Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: helldiver on February 11, 2006, 09:24:10 AM

Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 11, 2006, 09:24:10 AM: we need a HALIFAX bomber! sereisly!:noid
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 11, 2006, 09:36:37 AM: it's been requested before use search
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Saxman on February 11, 2006, 09:47:33 AM: What planes HAVEN'T been requested before? ;)
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 11, 2006, 01:30:02 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
What planes HAVEN'T been requested before? ;)

let me think uh...:confused:

oh the B-29 hasn't been requested before:D
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Hoarach on February 11, 2006, 02:22:30 PM: Umm not just a b29 but a b29 with a n00k. :D
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 11, 2006, 06:47:53 PM: Halifax was a great plane. I just dont see it being that different to a Lancaster.

A Halifax B.III would be pretty cool, with the 4 gun top and tail turrets.

(http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/bomber/halifax/halif_infl.jpg)

(http://www.2iemeguerre.com/avions/images/image1478.jpg)
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 11, 2006, 07:15:38 PM: they are different than the lancasters
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 11, 2006, 08:46:58 PM: it looks like a B-24 and a Lanc mixed into 1
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Krusty on February 11, 2006, 08:53:31 PM: The Wellington and the Halifax both preceeded the Lancaster. These three planes (Lancaster, Wellington a.k.a. "Wimpey", and Halifax) made up the mainstay of Bomber Command throughout the entire war. Especially the early war. As it is we really only have the Lancaster for brit level bombers, and it's mid-war at best. We need the Wellington and the Halifax to better represent the early planeset. While they could still carry good loads (I think the Halifax also carried 14x 1k bombs) they were lightly defended and slower, and had much less powerful engines.

I say we need both! Halifax AND Wellington!!!

The Wellington was supposed to be VERY sturdy, due to its latice-work wooden frame. Suppose that means it could take a lot of damage, but once it caught fire I guess it'd be like B24s (evil grin here).
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 11, 2006, 09:01:11 PM: so the Halifax is slower than the lanc:confused: and the lanc is already as slow as a turtle so why would we want a bomber slower than the lanc:huh :confused:
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Debonair on February 11, 2006, 09:57:21 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
What planes HAVEN'T been requested before? ;)

Yak-4?
Do I win?
Is this like a "name this"?
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: outbreak on February 11, 2006, 10:37:57 PM: Space Shuttle? Dont think i have seen that one
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 12, 2006, 03:33:24 AM: wrong:noid
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 12, 2006, 03:33:24 AM: wrong:noid
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Tilt on February 12, 2006, 05:22:10 AM: Hallibag was the first to have H2S (ground mapping radar) I suppose that would make it original.

(see the belly dome on furballs 2nd pic)

However Lanc also had H2S and the B17 latterly had a H2X option
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 12, 2006, 07:03:00 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
The Wellington and the Halifax both preceeded the Lancaster. These three planes (Lancaster, Wellington a.k.a. "Wimpey", and Halifax) made up the mainstay of Bomber Command throughout the entire war. Especially the early war. As it is we really only have the Lancaster for brit level bombers, and it's mid-war at best. We need the Wellington and the Halifax to better represent the early planeset. While they could still carry good loads (I think the Halifax also carried 14x 1k bombs) they were lightly defended and slower, and had much less powerful engines.

I say we need both! Halifax AND Wellington!!!

The Wellington was supposed to be VERY sturdy, due to its latice-work wooden frame. Suppose that means it could take a lot of damage, but once it caught fire I guess it'd be like B24s (evil grin here).

The Stirling was the first of the RAF Heavies, the Wellington and Halifax were actually much more popular with the crews than the Lancaster was. The Halifax entered limited service in around mid 1941 iirc, whereas the Stirling was in service a bit earlier. The Lanc followed about a year later in mid 1942.

The Wellington could take a tremendous beating without sustaining critical damage, the structure was designed by Barnes Wallis (of dambusters/grand slam fame) and was origininally used in pre war air ships.

You can see the structure around the windows of this picture - looks almost like honeycomb.
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stofwell2.jpg)

The Stirling was good on paper, but was pretty unpopular, it was to a specification which called for a 4 engined bomber to fit into existing RAF hangars. This meant that it had a small wingspan, and crappy service ceiling. (something like 16,000 feet)

IIRC the Wellington could carry around 4,000lb bombs, the Halifax could carry 14,000lb with the Mk I or 13,000lb Mk III. The Stirling could carry up to 17,000lb!!

There is a good website on the Stirling: http://www.stirling.box.nl/home.htm
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Jester on February 12, 2006, 07:10:01 AM: Hate to say it - but until we start having NIGHT TIME, British bombers such as the Lanc, Wellington, Halifax, etc. (except for the Mosquito) just can't make it. They really don't have the armament to defend themselves.
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 12, 2006, 07:20:20 AM: the Mosquito B.35 would be pretty untouchable if it was in game and used correctly.
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: AApache on February 12, 2006, 07:43:20 AM: Awesome Canadian bomber . It would make a great addition to the game
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 12, 2006, 07:46:05 AM: Canadian? Handley Page were based in Radlett, Hertfordshire, England!
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Hornet33 on February 12, 2006, 08:46:46 AM: How about the Fiesler Storch? That one been requested before? Let it be able to carry 2 troops so you and four of your squadies can land it in the town next to the map room and let your 2 troopers out:D
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Pooh21 on February 12, 2006, 02:27:38 PM: We need a TB-3!!!
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: simshell on February 12, 2006, 04:03:15 PM: hanger qeen but i love hanger qeens its fun flying around and feeling unique
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Krusty on February 12, 2006, 05:39:26 PM: Hrm... now that you post a pic of it, I was thinking of the "Sterling" when I was talking about a bomber that was made with a wooden framework, I guess!
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 13, 2006, 01:56:25 AM: Heres a Stirling, pretty big aeroplane!

(http://www.goldcoastsquadron218.co.uk/working.jpg)
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Angus on February 13, 2006, 07:48:03 AM: Has a huge bomb-bay as well ;)
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Krusty on February 13, 2006, 12:38:36 PM: Oh, okay, then I was right! The Wellington is the one with the latice-work wooden frame, yes?
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Furball on February 13, 2006, 12:51:21 PM: kind of, except it wasnt made of wood.

a quick google found me this: -

http://www.divetheworld.com/Diving/warbirds/Wellington/index.htm

(http://www.divetheworld.com/Diving/warbirds/Wellington/wellington.jpg)

(http://www.divetheworld.com/Diving/warbirds/Wellington/Underwater02.jpg)
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Karnak on February 13, 2006, 01:22:38 PM: Halifax and Lancaster are, in game terms, practically the same bomber. The Lanc carries 14,000lbs as opposed to the Halifax's 13,500lbs. Speed would be very similar. The biggest difference would be the durability. Lancasters had a notably lower loss rate than Halifaxes, although a doomed Halifax was easier to get out of than a doomed Lancaster. It terms of crew survival it is about even, in terms of continued use the Lancaster was the better bomber.

The Wellington would make for an excellent early war Allied bomber that has a useful warload while still being vulnerable to early Axis fighters. Of all Allied bombers the Wellinton and an early B-25 top the needed list.
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Krusty on February 13, 2006, 06:04:59 PM: Wellington a.k.a. "Wimpey" after the Popeye character ("J. Wellington Wimpey"), B-25C, and He111H-family (-6 or maybe -16?? something), and the G4M1 "Betty" are the most vital missing pieces to the early/mid war bomber set. In my opinion.
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 13, 2006, 06:37:18 PM: true. and for late war it's the b-29
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: Krusty on February 13, 2006, 06:49:16 PM: Late war is a different beast. Late war needs the Ju188 (maybe 388??) The Do217 or the He177. Also needs the Tu2. Those would be the vital late-war planes currently missing.

We already have lancasters that carry 14000 lbs of ord. Doesn't stop folks from dive-bombing them. Giving them a faster B-29 with 20000 lbs or ord (only 1 B-24's worth of ord more) isn't going to fill any holes in the planeset. Most bombers in AH are 27k going full throttle at almost 300mph. This was unheard of in real life. No need for B-29s, we already have 'em!!!
Title: we need a HALIFAX bomber!
Post by: helldiver on February 13, 2006, 07:27:55 PM: true:noid