allied nuclear weapons
a fun concept, could possibly test large scale battles in game for future events
Lordy I would love to have a speedyboi in game though. Limit it to Arcade and Customs, just let me fly it.
@@OneMoreDesu I wonder if I could figure out how to make custom models, because then custom battles can use them
This could be a great event to try the triebflugel
All the 262s above 7.3 succ nearly no one plays them lol. I wish we could get better or at least awesome looking 262s haha
Tbh of all the 262 variants, and frankly I want this for a bunch of aircraft too, I would love the night fighter version. Basically it was a 262 but with a back seater to handle the radar (which iirc was the same set as the HE 219). Equally though I’d love the night fighter/radar equipped variants of the Mossie, Hornet, and Lightning
I seem to remember that there has been some discussion of the OH-1 with hellfires being added simply on the merit that it is the only domestic Japanese helicopter and I kind of hope that will one day come to the game in that configuration. But Koala is right that the only AAM version has no place in the game.
Personally it could work at a certain br for being anti cas, but it’s sp should be adjusted accordingly as it’s not likely to go on a kill streak
Why not? The type 93 is already a vehicle that has no armament other than AAMs. If they make its spawn cost dirt cheap, only slightly more than the type 93, it absolutely would have a place as a heli-hunter and mobile AA blanket.
@@abrahamjarque4071 3 reasons really, it would be pointless 9 times out of 10 to bring it out unlike the 50/50 chance with the type 93. a version sort of exists that would make more sense with the option of hellfires and rockets and third it would be boring af to play just as koala said
It tooks Gaijin years to put vehicles that are already passed to them by the forums, what about these in the videos... Just forget about them.
Skyrim background music is just crisp 👌
It’s so faint I thought I was imagining it for a minute
Also, the HgIII did leave the drawing board, the only thing built before the end of the war was a wind tunnel model.
I agree with the concept vehicles that have never been built, driven,piloted, flown, should not be in the game unless it's fills a specific gap between BR or something. Mainly my issue is the performance is pretty much guessed at that point. I mean come on, they have to put the Maus with a separate era because of its conceptual strength
A-5 Vigilante actually could carry conventional bombs. It's a common misconception that it couldn't because it doesn't say so on Wikipedia.
Got any sources showing that it can? From what I know, it never carried a live weapon of any kind before it was relegated to the recon role
@@theScottishKoala There is enough proof in the A-5 vigilante suggestions, there is an hidden content with images of the A-5B/C carrying conventional bombs, AGMs and rocket pods under the wing. All of these sources i can confirm from “Naval Fighter Number Sixty-Four” A-5A and RA-5C vigilante.
The problem i have with A-5B/C is that it’ doesn’t have countermeasures or defense weapons such as AIM-9s.
@@theScottishKoala it's not letting me post links but you can go to the A-5 suggestion on the WT forums. didasko did a good job of providing the information and sources.
@Kabuki Kitsune Still doen't prove that it was ever outfitted to carry conventional bombs... "external stores" doesn't necessarily mean bombs. Could mean any number of things - fuel, jammers, etc.,
Was there a flight manual or weapons delivery manual included?
@Kabuki Kitsune A-5B aren’t any different from the A-5C/RA-5C beside the reconnaissance equipment but everything else is the same.
There were 18 A-5B built the rest of the planned A-5Bs were converted into the A-5C/RA-5C, so everything the A-5B carries is possible for the A-5C/RA-5C.
B-36 "peacekeeper" could also apply here, if not more so, firstly the thing is huge, airfeilds would need to be entirely reworked so the thing could fit, but same issue applies with the B52.
It only carried nukes, and is the epitome of boondoggle bullshit. Fuck it.
Now, the b-35 and b-49 should be in the game. Would git in the game (as much as any other bomber) and would be actually cool to fly.
No, some versions had several 20mm defensive cannons
OV-10 would be pretty decent in EC. I like using the AD-4 and other "bad/slow" attack aircraft in EC6-7 because you can take out a lot of targets in a short time, and nobody can shoot you down without putting themselves into a vulnerable position to other fighters. A short, front-line airfield with no AA protection would be good for niche aircraft like this as well as helicopters. A lot of aircraft don't really fit into the air/tank quake game we've been playing for nearly 10 years now, but Gaijin really should have done something innovative or different (like EC, but not a buggy mess) with their game in that time.
At the end of the day, we don't need any more content. Just some new and interesting way to use existing content (of which there is an absolute mountain of after a decade of pure content updates). Community events once or twice a month shouldn't be my only option if I want to play something other than 10-minute plane/tank deathmatch, you know? Sucks.
