halifax

[gblade30]

halifax bomber would be a great addition ... milk those bomb perkies up ... guessing it would be high eny as it ew and before the lanc ??

[Butcher]

halifax bomber would be a great addition ... milk those bomb perkies up ... guessing it would be high eny as it ew and before the lanc ??

Not likely, Lancs are 15 Eny, Halifax would probably be 20 eny, 4x 303s in the tail, and 13,000 in ords, tough call because the Lancs has 2x 50 cal in the tail which is far better defensive armament then 4x 303s.

[Karnak]

The Halifax is so close to the Lancaster in capability and performance it would be a waste to add it until many other things have been added first.  If you want a true early war RAF bomber, look to the Wellington Mk III or Mk X.

Also, the Lancaster is available in the Early War Arena as a perk bomber.

[USAF2010]

And to get nice fun EW ride, how about that Handley Page Hampden....cool little bomber, even though totally screwed in the defensive firepower area 

[SmokinLoon]

The next bomber for the British should be the Wellington, imo.  It would fit in a gap (British medium bomber), fill in huge holes in scenarios, and gosh darn it, people just like the Wellington!!!

Oh... on the same note speaking of huge gaps in the AH line up, the Germans need their He111.   

[thndregg]

Not likely, Lancs are 15 Eny, Halifax would probably be 20 eny, 4x 303s in the tail, and 13,000 in ords, tough call because the Lancs has 2x 50 cal in the tail which is far better defensive armament then 4x 303s.

True, but it isn't as if we're looking for bigger, better, faster, sturdier, better armorment, etc...
It's more about filling in the gaps with respect to various stages of the war- early, mid, late.

If it saw active combat in significant numbers, then it should be at least considered, if not added to the set.

[Karnak]

True, but it isn't as if we're looking for bigger, better, faster, sturdier, better armorment, etc...
It's more about filling in the gaps with respect to various stages of the war- early, mid, late.

If it saw active combat in significant numbers, then it should be at least considered, if not added to the set.

It offers nothing the Lancaster doesn't already offer.  The same would be true of the Lancaster if we had the Halifax and people were asking for the Lanc.  Four engined bombers take a lot of work to add.  To be justified it has to offer more than just being, basically, a different looking Lancaster.

[caldera]

Halifax is cool but very much like the Lanc.  Speaking of which (hijack alert), when the Lanc is re-modeled, shouldn't the four 303 tail gun set up replace the twin 50s?  That was the more common tail gun arrangement, or am I mistaken?

Oh, and +1 to the Wellington.

[Tank-Ace]

Halifax is cool but very much like the Lanc.  Speaking of which (hijack alert), when the Lanc is re-modeled, shouldn't the four 303 tail gun set up replace the twin 50s?  That was the more common tail gun arrangement, or am I mistaken?

Oh, and +1 to the Wellington.

IIRC, Hitech has said that as long as individual load-outs are correct, it doesn't matter how often they were used or when use started (which is why our P-51's can take 2x 1000lb bombs and 6 HVARs even though that loadout combination was used only rarely).

Perhaps give the 4x .303 as an option so we can better represent earlier events?

[Karnak]

I might actually prefer the four .303s due to the 2000 rounds of ammo per gun that they had.