Lancasters perk them?

[Lusche]

Modeling whatever dive angle limitation there was IRL seems to me to be the simplest. 

At a maximum bomb release angle of 30° for the Lancaster, nothing much would change in the way they are used and definitely nothing in the complaints about "Lancstukas"

[Fish42]

At a maximum bomb release angle of 30° for the Lancaster, nothing much would change in the way they are used and definitely nothing in the complaints about "Lancstukas"

And that is most likely a limit only for one of the large or forward bombs. Like the B-17 that has bomb limits from < 3° up to 55° depending on bomb size and location, as per that manual posted the other day.
I am sure a bomb in the rear of the lancasters very long bomb bay would be able to drop out with a steeper dive then one located at the front.

[Scca]

Well this thread has gotten a little off kilter.  Anyone want a 

[Wiley]

At a maximum bomb release angle of 30° for the Lancaster, nothing much would change in the way they are used and definitely nothing in the complaints about "Lancstukas"

...Well, at least they'd be able to say it was within the parameters it could be used IRL.   The fact it wasn't, well, that's a whole other debate.

Wiley.

[SmokinLoon]

Modeling whatever dive angle limitation there was IRL seems to me to be the simplest.  If the plane could divebomb, it should divebomb.  If it couldn't, it shouldn't.

It might be more difficult to code than it appears on first blush though.

Wiley.

As others have mentioned the evidence of Lancasters doing a 45° angle dive from 4000ft doesn't seem to be all that common, it is the drifting over the gv spawn points with 1000lb bombs at 1000ft that I believe most people are crusading against.