PDA

View Full Version : LANCASTER!!!?!!! WE WANT IT! SIGN HERE!



Crop-Duster.
02-15-2006, 05:50 AM
And the Halifax!

Since the Yanks didn't bomb Europe at night we folks of the Commonwealth deserve equal bomber rights!!

Are you with me lads?!!

HotelBushranger
02-15-2006, 06:17 AM
Huzzah for the Lancaster & Halifax!

guderian_ente
02-15-2006, 06:44 AM
I dunno.

With the see-at-night AI I think we may be better off leaving the Lanc for BoB, which promises radar (http://airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/08-2005/06.jpg) among other things.

carguy_
02-15-2006, 09:12 AM
We should do a poll - how many players are willing to play night bombing missions.

JG52Uther
02-15-2006, 09:22 AM
Personally i can wait for BoB.This series is nearly finished now.Nightfighting in BoB could be good.

p1ngu666
02-15-2006, 09:57 AM
alas, nightime is poorly done in PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

still, be nice to have them.

grandslam blue's base on teh warclouds would be most popular, along with the 12,000lb blast bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 10:35 AM
I'd like a Lancaster to play with. I know it's not going to happen until after BoB, but I still want one. I want a 617 squadron version capable of carrying Upkeep and Grandslam. And I want Dams and U-boat pens and Bunkers to blow up with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 11:54 AM
Yes---Lancs and Halibags and Stirlings and Wellingtons and Whitleys and Hampdens and Manchesters and all the Axis night stuff. And don't forget Mossies for target marking and carrying cookies. Must have Master Bomber missions where you get to direct the whole force. A night incendiary attack on Berlin with dozens of searchlights, flak, hundreds of bombers, and explosions will absolutely overload any graphics card in existence---pity!

gates123
02-15-2006, 12:19 PM
You guys need to start spending more time flying what we have and what has been given to us then sitting on these boards bi*tching about what we dont have. U guys beg for a Tempest and Mossie and get it, now that those are in, you turn your sights on the next complaint. This is getting old. Go fly and STFU.

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 12:41 PM
Lighten up---nobody griping, just a lot of wishing, and the powers-that-be ought to know what some of us want. It's all a compliment to Oleg and his merry men---if we were less discriminating we would be getting our Lancaster fixes in CFS2 add-ons from Just Flight!

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 12:47 PM
I think every petition for a new plane, especially a big bomber with a large crew, should include some kind of sign-up sheet for artists and modellers willing to do all this work.

Atzebrueck
02-15-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
I think every petition for a new plane, especially a big bomber with a large crew, should include some kind of sign-up sheet for artists and modellers willing to do all this work. Affirmative http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

gates123
02-15-2006, 01:06 PM
If any of you have spent any time at all on this forum you would know that Oleg locked all new planes being modeled over a year ago. The only planes that will make it are the ones that have been sitting around practically finished for the last year IE.

Cockpits:

D-XXI_Finn3_Early
D-XXI_Finn3_Late
Do-335
J2M3
Ju-88A4_Bombard
Ju-88A4_Gunner_1
Ju-88A4_Gunner_2
Ju-88A4_Gunner_3
Ju-88A4_Pilot
MC-200
MC-202
MC-205
Mosquito_FB_MkVI
A-20C
A-20C_bombadier
A-20C_lower_gun
A-20C_upper_gun
CW-21
*IL-10
*IL-10_gunner
*Ki-27
TempestMkV
*Pe-2 series 1
*Pe-2 series 84
*Pe-2 series 110
*Pe-2 series 359
*Pe-3
*Pe-3 bis


Why put up a petition about large bombers when Oleg has already stated which planes will hopefully make it? As I said before, this stuff gets old especially when the answers can be already found. Your appreciation for what has been recently added to this sim does not go far by starting topics like this. Go fly and be grateful for what we have.

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 01:20 PM
Steady on, this is a forum not the Fuhrerbunker!

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2006, 01:21 PM
Lancaster requires AI pilots and gunners that can't see in the dark, radar directed AA, ground radar stations, radar equipped interceptors and Night Mossies and the red/green target lights. Most important, it requires real stars that you can navigate by.