We need North Korean biplane An-2 with air to ground guided missiles
What BR would that even be at?
I think it was Soviet originally, but could go in the Chinese tree as a North Korean vehicle
It would br a fucking meme plane
@@ethangellman4563 11.0 obviously
There’s the Swedish super cesna that was passed on to developers a few months ago lol
To add the ov10 bronco it should be in a new spotting plane line with planes like the grasshopper at around 7.7 so you could justify its payload and speed
Most of the things you mentioned could easily be added to WT with little to no problems. (also catching the last bomber thing again really haven't we learned anything from killing AI targets to win games). For the OV-10 its clearly a 10.0 in the helicopter tree with 9Ls and some Zunis/gunpods/Lgbus
Not to mention how dare you not want glorious nippon rotary wing
Pucara is already in the game and is basically an OV-10.
Personally I’d love to see the F-106 and the Su-15. Delta Dart would fill a very nice role in the interceptor tree after the 106 for the US and the missiles on it where fairly accurate. Later Falcons had a pretty good hit rate, the internal bay was cooled, and the aircraft could mount a gun pod in place of two for the missiles. Throw in the delta wings and it can be a very nice mixture of speed and maneuverability at the expense of weaponry.
I grew up in Tucson when the ANG used to fly F-106s. (Yeah, I am old) so I have a soft spot for them. I have thought about them for WT and yes, the added gun pod would be a total necessity. I think the last variant of the AIM-4 that the 10 used was the 4D. These were slightly better but they still would be some of the worst missiles in the game. It would be fun to fly similar to the Mirage but I think in the meta of the game, it would be really frustrating.
Su 15 - the fear of passenger aircraft liners
The absolute best of the AIM-4s were significantly worse than the AIM-9B, with even later variants proving so horrifically ineffective that the USAF flat out refused to mount them on frontline combat aircraft
Genie nuclear rocket
@@chudthug AIM-26A would probably be more fun by being both guided and having a nuclear warhead(though only a 250 ton W54, not the genie's 1.5 kiloton W25)
I’m biased because I love the plane, but I think that, if handled correctly, the F111 would be awesome in the game.
no it really wouldn't
@@Mayor-McCheese Why do you think it would not work in game?
@@danmallery9142 carries nothing but ground attack ordinance and if you’re bringing in a new plane like that it’s going to 10.7 at least with nothing but ground attack stuff while the phantoms already have all of that plus air to air capability
@@Mayor-McCheese It could carry 4 sidewinders and was tested with a gunpod. It'd be just as fine as the F-105, which already got modeled a while back.
@@Mayor-McCheese I do agree that there is no real need for it in-game but I stop short of saying it should not be. It could carry a M61 in its weapons bay (yes, I know, seldom used) so technically, it did have defensive weapons. However, I think there are other planes in-game that are basically CAS only. It does carry a lot more ordinance than an F-4 so I don't think you can make a straight comparison to it. Like I said, I don't really care about it being added, but it is more of an "ought not" rather than a "shall not".
Time for complete honesty, I'm subscribed to this channel 25% for the content, and, 75% for the accent.
Soo what you are saying is that the Defiant and Blackburn Roc should be in game? I 100% agree
I can’t believe the brits have a V-156, but no Skua. It’s unforgivable.
@@benjaminbuchanan7151 Ah, I see I am not the only one who carries the knowledge about Britain's carrier based dive bomber. With that said, may I interest you in the Gloster F.5/34?
*goes back to admiring the way the Fairly Gannet looks in silence* ( ._.)
what about the Fairey Fulmar?
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 Long spitfire, not bad.
9:40 that guy must've been pretty pissed because of you mentioning the bronco
I think gaijin should release a premium vehicle pack made up of 5 or so objectively awful vehicles
I'd buy it that would be so fun
And make it decently cheap (like 5 bucks), and have one vehicle at least of every class
At least one aircraft, one helicopter, one naval, one ground, and one extra of the above named.
@@theforerunnerreclaimer Actually, just make it a free premium pack released on the april fools event.
@@Dexter037S4 Yes
@@Dexter037S4 Gaijin hates things being free
To be honnest, i want more versions of the lightning in game
What would be funny is the sea lightning, a prototype of the lightning for the navy with swingwings
How about the Iraqi Dassault Falcon 50 with a Mirage RADAR and 2 Exocets? 😏
Honestly it's the only aircraft that could force me to play the French tree
Knowing Gaijin, they'd make it premium...or worse, event/battlepass
Why would you want Exocets when there are no ships to attack?
@@kkang2828 Well they’ve got torpedo bombers so why not
Spookston + koala = 😍
Furry love :P
Please tell me you two will make out
Yea he loves his koala suit
Spookstons retarded sometimes
@@theidioticgentleman4646 fuck no
In my opinion, the Me 262 HG (variant that flew) doesn’t really need to be on a list of “Planes that shouldn’t be added to the game” as just because it’s more coding and isn’t too different than an existing vehicle doesn’t mean that Gaijin shouldn’t do it. Gaijin made some of the Russian bombers hidden for being too similar to each other but I don’t think that they should have been just because they are similar. They were foldered anyways.
If it were added then I could see it either being foldered with the 262 Cs or as an event, premium, or battle pass vehicle. Gaijin would easily be able to make money on it if it was the latter, far justifying its addition in their perspective.
On a different note, the F-82E, AD-4, AU-1, Yak-3P, Be-6, Tu-1, La-9, IL-10 (1946), Wyvern, Shackleton, VB.10-02, MB.175T, S.O.8000 Narval, Pyorremyrsky and the T18B-1 are all post-war aircraft 6.0 and below. Yes, I know some of them are barely out of that era, but the statement that the WWII area is completely untouched by post-war vehicles is not quite right. It’s not as much that there aren’t any as much as air players don’t complain about post-war vehicles as much as ground players do
Also,
the Gannet is just an ugly duckling, leave the poor bird alone! :(
if they're ever gonna add modern bombers or cold war bombers in general, they should have a much farther away airspawn since they are very fast and carry a heavier load. a farther airspawn would give the enemy team to prepare
The japanese helicopter would fit great at 2 conditions: either gaijin allow helis to cap from the air, like it was during the april fool from 2017, and they grant him apache loadout in addition to it's missiles.
They're not going to give it a fake loadout
@@theScottishKoala that's not like they aldready didn't... After all latest planes get CM they never had and bat chat 25T has american ammo.
@@tigerbesteverything by "latest planes" I assume you mean stuff like the F-5A getting flares? Which yes, it did mount. Every other plane has countermeasures that the variant was fitted with at some stage, aside from the F-5C... but the F-5C is just a renamed F-5A anyway, so it's still identical to the aircraft that did receive flares.
On the other hand... flares =/= weapons systems
@@theScottishKoala I'm talking about viggen also, and the in general the consept of gaijin granting vehicles things they never had (leo a1a1 apfsds is a great example) and speculating on the possibility they would have no remorse to give weapon systems to vehicles if that make a them viable for the game, just that, nothing else.
@@KemonoHakase leo a1a1 could fire them but they didn't fit in the ammo racks, there was a BR about it.
i was terrified you'd say ac 47, a6 or f111. a man can dream to shoot down spitfires in 3.0 with a DC3 plane with miniguns sticking out of one side.
I mean given the plane, I doubt any spitfire would be dumb enough to go near it, German mains however might lack said intelligence
@@sam8742 "germant suffers", nice generation kill pfp btw
@@killian9314
Thanks, I main Britain so I get to see the top of the line air rb german mains lol.
@@sam8742 oh... yeah, bombers with actual offensive cannons and gunners that go pretty fast.
@@sam8742 Teaaboo gaming gang.
Hey Koala, while I agree on the B-58 being made redundant and to an extend on not including the A-5 I would like to note that the Vigilante can carry conventional weapons on two pylons on the wings. If you are ok with me posting links to some photos of this including one of the classic ordinance photos as well as a NAVAIR flight test photo I am happy too.
If you have a photo of it actually mounting the bombs themselves then yes, 100% post please! I've only ever seen it with the weapons sprawled out in front of it on the tarmac, which isn't good enough for Gaijin
I’ll see what I can dig up as well. Although it would appear that the A-5 variants differ in payload. I believe the one Johnathan was talking about was the A-5A. Can’t find much about the A-5B, although the A-5Bs definitely had 4 pylons. That is the one you’ve probably seen with the weapons laying on the tarmac. The A-5A in contrast only had 2 pylons. Primarily, at least for the A-5A, these pylons held 400 gal drop tanks at least for the A-5A (NAVAIR 00-110AA5-1) however more conventional weapons can be loaded externally. The A-5A according to the document listed in the previous sentence dated to 1 July 1967 (although an earlier version dates to 15 April 1961) states that externally, the A-5A was rated to carry 2 Mark 83 G.P. or 2 Mark 84 G.P bombs in addition to the nuclear payload it had in its internal bomb bay. Another thing of note is that the pylons for A-5A were optional, ergo, removable. (NAVWEPS 01-60ABA-1, Dated: 1 May 1965) In addition, the internal bomb bay could hold 2 “expendable” fuel cans holding 295 gal of fuel each. 3 could fit, although this was only used for “long range ferry missions”. Alternatively, a “Buddy Tanker Refueling System” could be mounted in the internal bomb bay. NAVWEPS 01-60ABA-1 also alleges on page 9 that the A-5A could carry Mark 82 bombs. How many is not mentioned. There is a reference to NAVWEPS 01-60ABA-1A, but I couldn’t find the document myself.
