The Halifax

[ShrkBite]

Hey guys


Wow i cant believe we missed this plane. (unless someone else posted this). This ought to be the next plane. It flew over 80,000 Operations and was one of the most used planes of the RAF. Read on.

The Halifax!

The Handley Page Halifax was one of the British front-line, four-engine heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. A contemporary of the famous Avro Lancaster, the Halifax remained in service until the end of the war, performing a variety of duties in addition to bombing. The Halifax was also operated by squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force and Polish Air Force. Handley Page produced the H.P.56 design to meet Air Ministry Specification P.13/36 for a twin-engine medium bomber for "world-wide use". Other candidates for the specification were the Avro Manchester and a Vickers Warwick development; all used twin Rolls-Royce Vulture engines. The introduction of the successful P.13/36 candidates were delayed by the necessity of ordering more Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley and Vickers Wellington bombers first.

The Halifax entered service with No. 35 Squadron RAF at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in November 1940 and its first operational raid was against Le Havre on the night of 11-12 March 1941.

In service with RAF Bomber Command, Halifaxes flew 82,773 operations, dropped 224,207 tons of bombs and lost 1,833 aircraft.[3] In addition to bombing missions, the Halifax served as a glider tug, electronic warfare aircraft for No. 100 Group RAF and special operations such as parachuting agents and arms into occupied Europe. Halifaxes were also operated by RAF Coastal Command for anti submarine warfare, reconnaissance and meteorological roles.

Postwar, Halifaxes remained in service with the RAF Coastal Command and RAF Transport Command and the Armée de l'Air until early 1952. The Pakistan Air Force which inherited the planes from the RAF continued to use the type until 1961.

A number of former RAF Halifax C8s were sold from 1945 and used as freighters by a number of mainly British airlines. In 1948 the air freight market was in decline but 41 civil aircraft were used in the Berlin Air Lift operating a total of 4,653 freight sorties and 3,509 sorties carrying bulk diesel fuel. Nine aircraft were lost during the airlift but as the aircraft returned to England most civil Halifaxes were scrapped.     (Source is WIKIPEDIA!!)

Here are the Specs and a Picture.

General characteristics

Crew: 7
Length: 71 ft 7 in (21.82 m)
Wingspan: 104 ft 2 in[7] (31.75 m)
Height: 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m)
Wing area: 1,190 ft² (110.6 m²)
Loaded weight: 54,400 lb (24,675 kg)
Powerplant: × Bristol Hercules XVI radial engine, 1,615 hp (1,205 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,115 m)
Range: 1,860 mi (3,000 km) combat
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m)
Rate of climb: 750 ft/min (3.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 45.7 lb/ft² (223.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (195 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (4 in dorsal turret, 4 in tail turret), 1 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in nose
Bombs: 13,000 lb (5,897 kg) of bombs




If you want to read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax#Specifications_.28Mk_III.29

[FYB]

It looks like a baby lancaster, im all in. +1

-FYB

[Hap]

yeah, halifax and manchester.  i'm all for faxes and chesters.

[Ciaphas]

+1 

I would love to see plenty more bomber types added. This plane would be a challenge to complete a sortie as it's loaded with .303's and not .50's. Though that quad dorsal turret has to be one of the prettiest things I have ever seen. That dorsal turret looks like it uses a cartridge in a higher cal than a .303, it may be the Barrel flares are just bigger than the rest for no particular reason.

Still though it gets +1 from me!   

[Cthulhu]

I want you buff guys to get the Stirling. That way I won't have to climb so high to bring you down. 

+1 

I would love to see plenty more bomber types added. This plane would be a challenge to complete a sortie as it's loaded with .303's and not .50's. Though that quad dorsal turret has to be one of the prettiest things I have ever seen. That dorsal turret looks like it uses a cartridge in a higher cal than a .303, it may be the Barrel flares are just bigger than the rest for no particular reason.

Still though it gets +1 from me!  

Those barrel flares are flash suppressors (bombing at night, remember?). And they're all .303's.

[Ciaphas]

Those barrel flares are flash suppressors (bombing at night, remember?). And they're all .303's.

The dorsal Guns seemed to have rather large flash suppressors for.303's but I think that falls back to the fact that the dorsal and tail guns are made by Browning and the chin gin was made by Vickers. The Vickers appears to use a fluted suppression system where the Browning uses the bell system. No worries though as I still think we should have this bomber added to the inventory. I don't think it will become a hanger queen, who knows, I doubt we will see this added to the inventory anyway.


 

[Karnak]

Problem is that is fills no holes at all.  In terms of game impact, it is as close to identical to the Lancaster as it is for one aircraft to be to another unrelated aircraft.


The Wellington B.Mk III would be a much better addition for that reason, if HTC were going to add a British bomber.

[Saxman]

We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.

[Ciaphas]

Problem is that is fills no holes at all.  In terms of game impact, it is as close to identical to the Lancaster as it is for one aircraft to be to another unrelated aircraft.

Can you explain this? What are the reasons that it is identical? What holes isn't this filling?

The Wellington B.Mk III would be a much better addition for that reason, if HTC were going to add a British bomber.

We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.

Why would it be a much better choice? What holes does it fill? What separates this from any other bomber out there?

I can't stand posts that simply state that the idea, aircraft or GV "will not work or doesn't fit or we don't need this" without posting any information to back up their statements. Let's get some facts running through these threads. Compare them to one another and the current environment of Aces High II and then let's have a constructive conversation about it.

 

[Ciaphas]

Here are stats for all three bombers. Let's compare them. Who's first?

Here are the stats for the Wellington  B.MK III:

Type: Wellington B Mk.III
Function: bomber
Year:
Crew: 6
Engines: 2 * 1500hp Bristol Hercules XI
Wing Span: 26.26m
Length: 18.54m
Height: 5.31m
Wing Area: 78.04 m2
Empty Weight: 8471 kg
Max.Weight: 13381 kg
Speed: 410 km/h (at 3810m)
Ceiling: 5790 m
Range:
Armament: 8*mg 7.7mm, 2014 kg payload

And here are the stats for Japans "Betty Bomber":

Aircraft Type: Long Range Medium Bomber
Manufacturer: Mitsubishi Jukogyo
Engine:          Air Cooled Twin Rotary Engines
Horsepower:   1,825 HP
Weight:         18,050 lbs empty
Load out:       2,200 lbs of bombs or 1 torpedo
Max Speed:    265-285 MPH

Crew and Armament

5-7  Man Crew
1 - 20 mm cannon (tail mounted)
5 - 7.7 mm machine guns

Here are the Halifax's stats.

General characteristics

Crew: 7
Length: 71 ft 7 in (21.82 m)
Wingspan: 104 ft 2 in[7] (31.75 m)
Height: 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m)
Wing area: 1,190 ft² (110.6 m²)
Loaded weight: 54,400 lb (24,675 kg)
Powerplant: × Bristol Hercules XVI radial engine, 1,615 hp (1,205 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,115 m)
Range: 1,860 mi (3,000 km) combat
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m)
Rate of climb: 750 ft/min (3.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 45.7 lb/ft² (223.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (195 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (4 in dorsal turret, 4 in tail turret), 1 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in nose
Bombs: 13,000 lb (5,897 kg) of bombs

[Karnak]

Can you explain this? What are the reasons that it is identical? What holes isn't this filling?

Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar.  It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough.  It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.

Why would it be a much better choice? What holes does it fill? What separates this from any other bomber out there?

The G4M2 "Betty" fills the hole that exists due to the lack of an early war Japanese bomber.  The Ki-67 entered service in mid-1944 and when used in 1942 settings it is uncatchable and highly lethal to the slow fighters trying to stop it.

The Wellington Mk III serves the same purpose for the British.  The Boston Mk III while being early war is too fast to be caught due to the unhistorical boost settings used as standard by bombers in AH.  The Boston Mk III is actually faster than the Bf109E-4 on the deck.

I can't stand posts that simply state that the idea, aircraft or GV "will not work or doesn't fit or we don't need this" without posting any information to back up their statements. Let's get some facts running through these threads. Compare them to one another and the current environment of Aces High II and then let's have a constructive conversation about it.

That is because these things are self evident and shouldn't need to be pointed out.

[Tilt]

Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar.  It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough.  It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.

This is unfortunately true....... I often wonder at its higher loss rate. Early Halifaxes had unstable tail sections which were latterly modified from the twin triangular tail to the larger (squarer) twin tail as the Bristol Hercules engines were added.

Halifaxes tended to ingress to target a little lower than Lancs and would occupy the lower levels of the big raids.

They would take typically 1000lbs less ord than a Lanc and this was the main reason that Harris prefferred the Lanc when advocating that manufacturing should focus on only one mark of main stream bomber.

My father was a flight engineer on Halifaxes with RCAF Goose squadron during 44 and early 45. (The Canadians did not have their own flight engineers trained for Halifaxes so RAF flight engineers were seconded)

He recounts that on occasion they did some rather unusual approaches to target.

On one occasion in order to delay approach the Squadron leader had the whole squadron "dirty up" dropping flaps and gear at 12,000 ft approaching Dusseldorf to slow everything down to avoid a cloud front that was then passing over target. They arrived at target in this state having dropped to 10,000 to try to get under it.  Dad recounts that as they released the bombs all he could see below was more cloud.

[Slade]

Add the thing.

+1

[frank3]

Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar.  It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough.  It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.

Then why did we receive the B-24, when we already had the B-17?

@ the loss rate, they were just used more than the Lancaster (and earlier for that matter), I think

[thndregg]

Well, add it anyway. I mean, we have the B5N.