Author Topic: Perk WEAPONS? (Read 1328 times)

Tac · « **on:** January 06, 2001, 02:29:00 PM »

This may sound off, but wouldnt it be cool to have a SUPER costly perk weapon like a nuke bomb? *wicked grin*

That way not only would the player have to pay the perk points FOR the B-29, but also the perk point to carry the bomb.

Of course, he would have to survive the mission and drop it as well!

More perk weapons:

V1 flying bombs
V2 rockets

and any other single-shot weapons like artillery (.5 perk points per shot?), 88mm flak guns (.2 perk point per shot?), etc.

Tac · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2001, 02:31:00 PM »

hmm.. just remembered the Luftwaffe's air-to-air rockets used against bombers as well as aerial bombs. Would make great perking weapons =)

SKurj · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2001, 03:55:00 PM »

22,000lber for the lanc please

Flatten whole airfield with it perhaps

AKskurj

TheWobble · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2001, 03:56:00 PM »

THE GRAND SLAM!!!
yea that would be nice.

brady · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2001, 05:47:00 PM »

The Model of the Lanc. we currently have was , I am pretty sure,not capable of schlepping that monster up their.It would be fun to drop it though. Our lanc could carry a Tallboy though

Brady

------------------

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-06-2001).]

TheWobble · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2001, 05:49:00 PM »

hehe here is yer grand slam

-duma- · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2001, 05:55:00 PM »

Hehe, looks like a good pic for a caption contest..

BTW, Wobble, why don't you put up a page on the net? You could call it a 'Wobsite'...

TheWobble · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2001, 06:31:00 PM »

I am the worst page artist on the face of the earth, I have a websight
www.geocities.com/thewobbleus

hazed- · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »

ok what about a BK 50mm for 190's?
or personalised loadouts e.g. no mgs on 190's
there were many (some very rare) loadout options on many german aircraft...
JU88 with a PAK 75mm!!!
Mistle 190/ju88 combination where ju88 was big bomb!great for carrier strikes!.
please give us these

hazed

TheWobble · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2001, 08:44:00 PM »

BK 50mm

Mean lookin little bugger aint it

PAK 75mm ainti tank

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-06-2001).]

TheWobble · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2001, 08:58:00 PM »

"The Model of the Lanc. we currently have was , I am pretty sure,not capable of schlepping that monster up their.It would be fun to drop it though. Our lanc could carry a Tallboy though "

the lanc didnt hold the grandslam in its bay. It had it slung underneath, our lanc could handle the grand slam.

StSanta · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2001, 05:01:00 AM »

How about Mine shells for LW?

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

brady · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2001, 01:31:00 PM »

The Wobble said:

the lanc didn't hold the grandslam in its bay. It had it slung underneath, our lanc could handle the grand slam.

Not our model M8t,The following is from, Bombers of WW2 by David Donald.

p.74"the even bigger 9979-kg(22,000) Grand Slam, which required substantial aircraft modifications resulting in the designation Mk I (special)"

These modifications included, the removal of the forward and top turrets,the sculpting of the lower fuselage where the bomb bay "was" (yes it was no longer their) to allow the bomb to be slung underneath the bomber.

Our lanc. could carry the 8,000 pound bomb, basically a double 4,000 pounder , and the rare 12,000 pounder a triple 4,000 pounder, as well as the tallboy another 12,000 pound bomb, a streamlined deep penetration bomb.

Brady

------------------

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-07-2001).]

Fishu · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2001, 02:20:00 PM »

I wonder if grand slam would make such good effect on soft targets...
It was designed to penetrate steel hardened concrete right?
So it must have been fully armor penetrating bomb.
I'd say that general purpose or high explosive bomb wouldn't have such tremendous effect...

..right?

Jigster · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2001, 02:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu:
I wonder if grand slam would make such good effect on soft targets...
It was designed to penetrate steel hardened concrete right?
So it must have been fully armor penetrating bomb.
I'd say that general purpose or high explosive bomb wouldn't have such tremendous effect...

..right?

It was intended for deep penetration into the ground before it detonated, using the blast, shockwave, and concussion to crumble objects for quite some distance around it IIRC (best way to knock out a concrete struture is to destroy it's foundation)

Basically in practice they dropped it on the concrete sub pens where it smashed through one pen before detonating using the concussion to destroy the surrounding pens from underneath so to speak.

Hence the name "earthquake bomb"