Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: ShrkBite on March 19, 2009, 10:10:52 PM
-
Hey guys
Wow i cant believe we missed this plane. (unless someone else posted this). This ought to be the next plane. It flew over 80,000 Operations and was one of the most used planes of the RAF. Read on.
The Halifax!
The Handley Page Halifax was one of the British front-line, four-engine heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. A contemporary of the famous Avro Lancaster, the Halifax remained in service until the end of the war, performing a variety of duties in addition to bombing. The Halifax was also operated by squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force and Polish Air Force. Handley Page produced the H.P.56 design to meet Air Ministry Specification P.13/36 for a twin-engine medium bomber for "world-wide use". Other candidates for the specification were the Avro Manchester and a Vickers Warwick development; all used twin Rolls-Royce Vulture engines. The introduction of the successful P.13/36 candidates were delayed by the necessity of ordering more Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley and Vickers Wellington bombers first.
The Halifax entered service with No. 35 Squadron RAF at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in November 1940 and its first operational raid was against Le Havre on the night of 11-12 March 1941.
In service with RAF Bomber Command, Halifaxes flew 82,773 operations, dropped 224,207 tons of bombs and lost 1,833 aircraft.[3] In addition to bombing missions, the Halifax served as a glider tug, electronic warfare aircraft for No. 100 Group RAF and special operations such as parachuting agents and arms into occupied Europe. Halifaxes were also operated by RAF Coastal Command for anti submarine warfare, reconnaissance and meteorological roles.
Postwar, Halifaxes remained in service with the RAF Coastal Command and RAF Transport Command and the Armée de l'Air until early 1952. The Pakistan Air Force which inherited the planes from the RAF continued to use the type until 1961.
A number of former RAF Halifax C8s were sold from 1945 and used as freighters by a number of mainly British airlines. In 1948 the air freight market was in decline but 41 civil aircraft were used in the Berlin Air Lift operating a total of 4,653 freight sorties and 3,509 sorties carrying bulk diesel fuel. Nine aircraft were lost during the airlift but as the aircraft returned to England most civil Halifaxes were scrapped. (Source is WIKIPEDIA!!)
Here are the Specs and a Picture.
General characteristics
Crew: 7
Length: 71 ft 7 in (21.82 m)
Wingspan: 104 ft 2 in[7] (31.75 m)
Height: 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m)
Wing area: 1,190 ft² (110.6 m²)
Loaded weight: 54,400 lb (24,675 kg)
Powerplant: × Bristol Hercules XVI radial engine, 1,615 hp (1,205 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,115 m)
Range: 1,860 mi (3,000 km) combat
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m)
Rate of climb: 750 ft/min (3.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 45.7 lb/ft² (223.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (195 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 8 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (4 in dorsal turret, 4 in tail turret), 1 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in nose
Bombs: 13,000 lb (5,897 kg) of bombs
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Halifax-mk3.jpg)
If you want to read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax#Specifications_.28Mk_III.29
-
It looks like a baby lancaster, im all in. +1
-FYB
-
yeah, halifax and manchester. i'm all for faxes and chesters.
-
+1 :aok
I would love to see plenty more bomber types added. This plane would be a challenge to complete a sortie as it's loaded with .303's and not .50's. Though that quad dorsal turret has to be one of the prettiest things I have ever seen. That dorsal turret looks like it uses a cartridge in a higher cal than a .303, it may be the Barrel flares are just bigger than the rest for no particular reason.
Still though it gets +1 from me! :rock
-
I want you buff guys to get the Stirling. That way I won't have to climb so high to bring you down. :D
+1 :aok
I would love to see plenty more bomber types added. This plane would be a challenge to complete a sortie as it's loaded with .303's and not .50's. Though that quad dorsal turret has to be one of the prettiest things I have ever seen. That dorsal turret looks like it uses a cartridge in a higher cal than a .303, it may be the Barrel flares are just bigger than the rest for no particular reason.
Still though it gets +1 from me! :rock
Those barrel flares are flash suppressors (bombing at night, remember?). And they're all .303's.
-
Those barrel flares are flash suppressors (bombing at night, remember?). And they're all .303's.
The dorsal Guns seemed to have rather large flash suppressors for.303's but I think that falls back to the fact that the dorsal and tail guns are made by Browning and the chin gin was made by Vickers. The Vickers appears to use a fluted suppression system where the Browning uses the bell system. No worries though as I still think we should have this bomber added to the inventory. I don't think it will become a hanger queen, who knows, I doubt we will see this added to the inventory anyway.