Also, Lancaster requires Fire objects to have render distance beyond 2 kilometers. Anybody czeched out the Fire/Smoke object draw distance in 4.03? Maybe they ramped it up. Maybe not. But they did offer Perfect Mossie Wiper grafix that don't help you see better in the rain, day or night. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 02:16 PM
An English group, nightbomber.com, was working on a huge simulation of the night war, but they abruptly disappeared, unfortunately. Granted, the night war would be a monster, possibly even an impossible monster, but it would be an incredible experience to play.

http://www.womengamers.com/interviews/t4t.php

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 02:49 PM
Here is a site dedicated to bomber sims (apparently two new B-17 combat sims are due to be released this year, and Targetware is supposedly planning a night bombing war sim):

http://www.bombs-away.net/forums/

p1ngu666
02-15-2006, 02:51 PM
luthor isnt flak partly atleast, radar?

i remmber ai of all types basicaly have radar only, thats all they "see". might have changed tho..

but its basicaly the graphics that let the whole nighttime thing down. no exhaust flames, the tiny view distance. the glow from a well stoked up target would be like the dodgy yellow glow on most maps at nighttime. desert map doesnt have that glow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

plus i dont think 1c like bombers, and nightime is even more bomber orintaited than daytime (IRL).

todo nighttime ops justice, the graphics would haveto be amazing. it would haveto look like whatever target, town, city had turned into hell. you could tell what town u where over because the fires where outlined by the streets. the vast amount of flak and searchlights, including radar guided ones.

plus theres all the flares, photoflashes, tracer, northern lights etc.

id rather have a late glassnose mossie, only need 1 new pit (bomber station) and modding of the current mossie pit.

the cookie would be equal or better than the 2000kg german bomb, as game models only charge weight..

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2006, 06:18 PM
The AI don't have radar, that's a lack of more in depth AI programming. Even today's super jet "hud" fighters can NOT dogfight in the dark. FB/PF AI can dogfight in the dark. But then, so can AI in every sim made yet.


Great description of night operations environment. Thanks!! Strategic night ops will be nothing like even the most "realistic" dogfight shooter simulations -- someday some Dev will notice that flight simmers love Silent Hunter series of strategic submarine sims, employ the concept of The Hunt in game design, and make a mainstream success out of a combat flight sim...someday.


pingu::
plus theres all the flares, photoflashes, tracer, northern lights etc.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/73019dbc.jpg

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 06:42 PM
In 1995 I met a computer flight simmer in London who was part of a team which played Lancaster missions with a player for each position in the aircraft. Have no idea what they were playing but this decidedly got my attention.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2006, 06:50 PM
leit, that is a GREAT interview.... http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif


Cat: Why night-bombing in WWII?

Eddie: The night bombing aspect of WWII has been virtually ignored in the past by developers, but it's a fascinating part of the war. The technology used in the electrical arms race was more advanced than any other used in the war, and was amazing for the time. Another unusual aspect for WWII sims is the tactical side, <span class="ev_code_yellow"> straight dogfighting tactics will very rarely be used because of the low visibility. It will be far more of cat and mouse game</span>. It will also hopefully commemorate the 55,000 men of RAF Bomber Command, and the thousands of Luftwaffe crewmen who never returned from operations.

~ http://www.womengamers.com/interviews/t4t.php

Or, was a great interview... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Thanks!!

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 07:07 PM
Frankly, I really enjoy night missions in the Maddox designs---even if, most of the time you get spotted. In the patch that was current about a year ago, I found you could sometimes get the jump on Ju 88s if you approached from below and with the dark part of the sky behind you. The other thing was to try to keep your target against a light background (now that the 88s use nav lights at night, unlike in the past, this isn't necessary). Stalking a bomber is a kick. Beaufighters forever! Cheers Lexx_Luthor!

Crop-Duster.
02-15-2006, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by gates123:
You guys need to start spending more time flying what we have and what has been given to us then sitting on these boards bi*tching about what we dont have. U guys beg for a Tempest and Mossie and get it, now that those are in, you turn your sights on the next complaint. This is getting old. Go fly and STFU.

You need to stop trolling

And you need to post your same comment here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/657102353

So my advice to you sir is to follow your last piece of advice in your comment yourself.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 11:05 PM
I'll sign for the Lancaster and whatever else this thread wishes for! I'll take any aircraft 1C:Maddox gives us, as well as buy any expansion they make. This game is the best! Wooo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

guderian_ente
02-16-2006, 04:19 AM
Straight dogfighting tactics will very rarely be used at night because of the low visibility. It will be far more of cat and mouse game.

Try to make this fit with the night vision and aerobatics of the AI in Il2... :)

Philipscdrw
02-16-2006, 06:28 AM
yes plz a lancestr and also can you make a b52 oleg. im sure if you beg on the Moscow Metro u will get teh money to pay ur programmers...

:nono:

I'd like a Lancaster, Hs-129, Do-19, Whirlwind, flyable Ju-52, drivable jeep, enhanced radio features, and a map textured with aerial photographs of Horizon Simulations quality but taken in 1940. And while you're at it, also world peace, a house in Hawaii, and a personal chauffeur called Les.

This is a pretty pointless thread. Everyone would like a Lancaster (or any other new plane, to be honest). But is that relevant? No. Lets waste Ubi forum bandwidth wishing for the moon.

Viper2005_
02-16-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Lets waste Ubi forum bandwidth wishing for the moon.

I thought we already established that the moon is a hoax over on the GD forums? As such surely its inclusion would not be historically accurate...

p1ngu666
02-16-2006, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The AI don't have radar, that's a lack of more in depth AI programming. Even today's super jet "hud" fighters can NOT dogfight in the dark. FB/PF AI can dogfight in the dark. But then, so can AI in every sim made yet.


Great description of night operations environment. Thanks!! Strategic night ops will be nothing like even the most "realistic" dogfight shooter simulations -- someday some Dev will notice that flight simmers love Silent Hunter series of strategic submarine sims, employ the concept of The Hunt in game design, and make a mainstream success out of a combat flight sim...someday.


pingu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">plus theres all the flares, photoflashes, tracer, northern lights etc.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/73019dbc.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

shweet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
but do they move?

flying a realistic night bombing missions would be mostly really boring. just gazing into the inkyblackness for *hours*. some guys did 2 tours and never saw a thing. some never saw a thing and never returned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

plus fighter jocks would whine over the lag all the flak, searchlights and pryotechnics would cause http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u could do some epic single and coop missions tho. "epic" in eyecandy and coolness, and not bored hopefully (i dont want to sim bored).

its not for the elitest dogfighter crowd tho.

i doubt they would like how a20 performs, 110 with 3 crew, radar and other gizmos performs.
RAF and sister services would love how mossie performs, and beu, but i suspect everyone else wouldnt.

leitmotiv
02-16-2006, 10:32 AM
Luftwaffe buffs would have the He 219! One shot down six bombers in one night, I believe. The Ju 88s were not sagging warhorses like the 110s, and, anyway, the highest scoring German night fighter pilot flew the 110. In 1945 they would have the night Me 262. As for boring, I doubt if many RAF aircrew were bored during the 1943-44 Battle of Berlin, esp if they had the terrible misfortune to be in Stirlings or Merlin Halifaxes. I think there are probably a great number of cool methodical virtual pilots out there who may not do well in single-seat fighters in day combat, but would find the night stalk of a bomber to be right up their alley. There are virtual pilots who fly long, to some, boring, flights all the time---the airliner buffs. I grant you the extraordinary ambience of night bombing is a video killer, but who would ever have dreamed we would now have such realistic clouds, sunrise/sunsets, etc?

Crop-Duster.
02-21-2006, 07:51 PM
Good points guys.

yes Owls, Me-410, Ju-88 NF's would be great too!

p1ngu666
02-21-2006, 07:59 PM
nah the gunners and bomb aimer would be bored. scared sh1tless, but bored http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
02-21-2006, 08:07 PM
You know, you can still get the jump on a Ju 88 at night in a Beau if you come in against the dark part of the sky and stay low. I did this and suddenly pulled up level and gave him 20s at just within range, did not receive fire, and blew his starboard wing off. This kind of fighting takes real skill and calculation. Hope we'll get a big dose in B OF BRIT.

Skii_
02-23-2006, 03:59 PM
I don't hink we will ever see a Lanc or B-17 flyable in this sim, Thankfully I have the model kit to keep me happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.zen97070.zen.co.uk/files/Lanc/finished/finished2.jpg

leitmotiv
02-23-2006, 04:37 PM
Magnificent job, Skii---is that the Tamiya 1:48 or the new Hasegawa? If you tell me its the 1980 Airfix, I'll throw myself on my hobby knife.

jensenpark
02-23-2006, 10:48 PM
Lanc and Halifax!

Hear hear!

Add my vote.

Naysayers: blab on all you want.

P38Ace
02-23-2006, 10:54 PM
I would like a Lancaster to

Skii_
02-24-2006, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Magnificent job, Skii---is that the Tamiya 1:48 or the new Hasegawa? If you tell me its the 1980 Airfix, I'll throw myself on my hobby knife.

Thanks mate - its the new 1/72 Hasegawa kit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RedDeth
02-24-2006, 01:16 AM
who cares about a lancaster. not a smidgin compared to flyable B17 and B24.

lancaster was undergunned and could only fly safely at night.

waste of peoples time to model that when the others would actually work.

were talking about a game here and the lancaster would be dog meat in this game

kameron1974
02-24-2006, 01:25 AM
It will look beautiful. With all the search lights and stuff. We need the Ju88 night fighter as well.
And for Gods sake the Me 410.

Browning50cal
02-24-2006, 04:36 AM
I just want an updated American voice pack wherein altitudes are refered to in feet or "angels".

In such a phenomenal game with its depth of realism, How does this get overlooked?.

I rarely fly American aircraft anymore because of this.

A Lancaster (and a B-26) would be sweet.

B50

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 04:45 AM
Skii, if mine looks half as good as yours, I'm retiring from the hobby completely happy.

Night bombers and night fighters will open a new vista for the sim, and, as I understand, this will start in B OF BRIT with Blitz-era aircraft and English Airborne-Intercept radar-equipped night fighters. Bring it on. Once people see what night work is like, I'll wager the Lanc will be inevitable. At night you are on your own. No formations. Lancs and Fortresses two different philosophies---the only armor in a Lanc was right behind the pilot's back and that was often removed. Unless it had a Martin 50 cal dorsal turret or a Rose-Rice 50 cal tail turret there wasn't much point in fighting. The Lanc relied on the eyes of the gunners for early warning and its power of maneuver for defense. Corkscrewing a Lanc with a Ju 88C after you will redefine maneuver in the sim. I can't wait.

Paul_K
02-24-2006, 04:50 AM
A Lancaster would be interesting to see how well it was modelled, FM'd and what the cockpit looked like. Other than that, it would be pointless in this sim. I can't think of any aspect of Bomber Command's night campaign that can be replicated. No electronic navigation aids, no airborne or ground radar, no marker flares, FIDO,...nowt. The maps aren't big enough either.

Maybe the BoB engine will allow all those things...here's hoping. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
02-24-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Skii_:
I don't hink we will ever see a Lanc or B-17 flyable in this sim, Thankfully I have the model kit to keep me happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.zen97070.zen.co.uk/files/Lanc/finished/finished2.jpg

I see Santa got someone the commerative Dam Busters 617 Sqd Lanc BIII Special/Tornado Gr4 kit for Christmas. You got some pretty handy modelling skills there mate. I got the same kit and my Tornado looks like it was hand painted by elephants, I'm not even going to mention the mess I made of the Lanc.

FI-Skipper
02-24-2006, 08:10 AM
As much as I would like to see and fly the Lanc asap , I think its probably best that its done for BoB(not that they'd have the time or resources to do it for il2/pf now anyways)I'm hoping that in XP for BoB we'll be able to take off from Britain and go omb the Third Reich and fly home again but ofcourse the mission times would be huge and who has the time to fly near on 7 hour missions!Great fun to try though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Skipper

Haigotron
02-24-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Personally i can wait for BoB.This series is nearly finished now.Nightfighting in BoB could be good.

my goodness, almost finshed u say??
Where can I find such info?

danjama
02-24-2006, 11:07 AM
i wouldnt mind a Spitfire mk14

sorry i couldnt resist sneaking that in

of course id like any british heavy to be put in, but i am no use for the job of gettin it done, im just a fanboi

OlavFalco
02-24-2006, 11:18 AM
Yeah... bring on the lancaster!!!

Wouldnt mind "flying" the same plane as what my grandad flew in!!

