Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: WolfSkin1 on May 29, 2001, 07:18:00 PM
-
Hullo.
Don't flame me please.
I've just read the book by Guy Gibson, VC DSO DFC (S/L No 617 Sqn, the dambusters) "Enemy Coast Ahead" and he mentions that during the Möhne Dam raid, his rear gunner 'had fired nearly 12,000 rounds of ammunition in the past two hours' at German flak. Naturally, these planes were specially fitted but I've also picked up a few times that the Lancs held approx 12,000 rounds between the 8 or 10 MGs. Now, I feel pretty certain that the current allocated 670 rounds for the rear gun is incorrect, I'd like to know if someone's got the numbers.
One little thing I'd love to have HTC have a look at:
(http://www.nucleus.com/~ltwright/turret_r.jpg)
Why has the Lanc's rear turret only two guns?
Thanks for a fantastic game nonetheless! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://null.dk/~ssl/483/wolfskin.gif)
[This message has been edited by WolfSkin1 (edited 05-29-2001).]
-
WOW !! I WANT THOSE " Is tomorrow to soon?" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://null.dk/~ssl/483/dg.gif)
-
Some of the Lancs had twin .50 cal guns instead of quad .303 cal guns. The one in AH is the former configuration.
-
I'm gonna beat fishu to it...
Some of the Ju 88A-4 had 13mm guns instead of 7.92mm guns. The one in AH is the latter configuration. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Thanks, Funked.
But still. 670 rounds? RAF Lancs did nearly 300,000 sorties and only approx 3000 were lost. Surely, they didn't have 670 rounds only, especially in those with no lower turret?
I don't know, I'm asking. Don't flame, I'm not being a smarty (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://null.dk/~ssl/483/wolfskin.gif)
[This message has been edited by WolfSkin1 (edited 05-30-2001).]
-
The one modelled in AH is not the best version - actually, the Lancaster Mk. III modelled here was rarely used in daylight raids because of it's poor AA defence. It is also one of the most underpowered versions too.
Here is a snippet out of Weapons and Warefare,pp.1697 - 1698. Columbia House 1978.
"Armament, in Nash & Thompson power-operated turrets, comprised of twin 7.7mm Browning machine-guns in nose and dorsal positions, with four Brownings in the tail, 14000 rounds of ammunition being carried.
<snip>
...the B Mk III, powered by Packard-built Merlin 28's of 1300 hp, 1480-hp Merlin 38s or 1640-hp Merlin 224s. A total of 3020 Mk IIIs were built, mainly by Avro but with small numbers coming from Armstrong Whitworth and Metropolitan-Vickers."
The Lancaster is NOT a day bomber, the B-24 is. We need a B-24 in AH because it CAN defend itself.
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
----------
Vruth
1st Lt
412th
-
hehehehe. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Whats a braunco anywho?
-
Sorry guys, but in AH x2 .50's are much more effective than x4 .303's. I would guess its the same in real life too.
They hit harder and have longer range both.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Yea and i need late war configuration for Ju-88 A-4.
Ju-88 A-4 early war configuration isn't made to play with all these mid to late war monsters. (thats why they changed configuration!)
oh well..
-
Thanks Vruth!
I assume that the low ammo load is a gameplay consideration on HTC's behalf. Well, here's how it works:
You're flying at historical altitude maybe in a non-historical formation of 3 or 4 Lancs in broad daylight. Here comes the interceptor. You've seen him closing for the past 15 minutes. You're ready for him. 'Heads up, boys. 190 closing'. Everyone switches to guns and are scupcakeing over RW. This guy is up for a Darwin Award. But what doues he do? He B&Z your behinds, gets that 'kill the guns'-ping in or just keeps on doing his head-ons until there's no ammo left. Great. Three overpowered transports sitting there, waiting to be kicked out of the sky. I guess many are doing NOE raids now, which imho is not the way Lancs should be flown if we want representative wwii air combat. N'est pas?
I do support the notion of a B-24 - now THAT would be fun!
Further, something happened to the buff in 1.07 methinks. It seems theyre made from papier mache or wet napkins. Theyre so soft, it's incredible theyll do 150mph without ripping their wings off. That may just be me, but I've allways thought the buff to be one of the most survivable planes ever built.
(http://null.dk/~ssl/483/wolfskin.gif)
[This message has been edited by WolfSkin1 (edited 05-30-2001).]
-
Wolf, those numbers Vruth posted are for the quad .303... .50s are MUCH larger and heavier than .303s. 2 .50s can't carry nearly as much ammo as 4x .303s.
Take the SpitIX with 4x .303s, then take a look at the SpitIX with 2x .50s in AH.
Surprise!
-SW
-
Is the Lanc III in AH carrying 50's? If so, then they need to update the engines. The 50 cal version used the Merlin 224's. That's 1640 horsepower x 4. The current version in AH is using the Merlin 28's which carried the .303 defensive guns. The .50 cals were later war versions with the bigger engines.
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
----------
1st Lt. Vruth
412th Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
[This message has been edited by Vruth (edited 05-30-2001).]
-
Yes, the tail turret has 2x .50s.
-SW
-
Wolfskin,
Imagine that ultimate joy of spitfire pilot who finds 4 Ju88's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (..and the ultimate horror of the Ju88 pilots)
-
Heh!
Now, IRL that spitfire pilot would also be having a good time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Vruth -- that sounds like hard data, post it in the Aircraft board man.
-
Vruth!
U carry a point across there, that may be an issue for revision. Gameplay-wise it seems that most planes come with trade-offs, ie good manoeuvreability is equaled by low balance/easy stall/high learning curve/newbie suicides. So to get this across to the lanc not having more than a few sortie's leftovers of ammo, it could perhaps receive the corresponding power?
Btw bomb loadouts are higly unorthodox, but well suited to gameplay.
I'd love to have a Grand Slam (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Btw, great game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It's good to talk about these things. Hope it doesn't get on htc's nerves (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://null.dk/~ssl/483/wolfskin.gif)
[This message has been edited by WolfSkin1 (edited 06-01-2001).]
-
The Lancaster is AH has the Rose-Rice turret. The ammunition and bomb loadouts are not arbitrary. The Lanc's bomb loadouts are pretty well documented. Ammunition supply of the Rose turret much less so. In fact, I think I could only find one source on that so if you have a better reference on the Rose turret, let me know what it is.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
I happen to have in front of me the official Air Ministry report on Operational Research in the RAF. There is a paragraph on "Research into expenditure of ammunition by air gunners." It includes the following:
1. The Lancaster could hold up to 18,000 rounds of .303 ammo, of which the stowage capacity for the rear quad turret was 10,000 rounds.
2. An analysis of actual use showed that 1,000 rounds for the mid-upper turret were adequate for 99% of missions (the average expenditure was 235 rounds) and for the rear turret, 2,000 rounds. It was suggested that ammo for the rear turret should be restricted to 3,000 rounds to save weight.
Incidentally, there is no doubt that two .5" completely outclassed four .303" in range and hitting power. However, about 10% of Lancasters were engaged by night fighters on each mission, and half of them were shot down. The best chance of escape was violent manouevring in the hope of losing the night fighter and the value of the gunner was in warning the pilot of impending attack rather than shooting at the fighter.
Studies at the time showed that the Lanc would go 50mph faster, as well as fly higher, if the turrets were removed, and this would greatly improve their chances of avoiding interception. However, it was considered bad pyschology to send the planes out with no means to defend themselves.
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)