about Lancasters

[ghi]

Originally posted by syncrII
Moin

yes i knew i lost meany bombers to you. But the badest think you have done to me was killing my 12 formation Ki 67 HQRaid with your 20 me 163. I still remember be sure. im still workink on a plan to pay it back .

cu chris3

Ohh ja warte ich Ihren folgenden HQ-Überfal, ich liebe den geruch von rosted Bomber !:)

[Hoarach]

Originally posted by ghi
30k would have been good  defence, why did they operate like bats in the night mostly ?!:(

Just look at the defenses the lanc has.  The lanc wouldnt last as long in the daytime then the American made bombers.

[Furball]

idiots.

if its 30k hq runners you want to kill, up a 163.

[nirvana]

I concur with Furball.  How much does a 163 cost? 50 points? 75 points?

[Karnak]

163 is only useful if the bomber(s) are heading for the HQ.  The question was not "What unperked fighter do you use to intercept a high altitude bomber heading to the HQ?"  It was "What unperked fighter do you use to intercept a high altitude bomber now?"

[Krusty]

Originally posted by ghi
Ta152 is cheap under 10 perks, climbs slower than k-4 up to 24-25k but is much better than k-4 over 25k, plus the firepower, 90 x 30mm +2 x175 mg151 shells, not 65 rounds only on k-4

Only.... When you put all 90 rounds into 2 B24s (and SEE them hit, SEE them land on target) nothing happens. When you spray with MG151 you can use half your 500rds ammo load just to get a gas leak from a B24.

I was in a 109K4 just earlier today and attacking some lancasters. Firing only my 30mm hub cannon I landed no less than 5-7 hits sprites all in a row all in a tight spot all in the rear fuselage. No damage. Got this BS on film, no less. Bomber damage isn't the problem, necessarily, but the 30mm is ^%!$@^$^!$#^$#@! messed up, damage wise.

[Angus]

Next time, aim for the wings

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Hoarach
Just look at the defenses the lanc has.  The lanc wouldnt last as long in the daytime then the American made bombers.

American bombers didn't survive either unless they had escorts. Just look at Black Thursday.

The hand held waist guns were pretty much useless, so the only advantages the American bombers had was the ball turret , the .50s and  a heigher ceiling.

[Angus]

Would they have a higher ceiling with the same weight of ordnance? Somehow doubt so....

[Krusty]

Yes, good point. The Lancs hold 14k of bombs. They wanted to do more damage with less bombers. Its their design. US bombers were meant for massive formations (for mutual defense) so they didn't need more payload. In fact I believe the B17 could carry about 17k of ord but was limitd to 5-6k operationally because of range and performance limitations.

So the lanc should suffer more at alt, IMO. It shouldn't be able to fly better than the B24 when the B24 is empty and the lanc is loaded.

[MiloMorai]

Lanc B I data

tare weight - 36,900lb
mean weight - 55,000lb
normal gross - 68,000lb
max TO weight - 72,000lb

service ceiling (max weight) - 20,000'
service ceiling (mean weight) - 24,500'

total fuel - 2134 Impgal (6 tanks)

bomb loads:

14 - 1000lb > 14,000lb
1- 4000l, + 6 1500lb mines > 13,000lb
6 - 2000lb + 3 250lb > 12,750lb
1 - 12,000lb > 12,000lb
1 - 8000lb + 6 500lb > 11,000lb
1 - 4000lb + 6 1000lb + 2 250lb > 10,500lb

[Krusty]

What is mean weight? Is that with gas but no bombs?

In that case HTC needs to tweak climb rates over 20k. It should be almost nil at 24k unloaded, and nil at 20k loaded.

[Karnak]

Krusty,

By nil do you mean 0fpm?  If so, that is not the RAF's definition of "Service Ceiling".  They used a definition based on when climb rate dropped below, IIRC, 250fpm.

Also consider that most people who fly bombers only take 25% fuel, thus greatly lightening the weight.

[Krusty]

True, very true about the gas load. I think we need 2 fuel burn rates. 1 for bombers and 1 for all the others.

As for nil I was just meaning 100fpm or so. Not enough to really go any higher.

[gatt]

Originally posted by Krusty
Only.... When you put all 90 rounds into 2 B24s (and SEE them hit, SEE them land on target) nothing happens. When you spray with MG151 you can use half your 500rds ammo load just to get a gas leak from a B24.

I was in a 109K4 just earlier today and attacking some lancasters. Firing only my 30mm hub cannon I landed no less than 5-7 hits sprites all in a row all in a tight spot all in the rear fuselage. No damage. Got this BS on film, no less. Bomber damage isn't the problem, necessarily, but the 30mm is ^%!$@^$^!$#^$#@! messed up, damage wise.

Krusty,

I usually use the K-4 against B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters. At least 10-15 rounds of the K-4's 30mm are needed to shot down one of them. That is, firing from 200-250yds. And I have to shoot mainly in the wing if I want to be sure. Firing in the fuselage has never produced good results in AH.
There are very interesting 1945 test results in the book of Tony Willliams about the use of 30mm and 20mm to shoot down bombers during WW2. They calculated that 360g of HE was needed to bring down a heavy bomber. Assuming 5% hit ratio and the use of M-Geschoss for all weapons, these are the results:

- 4x151/20: 9.5sec
- 2xMk108: 5,0sec

Theoretically, just 3 or 4 30mm hits were considered enuff to shoot down a bomber, but it was probably very difficult to hit with the Mk108, except at short range. So they developed the Sturm units.

The single nose mounted Mk108s of the G-6, G-10 and K-4, dont seem to be considered as a bomber killer weapon.