:salute
-
Problem is that is fills no holes at all. In terms of game impact, it is as close to identical to the Lancaster as it is for one aircraft to be to another unrelated aircraft.
The Wellington B.Mk III would be a much better addition for that reason, if HTC were going to add a British bomber.
-
We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.
-
Problem is that is fills no holes at all. In terms of game impact, it is as close to identical to the Lancaster as it is for one aircraft to be to another unrelated aircraft.
Can you explain this? What are the reasons that it is identical? What holes isn't this filling?
The Wellington B.Mk III would be a much better addition for that reason, if HTC were going to add a British bomber.
We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.
Why would it be a much better choice? What holes does it fill? What separates this from any other bomber out there?
I can't stand posts that simply state that the idea, aircraft or GV "will not work or doesn't fit or we don't need this" without posting any information to back up their statements. Let's get some facts running through these threads. Compare them to one another and the current environment of Aces High II and then let's have a constructive conversation about it.
:salute
-
Here are stats for all three bombers. Let's compare them. Who's first?
Here are the stats for the Wellington B.MK III:
Type: Wellington B Mk.III
Function: bomber
Year:
Crew: 6
Engines: 2 * 1500hp Bristol Hercules XI
Wing Span: 26.26m
Length: 18.54m
Height: 5.31m
Wing Area: 78.04 m2
Empty Weight: 8471 kg
Max.Weight: 13381 kg
Speed: 410 km/h (at 3810m)
Ceiling: 5790 m
Range:
Armament: 8*mg 7.7mm, 2014 kg payload
And here are the stats for Japans "Betty Bomber":
Aircraft Type: Long Range Medium Bomber
Manufacturer: Mitsubishi Jukogyo
Engine: Air Cooled Twin Rotary Engines
Horsepower: 1,825 HP
Weight: 18,050 lbs empty
Load out: 2,200 lbs of bombs or 1 torpedo
Max Speed: 265-285 MPH
Crew and Armament
5-7 Man Crew
1 - 20 mm cannon (tail mounted)
5 - 7.7 mm machine guns
Here are the Halifax's stats.
General characteristics
Crew: 7
Length: 71 ft 7 in (21.82 m)
Wingspan: 104 ft 2 in[7] (31.75 m)
Height: 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m)
Wing area: 1,190 ft² (110.6 m²)
Loaded weight: 54,400 lb (24,675 kg)
Powerplant: × Bristol Hercules XVI radial engine, 1,615 hp (1,205 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,115 m)
Range: 1,860 mi (3,000 km) combat
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft (7,315 m)
Rate of climb: 750 ft/min (3.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 45.7 lb/ft² (223.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (195 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 8 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (4 in dorsal turret, 4 in tail turret), 1 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in nose
Bombs: 13,000 lb (5,897 kg) of bombs
-
Can you explain this? What are the reasons that it is identical? What holes isn't this filling?
Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar. It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough. It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.
Why would it be a much better choice? What holes does it fill? What separates this from any other bomber out there?
The G4M2 "Betty" fills the hole that exists due to the lack of an early war Japanese bomber. The Ki-67 entered service in mid-1944 and when used in 1942 settings it is uncatchable and highly lethal to the slow fighters trying to stop it.
The Wellington Mk III serves the same purpose for the British. The Boston Mk III while being early war is too fast to be caught due to the unhistorical boost settings used as standard by bombers in AH. The Boston Mk III is actually faster than the Bf109E-4 on the deck.
I can't stand posts that simply state that the idea, aircraft or GV "will not work or doesn't fit or we don't need this" without posting any information to back up their statements. Let's get some facts running through these threads. Compare them to one another and the current environment of Aces High II and then let's have a constructive conversation about it.
That is because these things are self evident and shouldn't need to be pointed out.
-
Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar. It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough. It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.
This is unfortunately true....... I often wonder at its higher loss rate. Early Halifaxes had unstable tail sections which were latterly modified from the twin triangular tail to the larger (squarer) twin tail as the Bristol Hercules engines were added.
Halifaxes tended to ingress to target a little lower than Lancs and would occupy the lower levels of the big raids.
They would take typically 1000lbs less ord than a Lanc and this was the main reason that Harris prefferred the Lanc when advocating that manufacturing should focus on only one mark of main stream bomber.
My father was a flight engineer on Halifaxes with RCAF Goose squadron during 44 and early 45. (The Canadians did not have their own flight engineers trained for Halifaxes so RAF flight engineers were seconded)
He recounts that on occasion they did some rather unusual approaches to target.
On one occasion in order to delay approach the Squadron leader had the whole squadron "dirty up" dropping flaps and gear at 12,000 ft approaching Dusseldorf to slow everything down to avoid a cloud front that was then passing over target. They arrived at target in this state having dropped to 10,000 to try to get under it. Dad recounts that as they released the bombs all he could see below was more cloud.
-
Add the thing.
+1
-
Its speed, payload and armament are very, very similar. It had a significantly higher loss rate, so it probably isn't as tough. It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.
Then why did we receive the B-24, when we already had the B-17?
@ the loss rate, they were just used more than the Lancaster (and earlier for that matter), I think :)
-
Well, add it anyway. I mean, we have the B5N. :rolleyes:
-
That is because these things are self evident and shouldn't need to be pointed out.
If the question was asked then it's obvious that it was not as self evident as you may have assumed.
Thanks for sizing these up but it seems that your nay saying is do to settings that AH II uses or at least that is how your post reads.
:salute
-
Then why did we receive the B-24, when we already had the B-17?
The differences between the B-24 and B-17 are much greater than between the Lancaster and Halifax.
@ the loss rate, they were just used more than the Lancaster (and earlier for that matter), I think :)
No, Lancasters were used more and loss rate is a per sortie statistic, so that wouldn't affected it anyways.
As I recall it was about 30% higher than the Lancasters, but aircrew had about a 30% better chance of getting out of a doomed Halifax.
-
It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.
Hmm interesting. Cause there are several planes thats serve the same function that we have in the game. Example, The A-20 and Boston. May be different planes but the only differance in the Game is the Boston holds only 4 500lbs?, (i forget, dont have the excat information on hand) and has a formation when the A20 has more Payload, No Formation, and is slightly faster isnt it? Another Example, the D3A and B5N. Different Planes, Same Function. Both Dive Bombers/Torepedo Bombers. Another Example, 39D and 39Q. Why put in two of the same planes (slightly different, but i mean same models) when you can put in one. Sure the Lancaster serves it's purpose but i believe the Halifax deserves to be in this game as much as any other bomber (He-111, Betty, 410 etc). Adding this plane wouldnt hurt the game one bit.
-
Hmm interesting. Cause there are several planes thats serve the same function that we have in the game. Example, The A-20 and Boston. May be different planes but the only differance in the Game is the Boston holds only 4 500lbs?, (i forget, dont have the excat information on hand) and has a formation when the A20 has more Payload, No Formation, and is slightly faster isnt it? Another Example, the D3A and B5N. Different Planes, Same Function. Both Dive Bombers/Torepedo Bombers. Another Example, 39D and 39Q. Why put in two of the same planes (slightly different, but i mean same models) when you can put in one. Sure the Lancaster serves it's purpose but i believe the Halifax deserves to be in this game as much as any other bomber (He-111, Betty, 410 etc). Adding this plane wouldnt hurt the game one bit.
Those are all different. Not one of the pairs you mentioned fill the same roles at the same times.
The Boston Mk III is an early war glass nosed level bomber. The A-20G is a solid nosed, mid-war attacker.
The D3A1 is an early war carrier dive bomber. The B5N2 is an early war carrier torpedo bomber or level bomber.
The P-39D and P-39Q served at different time periods.
None of those fail to fill holes.
-
I said they fill the same duties in the Game. we have a alot of 109 models and we cant just add another bomber, that looks like and fills the same duties as the lancaster?
-
I said they fill the same duties in the Game. we have a alot of 109 models and we cant just add another bomber, that looks like and fills the same duties as the lancaster?
They don't have the same duties in the game. That is the point I made.
Those Bf109s all fit into different times. You can't use a Bf109E in an 8th Air Force bombing campaign setting, you can't use a Bf109K-4 in a North Africa campaign setting.
As to the Halifax and Lancaster, take a Lancaster up. It is very much the same.
Four engined bombers take a lot of work to add due to their complex graphics requirements. The next four engined bomber HTC should do is the....Lancaster Mk III. Other than that, aircraft should be added that fill in empty holes in the various services and various campaign settings.