Jumoschwanz
02-24-2006, 12:32 PM
Yes it would be nice if the Brits had some more bombers in this sim, especially ones from 1942 and earlier, so allied server admins can stop using the ridiculous 400km/hr 1944 B-25 with eleven fifty caliber guns, on 1941 servers.

Jumoschwanz

ploughman
02-24-2006, 12:50 PM
You mean like the 540kph Mosquito with no defensive armament at all?

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 02:04 PM
Skii---what a job. The reviewer in MODEL AIRPLANE INTERNATIONAL did a completely uninspired job on his review model. Yours is first echelon. I have waited to get the 1:72 Belcher Bits SBCs with the 4-lb incendiary sticks to start mine (always a reason to procrastinate). If you have any more phots of this splendid Lanc, please post.

Skii_
02-24-2006, 02:51 PM
Thanks Leitmotiv, I based the interior detailing on the MAI example, but I felt his exterior paintjob was a little bland and soul-less for my liking, most examples of Lancs I've seen painted up don't look like they've had ground crew trampling all over them in muddy boots and running merlins for 10 hours at 20k, so I guess that was my aim, to make a lanc that looked like it had been to hell and back a few times.

Good call on the incendiary sticks and belcherbits, should look stunning.

Ploughman - its the Hasegawa kit, (my tornado model is the Italeri kit improved with bits from the Airfix GR4 kit)

more info here

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4201-4300/ga...o_Morrey/gal4282.htm (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4201-4300/gal4282_Tornado_Morrey/gal4282.htm)

on the subject of the Lanc - heres a couple more shots for you Leitmotiv

http://www.zen97070.zen.co.uk/files/Lanc/finished/finished1.jpg

http://www.zen97070.zen.co.uk/files/Lanc/finished/finished4.jpg

Thanks guys - sorry for hijacking the thread, like I said, I want to fly the Lanc in anger in a flight sim more than any other plane (I'm currently hooked on the lanc in Wings of Power - FS2004) however I'm more than chuffed with the Mosquito right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

John

ploughman
02-24-2006, 03:06 PM
Hey, no bother, post pics away. You have super skills. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

What scale's the Lancaster? 1:72? The Tornado'll be 1:48 if it's boosted by the Airfix kit but to get that level of detail on a 1:72 you must be some kind've jeweller.

Skii_
02-24-2006, 03:43 PM
The lanc is 1/72 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 03:58 PM
Skii---the weathering on your Lanc is right on target. The tones photograph just like color phots of in-service WWII Lancs. The Lanc was a nasty-looking heavy hitter, not a British Airways 747---too many modelers can't resist the temptation to make it look pretty. Thanks for all the phots, now I have some inspiration! Ace job on the Tornado, too. I'll bet you are waiting for Just Flight's mega Lanc, as well. My only regret is that you can't drive one over Berlin in Nov 1943 or corkscrew away from a 110, but I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. When I lived in London in '94, I met a hardcore simmer who used a Lanc sim in which players could take each position in the aircraft and fly a real time seven hour mission. I decided at that moment I was going to get into flight sims!

ploughman
02-24-2006, 04:20 PM
On the Gr4, and I feel a little like the grasshopper speaking to the antelope here, don't you think the paneling may be alittle exaggerated?

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2003/marham/tom/telic.jpg

Gr1s in Desert Storm collected alot of soot backblast at the rear of the aircraft from the reverse thrust buckets, which'd look nice on a model of an operational plane, but gr4s are nice and new and slightly higher spec surface wise due to some moderation of their radar reflectivity aren't they? Humble suggestion that it is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Skii_
02-24-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
On the Gr4, and I feel a little like the grasshopper speaking to the antelope here, don't you think the paneling may be alittle exaggerated?


No problem - thats fair criticism, and in answer to your question, yes, it is exagerated. Its very much a bone of contention in scale modelling, I tend to exagerate panel lines as a way of breaking up the monotony of a paint scheme and toylike appearance of a plastic model, some like the effect, some don't, it doesn't appeal to everyone, but thats ok.

I guess you could call it the scale effect, and how one wishes to interpret how a subject would look when reduced in scale, on the subject of exhaust stains, a quick seach on GR4s over on airliners.net will show you some pretty grubby Tonkas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks again, panel lines are always a debated subject, and its always a point well worth airing.

