Yob Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 The Mosquito and Lancaster will there be multicrew? With the mossie and then the lanc will we get a pathfinder version with the kit for the mossie. With the DC-3/C-47 will we get a paratrooper ability like slingloads but able to drop paratroops :)? And with the lanc will it be the version with the rearward .50's instead of the inadequate .303's ? Cheers Elijah 487th Squadron Section Leader Link to comment
Pman Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Yes they will be multi crew (DCS Core support pending) Things like Pathfinder and bouncing bombs etc havent been decided yet and will only really get looked into when the full time dev on the aircraft starts, which I expect to be this time in 2015 as I want to do a twin engine aircraft first. I have thought and bouncing the idea around of a few unique things for the DC-3/C-47, Paratroopers being one of them, also a few more CA integrating options but we will just have to see how things go during development. It was far more common to have 303's in the tail then the quire rare 50 cals. So at this state I imagine it being the 303's however by then it may be possible to have it as a selectable option, not for sure though. Pman Link to comment
NeilWillis Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Please stop tormenting us and making us drool Pman. Bad enough that we have to wait, but knowing just how good these modules may become is just torture! But wow, hell yes, keep up the very very very good work! Link to comment
Pman Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Please stop tormenting us and making us drool Pman. Bad enough that we have to wait, but knowing just how good these modules may become is just torture! But wow, hell yes, keep up the very very very good work! Hey I didn't ask the questions, I just answer them ;) Pman Link to comment
nickmow Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 And with the lanc will it be the version with the rearward .50's instead of the inadequate .303's ? Cheers Elijah Yup Cyclic rate of 4800 rpm combined or 80 rounds a second, wholly inadequate.....commence the heated debate :) Link to comment
Yob Posted December 27, 2014 Author Share Posted December 27, 2014 Yup Cyclic rate of 4800 rpm combined or 80 rounds a second, wholly inadequate.....commence the heated debate :) Yea, i dont know that much about the lanc's. but have been told that the 303's where bad so i believed, guess not. 487th Squadron Section Leader Link to comment
nickmow Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) You have to define Bad mate, many many ill informed debates about weght of fire, ballistics, types of round, range etc. Remember, especially when talking rear gunners, the likely attacker is coming head on into a "hail" of fire. At night and depending on the unts preference for tracer ratios (standard 1 to 4) your flying into a cone of fire. At the very least its going to be off putting. If effective your aircraft is taking a disturbing amount of hits. Clearly a .50 individual round is going to hit with more energy (energy = damage, in very simple terms, its more complicated in reality) but a .30 turret has a greater "beaten zone" so your more likely to get hits. A fighter getting hit is a less effective weapon. The .50 cal rose turrets did introduce early gun laying radar but where numerically rare. The 4 gun Nash turrets where a feature of Lancs, Halifax, Wellington and Stirlings, prolific yes, bad I would argue not. Just happen to of hit one my favourite subjects. :thumbup: Edited December 27, 2014 by nickmow 1 Link to comment
Yob Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 After doing more research i have found that because it lacked ball turrent below, and the fact that shooting at a fighter with a 303 and them shooting with a Mk-108 would kinda make you think your inferior. Cheers for clearing it up. 487th Squadron Section Leader Link to comment
nickmow Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 No worries, clearly shot for shot. A Mk108 takes the prize but to get it in action you have to locate a target. Given that until late in the war Bomber Command operatd almost exclusively at night that was no easy task. Hence the remarkable development of technology, Radar, Jammers, dedicated EW airframes, RWR recievers GCI networks, Flak and so on. So if your night fighter can locate a bomber and stalk it, you still have the 303s to deal with if your spotted. If you want a little more research look up "Schräge Musik" One way of getting your cannons to bare ! :thumbup: Link to comment
joey45 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 I would say that with the .303s you'll get more hits on target...? The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45 Link to comment
nickmow Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 I would say that with the .303s you'll get more hits on target...? In simple terms yes, per second of fire, However In actual terms, consider detection, possibly initially prompted by electronic means followed by mark 1 eyeball, target evaluation, establish an aim/firing solution, accounting for manoeuvring, gunnery skill, temperature, morale, latent hypoxia. All in limited time trying to beat the other guy. Given that the bombers were operating in isolation and the Nachtjaegers were guided to a point though still had to rely on rudimentary technology and the eyes of the pilot or crew, I find it fascinating and terrifying to think of what those young men endured. Link to comment
Recommended Posts