"@@firstdictonary" name checks out
As for the A-5B, NAVWEPS 00-110A-2 covers this. Under the armaments section, the A-5B had a max bomb load of 20,100 lbs consisting of “x 1 MK 27 Internal Plus 32 - MK 82 External”. This meant 8 MK 82 per pylon. Now, there is a picture of what is allegedly an A-5A floating around. You may have seen this picture of an A-5A carrying conventional bombs, with 6 per hardpoint. This aircraft was Bu 147850, serving under the NATC in 1963 to test the use of conventional bombs. Safe to say, this picture is far from the norm as it didn’t stick around in documents for the A-5A after 1963, remaining with the 1 bomb per pylon rule.
As for that 32 bomb claim… That is most likely theoretical and most likely would not be used in a combat scenario unless something significant was changed between the A-5A or the A-5B other than 2 additional pylons and more fuel tanks. This is where the trail ends on conventional armament.
On the subject of Me262s, how about the 262 nightfighter perhaps as an event vehicle?
Yes that would be cool
Send a link! I love the 7.0 262 i wish they could add some 262 that has better kgf or at least awesome looking like the hg3
I only every see b52s and bombers like that been added in a new game mode as AI units
8:00 about the OV-10, I don't think the era is as big of an issue as you think, as we already have the Wyvern at 4.3, and It's much faster with more load.
Remember the original tech trees that Gaijin proposed where they wanted the 262 HG I-III's in game?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Fuck them for not adding those
It makes me sad that you made valid points against the B-58, that plane looks great!
While the Su-9 would be impractical, the Su-15 would fit very well as top tier meta evolved.
Definitely, I've suggested it a few times in the past actually
It would be nice to have the Su-15UM added as an event vehicle, yet there’s not an amazing library of information on it.
The su 15tm could be easily 10.7 or 11.0
I think B52, tu95 could be added, just like normal bombers they just need to make bombers useful and valuable for the team so people protect them
Bombers WERE "useful and valuable"..... fighter pilots want to actually fight though, so hanging out next to the bombers for fifteen minutes just isn't something you can encourage in a game that is mosts effectively winnable when treated as a team deathmatch
@@theScottishKoala what i mean when i say useful and valuable is that they can change the tide of a match if they reach their destination (by maybe adding important location to bomb) they should rework the base system by splitting them to the side of the map more and far from eachothers (it's would also fix base stealing) so it's not obvious where they will go and that interceptor really intercept a target instead of predicting where the bombers will fly to, i get what you mean by saying that player want to fight but i mean the game is supposed to be realistic aswell i'm hopping to at least see the B47 if we don't get B52
@@theScottishKoala Because at this point it's really annoying to be useless as a bomber, like they shouldn't change the team deathmatch side of the game but like add a purpose to bomber to help the team at least, a long time ago they were flying tanks and could defend well against fighters but now they are paper planes
@@viper2255 doesn't help that the players in fighers like to make like the beginning of Red Tails and bugger off to chase obvious bait.
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 i get what you mean but in my opinion they really need to make bombers stronger, i miss the times where they were really hard to shoot down ( B17 etc were really fortress) they could make them stronger by buffing their bombs or something else idk but yeah bombers are worthless in the current state of the game and i find that stupid
Regarding the B-52 and Tu-95s, I feel like you missed a point. They were meant to be escorted by fighters but teammates in wt are usually incompetent unless you’re playing with friends who will escort you.
The Bronco has a niche because it's the only thing that could come to war thunder that can carry the CBU-55 fuel-air cluster bombs. The dynamics of the bombs meant that any plane faster than the bronco suffered extreme drag and would be entirely too dangerous to fly with them equipped. A CBU-55 occupied the same hardpoints as a mk82 500lb bomb, however the actual blast effect was more similar to a conventional 2000lb bomb. Saying that it's too slow to fit at high tiers may be valid for air rb, but irl the Bronco was generally used in the same manner as helicopters - if helicopters with even slower top speeds are usable in game, I see no reason why the OV-10 wouldn't be usable alongside the early helicopters in ground RB, so at the 8.0-8.3 battle rating. It should be added if only to showcase a new weapon type that we won't be able to get on any other platform for the foreseeable future. The issue with air RB is an issue though, and I would say either don't let it queue for air RB entirely, or make it go into heli EC since it has similar operating parameters there. Or, make it ground only.
Then why not just add CBU-72s, the high-speed version of CBU-55?
And the CBU-55/72 is more like three 500lb bombs.
It saddens me greatly to hear you dissing the Avro Arrow.
Dido, didn't make me mad, just sad that the whole world doesn't know how good it was.
i think some of these vehicles could be balanced by the introduction of a dynamic BR system, where unlocking and mounting certain modules(as it is possible to demount them as of now at any point) would increase a vehicle's BR to a balanced level, so you can use subsonic aircraft at a more balanced BR without their air to air missiles, and so their stock grind would be much easier than without said dynamic BR. only good can come of this but as we know gaijin would need some immense pressuring to do so.
Some of them could be added if Gaijin would finally add some useful PVE-Modes like a kind of Convoi attack for strike fighters or Bombers that actually gives you research and SL
The F-89J with the Genie Rocket 🙊 the best AA rocket there ever was.
That’d be the biggest meme of all time in game.
Yeeeeeees
F89H with AIM-4’s lmao
I’d like to add the F-14 and all other 4th Gen fighters to this as well. It’s hard to overstate how much of a game changer the F-14 was. The AIM-54 Phoenix alone would break the game. We need serious changes to air battles before we see any 4th Gen fighters no matter how cool they would be.
Yeah at current map sizes AIM54 would be sniping you and then the F14 goes to land, rearms and does it again
As well, there should probably be a br gap inbetween gen 3 and gen 4
@@Doomsgate AIM-54s are not the best at hitting fighters + gaijin could make them much more expensive to resupply like the real thing was like. Oh yeah and compressor stalls for the F-14A :D
We already have Gen 4's ingame. It's too late to really go back. Also the US tree has zero new top tier aircraft if the F-1X's aren't added. You have at most 2-3 more Phantom Varients the US can add and the A-10 is already ingame effectively.
Easy. Add the F-14 without AIM-54s. It could carry AIM-7s on the fuselage
Maybe have these kind of bombers be seperated from air match making and give it its own gamemode like they did with the helicopter not including tank realistic
Map size needs to be considered with the more modern vehicles air or ground. Also SP values.
It could be intresting to introduce a separate CAS linr which could be researched with ground forces, that way weird planes like the A10 could be put in ground forces stopping the need for the to be balanced against the air trees.
"enemy ac130 over head"
"ENEMY AC-130 ABOVE!!!"
I want muh B-36 specifically for pilotage
I think the su 15 would make actually a good addition since it could mount gun pods, r60 and load various air to ground weapons. It also has high acceleration in the " bis" variant, as it would mount two mig 21 bis engines.
Great video :) could you maybe do a video on the TSR-2? Its got a really interesting history and honestly I think it could potentially fit into War Thunder. I'd love to see this type of video as a series
Honestly only gain with the stratos or Russian bomber is it extends matches, allows multirole like f4 or mig23\27 to ground pound, where in normal gameplay you likely won't bring 27 500 or whatever. Honestly a full loaded with bombs f4 should get bomber spawn imo (not if it brings missiles) as that was one of their roles. (Not sure if mig27 had that role or not) but in game currently there's basically no reward for bombing in f4.
im sad about the bronco being on this list but yeah it wouldnt be a good aircaft in war thunder due to the fact its very slow and it would be really hard to balanced
I think people view the Bronco through the wrong lense. It should be viewed more as how helicopters go over a plan imo and also should if it comes in be the more advanced version used into the 2010s with hellfire access.
Broncco would be great in early jet battles if we consider the ammount of troll that take similar performance planes from tier III and manage to score frags by driving jets into dogfights. I think it would work a bit like the A5 at 11.0.
I love prop ground pounders and isc if the bronco would be a shit plane I would still use it
This is interesting iv never seen anyone cover this topic nice video dude!
I live near Grissom ARB and there's a museum. They have the b-58 hustler "greased lightning." As well as an old d-21 tagboard recon drone.
