Author Topic: Armstrong Whitworth Whitley (Read 1060 times)

VooWho · « **on:** June 24, 2006, 01:00:29 PM »

This would be a great addition to the game as an early war RAF bomber. It was consider as a heavy bomber.

-Crew:5
-Powerplant: Two 802kW (1075hp) Rolls-Royce Merlin X V-type in-line engines.
-Performance: Max speed 370km/h (230mph); Range 3862km (2400miles); service ceiling 7925m (26,000ft)
-Weight: 15,195kg (33,500Ibs) loaded.
-Armament: one fixed forward-firing 7.62mm (0.30in) Vickers machine gun in nose; four 7.62mm (0.30in) Browning machine guns in tail turret; up to 3175kg (7000Ibs) of bombs internally.

The Whitley first flew on 17 March 1936 and first deliveries made to the No 10 Squadron RAF Bomber Command in March 1937. Main wartime production version the Mk V 1466 were produced. Whitleys carried out some notable long-range missions, like first attacks on Italy, in June 1940. Whitley production total was 1824 aircraft.

I think this would be good for early war battles. The only bombers the RAF have for early war are the Bostons. This would give the RAF an early war Heavy Bomber.

Greebo · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2006, 01:23:15 PM »

There were three RAF medium bombers when war broke out; the Hampden, Whitley and Wellington. Of these the Wellington was the best and most widely used of the bunch. The Whitley was pretty much only ever used at night and was the first of the three to be dropped from front line service. If any of these aircraft ever get done in AH, it would almost certainly be the Wellington.

VooWho · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2006, 02:07:56 PM »

omg i always get negative post.

Y DOENST ANYONE LIKE ME!

Will how about both the Wellington and the Whitley then. We have 4 american bombers and only 2 RAF, so that would be 4 RAF bombers then.

Neubob · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2006, 03:16:32 PM »

Just as the case with the Ju88, I will never understand the point of that fixed .30 cal. Are they actually gonna strafe something with it? In a bomber? And if so, where are they going to find a target soft and valuable enough to justify a low-level strafing run with just the pee-shooter?

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2006, 03:43:33 PM »

Don't forget, in REAL LIFE it only takes one small-caliber MG to down enemy fighters. In AH it would be useless, though.

EDIT: P.S. what greebo said

VooWho · « **Reply #5 on:** June 24, 2006, 04:36:11 PM »

Do we always have to have the best in AH. I hate that.

Saxman · « **Reply #6 on:** June 24, 2006, 04:56:59 PM »

The problem is, if it's NOT it doesn't get used.

How often do you see Kates taking off from CVs?

Greebo · « **Reply #7 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:07:23 PM »

I'm trying to look at it from HTC's point of view. For them to introduce a new plane is a big investment in time (i.e. money). So either that plane needs to get a lot of use in the MA, or it needs to be useful in scenarios, or preferably both.

None of the early RAF mediums are going to survive long in the MA, but the Wellington would be better than the other two. Scenario wise the Wellington saw a lot of action by day and night over northern Europe, the Med, North Africa and the Pacific. The other two were mostly used in the early phase of the night bombing campaign against Germany.

As far as other British bombers go, the Lanc makes the other heavies redundant. The best British bomber for the MA would be the glass nosed Mossies. You could have a Mk IV and a lightly perked Mk XVI.

Pooface · « **Reply #8 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:11:18 PM »

re-do the mossies i say, give us the b mkIV, FB mk VI (we have it now, but take the flame dampres out of the FM, seeing as it doesnt actually have them on the 3d model

), and then yes, a slightly perked mk 16 with the 4000lb cookie bomb

Krusty · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:19:33 PM »

Who says the Wellington was "the best"?? It was terrible! It and other early RAF bombers forced the RAF to develop better aircraft, indirectly leading to the Lancaster.

We're not saying the Wellington is a better choice because it's better. We're saying it is because it was used more, it was much more representative of the Bomber Command, and it's more recognizable.

Fact of the matter is any early RAF bomber's going to suck horribly. Doesn't mean we don't want any!

It just means we want the right ones. If you only got to put in one early war naval dive bomber for the US Navy, would you pick the SBC-4 Helldiver, or the SB2C? One was obsolete as the war started, was weak, slow, underpowered, couldn't carry anything. The other was a very common and representative craft, and yet still rather slow, underpowered, and couldn't carry anything

Chances are of the two, the SB2C is a better choice.

Same with the Whitley vs the Wellington. Both were there. The Wellington's a better choice to include in AH, though. I applaud you for looking for early war aircraft to fill the holes, however. So many holes...

Furball · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:55:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Who says the Wellington was "the best"?? It was terrible! It and other early RAF bombers forced the RAF to develop better aircraft, indirectly leading to the Lancaster.

It was far from terrible. Around 10,000 built, It served throughout the war in many different roles. I have spoken to crew who have actually preferred flying in the Wellington to the Lancaster.

Could add the Short Stirling as an earlier RAF bomber, but again it would be very similar to the lanc.

Could get the Albemarle or Halifax as a niche parachute drop/bomber/glider tow

Krusty · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:58:24 PM »

I realize any plane that got folks home and did the job wasn't "terrible" -- I just meant that in AH it would be totally lackluster.

Furball · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:01:39 PM »

you are right about getting people home. unbelieveably strong construction.

you should read up on the guys that won the Victoria Cross while flying it, quite unbelieveable stories.

Neubob · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:52:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Don't forget, in REAL LIFE it only takes one small-caliber MG to down enemy fighters.

Okay, sure, but why have it on a fixed mount? How much more effort would it have taken to allow it to swivle--verses how much more useful the swiveling would have made it? Unless you're planning to dogfight or strafe airfields with that winged Redwood tree, it seems like a waste of a machine gun.

Krusty · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:58:48 PM »

Maybe because it was intended for the pilot to use, rather than the bombadier? Don't forget these RAF bomber crews were small. The fewer men the better. A mannable nose position would require room for a nose gunner, as well as bombadier, the ammo moved up to the gun, crammed into a narrow area, and the nose turrets weren't that effective anyways.

I think they just weighed the options, the weight required, and gave the pilot a forward gun. It's not that uncommon. Consider the Blenheim, it had a bombadier and a fixed forward gun as well, but no nose gunner. I think it was just the mentality of the time.