John

Bo_Nidle
02-24-2006, 05:19 PM
I would like to see the Lancaster in this sim.

There was a third party mod on the drawing board about a year or two ago called "Target for Tonight" and they appeared pretty advanced in their 3D modelling.Then it disappeared which is a pity.It used to be on the old Mudmovers website.

I visited York last week and stumbled across the Yorkshire Air Museum which used to be RAF Elvington, a bomber command airfield. Very nice museum, plus,and its a BIG plus, they have a Halifax on static display!

msalama
02-24-2006, 05:32 PM
As much as you - and I - would like to see it happen, it STILL won't because of reasons already explained by the developers, i.e. deadlines already gone etc. etc.

So why don't we just STFU already and let this puppy slide into oblivion, huh?

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 06:19 PM
I love it! Why is it that Oleg and his people are so good humored and the people who think they speak for them are so rude and ridiculous?!

msalama
02-24-2006, 06:25 PM
I love it! Why is it that Oleg and his people are so good humored and the people who think they speak for them are so rude and ridiculous?!

Dunno, but yeah, well, I'll love it too after you've convinced them to reverse their current policy of not accepting anything more into the sim. And you?

Airmail109
02-24-2006, 06:36 PM
Funny how B17 gunners could hit jack all, whilst the record for one sortie by a scottish tail gunner in a lancaster was 4 confirmed kills and a probable....tail gunner on the back was powered, unlike the b17, gave it a better field of fire...and the fire was more accurate

Chuck_Older
02-24-2006, 06:38 PM
With a small bit of imagination and a good skin, the Pe-8 could double as your Lancaster. That's how I use it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I have "Battles" and "Ki-48s" on my PC

Airmail109
02-24-2006, 06:48 PM
The lanc wudve have been an even greater bomber had they equiped all turrets with .50 cals and installed a ball turret. I always thought the rear turret would have been able to accomodate a twin 20mm setup.....god knows why they never tried this...that would have given night fighters something to think about

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 07:46 PM
Good idea, Chuck_Older, tried it. The only snag is the bloody awful firepower of Mr Pe-8 which blows my sneaky 110 all over the countryside. Those nacelle-mounted guns ruin any chance of trying the German's favorite under and up maneuver shooting into the unguarded Lancbelly. Best luck I've had is populating the night sky with empty Pe-8s, which will resort to evasion tactics favored by some RAF heavy crews. This way you go on a roller coaster corkscrew ride chasing a monster Pe in your 110!

danjama
02-24-2006, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The lanc wudve have been an even greater bomber had they equiped all turrets with .50 cals and installed a ball turret. I always thought the rear turret would have been able to accomodate a twin 20mm setup.....god knows why they never tried this...that would have given night fighters something to think about

i believe the air ministry was satisfied with the browning capabilities

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 08:02 PM
The Air Ministry buffoons were, indeed, satisfied with the .303, danjama, that's why Bert Harris had Rose-Rice build him a twin .50 tail turret to Harris's specs. He ran around the Air Ministry to get this turret.

Hemmloch
02-24-2006, 08:28 PM
BUMP!!!!
Bumpity bump!!!!

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 09:16 PM
Now I've seen everything: I was trying to find a good pseudo English bomber and settled on the Li-2 because it flies without lights, is well-but-not-heavily-armed, and has no belly gun. Great! I executed a good under and up attack on it with my 110, all was going well, I was readying for another run on it, and my left wing was knocked off by a Li-2 crewman who bailed out right on top of me.

HotelBushranger
02-24-2006, 09:47 PM
Gotta be careful dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

(finally got to use that smilie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Speaking of turrets, when watching Bomber Crew, a vet gunner said their turrets fired 40 rounds a second! Wouldn't want to mess with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

danjama
02-24-2006, 10:10 PM
a thread on the Lanc and not one pic! not of a real one anywa, u all shud be ashamed!

This one mite be very over the top, but its worth it

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Sep/20050902/Lancaster%20-%20463%20or%20467%20Squadron.jpg

leitmotiv
02-24-2006, 11:06 PM
Way to go, danjama! That masterpiece went right into my files! Desktop material of the first rank!!!!

marc_hawkins
02-25-2006, 12:17 AM
Remember this great link with lancaster crew audio recordings? as somebody said at the time, they sound bloody scared, be sure.

