TU-2S, the best Bomber in the game.

[Karnak]

Defense is very arguable... There are two bombers in the game that don't really need guns for defense.

The two that showed the future direction for bombers to take in the post WWII world...

[GScholz]

Indeed.

[FLOOB]

Indubitably

[XxDaSTaRxx]

What happens to your no gun bombers when a 163 rolls around? Bow down and hope he doesn't blow your mosquito to pieces? 

[bozon]

What happens to your no gun bombers when a 163 rolls around? Bow down and hope he doesn't blow your mosquito to pieces? 

that is the kind of thinking that sent thousands of young men to die in big slow and useless heavy bombers. The main contribution of gunners in reality was to multiply the death toll. In the game, once the 163 is on you it matters not what you fly. In a SINGLE mossie you can at least maneuver and spoil his shot. of course the whole idea of a fast bomber is not to get intercepted at all, so the question is wrong at its starting point.

[FLOOB]

For a good time take a mossie and turn tracers off and loiter over strats killing everything that tries to ho you. Get them on the first pass because once they realise youre not the bomber kind they will dive away.

[McShark]

Interesting considering I pumped a dozen 30mm's into one TU2 in a formation in order to bring it down, then the second one took a half a dozen more and got a lucky single ping pilot kill.

Chack this out. Might explain a lot regarding the 30 mm issues of late.

Just finished some offline destruction testing with the 30mm and 37mm.

K4, Ta152, Yak 9T, Il2, Mossi, 262, 410, and 110 G2.

The bombers are tougher now. The B25 can sustain up to 5 hits before showing serious damage. The B17 and Lanc if I didn't aim for the pilots compartment, took up to 17 individual 30\37mm to completely dismantle them before achieving an explosion. The tail structures of the bombers I tested absorbed lots of damage. Cutting off wings at the root took up to 4. One to two would take off the wing tips. Fires took between 1 to 3 hits. That was kind of random across all of the bombers I tested shooting single shots from single gun installations.

One shot kills as always depended on a shallow bank landing the round into the side or top of the pilots compartment.

Depending on the fighter and where the round landed, it could take up to 3 hits to kill the fighter.

The best short burst kills on everything were from the IL2, Mossi, 410 30mm\20mm load out, 262, and the 110 G with 2 30mm and 4 20mm. The 2 30mm in the 110 for some reason shooting alone are easier to aim and hit with on fighters to 400 than other Mk108 packages.

[GScholz]

Sounds about right. According to German tests it took an average of five 30mm rounds (concentrated in one area of a wing) to bring down a four-engined bomber. It took twenty 20mm rounds to do the same.

Raking the fuselage had little effect other than killing crew. When you see Luftwaffe gun cam footage, you see that after they've killed the tail gunner and ball turret they switch to targeting the wings and engine nacelles.

Oh, and in real life hitting a bomber was a lot more difficult than in AH. The formations of heavy bombers created so much turbulence/prop wash behind them that a small fighter would bounce around a lot. In his book Heinz Knocke wrote that on occasion it was so bad he thought his 109 was going to fall apart. In AH no turbulence or other adverse atmospheric conditions are modeled, except wind.

[Hoplite]

The greatest weakness of the Tu-2S is that it has no counter to flank attacks by fighters. However, the fighter must be in position before the formation arrives. A tail chase will consume many miles to get in position. A lot can occur in that time.

This has been my experience when fighting it in a bf110G.  If you are in position, a slashing attack from the flank is almost guaranteed to kill at least one in the formation...if not all three if you rake it across.  The big cavet is IF you are in position....the damn things are fast for bombers. 

I still consider the B26 to be the tougher medium bomber to fight kill, but the TU2 can be a tough nut to crack no doubt.

[SmokinLoon]

"Best"?  That is such an over used term.

It is better to evaluate aircraft based on which role you want it to fill.  Likewise, it is hard to place the title of "best" on anything, even in a certain role.  In terms of delivering ordnance the Tu-2 is a splendid platform.  It carries well enough ordnance, it climbs well, and flies fast.  However, it is limited defensively and on range respectively in comparison. No matter how you try and cut it, the Tu-2 is medium bomber.  It can't bring the hurt to the strategic targets like a B17, B24, Lancaster, or B29.  Or even the Ju88.  Sure, it can haul triple 1000kg bombs (2200lbs), but there goes that climb and speed that was so fondly mentioned earlier.  Otherwise, it can carry 4/500kg bombs which in itself is respectable.     

Where the Tu-2 excels is in the short or medium range strikes in which the goal is to hit hard and get out.  If it is used in conjunction with heavy fighters or other attack aircraft it works nicely. The pair of 20mm is a nice addition and can polish off any last few buildings or ack guns. 

It is certainly an aircraft unique unto itself. Is it best at anything?  Nah.  It is good at a lot of things? Indeed it is. 

[Rich46yo]

So let me ask this? Is it the most versatile?

And is not versatility synonymous with "best"?

Also I'd like to test its range sometime with fuel management.

[Karnak]

Or even the Ju88.

I'd be hard pressed to see a way in which the Ju88A-4 bests the Tu-2S.  It is also short ranged, but slower, less defenses, lighter bomb load for strategic targets and so on.  The only thing I can think of where the Ju88A-4 is superior is in its ability to absorb punishment.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

that is the kind of thinking that sent thousands of young men to die in big slow and useless heavy bombers. The main contribution of gunners in reality was to multiply the death toll. In the game, once the 163 is on you it matters not what you fly. In a SINGLE mossie you can at least maneuver and spoil his shot. of course the whole idea of a fast bomber is not to get intercepted at all, so the question is wrong at its starting point.

All do respect sir, I don't think a mossie can outrun a 163. And claiming the bombers were useless? Absolutely blows my mind how anybody could think such a thing, even if the 8th AF didn't achieve all it had wanted to with the bombers. And maybe with a single mossie you can maneuver and ruin the 163's shot, but what if you had taken drones? The B-17G was an easier opponent, but may I remind you we are talking in game standards. Let's not bring up the real war. The mossie is a hard target to reach. You wouldn't have to make yourself a hard target to reach, if you were a hard target to kill. 

[GScholz]

A B-17 is not a hard target to kill. Not in the game, nor in the real war. Mossie is/was far more survivable.

[FLOOB]

From the Hey look what I found thread.

Bomber losses mounted to such an extent in 1942-43 as to threaten the ongoing strategic bombing campaign as a whole. The RAF responded with an increasingly technological approach, emphasizing electronic warfare, radar, early warning receivers and other electronics. Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett, Commanding Officer of Bomber Command's Pathfinder Force, made a serious argument that since gunnery could not protect them, the large, heavy four-engined bombers, with their seven crew members, should be replaced by the twin-engined de Havilland Mosquito. As one report states, Bennett pointed out:

* Mosquito carries to Berlin half the bomb load carried by a Lancaster, but...
* Mosquito loss rate is just 1/10 of Lancasters' loss rate
* Mosquito costs a third of the cost of a Lancaster
* Mosquito has a crew of two, compared to a Lancaster's crew of seven
* Mosquito was a proven precision day bomber and the Lancaster was not.

Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, "It's quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation". In the German side, Erhard Milch, the deputy head of the Luftwaffe, said about the Mosquito "I fear that one day the British will start attacking with masses of this aircraft". But in one of the greatest allied mistakes in World War 2, bomber command persisted with its heavy bombers, and less than 1/4 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types.


The Mosquito, of course, carried no defensive armament at all, relying on its speed to evade attack. This foreshadowed the way in which modern jet bomber and strike aircraft seek to avoid enemy attack.