I would like the B-29

[Goomba]

I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.

Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.

Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors?  Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really?  I don't remember anymore.

In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Goomba
I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.

Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.

Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors?  Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really?  I don't remember anymore.

In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.

Naturally I agree.  The 22,000 lb. Grand Slam is far more likely than a nuke.

While the real Lancaster's typical load was 14,000 lbs., it could carry up to 22,000 lbs. and was the aircraft which carried the Grand Slam.

I'm with you on the B-29 comment.

[Gato]

I can see the B-29 and the Grand Slam both being items we could use. I can see them being perked, but please forget about the nuke.  As it stands now, there is really nothing to spend the perk points on.  The 234 is worthless, so really we have nothing to use the massive amount of perks on.  This would be a good way to use them.  But, can you see the B-29 being perked as the 262 and then X 3?  That could put people back to 0 fast.  But with the 262, it can put the fighters back to 0 fast also.

On the other hand, what would we use all those bombs for?  HQ?  We still need to update the strat system.  Without that, it would only piss a lot of people off with taking out FHs over a front.  The guns would be nice with it already calculating for dropage with the new recoil in place.  Unless that would not be put in.

[68slayr]

I don't thnk we should have it lets go with a Axis bomber.  We don't need it because the Lancaster does enough damage.  Just a few minutes ago I had a Lancaster take out the 2 fhs, vh, radar, ord, and troops.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Goomba
I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.

Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.

Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors?  Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really?  I don't remember anymore.

In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.

No, the Lanc was the ONLY Bomber that carried this type of Ordnance.   If implmented, again (from another thread) let the Lancs roll from 5 sectors back to get alt.

Karaya

[Masherbrum]

My question is this. Why is the Nuke always desired, when from March 9-10, 1945, the Tokyo Fire Raids killed more Japanese with Incinderary bombs, than the Nuke at Hiroshima?

Karaya

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by 68slayr
I don't thnk we should have it lets go with a Axis bomber.  We don't need it because the Lancaster does enough damage.  Just a few minutes ago I had a Lancaster take out the 2 fhs, vh, radar, ord, and troops.

The problem with the Lanc isn't its payload so much, it's the defensive guns.  No ventral protection at all, .303's on top and front and 50's on the tail but with a small amount of ammo (670 rounds).  Be nice to have the extra bomb capacity too.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
No, the Lanc was the ONLY Bomber that carried this type of Ordnance.   If implmented, again (from another thread) let the Lancs roll from 5 sectors back to get alt.

I should think they'd have to with that kind of load.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
The problem with the Lanc isn't its payload so much, it's the defensive guns.  No ventral protection at all, .303's on top and front and 50's on the tail but with a small amount of ammo (670 rounds).  Be nice to have the extra bomb capacity too.

But that was the weakest point of the Lanc in WWII.  It didn't take long for the Luftwaffe to exploit this.  

Karaya

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
My question is this. Why is the Nuke always desired, when from March 9-10, 1945, the Tokyo Fire Raids killed more Japanese with Incinderary bombs, than the Nuke at Hiroshima?

I don't think it is always desired.  I don't desire it, Gato doesn't desire it and I don't think anyone else seriously desires it.  The desire is for the B-29, not the nuke.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
But that was the weakest point of the Lanc in WWII.  It didn't take long for the Luftwaffe to exploit this.

Yep.  That's why I rarely fly it.  Too easy for some guy to get under you, nose up and fill ya full of lead.  I should think the Hurricane would excell at it with it's turning ability and cannons.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
I don't think it is always desired.  I don't desire it, Gato doesn't desire it and I don't think anyone else seriously desires it.  The desire is for the B-29, not the nuke.

Discussing the B-29 without "mentioning the nuke" is like taking sand to the beach.

Karaya

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Discussing the B-29 without "mentioning the nuke" is like taking sand to the beach.

It may get "mentioned", but I doubt anyone seriously wants it.  As you pointed out, the B-29 was used far more for other things than nukes.  Nukes were significant, but hardly common usage of the plane.  Also, I can't really see a scenario in MA that would allow nukes.  I can see the B-29 there.

[Saxman]

And yet, every time I come across these buffs with "Absolutely no ventral protection" and I come in at exteme speeds, pull up and fly up on their belly, I STILL end up pilot wounded, smoking from the engine and with big gaping holes in my wings.

Anyway, I think those nasty incendiary bombs would be a cool addition, especially against factories/towns

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Saxman
And yet, every time I come across these buffs with "Absolutely no ventral protection" and I come in at exteme speeds, pull up and fly up on their belly, I STILL end up pilot wounded, smoking from the engine and with big gaping holes in my wings.

Anyway, I think those nasty incendiary bombs would be a cool addition, especially against factories/towns

I can't think of why that would happen unless you don't stay under the bomber.  You might ask Masherbrum about it.  He's indicated to me in the past that he uses the technique with success.

Yeah, the incendiary bombs would be cool.  I think the only problem with them might be they'd kill frame rates.  Especially if you dropped as many as a B-29 can carry.