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/mshwlnak.htm

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 12:58 AM
Thanks, marc_hawkins---just listened to all three. Very sobering. The nightfighter battle was over in a flash---lucky those gunners were on the ball. For some reason the link on the forum didn't go directly to the bomber crews, but the one I received on the email telling me about your post took me right there. I tried posting the right link but I ended up with the same one you have on the forum.

OlavFalco
02-25-2006, 04:02 AM
Talking about the guns and turrets on the lanc... grandad said when the planes used to come in to warmwell they used to strip the stock turrets out of the plane and put in turrets made by another company.. i think he said the stock ones were boulton paul but i can ask him on the phone later...

well anyway he said there used to be loads of the turret canopies all laying about on the edges of the airfield

Tazzers1968
02-25-2006, 05:35 AM
T Lanc' gets my vote.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 06:12 AM
That has to be the Rose-Rice twin .50 turret ordered by Harris, OlavFalco. The standard B-Paul quad .303 was removed. Nice Spitfire images, Tazzers1968. Now you'll have everybody pining for a Spit XIV!

blairgowrie
02-25-2006, 06:13 AM
Put me down for a Lanc and the Spit X1V.

Monty_Thrud
02-25-2006, 07:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gifTazzers you have porn in your links... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


I use this and if you squint, smoke heavily, keep the windows closed on a foggy night, with the lights off, after 14 bottles of whisky...you get this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//4lanc.jpg

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 07:36 AM
I head butt a brick wall and I can almost see a Lancaster in a Pe-8.

Monty_Thrud
02-25-2006, 08:02 AM
YOU SEE!...its possible...but slighty unhealthy...over time..of course...leathal...abit like a career move to Bomber crew

ploughman
02-25-2006, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The lanc wudve have been an even greater bomber had they equiped all turrets with .50 cals and installed a ball turret. I always thought the rear turret would have been able to accomodate a twin 20mm setup.....god knows why they never tried this...that would have given night fighters something to think about

Didn't the Lincoln have 20mm cannon in the dorsal turret? The Lincoln was originally called the Lancaster Mk IV, or was it V, can't remember.

Aaron_GT
02-25-2006, 10:46 AM
The lanc wudve have been an even greater bomber had they equiped all turrets with .50 cals and installed a ball turret.

Ventral turrets were sometimes fitted to the Lancaster. Official installations included a remote twin .303 turret (I think this was a Fraser-Nash but I am not sure) and a single flexible .50 in a Preston-Green blister. Unofficial mounts included a single 20mm cannon. The remote control turret, as fitted to the B25C were also considered (in the end the remote control turret was deleted from the B25C as its main contribution was to make the gunner queasy, although it works well in IL2!)

The reasons for not continuining with the ventral defence were :

1. At night you couldn't see much looking straight down, and on the odd times you could, the rear turret had a good downwards field of fire anyway, and thus the offchance of seeing something to hit was outweighed by the additional weight and drag of the installation. The reasoning was that better the Lancaster was 20 mph faster (speed penalty of the twin .303 turret) or that it could carry more bombs and not have to visit the same target so often to finish the job.

2. When H2S came along it ended up being installed where the ventral turret had been. The H2S blister was pretty much identical to the blister for the single .50 installation.

The same issues are what resulted in ventral armament being deleted from other British bombers - e.g. Wellington, Stirling, and Halifax. The Hampden retained it as it was integral to the design, and the later Blenheims gained ventral defence via a strange remote-sighted rear facing chin turret.

If the Lancaster had been flying during the day the need for a ventral turret would have been much greater. In the end it was felt that putting Mosquito NFs into the bomber stream was more effective.

By the time the RAF resumed daylight raids .50s were being used in the rear turrets, and the Lincoln (Lancaster development) had a twin 20mm dorsal turret. The ventral position was still occupied by H2S, though.

Aaron_GT
02-25-2006, 10:49 AM
Oh, and some Lancs had a US made dorsal turret with twin .50s.

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 02:33 PM
Schragemusik---the cannon fitted to fire upwards and ahead in German night fighters was diabolical. According to night bombing expert Martin Middlebrook most crews attacked by it never knew what hit them---flying along and suddenly the left wing blown off.

ploughman
02-25-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Schragemusik---the cannon fitted to fire upwards and ahead in German night fighters was diabolical. According to night bombing expert Martin Middlebrook most crews attacked by it never knew what hit them---flying along and suddenly the left wing blown off.

Well, they wouldn't would they? The very nature of the attack implies that, if successfull, the target was unaware of the attack taking place prior to it's wing being detached. Otherwise the bomber would corkscrew and that'd be that. I'd be interested to know how many kills were Jazzmusic though, it certainly was a devastating method of attack and the absence of a pair of eyes in the belly may've contributed to it's success.

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 03:00 PM
Middlebrook's Nuremburg raid volume has a great deal of info on this weapon. I believe he asserts most of the RAF heavies downed by twin-engine fighters in the late part of the Battle of Berlin were shot down by Schragemusik.

luftluuver
02-25-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
who cares about a lancaster. not a smidgin compared to flyable B17 and B24.

lancaster was undergunned and could only fly safely at night.

waste of peoples time to model that when the others would actually work.

were talking about a game here and the lancaster would be dog meat in this game The B-17 and B-24 were 'dog meat' as well if there was no fighter escort. The waist gunners were a waste of payload.

The only gun position missing on the Lanc/Hallie was the lower one. Late war when the Brit heavies began to fly day missions the H2S was removed and a gun position added.

The Brit heavies also flew at a higher cruise speed than the Yank heavies.

Should added, the tail turret had a better field of fire than the American tail position.

The Americans would have been better off dumping their heavies and using the Mosquito. Any heavy lift requirement would have been filled by Brit heavies.

ploughman
02-25-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Middlebrook's Nuremburg raid volume has a great deal of info on this weapon. I believe he asserts most of the RAF heavies downed by twin-engine fighters in the late part of the Battle of Berlin were shot down by Schragemusik.

Does that mean that most aircraft shot down by aircraft equipped with Schragemusik were shot down using Schragemusik?

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 04:24 PM
Supposedly there was at least one 109 equipped with Schragemusik---thus, you can't assume all SM kills were by twins, Ploughman. B-17 was probably more damage resistant than the Battle of Berlin Lanc which had all armor stripped out, luftluvver, but against SM even a B-17 would be vulnerable.

Aaron_GT
02-25-2006, 06:53 PM
Neither the B17 nor the Lancaster were armoured. The Lancaster was structurally very strong (hence the ability to do the corkscrew, which was the favoured defensive tactic). Neither the B17 nor the Lancaster were able to stand up to multiple 30mm hits, or concentrated 20mm fire at short range. The nature of bombing at night meant that Lancasters were vulnerable to unsuspected attacks from short range. Interception at night was more difficult, though, and the RAF and USAAF loss rates were largely comparable.

leitmotiv
02-25-2006, 07:12 PM
Good grief, Aaron_GT, the B-17 had armor all over the fuselage and kept it until much of it was replaced by flak curtains which were found to be more effective. The Lanc had a slab of armor behind the pilot and it was often removed. Correct---against buzzsaw MG151s and the big explosive charge of the MK108 any bomber was vulnerable to being disassembled.

Aaron_GT
02-26-2006, 03:00 AM
Sorry by 'damage resistant' I got the impression you meant armouring of the structure, engines, or whatever, rather than a few, relatively small pieces of armour for some of the crew. Looking at the 'total system damage resistance' it is fair to include armour of the crew as well as just the airframe, so I stand corrected.

leitmotiv
02-26-2006, 10:17 AM
Oleg's models reflect reality quite well in this respect: if you want to knock down a heavy, aim at the wings. In the case of the B-17, ammunition fired into the fuselage is wasted---unless you send a blast into the front of the fuselage in a head on pass---this usually gets you a kill on the plane captain and co-pilot. Head on is the safest way to bring down a B-17. High siding it is nearly as safe.

heywooood
02-26-2006, 10:24 AM
http://cinedestin.privatedns.com/acteurs/lancaster.jpg

heres your Lancaster

leitmotiv
02-26-2006, 10:38 AM
Yep

ploughman
02-26-2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Supposedly there was at least one 109 equipped with Schragemusik---thus, you can't assume all SM kills were by twins, Ploughman.

That's not what I said. But thanks for the reply.