« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 12,000lb bombs, instead  (Read 1389 times)

Offline mitchk

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58
12,000lb bombs, instead
« on: February 26, 2003, 08:15:49 AM »
Instead of ATOM BOMBS how about those b1200(12,000lb) bombs that the lancs used to sink the Turpits(sister of the bismark).  
         If you thaught about it proportionaly with the 1000 and 4000lb bombs the 12,000 would probably take out half of a large airfield.:eek:
Logged

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
it could work
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2003, 11:22:51 AM »
if that much weight is properly modeled for the Lanc, sure why not?  But I't had better not be the case that the lanc has any speed or climb rate with it...

-Blogs
Logged

Offline udet

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
      • http://www.angelfire.com/nd/mihaipruna/dogfight.html
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2003, 04:36:46 PM »
you mean the Tirpitz? :)
Logged

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2003, 05:11:27 PM »
We need the lanc mk 1 special for the tall boy (12k) penetration bomb & the 22k Grand Slam Earth quake bomb
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2003, 08:02:08 PM »
joeblogs,

The Lanc already carries a heavier load than that.  It wouldn't be any worse than our Lanc is already.


Guys,

An easier loadout would be the 8,000lb and 12,000lb bombs that were simply two or three 4,000lb 'cookies' bolted together.  Those bombs were dropped from standard Lancaster's like we already have.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2003, 08:23:36 PM »
The 12,000lb "blockbuster" would be more effective against a target like an airfield than the Tallboy anyway.

The tallboy had a fairly low explosive content, and was intended to penetrate deeply before exploding, for tagets like sub pens, bunkers etc. The "blockbuster" had 10,800 lbs of explosive, and would detonate on the suface for blast effect.
Logged

Offline mitchk

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2003, 05:44:51 PM »
Love the idea BenDover


      I wasn't thinking about the 22k bomb when I made this post
                         :) :p ;) :cool: :rolleyes:
Logged

Offline Jester

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2003, 07:01:20 PM »
Unless they put in Sub Pens at the ports or a hidden underground V-2 factor somewhere on the map then there is no  targets that call for the TALLBOY bomb.

You would get better bombing results with the 12,000lb "BLOCKBUSTER against the types of targets we have now plus the Lancaster we have now wouldn't have to be altered as Karnak & Nashwan have pointed out.
Logged
Lt. JESTER
VF-10 "GRIM REAPERS"
WEBSITE:  www.VF10.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2003, 07:07:16 AM »
Well, we could use a Tallboy as soon as hardened bunkers are featured properly, or when we get a BATTLESHIP.
Quite amazing really, that the Brits scored several hits on the Tirpitz from 17.000 feet.
Now the Grand slam would also be nice. Something that penetrates 7 metres of concrete, and anyway on normal soil shakes down buildings in a good radius and leaves a Huge, Deep crater.
The blast bomb would be nice also, would blow down almost a whole field ;)
Lets hope they all come :)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2003, 07:08:16 AM »
Well, we could use a Tallboy as soon as hardened bunkers are featured properly, or when we get a BATTLESHIP.
Quite amazing really, that the Brits scored several hits on the Tirpitz from 17.000 feet.
Now the Grand slam would also be nice. Something that penetrates 7 metres of concrete, and anyway on normal soil shakes down buildings in a good radius and leaves a Huge, Deep crater.
The blast bomb would be nice also, would blow down almost a whole field ;)
Lets hope they all come :)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Albacore

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2003, 03:40:22 PM »
here are some really cool pics I found of these giant bomb.
Logged

Offline Albacore

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2003, 03:41:06 PM »
and another, sorry for the need for a second message:
Logged

Offline Albacore

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2003, 03:42:27 PM »
and another
Logged

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2003, 04:36:24 PM »
Angus,

Umm.. but they didn't hit it single time with the big bombs
Problem was that the shockwave caused the ship to capsize...
Logged

Offline mitchk

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58
12,000lb bombs, instead
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2003, 05:07:55 PM »
When I made this post I was not talking about just the tallboy I
 was pointing out that lancs could carry big bombs(like thetallboy,
 blockbuster,and grand slam bombs)that are much bigger than the b400(4,000lb) bombs that they currently carry.:)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »