Jump to content
Avimimus

Avro Lancaster collector's plane!?

Lancaster collector plane?  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. Reasoning?

    • I would love a Lancaster
    • I would prefer a B17/B24 (but I will take a Lanc *if* those are impossible)
    • I am not interested in the Lancaster
    • I am not interested in heavy bombers (Lancaster included)
  2. 2. Should a Lancaster be added?



Recommended Posts


Fw_190D_shot_down_while_attacking_Lancas
Above: A Lancaster takes evasive action while a Mustang shoots down the attacking Fw-190D


I. Why it is possible:

 

We have been told that heavier bombers are not possible in the Il-2 engine...

 

The reasons why Il-2 Doesn't support heavy bombers:
- Large numbers of AI gunners (often 7 or more per plane)
- Large formation (50-1000 aircraft).

 

Why this doesn't apply to the Lancaster:
- Only three gunners (less AI gunners than a He-111!)
- Looser formations (low density around the player, especially at night).

 

If we want a heavy bomber with current computers and the high detail of the Il-2 engine our best bet is the Lancaster or Halifax.

 

II. Historical importance and misconceptions:

 

Relevance:

- The Commonwealth strategic night bombing campaign dropped more bombs than the USAAF daylight strategic bombing, making it of considerable historic importance.  Over 7000 Lancasters alone were built.

- They also suffered high casualties (44.4% death rate with 55,573 aircrew lost), which gives them a lasting cultural importance. For comparison, The 8th Airforce lost just over 1/5th this number.

 

Utility in game:

- From mid-1943 single-seat fighters were used in the Wilde Sau night fighting role (so we don't necessarily need a Bf-110G4 or Ju-88c6 for night combat).

- Lancasters were also used during the day, particularly in 1944. This means the aircraft is suitable for those who don't like night fighting. Some of these raids were also faily small (e.g. the disasterous Augsberg raid of 1942 had only 12 Lancasters)! However, by 1944 daylight raids typically had 40-70 aircraft per group (about 2-3 times the number that the engine reliably supports).

 

One can read more about their widespread daylight use in 1944-1945 here: https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol15/iss3/3/

 

 

LancMain.jpg


III. Some features

 

The Lancaster was unusually maneuverable for a heavy bomber (e.g. the standard 'corkscrew' defensive manuever consisted of a series of dives and climbs during which the angle of bank could exceed 45 degrees).

 

It also gives the experience of a much larger aircraft with larger wing area compared to the aircraft we have in game.

 

The Lancaster had a very heavy bombload, some example loadouts:
- 1x2205kg (i.e. 4000lb) & 18x250kg
- 12x500kg
- 6x1000kg special armour piercing
- 1x6000kg tallboy

 

Possible Field mods:
- 'Special' Bulged bomb bay (for a 12,000lb bomb), modified propellers as well
- Deletion of the front turret and/or mid-upper turret to save weight
- "Gransden Lodge" modification which removed the perspex of the rear gunner to improve visibility (at the cost of some comfort and protection).
- 'Mod 925' downward firing Browning 0.3 or 0.5 caliber gun (Installed mainly in 5th group and 3rd group aircraft during 1944).

 

Note: I've left out several rarer modifications (including the 22,000lb bomb carrying specials, wallace 'bounce bomb' variant, and the 20mm field modifications). I also left out the 50 cal mid-upper turret as it would require more extensive modifications and be incompatible with the 'Special' bomb loads.


IV. Considerations for modelling feasibility:

 

The aircraft is well known - with two surviving examples in flyable condition, fifteen non-flying examples, and detailed factory drawings. Three engined aircraft are already supported (e.g. Ju-52) and the Lancaster wouldn't have the AI limitations preventing other heavy bombers.

 

Likely the aircraft modelled would have to be either without the option of the 0.50 caliber mid-upper turret. This is because there were (usually) significant changes, including relocation of the turret position itself. It is also likely that the H2S navigation radar would have to be ignored in order to save on development time (or at most modelled similar to an AI controlled radio compass). Some aircraft weren't equipped with H2S (even in 1944) - so this is an option.

 

Ideally, gun jams would be modelled for the rear turret - as burst length was limited to prevent jamming (a major complaint historically).

Since the tail-gunner was separate from the rest of the crew, the rear turret had to be rotated in order for the gunner to bail out - this might require extra animation work.

 

Edited by Avimimus
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

What map are you proposing it be flown on?

 

Bodenplatte... that area had lots of Lancaster activity during the period modelled.

 

Of course, the aircraft would have to use 'air starts' i.e. spawning already airborn. But it seems a small price to pay to have an interesting, historically important, theatre appropriate, heavy bomber included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice summary of some of the considerations Avimimus, thanks.

 

I voted for adding the Lanc. However, I'm thinking longer-term, assuming support for the IL-2 products grows stronger and it makes sense to the dev team with respect to their overall objectives. If they are thinking of a Korea offering, perhaps some Lanc experience would set the table for a B-29 (and even a B-17 for earlier offerings).

 

Shorter-term though, I'd love a Mosquito!   :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I’d love to have a Lancaster.

 

But no, I don’t think it should be added. Not as a BoBP collector’s plane, anyway. Sure, there were wilde sau fighters, and Lancasters performing day missions, but for the most part it was Lancasters at night being attacked by twin-engine nightfighters. 

Edited by PB_Cybermat47
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before, these 'would you like aircraft X' polls,  which don't state where the resources (i.e. developer's time, for a start) are going to come from,  aren't really particularly useful. Would I like a Lancaster? Yes, obviously. Along with a map big enough to fly realistic missions with it. That isn't an option for the moment, though. So do I think it would be a wise choice to put resources into A Lanc, without the map it needs, rather than something better suited to a Bodenplatte tactical map, like say a Mosquito? Probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have included as an option "I would prefer a twin-engined bomber?"

 

If there is enough interest I might do a poll on Mosquitoes and twin-engined night fighters (Bf-110G4 and Ju-88C6)... obviously these would require a bit more resources as some type of ground control/radar operator instructions to the pilot would be needed (and at least simple modelling of range/fov for the radars).

 

I still think the Lancaster can be relevant without these (and I'm glad I anticipated the argument).

 

In any case, I suspect that a Lancaster might be profitable as the only heavy bomber in the sim (especially as it will be years before heavy bombers can be modelled - we probably won't see a B-17, B-24, Pe-8 or B-29 until after Korea & the Pacific & a 1944-1945 Eastern European theatre are released...so at least 4 or 5 years). Unfortunately, it seems pretty certain it won't have competition from other heavy bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

If there is enough interest I might do a poll on Mosquitoes and twin-engined night fighters (Bf-110G4 and Ju-88C6).

 

There's no point - it goes without saying that players are going to want pretty much anything that flew in the war. All of these polls are just filler to kill time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Has a "Do you want plane X?" poll ever resulted in a majority of NO votes?

 

There have been some.. Not many though. Like the time the Me-323 Giant was requested. 

 

Grt M

 

PS: I like the Lancaster. Don't know if it usable without RAF bases in England. Would rather have DH Mosquito. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.....modelling a Lancaster with any sort of fidelity would be a huge pull on the resources of the 1CGS team.  It has three powered turrets - in effect a 'plane with four cockpits plus stations for radio op. and navigator?

 

There are lots of other aircraft - in my opinion - that I would prefer to see in this game before a Lancaster.

 

Btw; Bomber command lost around fifty-six thousand killed in WW2, not one hundred and twenty-five thousand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There's no point - it goes without saying that players are going to want pretty much anything that flew in the war. All of these polls are just filler to kill time.

 

Yup. That is pretty much what I'm doing.

 

However, I could argue that this poll has a bit of value in that it allows people to indicate a preference for an American daylight bomber over the Lancaster. So, it isn't just 'wouldn't it be nice'... there is a first and second choice for comparison.

 

Honestly, I'm a bit curious since only one combat sim has modelled the Lancaster (to my knowledge anyway), whereas dozens have modelled the B-17... so I'm curious if the only chance we'll ever see it is due to the inability to model an American bomber - or if some people genuinely prefer the Lancaster over its daylight counterparts.

 

 

10 hours ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

 

There have been some.. Not many though. Like the time the Me-323 Giant was requested. 

 

Grt M

 

PS: I like the Lancaster. Don't know if it usable without RAF bases in England. Would rather have DH Mosquito. 

 

Well, it could be spawned in using air-starts (just as would be the case with most Mosquitos). So, it is usable in game. What you couldn't have is simulation of a multi-hour flight with modelling of terrain to fly over for that flight - it would only be the period over enemy territory which would be modelled.

 

As for polls saying 'no' - there was also on on DCS forums regarding the IA 58 Pucará (which received a 'no') - although it looks like we may still get it!

