why aren't modern bombers armed to the teeth like those ww2 bombers?

why aren't modern bombers armed to the teeth like those ww2 bombers?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bombers wouldn't be used against a force that could harm them, and even if they were it wouldn't be in a manner that guns would protect it.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Air defenses, though some soviet planes still have turrets on them

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they have tail turrets, and B-52 has one as well.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        all the B-52s in active service had their tail guns removed decades ago anon

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i didn't know that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they got in HARM's way

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Goddammit Carlos! Go back to your own board.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Missles

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      flares and chaff increase survivablity

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bombers built in wartime > Bombers built during peacetime

    I bet if there's a hot war against Chyna you'd see B-52s with guns and every new bomber incoming armed to the teeth

    Same thing with ships

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it would be cool to see modern battleships

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No you wouldn’t

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mfw the boomers finally got their hands on a bomber

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why did they never repurpose the B-52 tail gun as CIWS? All it would have required is some upgrades to the targeting computer and maybe the radars.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >All it would have required is some upgrades to the targeting computer and maybe the radars
      >all
      You don't know how the military industry works, son.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jets are too fast, can hit from too far away, and carry armament powerful enough that a bomber doesn't have much of a chance to shoot back. MiG-15s rekt B-29s in Korea and that was basically the end of defensive armament.

    It also wasn't all that effective in WW2 either, bombers got some kills but most of the work was done by escort fighters or fighter screens, basically big squadrons of fighters sent in ahead of the bombers to take out the defenders. In a modern situation it'd be the same way but even more tipped in favor of the fighters because AWACS, missiles, and datalinks mean the escorts can see and engage intercepting fighters way before they're in range to attack the bombers. (Not to mention modern doctrine involves sending in fast strike aircraft or stealths to take out the defenders and their radars, SAMs, etc. on the ground before the bombers get anywhere close.)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >or fighter screens
      shit, meant to say fighter sweep, not screen. I'm tired and slightly drunk.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >MiG-15s rekt B-29s
      no wonder. one was jet fighter and other had propeller engines

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >WW2 bomber interception:
    >Squadrons of prop driven aircraft dogfight and duel in the sky taking shots at bombers whenever they can line them up.
    Guns make sense here, and would be useful at least in forcing enemy pilots to be very careful in how they line up their shots on the bombers - even if they never shoot a fighter down limiting the 'safe' angles the enemy can attack from will dramatically reduce the number of bomber casualties over the war.

    >Modern bomber interception
    >Jet fighter launches a BVR AAM at blips his AWACS tells him are enemy bombers.
    Even if the fighters were trying to get into Star Wars style dog-fights with their guns they're too fast for a gunner to have any chance of hitting them, even with a lucky shot. Defensive guns and their ammo would just be dead weight for a modern bomber. You could make an argument for anti-missile active protection guns, but best of luck being able to build those in a way that doesn't completely fuck up the bombers performance.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Awful lot of good that'll do against a missile. Chances are it's going to be an air to air missile fired BVR or a SAM. If you somehow rigged the guns to automatically do CIWS things that might work I guess, but you're be better off shitting out no less than 2.9 clusterfucks of flares and chaff alongside using powerful ECM. Also better to just not be seen in the first place.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you could make all turrets retractable. that should do the trick.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Or you could just add more chaff and flare launchers, slap on powerful ECM systems, and let the Raptors also in the area lob AMRAAMs at anyone dumb enough to get airborne while missile trucks spam HARMs at anyone dumb enough to turn on targeting radar, all supported by AWACS of course.

        As others have said you're adding weight and complexity to the aircraft that will only hurt it's performance and reduce it's effectiveness. Gun turrets would only be useful if the thing was meant to rain bullets on ground targets like an AC-130. Defense is best handled by supporting forces and making it an absolute motherfucker to hit the aircraft if the enemy can even see it to lock on in the first place.

        The bombers covered in guns were neat but it'd be pants on head retarded now and there's really no way to get around it. If you wanted a flying point defense you'd be better off cramming launch tubes and required systems for RIM-116s in an aircraft with the tubes facing in several directions. That shouldn't even be necessary because you should have air superiority and SAM operators should be panicking trying to figure out how to turn the radar even more off before strategic bombers start doing their thing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >still thinking B-52s are for dropping iron bombs on enemies
          lmao

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, pretending to be retarded is no way to go through life.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    modern interceptors don't fly close enough for machine gun turrets to be effective. Last turret kill was in Linebacker II iirc

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      then mount C-RAMs on the bombers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why don't we mount a C-RAM on you since you're such a flying gay

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          man, you're one joyless cunt

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why aren't modern bombers armed to the teeth like those ww2 bombers?
    If the B-17 is so good, why do they die to P-63s?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because modern combat is rock-scissors-paper.
    Putting rocks on your paper plane just makes it slower and more vulnerable to surface-to-air scissors.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what if they were used as close air support?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Or they could save billions of development money and decades of troubleshooting and re-training before deployment and just buy good close air support craft.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for a while bombers had computer-aimed radar-guided autocannon tailguns

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *