The Lancaster MR.7 currently has incorrect bomb payloads

[nathanclawfish]

to go with my as of yet ignored bug report: Community Bug Reporting System

The recently added Lancaster MR.7 currently has the following payloads in-game:

14 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (3,500 lb total)
6 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 8 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (5,000 lb total)
14 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (7,000 lb total)
6 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 1 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bomb + 2 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (4,500 lb total)
6 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 3 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (6,750 lb total)
14 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs (14,000 lb total)

These bomb loads and their location in the bomb bay are directly copied over from the two Lancaster bombers currently present in the British tech tree. This is not historically accurate as the bomb load for the Lancaster MR.7 was significantly less than the equivalent MK.1 and MK.VII Lancasters it was derived from, due to the addition of a large 400-gallon auxiliary fuel tank in the rear of the bomb bay to during their conversion into Maritime Reconnaissance standard (the same standard as the Canadian Lancaster 10MR) to extend its flight endurance and range, which was vital for it due to its nature as a naval patrol and reconnaissance aircraft.

This large fuel tank was also installed in Canadian Lancaster Mk.X, and was used in post-war aircraft derived from the Lancaster such as the Avro 695 Lincolnian and Avro 691 Lancastrian, or the Lincon. They were held in place by a pair of two steel securing straps per tank, and necessitated the removal of the bomb racking system in order to be fitted and were not able to be opened or removable without physically cutting them out. Because of this the Lancasters in French service lacked the rear two rows of bomb mounting points for bombs, lowering their total bomb payload to 4 tons from the 6534 that can be carried by the British Lancaster due to the reduction of hard points . Due to this, the French Lancaster should instead have the following payloads if using the existing ones as a base:

14 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 8 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs

6 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 8 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 3 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 5 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs

14 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 8 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs

6 x 500 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 1 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bomb + 2 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 1 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bomb + 2 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I though there is space in the front row for either 3 x 250, 500 or 1000 pound bombs

6 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 3 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 5 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs + 3 x 250 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs

14 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs becomes 8 x 1,000 lb M.C. Mk.I bombs

Please see the historical photos affixed that show the mounting method for these fuel tanks, note the one of Aries 3 which shows how the bomb mountings were removed to allow the fuel tank to be securely affixed to the bomb bay. The payload limit of 4 tons can be found here ( Caractéristiques de l'Avro-683 Lancaster WU B I/ B VII [in french] ) which equates to the 8 X 1000 pound payload option I have highlighted above.

[lancasteryak]

Hello, I a from the discord channel of the french tech tree sources, and we had a intern discussion in the group about this problem. and it’s appear that you are maybe right and maybe wrong. As we have, from the website about the Aeronavale, the information about which squadron did real bombing (in this case, the 4.S) and which did not, we discovered that the 4.S was using the MR.I and the MR.VII versions and also, that all the lancaster who had theses additional fuel tanks don’t come frome the 4.S squadron, so, we can’t know what we must put in the lancaster, maybe, the best solution is to give to France two lancaster: the MR.I and the MR.VII and after give, by upgrade, for each one, the full load of bombs, but it won’t be correct with some painting of some squadron. It’s, in fact a real mess and we don’t now too much what we must do

[nathanclawfish]

The additional fuel tanks were fitted in all the Lancasters the British provided to the French when they were upgraded to Maritime Reconnaissance standard (The same standard the Canadians adopted for their mark X naval recce lancasters directly after the second world war), which also removed the dorsal turret in favour of an escape hatch for the rear gunner. The 1 and the 7 difference means nothing other than what mark of Lanc they were initially converted from, as they were all upgraded to the same equipment standard during refurbishment before being delivered to the French, so its not a matter of some had it, when they all had it.

The fuel tank did not prevent the Aircraft from doing bombing, it just had a reduced payload, as outlined above due to the fuel tank occupying and necessitating the removal of the rear two rows of hard points and the bay being refitted to house the tank being built into the airframe. This photo of a Lincon being fitted with three of the tanks shows how the airframe would have been modified in order to accommodate the new fuel tank:

[nathanclawfish]

A near-identical fuel tank was used in Halifax bombers, for long-range counterintelligence variants, so we have a pretty good idea of what the fuel tank should look like:

[nathanclawfish]

ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945.

link with more detailed description

[lancasteryak]

So, I already know that the additionnal fuel tanks don’t prevent to use bombs, all the links and pictures you sent, I already kow them, please, just understand my point if view, we have differetns squadron, they are, in fact, of the same groupe : l’Aéronavale, but (and it’s important) they don’t do the same task, and the 4.S squadron differs from other squadrons by the fact that he used during 1.102 hours of mission the lanacster, for bombing, in a range of action under the 1,660 miles. You can find the location of the sqadron on the link we already gaves you, which is talking about missions from Alger or La Sénia to the frontline between Algeria and Morocco, where the maximum range is 994 miles. And please, don’t say we couldn’t change the bomb bay, as the 10.S squadron did it, and used lancaster in order to launch Malafon missile, and we can also ask them, as they used it. just because the UK gave us modified aircraft doesn’t mean we couldn’t have modified them in other ways.
But I’m sure that you wantvery precise information about this squadron, so, I will send a letter to a french magazine, which is about the french history of aviation, and they will respond, I’m sure of it. Also, I will maybe see again, during the "journées du patrimoine "(translated to : heritage days) the members of the lancaster WU-21 restoration association, and maybe I will find old members and crews of the 4.S.

[da12thmonkey]

The 400 gallon tanks were optional according to writeups on Canadian Lancaster MR Mk.10s
https://www.bcam.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022-04-NorsemanNewsletterWinter2022.pdf
Their operation certainly doesn’t sound like a permanent modification as fuel from the bay tanks was simply an on/off cock to top up the No.1 fuel tank (the one between the fuselage and inner engine) in each wing.

The tanks are mentioned in the pilot’s notes for all Lancasters, not just MR:

Provision is made on some aircraft for carrying one or two 400-gallon tanks fitted in the bomb cells; these tanks are connected so that their contents may be transferred into either or both No. 1 wing tanks and thence to-the engines.

[nathanclawfish]

What link are you refering to you have not sent me any links?

in reference to squadron 4 s my reference here ( Submarine-hunting Lancasters: French post-war ops )

French Lancasters also served in a genuine shooting war. During the 1950s a major independence movement developed in the French colony of Algeria in North Africa. This spilled over into open conflict from 1954, with many French aerial assets involved in the fighting against local insurgents and terrorists. Included for a time were the Aéronavale Lancasters of Escadrille 4S. Based at Lartigue in Algeria during the late 1950s, the Lancasters were employed, alongside Aéronavale Lockheed Neptunes, on such tasks as maritime surveillance aimed at preventing contraband supplies of weapons reaching the rebels. This particularly occupied 4S from 1957 to 1960. Several of its WU Lancasters were ‘up-gunned’ with two machine guns in the normally unused nose turret during this time.

Have you got any pictures of this missile test, as looking up the size of the missile its only half the size of the lancs bomb bay. In addition if it was so easily modified why were the lancasters sent to the far east so hated in regards to the bomb bay fuel tank, if it could be easily removed, why would they repeatedly complain to command about the inability to carry the cookie, if it could be easily fixed.

[nathanclawfish]

I think there may be some confusion in that post, as i have heard about an optional second 400 gallon fuel tank mounted forward in the bomb bay, but from all accounts the rear one was a permanant fixture.

[lancasteryak]

soory, I tought that someone gave you the link , so here it is : Avro-683 Lancaster WU B I/ B VII [in french] (ffaa.net) (it’s all in french, but you can just verify everything that I said, also, you ust notice for the caracteristics of the lancaster, they just mention the specification for the maritim patrol and they mention the effective range for a normal lancaster during the ww2

[nathanclawfish]

I have just ordered a book specifically regarding Lancaster bomber post-war service, as it seems my sources were not enough for a bug report.

I think your misidentifying the statistic for combat range though, as its listed as 2,675km which equates to a there and back of 5350 km compared to the normal range of 4,070 km for a Lancaster not equipt with the bomb bay fuel tank.

[lancasteryak]

o try to send you the picture of the lancaster with the malafon missile but it doesn’t work

[nathanclawfish]

i will dm you my discord and you can share it there :)

[nathanclawfish]

I have ordered two books, a janes and a book focusing specifically on post war lancaster operations, will update the post upon receiving said books, as after debate with Lancasteryak we have concluded that the available resources online are conflicting and not fit for purpose. He is enquiring locally with french publications and i am scouring the books in English so hopefully we get a concrete picture of this aircraft actual performance ;)

[nathanclawfish]

First book has arrived, it has clarified that the fuel tanks were optional, but it has added an interesting caveat, in that based on the descriptions in the book, the naval reccon lancasters were modified to include a beam in order to carry a airborne lifeboat, that though infrequently used post-war, removed the middle line of hard points in the aircraft. A picture of the beam in question can be seen here on an extanct lancaster mk X

[nathanclawfish]

This beam is mentioned in depth in the first book https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1473827248/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[nathanclawfish]

Basically because the french bombers were built to MR standard they would have been fitted with this bar, which occupies the gap normally reserved for the 4000 pound bomb, effectivly rendering the hardpoint and the two in line with it unusable as they were removed during instalation.

[nathanclawfish]

Updated with a new bug report: Community Bug Reporting System

image showing beam location

[Gunjob]

Forwarded, thank you.