They literally add everything that ever was carved out of a potato, I don´t think Gaijins thoughts go anywhere further then: What sells best and keeps the paying folks in the game?
I just want BAC Strikemaster as a compenstion for my Vampire in 7.3 lineup and I'll be happy...
I think the ME 262 HG1 and/or HG2 could be nice additions, maybe with the HG1 as a premium and the HG2 being an event vehicle
I would love to see more support aircraft such as scout planes with scouting potential. But also would love see a more spread out br system, so we can see things like scout aircraft, A10, and other aircraft and tanks that fit in certain br
Weren't conventional bombs trialed on the B-58? (I belive up to 3000 lbs)
They might have been proposed, but as far as I've been able to tell, they were never mounted
@@theScottishKoala I saw on a suggestion for the b-58 a page which says that it was used to conduct a series of trials to see how successful it would be in carrying(and bombing) conventional bombs and It even had pictures
@@Surecro If you can find that again I'd love to see it
@@theScottishKoala shame
@@theScottishKoala I found it, do I send you the picture on discord?( Also sorry for late answer but I forgot about this)
"Forgetting the fact that [the Avro Arrow] has no tech tree to go into."
Britain. We're part of the Commonwealth. We already have the Spit FR XIVe, QF 3.7 Ram, Brantford and bloody Haida in the British trees. Canadian vehicles can go into Britain's tech tree. South Africa already got an entire line in it.
Fitting profile pic lol
yeah but like he said, the CF105 is severely overrated. Its first flight was only 2 months before the phantom's and as koala mentioned, its performance was inferior to that of the phantom. Not to mention its bad missiles and near uselessness in SB since you can't even see directly in front of you (who thought that was a good design feature????)
While I do agree that the Avro Arrow wasn’t the best aircraft, the problem I have with it is that the Avro company was pressured into this project by the Canadian government only for them to cancel it and by American planes, and not even better planes like the phantom. Canada got surpluses aircraft and lost its entire aerospace industry thanks to the Avro’s cancelation.
@@MrUoutthere It's still an interesting enough vehicle in that it's a mach 2 domestic Canadian interceptor. I don't want it for its performance, I want it for what it is.
@@Kishanth.J Yeah the whole thing was a shitshow. The Canadian gov wanted to do some kind of nationalistic aircraft program but they only did it halfheartedly. And/or there was some election and the new gov realized it wasn't a good idea and canned it.
The f102 could actually carry around 36 of those proximity fuze rockets that the f-89 gets, would be really fun to dogfight someone with your delta wing maneuverability and then pop them with one rocket once you’re on their tail 😂
you are mistaken about the A-5 Vigilante, it did have a vast arsenal of conventional weapons to chose from, one quick search online and you will find a "puzzle" photo of a A-5 with all the weapons it could carry
the photo will be titled A3J-2_Vigilante_with_weapon_load_display_c1962 (later re-designated A-5B)
the problem that you mention with the R3 T20 is due to it being marked as something it is not, the R3 platform was meant to be scout cars with defensive weaponry (one version that sadly was not made had TOWs), they could fix the R3 T20 by making it 6.3 to 7.3 and marking it as a light tank and finally give it its APDS and give back the stab
I’ve suggested exactly this in the past actually, though with APDS it’d need a br more like 7.7 (let’s not do another Type 87 RCV situation, that things op as fuck!)
You mentioned the delta dagger, but what about the delta dart? It had guns as well as the ability to mount missiles.
F-106 would work fine.
@@MandolinMagi I'd love the have a wacky high AOA deltawing in the American tree
I found some documents that said the AIM4 Falcons pulled 27.1 Gs and reached Mach 3 during testing
I think they could be added if they added an f106 or f102 and could be balanced via its proximity fuse and small charge that doesnt guarantee a kill
They have a radar variant that would give it some impressive head on abilities and at a lower battle rating than the phantoms sparrows
In order to balance the OV-10, you would need to bring it in at different BRs depending on version.
This could start at the bottom with non-guided weapons, all the way put to the OV-10(x) with thermals, laser-guided Hydra & Zuni rockets, Hellfires, and sidewinders.
Bring in the proposals and you could see items like the internal 106mm Recoiless Rifle :)
B-52s and other strat bombers could be added to ground RB as nuke carriers.
Waste of resources on Gaijins part, moddel a massive highly detailed plane or add something to a tech tree which actually improves the game
@@sam8742 yeah, like another fighter to compliment the 7 bajillion other ones they already got.
maybe the b52 could be added for ground ai feature perhaps
Sounds like a lot of work for not much reason
They should add an escort feature where flying within 1.5km of a friendly bomber for x Amount of time or killing planes close to or who have hit friendly bombers give you a bonus called escorting or something
"What BR would the OV-10 Bronco be?"
Gaijin: "Yes"
I still feel like the OV-10 would be a fun aircraft in game. Notice I said fun and not good. There are vehicles in game that are more fun than effective like the maus. They are over tiered because they are stompers when downtiered. Put the OV-10 at like 6.0-7.0 where it is obviously not going to be very effective, but we still get an iconic and pretty fun vehicle to try and do well in.
If we don’t get a C-5 Galaxy in the next update, I am never playing again.
Yea you have to deliver supplies to an airport of your team and then the allied engineering vehicles should deliver them to respawn point in order for allied tanks to respawn
Gaijin just announced engineering vehicles bruh....
Correction on the OV-10, its in use into the 2010s and iirc is still in use (OV-10D), it got brought back in to carry laser guided munitions and laser designate for fighting ISIS and successfully hit targets with laser guided rockets and can even carry hellfires I believe. It could fit in as a out of timeframe/scope plane with laser guided rockets at a higher BR which will suck for Air RB but will be useful for GRB as at top tier most players use SAM SPAA to which speed is not a major factor to escape from but more maneuvering and keeping low/out of easy line of sight which laser rockets could help with (as its a slow plane I could see it taking advantage of the slow speed to keep at a far distance to watch for incoming fire akin to how the SK60 does with RB05s and its low speed keeping it further out after launching a missile). Could also be used as part of a new system of lasing target for a friendly aircraft in an air version of the scout spotting system.
Personally I see potential in it having unique/quirk to it which is why I would like to see it as an event plane. I think its wrong to view it in only the scope of a plane but think it should be viewed more in the kind of role helicopters take currently/as a mix of both (hell give it the ability to come in with rockets on spawn like helis do even haha).
Sidewinders would give it some punch back though of course, defensive use but the modern version carrying sidewinder/hellfires/laser guided rockets could be an interesting plane akin to rocket/atgm helicopters.
I'm not sure, but can the OV-10D+ actually guide its OWN Hellfires? Or does it need another friendly asset to control the targeting?
@@theScottishKoala I do know that they can self designate to a degree (apparently worked for gunpod trialling), however unsure which armaments (as irl they would buddy system to help protect from incoming ground fire it makes it complicated as they have a forward nose lasing/flir system but not much documentation says what it can/cannot do beyond slaving the gunpods to it if they have them, though evolved to no gun and having a laser designator instead).
Thats where I think it could have a unique quirk as a "teamwork plane". Either it can fire its own hellfires as a "gaijin tweek" as other planes/tanks have had over the years to make them useful or if not, you and your buddy designate for each other to fire and have an air version of "the scout system" with a points discount for spawning the plane/weapon loadouts due to needing 2(or something like in squadron/air rb where you can change loadouts on the plane should other broncos get up/shot down to keep useful weapons).
I know its likely to not be too popular as people like to lone wolf or could be used to troll/bully but teamwork makes the dream work right? Just because something could suck, does not mean there isnt some kind of test niche it could fill a role for.
Thinking on... I wonder if it would be possible to make them be able to laser designate for say, hellfire apaches, or LGB carriers to allow for target track... Would be interesting to see and play for me at least as I enjoy being support like that.
8:30 I honestly believe that a vehicle like the OV-10 would indeed be difficult to balance, but seems like a fun addition to the game. It doesn’t have to be fast to be fun. I think at around 5.7-6.7 or so BR, it could play alright as CAS and have an entertaining vibe similar to other underpowered vehicles like the he 162, po-2, Swordfish or type 93. It would also slightly increase some aspects of immersion with other Vietnam era vehicles. I think the point of this vehicle would be to be fun in mixed battles. It doesn’t have any broken features like the b-52’s ability to climb to space either. The air to air missiles do not have to be equipped. I personally believe that it would be a harmless fun little addition to mixed battles.
I’m not adamant that the ov-10 be added to the game, hell, I’ve barely heard of it, just sometimes underpowered vehicles are entertaining to play and should not be shunned from Warthunder just because they are silly.
I would still like the second Messerschmitt variant though
As was foretold by Spokeston.
There are plenty of existing bombers with almost no defensive armament similar to the B-52 Stratofortress and the OH-1 Ninja:
The P1Y1. The P1Y1 can outrun a lot of fighters in its BR, especially after releasing its bomb-load.
The G4M1. In Arcade Battles, the most effective strategy is to hover over the enemy bases around 8 km altitude (a lot of fighters at its BR can't climb that high) and drop bombs with no risk of getting shot down.
I remember the ME 262 HG II on a list that Gaijin had long ago.
IMO OV-10 would be pretty fun and derp at BR maybe 7.0 without sidewinders. I agree that US has enough attackers and surely they don't need New one's. Only possibility for adding Bronco is either a event or BP. Really wish it was added, it's so ugly that's is cute
330-400kph and only 3,000lbs max bomb load, at the br of the A2D? Sounds pointless
Gaijin could bypass that by adding a "South East Asian line" since three of its member states (Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines) heavily use(d) it, although the Philippine Air Foce's OV-10M is the only OV-10 outside of USAF's OV-10G+ that has the capability to launch guided bombs such as Paveway II.
But yeah, OV-10's speed and performance really hinders it from adding it to the game.
@@theScottishKoala Isn't that a point of an event or BP vehicle? It should have premium status and it could be on 4.0 or 4.3... the only problem I see here are rockets... Zuni's for this BR in the ground RB... that would be quite an overkill indeed... xd
@@Jarda-di4gd 4.0-4.3 as a plane from 1965? That's exactly what we DON'T want. It already pisses people off to no end in tanks... let's not START doing it in air trees too when we have no need to. Like I said - vehicles that cause issues like that should only be considered where absolutely NECESSARY... the US have an abundance of CAS aircraft, the OV-10 has no justifiable reason to come.
As for a SEA tech tree... all that does is create a problem specifically to apply a bad solution (making the OV-10 necessary in order to justify its addition to that tree)
@@theScottishKoala just put it at 8.0 as event venicle and add premium status soo no need to grind it should be fine
In my opinion the Mig-25 should also not be added. It's poor performance at deck will result in them spaceclimbing and dragging out the clock or destroying everybody at 10 kilometers high going Mach 3.
Well my problem with the 25 is his action zone, WT top tier map are far too small for him, rendering him useless. I would love to see it but you would need to triple the map size (same for a lot of more capable missile).
Dragging out the clock? I don't get why people complain about that when they are allowed to ground pound to win, get more rp and SL while doing so
@@uisce_ The people that complain about this are just flying air superiority fighters, and wish the entire game was just TDM. It's why RB has been so dumbed down continually until it''s arcade+ now.
@@COMMANDERLUNA probably CoD kids from the very beginning
As someone who has helped work on OV-10 Broncos IRL.... This hurts 😅
playing in VR is game changing, i think all sort of stuff should be added, cockpits updated and coop missions made for random aircraft. VR really changes the way i look at war thunder
Reverse psychology huh? Maybe it'll work
for the B-52, the just add the hotel variant, B-52H, if i remember it has a tail gun. but it can vary from twin cannons to miniguns
OV-10 bronco would be great for ground rb, if spawn cost was reduced imo, maybe like a heli
Note that the HG series 262's were intended to use a different engine and would almost certainly have had a different armament, the engines were about to enter mass production and put out slightly more power while also gaining an afterburner, the 1a/U1 was designed specifically to test new armaments for the 262 because of the mk108's extremely low muzzle velocity. With all that being said, the planes were too far off to really judge properly, but I think the hg 3 could do well at 7.7 or so.
The A-5 Vigilante Can Carry Mk 80 Sires Bombs series Not Just Nukes I Can Provide A Source If Needed
Please do
Avro Arrow was not cancelled as it was a waste of time. The prime minister of Canada at the time John Diefenbaker cancelled the project to prove how dedicated he was to buying american missiles. After he cancelled the project the Americans, and the British both wanted to purchase the project off of Avro Canada. Diefenbaker refused the offers and then had every document and part of the arrow destroyed. Aswell the Avro arrow was a bomber/missile interceptor aircraft. It was not intended to engage in combat with other interceptors or fighter aircraft.
Dude, you got me with that Skyrim Ambient background music, love it!
Slight correction: there *was* a variant of the Vigilante, the A3J-2/A-5B, that was optimized for more conventional ordnance as opposed to nuclear. But this isn't an excuse for saying "OH IT CAN BE IN-GAME" because about as quickly as the A-5Bs were completed, they were converted into RA-5Cs. Also, the RA-5C was comparable in weight to the F-14s & even today's Super Hornets. So, not exactly the heaviest. That distinction is held by the A3D Skywarrior and the F-111B.