Jump to content


when do we get the lancaster... or any brit bombers .. long overdue !!


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Nutttssss #1 Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:54 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 5874 battles
  • 7
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    07-25-2018

The Lancaster first flew in January 1941 and entered production in early 1942; it entered combat in April of that year. A mid-wing design with a twin tail, the Lancaster was powered by four 1,460-horsepower Merlins, had a wingspan of 102 feet (31 metres), and was 69 feet (21 metres) long. It was operated by a basic crew of seven, including the pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, radioman, and gunners. It could reach a maximum speed of 280 miles (450 km) per hour and a ceiling of 24,500 feet (7,500 metres), and it could carry a 14,000-pound (6,350-kg) bomb load to a range of 1,660 miles (2,670 km) at 200 miles (320 km) per hour. Lancasters powered by Bristol Hercules air-cooled radial engines also were produced as a result of shortages of Merlin engines, but these proved to be less capable than Merlin-powered versions. The engine production problem was eventually resolved with Packard-built Merlins imported from the United States.

The Lancaster’s more-spectacular exploits included successful attacks on the Möhne, Sorpe, and Eder hydroelectric dams in Germany on the night of May 17, 1943, using special spinning bombs that were designed to skip across the water when released at low altitude, hug the face of the dam as they sank, and then be detonated at the proper depth by a hydrostatic fuse. Another was the sinking on November 12, 1944, of the German battleship Tirpitz in the remote Kaa fjord of Norway by 31 Lancasters dropping 12,000-pound (5,400-kg) “Tallboy” bombs.



losttwo #2 Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:12 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 4507 battles
  • 13,778
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
We do not have any dams to blow up in this game

legoboy0401 #3 Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View Postlosttwo, on 04 June 2019 - 03:12 PM, said:

We do not have any dams to blow up in this game

 

So? Lancasters blew up more things than dams, and were loaded out with more than just bouncing bombs.

 

 

P-47 Thunderbolts were often used to blow up Nazi trains. We do not have any trains to blow up in this game, so by your logic, the P-47 Thunderbolts should not be in this game.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


mnbv_fockewulfe #4 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:09 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 601 battles
  • 3,479
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View Postlegoboy0401, on 04 June 2019 - 11:34 PM, said:

 

So? Lancasters blew up more things than dams, and were loaded out with more than just bouncing bombs.

 

 

P-47 Thunderbolts were often used to blow up Nazi trains. We do not have any trains to blow up in this game, so by your logic, the P-47 Thunderbolts should not be in this game.

 

:trollface:

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


losttwo #5 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:14 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 4507 battles
  • 13,778
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

Some jokes are wasted like a good possum catching a sun tan on the road.,

No soup for you! 1 year.

 

We didn't have Lancaster's for this map either, nor bouncing ordnance.


Edited by losttwo, 05 June 2019 - 01:21 AM.


legoboy0401 #6 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View Postlosttwo, on 04 June 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some jokes are wasted like a good possum catching a sun tan on the road.,

No soup for you! 1 year.

 

A joke that makes no sense is a poor joke indeed. Let's see, was it funny/ironic? No. Did it have an air of lightheartedness to it? No.

 

 

It seems to me like you tried to make a pseudo-serious argument against Lancasters coming to WoWP just to troll the original poster. I, however, demonstrated your illogic(by utterly destroying your TERRIBLE fake argument), which prompted you to make fun of me and say "it was all a joke" to make yourself look a little better, when really it wasn't.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


sandtiger #7 Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 20182 battles
  • 1,402
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
they could have here be like any other bomber  because she also carried a normal pay load

 


Edited by sandtiger, 05 June 2019 - 06:24 AM.


losttwo #8 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:45 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 4507 battles
  • 13,778
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View Postsandtiger, on 05 June 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

they could have here be like any other bomber  because she also carried a normal pay load

 

 

Sort of like the Stuka use to be a really great dive bomber but still no bombs in game.

I love Wargaming logic.



legoboy0401 #9 Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View Postlosttwo, on 05 June 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

 

Sort of like the Stuka use to be a really great dive bomber but still no bombs in game.

I love Wargaming logic.

 

Sort of like the Thunderbolts and Fw 190s had really good altitude performance in real life, but in game these days, they have PRETTY BAD altitude performance, because of  WG slapping on them the WG-created title "Multirole Fighter" which didn't exist IRL.

 

I too love Wargaming logic.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


CorvusCorvax #10 Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:14 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4011 battles
  • 4,030
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postlegoboy0401, on 05 June 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

 

 "Multirole Fighter" which didn't exist IRL.

 

 

Of course it did.  The German had the Jabo, which is short for "Fighter-bomber".  It is the precursor to such concepts as the F-15E Strike Eagle, a plane that can deliver a pretty solid ground attack package, and still do air-to-air pretty much better than anything else.  The F-16?  The F/A-18?  Using a fighter aircraft to do ground attack as a multi-role aircraft originated in WWI when fighter pilots would throw grenades

into trenches.

 

The P-47, the Typhoon, the Tempest, the F4U, the P-38 - all of them were tasked with delivering air-to-ground ordnance.  At the same time, they were formidable air-to-air threats.  Sure, the FW-190 was pressed into that service, as was the Me-262.  And why?  Because the Allies had done such a good job of it with the Jug and the P-38.  Heck, even the Mosquito did air-to-ground missions.  Lots and lots of fighter aircraft were tasked with ground attack duties.


