how about giving the lanc the tail gun it had

[TalonII]

See Rule #4

[Lusche]

Originally posted by TalonII
See Rule #4

That´s  certainly the right way to get any positive feedback

BTW, you cant include a link to a .html page as an image:
"http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/avro_lancaster.htm" - its a webpage, not a picture!

When trying to include an image, enter the address of that image, for example "http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/aviation_space_images/avro_lancaster_rear_gun_turret.jpg" to get this:

[Krusty]

12 posts and already so biased and name-calling towards HTC? I smell a BBS clone, as this person must be expecting to be banned (and doesn't want to lose their primary login)...

"Might want to check your soviet resources"...? FYI the Soviet sources are some of the worst for accuracy and proper details. That's why it's so hard to find good Soviet sources. If you find some GOOD ones then yes, use 'em. But don't say "You all need to check more soviet resources" that's like saying "you need to trust wikipedia like it's the bible".

Be careful how you word that part.

EDIT: Skuzzified before I could even reply...

[Karnak]

Many Lancaster Mk IIIs did indeed have twin .50s in the tail, just like in AH.

[TalonII]

The Russian source was nothing more then me trying to point out how many don’t take what other say or ask seriously.  Its funny Kusty, how you of all people would point out this flaw out, as it was mainly directed at you and all the other senior member who constantly criticize suggestion other make. Have a nice day.

[Krusty]

You do realize, don't you, if nobody pointed these things out, you'd never learn, right?

There's a soviet report (let's say) that shows, definitively, that the IL2 flew faster at all atlitudes than the 109k-4, and turned tighter than the gladiator biplane. It's an official war-time report, and there are scans of it. Why, most fools would buy it because it's in a report, right? Right.

And those fools would go on buying it, using this report as proof they are right, until somebody else came in and said "no, you can't trust that report, for these reasons".

*I* don't see a lot of folks being overly critical of others. *I* see a lot of people that need correction. Otherwise ignorance will run rampant

[TalonII]

Krusty many times I’ve made requested for thing on the wish list and have been out right abused but some senior members. I do allot of research before I submit a request and I’m not auguring there weren’t twin 50 in the lanc’s, but the wasn’t standard configuration until late in the war and was on the MKVII. By the way, Lusche thank you for posting the picture and explaining to me how to post the picture.

[thndregg]

Originally posted by Krusty
*I* don't see a lot of folks being overly critical of others. *I* see a lot of people that need correction. Otherwise ignorance will run rampant

Your nose is turned up too high.

[Tilt]

Seems to me that quad 303's would be more appropriate on the tail of a Lanc III.

[Greebo]

HTC have said they'll be implementing perk armament options. So in future if you want a cannon armed F4U, you'll select an F4U-1D and pay perks for the F4U-1C's cannons. Presumably the same thing will apply to the Lanc's 0.5in turret.

If you think the two half inch guns is bad, Avro tested a Lanc with upper and lower twin Hispano 20mm turrets. These were sighted remotely B-29 style from the rear gunner's position. The high brass didn't want Lanc production disrupted so it never went any further.