The lancaster needs a patch

[Sorrow[S=A]]

The lancaster needs patched badly. C'mon HTC you upped the damage needed to close a base because 34k B-17's were thumping down bases all the time. Now 34k Lancs can do it instead.

In a fairness HTC, something needs to give here. 34k bombers are just driving people out of the game. You know damn well it's gameing the game- the real thing hardly ever saw 29k and in the lancs case- 26k  was bloody rare. At one time buff motors started to collect heat if left at 100% map all the time. Maybe it's time to reinstate that to curb this nonsense.

AND while I am on it-
Please take a look at the angle some of the buff guns can achieve. The lower ball turret on the B-17 is rotating 135 degrees. This means the ball turret is giving support fire at a 45% angle to any guns firing. This is just not right. If you want it to help dead6 attacks let it go to 95-98% angle so it can help the tail gun. The rest is just ridiculous. The Tail gun on the B-17 is acting silly too. It can support fire up to an arc of 85% ..  almost straight up! The real gun could not bear on anything past it's 60 degree elevation.
 The lancaster needs help too. Currently it's front and tail guns can fire PAST 90 degrees from the centerline. Indeed- if in the top turret hit F3 and fire over your wing. Both the nose gun AND the tail gun will bend over and fire along with it right over the wing.


Finally: let me make this clear..  I DO fly bombers. I know how vulnerable they are. But I don't think for a second we should be able to fly them to unreachable altitudes or have an unfair concentration of guns on our targets. As some saw I really blew up in the MA today about a lanc at 34k. At 34 K he was climbing the same as a 109G10 with wep. I was able to creep in to 600 yds were I unloaded every 20 & 30mm I had into him with about a 30% hit rate. I backed off and waited for 2 minutes for him to have SOME kind of difficulty and lose altitude. Nothing. Then trying to come closer and use 13mm his tail gun proved it wasn't dead and knocked my wing off then killed my floating wobbling plane.

Then I really lost my temper all-together.
Quite frankly this is just not playable or in any way enjoyable. HTC you knew people would try and abuse any cracks in the bomber FM, your experience with the B-17 PROVED it. Yet you didn't look closely at the Lanc before release? Please...  we don't need fleets of B-29 in AH. Do something about this problem.

[Vermillion]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that a loaded Lancaster had a service ceiling of between 20k-22k.

Well today in the arena, we had a 35k Lancaster hit our HQ hard enough to knock out our radar (not sector counters). I assume he used the 14 1,000lb eggs.

I have no problem with the payload of the lancaster, I just think its going WAY too high is all. Especially with that kind of load.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Zigrat]

Agreed, max alt of loaded lanc should be 20-22k i think historically.

it climbs like a frigging rocket, too.

[funked]

I saw a service ceiling of 24,500 feet somewhere.  That was fully loaded - close to 60,000 lbs.  If you drop 16,000 lb of bombs and burn of 10,000 lb of fuel (she carries 12,500 lb of fuel), seems to me you might climb just a tad higher.  

[715]

One book I have lists initial climb rate of 250 fpm and service ceiling of 19,000ft for the Lanc Mk III.  Another lists 42 min to 20,000ft (480 fpm) and ceiling of 24,500ft for the Lanc Mk I.  A third also lists Lanc I ceiling of 24,500ft as does a fourth.  Another lists 42 min to 20,000ft, rate of climb of 250 ft/min, max weight service ceiling of 20,000ft, mean weight ceiling of 24,500ft for the Lanc Mk I.

I'm curious: is wind dispersion of bomb drops modeled in AH or do they just fall right to the cross hair point?  If not, wouldn't adding it help reduce frustration with buff raids?

715



[This message has been edited by 715 (edited 09-10-2000).]

[funked]

250 fpm initial has got to be wrong.  The service ceiling is defined as the altitude where climb decays to 200 fpm IIRC.

[715]

   

Originally posted by funked:
250 fpm initial has got to be wrong.  The service ceiling is defined as the altitude where climb decays to 200 fpm IIRC.

One book specifically lists 250 fpm as "initial rate of climb".  The other doesn't call it "initial".  Maybe its all that fuel?  Or something having to do with engine ratings vs alt?  Or maybe you are right and this reference is wrong?

715



[This message has been edited by 715 (edited 09-10-2000).]

[funked]

715, who knows?    
I've read so many bogus climb rates stated in books.  They quote average rates (from time to climb data) as initial, quote initial figures as average, quote military power climb rates as maximum climb even though WEP gave faster climb rates.  A lot of authors just want one number they can write down and be done with it.