It isn't that the Halifax should never be added, it is that it is lower on the priority list than many other aircraft.
-
Those Bf109s all fit into different times. You can't use a Bf109E in an 8th Air Force bombing campaign setting, you can't use a Bf109K-4 in a North Africa campaign setting.
As far as campaign play goes, I guess your right in a sense but typically when people are making requests it's probably more for the MA. The individuals setting up the specific campaigns have the option to allow particular plane sets. So the point about any aircraft or asset not fitting a particular campaign is a moot argument.
Now if planes were being added based on specific campaigns I reckon there would be a lot less aircraft options in this game. as an aircraft's role in any specific campaign that it was involved can be argued depending on the source and the time period the facts were presented.
:salute
-
It isn't that the Halifax should never be added, it is that it is lower on the priority list than many other aircraft.
i guess thats where the halifax is. down on the bottem. Sad thing but also very true. i rest my case.
-
The individuals setting up the specific campaigns have the option to allow particular plane sets. So the point about any aircraft or asset not fitting a particular campaign is a moot argument.
If the plane does not exist in Aces High, then it is pretty difficult to allow it. Well, it's easy to allow it I guess, but impossible to use it.
If the planeset were 100% geared toward the MA then all that the CM's would be able to run would be Battle of Germany 1945 and Battle of Japan 1945. Having only two options in this field would get pretty boring...
edit; now that I think about it, if the planeset were to be geared 100% toward the MA I imagine all we'd have would be a hypothetical postwar conflict between the US and the UK :lol
-
now that I think about it, if the planeset were to be geared 100% toward the MA I imagine all we'd have would be a hypothetical postwar conflict between the US and the UK
I agree, but yes or no answers to a request should be based off of a majority and not solely on campaigns needs.
:salute
-
I agree, but yes or no answers to a request should be based off of a majority and not solely on campaigns needs.
:salute
Not at all. If it was up to the majority the game would have nothing but US aircraft and maybe the token British, German and Japanese aircraft.
A popular vote is fine once in a while, but as a general rule, HTC should be authoritarian about what gets added.
-
We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.
I agree. While it be a welcomed addition, I think HTC should devote their time elsewhere. There are other important bombers that are missing from the lineup.
The Japs need the Betty, Ivan needs the Pe-2, and the pesky Italians could use the Z.1007.
-
well at least we can agree that we need new airframes :aok
-
No, Lancasters were used more and loss rate is a per sortie statistic, so that wouldn't affected it anyways.
As I recall it was about 30% higher than the Lancasters, but aircrew had about a 30% better chance of getting out of a doomed Halifax.
The Halifax did enter service prior to the Lanc and it was plagued with unstable (when stressed)tail configurations during its early years (MkI's & early MkII's). Years which also saw it participate in some daylight raids prior to bomber commands total adoption of night time bombing.
Its average loss rate per sortie would be biased by this. As loss rates of all bomber types were higher in early war sorties and this was not any fault of the airframes.(apart from the early Halifaxes unstable tail configurations)
Indeed the early Halifax was a contempory of the Manchester (marginally pre dating it depending upon where the line is drawn chronologically speaking).
The Lanc evolved out of the two engined Manchester.
It could be argued that the Halifax MkIII & Mk VI were different air craft to the earlier MkI & MkII. In this case it could be argued that the MKIII and MkVI Halifaxes were true contempories of the Lanc. Fullfilling identical roles with near identical abilities to do so.
Actually neither the lanc or the Halifax have much use in scenarios as we do not seem to run Night time bomber interception scenraios.
The Lanc fullfills its role in the MA adequately.
Then apart from the B52 (which would be seriously abused in the MA and seriously boring in scenarios) the only 4 engined bomber of any remote benefit may be the Condor but then only if we could run battle of the atlantic or battle of the North sea type senarios.
But there are medium/heavy two engined bombers a plenty still waiting to fill the game set.
-
I told you guys the B52 was in WWII but you all laughed. :P
Any new bomber would be nice. The Halifax is cool but the Wellington might be a better choice seeing as it's not so much alike to the Lanc.
-
I told you guys the B52 was in WWII but you all laughed. :P
Appologies of course I meant the B29
-
:rofl
The 52 rolled off of the assembly line I believe in 1954 or 1956...
could you imagine how the war would have progressed? Damn limited technology :furious
:lol