Edited by CorvusCorvax, 05 June 2019 - 06:16 PM.


Captain_Rownd #11 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:09 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1916 battles
  • 861
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015
Being from the town of Lincoln (formerly Lancaster) in Lancaster County, I approve of adding Lancasters and Lincolns to the game.  :great:

Specialist planes:

SPAD S.510 :: P-40 :: MiG-3 :: A6M1 :: XP-44 :: Fw 190 A-5 :: Me 209 V4 :: Venom :: Caudron C.714 :: Ki-88 :: Wirraway :: Tomahawk IIb :: TsKB I-7 :: Ki-5 :: F2A-1


legoboy0401 #12 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1520 battles
  • 1,559
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 05 June 2019 - 10:14 AM, said:

Of course it did.  The German had the Jabo, which is short for "Fighter-bomber".  It is the precursor to such concepts as the F-15E Strike Eagle, a plane that can deliver a pretty solid ground attack package, and still do air-to-air pretty much better than anything else.  The F-16?  The F/A-18?  Using a fighter aircraft to do ground attack as a multi-role aircraft originated in WWI when fighter pilots would throw grenades

into trenches.

 

The P-47, the Typhoon, the Tempest, the F4U, the P-38 - all of them were tasked with delivering air-to-ground ordnance.  At the same time, they were formidable air-to-air threats.  Sure, the FW-190 was pressed into that service, as was the Me-262.  And why?  Because the Allies had done such a good job of it with the Jug and the P-38.  Heck, even the Mosquito did air-to-ground missions.  Lots and lots of fighter aircraft were tasked with ground attack duties.

 

Yes, but that DIDN'T SLAP AN ARTIFICIALLY POOR ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE ON THEM, unlike in this game. So NO, the way WG uses "Multirole Fighters"(Basically a crutch to provide more prey at low altitudes by removing good altitude performance from planes that IRL had good altitude performance) is NOT very realistic. Besides, the Bf-109s(all the Light Fighters, really) may be getting their outboard stuff back again with Specialist2 configurations in the works, which completely nullifies the whole "Light Fighters aren't allowed to have anything outboard anymore, and if they do, they are now "Multirole Fighters" instead." thing.

An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


losttwo #13 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:54 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 4507 battles
  • 13,778
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 05 June 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

Of course it did.  The German had the Jabo, which is short for "Fighter-bomber".  It is the precursor to such concepts as the F-15E Strike Eagle, a plane that can deliver a pretty solid ground attack package, and still do air-to-air pretty much better than anything else.  The F-16?  The F/A-18?  Using a fighter aircraft to do ground attack as a multi-role aircraft originated in WWI when fighter pilots would throw grenades

into trenches.

 

The P-47, the Typhoon, the Tempest, the F4U, the P-38 - all of them were tasked with delivering air-to-ground ordnance.  At the same time, they were formidable air-to-air threats.  Sure, the FW-190 was pressed into that service, as was the Me-262.  And why?  Because the Allies had done such a good job of it with the Jug and the P-38.  Heck, even the Mosquito did air-to-ground missions.  Lots and lots of fighter aircraft were tasked with ground attack duties.

 

and the Red Tails never got tired of attacking womp rats in beggars canyon.

Stygian_Alchemist #14 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 10157 battles
  • 1,845
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
I wouldn't mind seeing a UK bomber line... but I'd prefer to see the U.S. line finished out -first-. Still and all though.. a UK and a Japanese line would be nice and would give them an excuse to do another event (better than this one they gave us for the Russian/German stuff).

Basically what I am saying is I want Japanese -and- UK bombers. Pipe dream, especially because there'd barely -be- enough Japanese bombers to fill a tree.. but still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_G8N comes to mind among others.

Edited by White_Widow18, 05 June 2019 - 09:00 PM.


Captain_Underpants53 #15 Posted 05 June 2019 - 09:58 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 21598 battles
  • 3,078
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View Postlegoboy0401, on 05 June 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

 

Yes, but that DIDN'T SLAP AN ARTIFICIALLY POOR ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE ON THEM, unlike in this game. So NO, the way WG uses "Multirole Fighters"(Basically a crutch to provide more prey at low altitudes by removing good altitude performance from planes that IRL had good altitude performance) is NOT very realistic. Besides, the Bf-109s(all the Light Fighters, really) may be getting their outboard stuff back again with Specialist2 configurations in the works, which completely nullifies the whole "Light Fighters aren't allowed to have anything outboard anymore, and if they do, they are now "Multirole Fighters" instead." thing.

 

And (giggle) we all know this game is (guffaw) NOTHING but realistic (snort, yuk)

 

:teethhappy:


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

losttwo #16 Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:17 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 4507 battles
  • 13,778
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 05 June 2019 - 04:58 PM, said:

 

And (giggle) we all know this game is (guffaw) NOTHING but realistic (snort, yuk)

 

:teethhappy:

 

Enough realism to make me motion sick and puke everywhere when flying with a joystick and the horizon isn't locked.

 

 



jack_wdw #17 Posted 06 June 2019 - 08:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1942 battles
  • 570
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
You do know that lancs had pretty weak defensive armament?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users