I took the AH Lanc up for a spin with 100% fuel and the 1 x 4k + 12 x 1k bomb load.  Took about 1.5 runway lengths to take off.    

Anyways she climbed at about 1000 fpm up to 10,000 feet, around 800 fpm at 15,000 feet, and about 600 fpm at 24,500 feet.

So if 24,500 feet was the real service ceiling, our plane has about 400 fpm too much climb at that altitude.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-09-2000).]

[juzz]

Yep, those buff turrets sure can rotate to some funny places they shouldn't be able to, and they can then fire through the plane without damaging it - amazing!

[Fury]

30k+ lanc attacks on HQs will become more and more of an issue.  Especially since a single, or two, lancs can do so much more damage than many B17s.  I've seen more HQ attacks today (using lancs over 30k of course) than I've seen HQ attacks in the last month.

Fury

[Maverick]

Gents,

There is a simple solution to the strato buff problem and I posted it before.

Simply degrade the laser accuracy of the bombs as alt increases. As it is now, there is NO dispersion for the bombs as they drop. Even the low drag Mk 82's in inventory have a certain amount of dispersion where they spread out a bit during the free fall. I "think" I heard it was a 6 mil error factor. Now I don't expect AH to model it all but I think setting an error in bombs dropped over 15k above ground level (agl) is reasonable. If the buff goes over 25k maybe an accuracy of 1 hit to 2 misses could be set up. A 30k drop should result in a 1 in 4 hit ratio. If this were implemented the buffs would stay low since it would be a waste of time to climb high. I know the buff drivers would scream but it simply is not (dare I say it?) realistic now.

What do you think?

Mav

[Replicant]

I've got it listed as 24,500ft ceiling too, but I'm in the process of looking up several documented pilot notes.  I've already got some.

I have one pilot saying that he went to 27,000ft 'returning' from target - he needed the alt as he was shot up.  By the sounds of it he could have gone higher.

Other notes indicate 24,000ft enroute to their bombing runs.  It's really strange because their alts were always changing so it must have had a fast climb rate.

Additionally they were trying to get the Lancasters to fly higher but you got to remember that they are flying in formation at night!

I think half the Lancaster squadrons used different bomb sights.  One was used to about an altitude of 20,000ft but the other had a range of 30,000ft.  I'm still looking into this so it's a bit patchy!

I have a friend who is a total Lancaster expert.  He literally knows them inside and out so I will try and get some additional information from him.  I'll post whatever I find.

Regards

'Nexx'

[funked]

Mav you are 100% correct.  The ability of an AH BUFF to place multiple bombs on multiple targets on a single pass is matched in real life only by a B-2 with JDAM (GPS-guided munition).  I'm being completely serious here.

If we had 100% realistic BUFFs they would be useless for killing point targets like AAA and fuel tanks, or even hangars, unless they were used in large numbers or at very low altitudes.

Currently the bombs don't even have aerodynamic drag - notice they hit the ground at the exact time the aircraft shadow passes over the target.  

A good start would be adding drag, adding some wind and turbulence, and also randomizing the initial velocity of the bombs.

[Replicant]

The accuracy of a Lancaster was aimed at being within 80 yards of the target (in perfect conditions).  Remember that some of the RAF raids had on average about 200-400 planes, and obviously many raids consisted of even more planes.  You're very lucky to get 2 or 3 planes in formation in AH and if you see a good F4UC pilot then bye bye buffs.  If AH buffs missed their targets more easily then I'd imagine everyone would then just fly Jabo. There again, I often use 250lbs for ack and I'm sure you're still not getting the correct blast radius for all bombs.

So, make bombs less accurate and increase blast radius?  I don't mind wind being a factor, could prove challenging if not demoralising.  OR for every buff you get 10 otto buffs that release the same time as you do, so you can pepper pot the target and hope that some bombs hit?!  I'm joking on that one!    

Regards

'Nexx'



[This message has been edited by Replicant (edited 09-10-2000).]

[snafu]

 

Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:

 The lancaster needs help too. Currently it's front and tail guns can fire PAST 90 degrees from the centerline. Indeed- if in the top turret hit F3 and fire over your wing. Both the nose gun AND the tail gun will bend over and fire along with it right over the wing..

Hi Sorrow,
 I will try to find documented proof but I am sure the ability of the Lanc's Turrets to turn well past 180 degrees was a real one. (In the event of a bail the only way out of the front & rear turrets was to rotate them to thier limit and roll out the back.

Perhaps Replicant's friend could confirm or deny this

TTFN
snafu