 

 

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Hmmm.....modelling a Lancaster with any sort of fidelity would be a huge pull on the resources of the 1CGS team.  It has three powered turrets - in effect a 'plane with four cockpits plus stations for radio op. and navigator?

 

There are lots of other aircraft - in my opinion - that I would prefer to see in this game before a Lancaster.

 

Btw; Bomber command lost around fifty-six thousand killed in WW2, not one hundred and twenty-five thousand.

 

Well, arguably - they already skipped the bombadier position on the A-20C... so we're talking a pilot position and 2-3 turrets (which are themselves largely separate from other crew compartments). This means that the number of cockpits is about equivalent to that of a medium bomber... the workload shouldn't really be heavier despite the increase in size of the plane.

 

As for Bomber Command casualties - good catch. I used to have the number memorised, but when I went to double-check I accidentally mislead myself! So thank you (OP corrected).

Edited by Avimimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple - people want to primarily fly daytime missions, and the Lancaster was in large part not a daytime bomber. To model the nighttime war properly would require an investment of time and resources that just isn't there right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the Lancaster fascinating, but it would take the team years to build the necessary infrastructure and additional assets around the plane to make an RAF Bombing Offensive or Nachtjager mission seem credible.  Even though it is one of the areas of the air war that interests me most, I don't think it is even remotely practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No four engined heavies this generation.

 

We have the best tactical air war sim the world has ever seen. Can we be happy with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Diggun said:

We have the best tactical air war sim the world has ever seen. Can we be happy with that?

 

Did you seriously just ask flight simmers to be happy with what they’ve got? :P 

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I find the Lancaster fascinating, but it would take the team years to build the necessary infrastructure and additional assets around the plane to make an RAF Bombing Offensive or Nachtjager mission seem credible.  Even though it is one of the areas of the air war that interests me most, I don't think it is even remotely practical.

 

21 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It's simple - people want to primarily fly daytime missions, and the Lancaster was in large part not a daytime bomber. To model the nighttime war properly would require an investment of time and resources that just isn't there right now. 

 

We are stereotyping the Lancaster... it was used in daylight operations in the theatre being modelled (look at the picture in the OP).

 

For instance, read this (free) article:

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol15/iss3/3/

 

The argument being made is similar to saying 'The P-38 and B-25 are best known for their operations in the Pacific theatre, therefore they should never be modelled in a European sim like Bodenplatte'.

 

We don't make this argument about these American aircraft - why should we make it about the Lancaster?

 

It seems a little unfair (and to be honest - rather silly) as an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avimimus, one of the reasons you suggested that a Lancaster was a practical proposition for  the current game engine was "Looser formations (low density around the player, especially at night)". If accurate representation of its use in the context of the Bodenplatte map would involve daylight formation bombing, that doesn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

We are stereotyping the Lancaster... it was used in daylight operations in the theatre being modelled (look at the picture in the OP).

 

No, you entirely missed my point where I said the Lancaster was in large part not a daylight bomber. Yes, it was used during the daytime, but that was when the war's end was in sight and the Luftwaffe was in tatters. There's no getting around that. To do the Lancaster justice would mean modeling the nighttime air war, and that just isn't happening any time soon. 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Avimimus, one of the reasons you suggested that a Lancaster was a practical proposition for  the current game engine was "Looser formations (low density around the player, especially at night)". If accurate representation of its use in the context of the Bodenplatte map would involve daylight formation bombing, that doesn't apply.

 

True, I did hedge my argument by mentioning the 'wild boar' single seat fighters. However, the daylight formations were looser as well and considerably smaller (40-70 aircraft) than the tight American box formations that developed.

 

The point was one can simulate a portion of the night combat and partly simulate daylight raids as well (even if they would usually have to be 1/3rd or 1/2 their typical size - I take it that the small raids like the Augsberg raid and the dambuster raids were fairly rare).

 

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, you entirely missed my point where I said the Lancaster was in large part not a daylight bomber. Yes, it was used during the daytime, but that was when the war's end was in sight and the Luftwaffe was in tatters. There's no getting around that. To do the Lancaster justice would mean modeling the nighttime air war, and that just isn't happening any time soon. 

 

I think you missed my point:

 

Saying:

"More than 2/3rds of Lancaster raids during 1944-1945 took place at night" therefore "we can't do the Lancaster justice" therefore "we shouldn't model their use in daytime raids"

 

Is equivalent to saying:

"More than 2/3rds of P-38 fighter groups were in the Pacific theatre or the Mediterranean" therefore "we can't do the P-38 justice" therefore "we should never model the six P-38 fighter groups in Europe"

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of no obvious reason why a loose formation of aircraft would require less CPU resources than a tight one. And, as the source you cited makes clear, the Lanc daylight raids had a fighter escort. Which means more aircraft, and more CPU load. Adding a Lanc in circumstances where it can't complete historical missions (which require a larger map), and where putting it into the air in realistic numbers isn't feasible would seem to me to be a poor use of limited resources. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I can think of no obvious reason why a loose formation of aircraft would require less CPU resources than a tight one. And, as the source you cited makes clear, the Lanc daylight raids had a fighter escort. Which means more aircraft, and more CPU load. Adding a Lanc in circumstances where it can't complete historical missions (which require a larger map), and where putting it into the air in realistic numbers isn't feasible would seem to me to be a poor use of limited resources.

 

The same argument could be made about any mission where a He-111 squadron starts in the air (e.g. a raid from an off-map base, or a scenario where the player scrambles) or where the actual strength of the raid was thirty he-111s instead of fifteen... should we exclude the He-111 entirely due to such limitations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

The same argument could be made about any mission where a He-111 squadron starts in the air (e.g. a raid from an off-map base, or a scenario where the player scrambles) or where the actual strength of the raid was thirty he-111s instead of fifteen... should we exclude the He-111 entirely due to such limitations?

 

You seem to be clutching at straws here. The He 111 is capable of doing complete historical missions (from take-off to landing) on the existing maps. The Lanc isn't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Avro Lancaster has always been my favorite Heavy Bomber of the war, mostly because that was the plane RCAF crews used the most. There is one on display in the Canadian air museum in Ottawa and I was lucky enough to see one in flight some years ago. It is smaller and more agile than you would imagine.

 

That said, yes it would be out of place in the game. We are already getting a B-25 which at one point should be flyable? Getting a B-26 either AI or flyable would make more sense, both the B-25 and B-26 were heavily involved in tactical daylight bombing ops, which is the focus of the game.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, where would you fly these from? I don't think that there are going to be any airfields on the map with runways long enough to handle a large four engined bomber. Since it has already been said, ad nauseum, that there will not be any four engined bombers in Bodenplatte. (I'm experiencing a bout of deja vu). And I would be against any air starting. Talk about an immersion killer. The Lancs were great. No doubt about it. But, without England to fly from, I would vote a big thumbs down on them. And any other four engined bombers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 1:20 AM, Avimimus said:

We are stereotyping the Lancaster... it was used in daylight operations in the theatre being modelled (look at the picture in the OP).

 

True, but I think that the vast majority of people who want a Lancaster want to fly it at night. It’s what it’s most famous for, and most of the missions were flown at night. I think there are better options for a daylight bomber in BoBP.

Edited by Pb_Cybermat47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

True, but I think that the vast majority of people who want a Lancaster want to fly it at night. It’s what it’s most famous for, and most of the missions were flown at night. I think there are better options for a daylight bomber in BoBP.

 

I think we need another poll!  ;)

 

I'll fly it day, night, rain, shine, high, low, fast, slow,...  :dance:

Edited by JimTM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add England to the map and get so much more potential for WWII aviation, including the Lancaster and B17, etc.  Also V1 flying bomb interception.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Add England to the map and get so much more potential for WWII aviation, including the Lancaster and B17, etc.  Also V1 flying bomb interception.

 

For the hundredth time, that ain't happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Add England to the map and get so much more potential for WWII aviation, including the Lancaster and B17, etc.  Also V1 flying bomb interception.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

B-17s would be impossible to do at the moment. Too many gunners.

 

Adding England to the map would push the release date way back.

 

Personally, I’m happy enough with the late war western tactical air war we’re getting with BoBP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

Personally, I’m happy enough with the late war western tactical air war we’re getting with BoBP.

Me too. It seems that it's impossible to make everybody happy. Some people are more concerned with what is coming out in the future than with what is out now. Over at CLOD, the 5.0 update isn't even out yet, and there are guys asking for things that they want to see in 6.0! With Bodenplatte, I'm going to be busy for some time, I think. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Add England to the map and get so much more potential for WWII aviation, including the Lancaster and B17, etc. 

 

I don't have time to fly an eight hour mission in real time, nor do I have time to fly an unsatisfying two hour mission on autopilot with 4x time acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was possible, my first choice would be a B-17 with the ability to save progress during a long mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...