Author Topic: Landcaster III (Read 1241 times)

frank3 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2004, 04:24:33 AM »

Makes me wonder...why did the B-17 needed 2 pilots while the lancaster only carried 1?

Dowding · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2004, 04:51:17 AM »

Different Trade Union regulations.

-tronski- · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2004, 11:01:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Different Trade Union regulations.

lol

I've always thought it'd prob be better to have the 4x.303's in the rear turret, than the 50' cals...you exhaust the .50 cals fairly easily/quickly fighting off interceptors. What the .303's lack in killing power would be balanced by the volume of fire that you could maintain longer...

Tronsky

frank3 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:43:42 AM »

So there actually isn't any difference between 4 x .303's or 2 x .50's....

Dowding · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2004, 06:37:51 AM »

Well, obviously there is. But I wonder how many attacking pilots would hold their attack if they were getting plinked by the more numerous 303s. In real life, with only one life to lead, I suspect most would break off their attack.

Replicant · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2004, 10:06:25 AM »

Quite true, I guess most aircraft in real life were shot down due to pilot injury/death, radiator/engine damage rather than major structural damage like you see in AH. Of course you might damage control surfaces but I don't think you'd see wings falling off as frequent as in AH.

Imagine coming up against 4 x .303s, only takes 1 bullet to kill you!

Furball · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:57:04 PM »

Didnt 4 gun tail on lannie have 4,000 rounds?

We need Twin Hispano top turrets, that would really make em whine!

Replicant · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:03:20 PM »

Twin hispanos would be funny!

One of the bomber groups kept the ventral twin .303s and some Canadian built Lancasters had top .50 cal turret but with 4 x .303 rear turret. Now if only they did both rear and top turret with .50 cal!

SELECTOR · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:34:22 PM »

lancasters were looped and rolled...

Replicant · « **Reply #24 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:43:51 PM »

Check this particular film out - sweet! http://www.467463raafsquadrons.com/Pages/PicturesandScans/VidClips/tstflight.mpg

Rasker · « **Reply #25 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:49:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
We need Twin Hispano top turrets, that would really make em whine!

There was a version each of the B-17, and of the B-24, meant to be a bombless gunship long range escort for the regular buffs. The designations were YB-40 and XB-41, I know an extra dorsal turret was added to each, the chin turret was used for the first time, and dual powered fifties were put in each waist in place of the manual singles. "A variety of different armament configurations was tried. Some YB-40s were fitted with four-gun nose and tail turrets. Some carried cannon of up to 40-mm in calibre, and a few carried up to as many as 30 guns of various calibres in multiple hand-held positions in the waist as well as in additional power turrets above and below the fuselage!" from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_12.html

These versions never saw much service, as the long range escort fighters came into service, and these gunships were never able to keep up with the regular bombers after bomb drop. It would rock having these gunships in AH, showing the same icon, until the enemy gets in too close!

Replicant · « **Reply #26 on:** March 05, 2004, 05:01:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rasker
There was a version each of the B-17, and of the B-24, meant to be a bombless gunship long range escort for the regular buffs. The designations were X/YB-40 and 41, tho I forget which goes with which. I know extra dorsal turrets were added to each, and a few other positions as well. These versions never saw much service, as the long range escort fighters came into service, and these gunships were never able to keep up with the regular bombers after bomb drop.

They did do a B17 with a forward 20mm cannon in the nose but it was found to be unsafe since it caused too much vibration and created wear to the nose mountings. They also did some B17s with a 20mm tail gun which was very successful. However it didn't have the arc of the .50cals so was only good at the longer range shots rather than at closer fighters at increased angles.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 05, 2004, 06:05:13 PM »

edit:never mind last bomber sortie I flew in AH was an IL.2 and I raped the spit9 that tried to shoot me in the arse.

Karnak · « **Reply #28 on:** March 05, 2004, 06:09:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooh21
You know how many in real when they realized they was no better then SS camp guards would fly a lanc? Wow I got balls I can drop Incendiary bombs on women and children. I mean in Crecy and during the Napoleonic wars England had stones.Whered did those stones go in the 2nd ww war?

Go read some actual history, not German propaganda.

That might actually take some effort and not back up your biases though.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 05, 2004, 06:12:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Go read some actual history, not German propaganda.

That might actually take some effort and not back up your biases though.

oops Im American dontcha know?
B-17 is my fav plane. I even wear an A-2 Bomber Jacket around here.