Great there was a UK poster about there B-29 it was very much a popular aircraft for pilots.
Niceee, the B-29 is my favourite (historical) strategic bomber, such a cool and beautiful plane. Glad to see the RAF version!
Should have been added along with the B-29A and Tu-4 11 years ago, but better late than never, I guess.
1 Like
This vehicle goes into a gap where nothing is currently occupying that space and nothing can occupy that space, because this is the Bomber Britain historically acquired to fill said space in their inventory.
You do? Because I hate to burst your bubble, but we do not. And this bomber did not come “instead of” the Vulcan.
3 Likes
To close the considerable gap between the Lincoln and Canberra that historically, the Washington did IRL.
This doesn’t take away any resources from original vehicles. The Welkin is also coming this update for the UK, so nothing has been “taken away” in order to add this bomber.
5 Likes
You are actually confusing two different things. We never said a high altitude British bomber was coming.
We said:
A) The Washington was coming
B) Another aircraft (not a bomber) that loves high altitudes was coming (the Welkin)
As you can see:
Then sadly you didn’t read it too closely, as we also openly said at the time it was not the Vulcan:
5 Likes
Given that the Tu-4 uses Russian bombs, have the devs considered restricting the Washington to British MC and HC bombs in order to avoid overlap with the US B-29A-BN? Would result in a loss of TNTe as shown below;
| Name | Mass (kg) | Explosive Type | Explosive Mass (kg) | TNTe (kg) | HE pen (mm) | HE radius (m) | F radius (m) | 40x TNTe | 18x TNTe | 8x TNTe | 4x TNTe | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 lb AN-M64 | 242.60 | Comp B | 124.28 | 162.81 | 85 | 9 | 126 | 6512.40 | ||||
| 500 lb MC | 231.70 | RDX/TNT | 100.70 | 128.90 | 83 | 8 | 121 | 5156.00 | 79.17% | |||
| 1000 lb AN-M65 | 500.76 | Tritonal | 269.90 | 318.48 | 97 | 12 | 155 | 5732.64 | ||||
| 1000 lb MC | 463.10 | RDX/TNT | 227.70 | 291.46 | 95 | 11 | 149 | 5246.28 | 91.52% | |||
| 2000 lb AN-M66 | 996.30 | Tritonal | 535.30 | 632.01 | 122 | 18 | 209 | 5056.08 | ||||
| 2000 lb HC (not in game) | 781.54 | Amatol | 554.89 | 554.89 | 4439.15 | 87.80% | ||||||
| 4000 lb AN-M56 | 1981.30 | Tritonal | 1599.40 | 1887.29 | 216 | 33 | 292 | 7549.16 | ||||
| 4000 lb HC | 1782.61 | Amatol | 1339.00 | 1339.00 | 178.00 | 28.00 | 251.00 | 5356.00 | 70.95% |
Could potentially carry a 2 x 8000 lb HC bomb load? (I have no source whatsoever for this)
1 Like
Different trees have different BR crossover thresholds for vehicles that can be in ranks. As such, one vehicle in one tree can be one rank, but different in another tree.
For the UK tree 6.7 / 7.0 is the threshold of where a vehicle can be Rank IV or V. In the case of the Washington, it fits neatly before the Canberra at Rank V, as opposed to creating a sole 3rd row in Rank IV
Providing sufficient information can be found, its not off the table for consideration.
2 Likes
Well I’ve just done some napkin maths based solely on bomb dimensions and it appears feasible. The greatest difference is between the 2000 lb bombs, for which the US bomb is considerably shorter and fatter.
Sadly very little in the way of pictures and footage exist for Washington B.1, and as it was a nuclear-role bomber I don’t think it will actually have carried conventional bombs at all. Just trying to reason a way into equipping it with British post-war armament rather than copying the US loads.
I have a plan that it could theoretically carry one 8000 lb HC per bomb bay, as the two bays are 12 ft (144 in) long, and the 8000 lb HC is 133.6 in long…
TM 1985-1 British Explosive Ordnance
4 Likes
If they replace the explosives in the 500 and 1000lb M.C’s for Torpex we’d get a significant buff for them.
The 2000lb H.C has a Torpex filler of 1360lb (616.89kg) which would mean a net TNTe of 616.89*1.63[according to this bug report] = 1005.53kg
The 4000lb H.C also has a Torpex filler netting a TNTe of 1494.13*1.63 = 2435.43kg which is a net buff
Furthermore since it can carry large nuclear bombs and the American Grand Slam (T14) and Tallboy (T10) it should be capable of the 12,000lb H.C which is the Torpex version so I’m not going to say anything about that.
TL;DR give us our Torpex bombs please and thank you
8 Likes
Hmm, lets see, that’s one copy paste (PUMA U14), two copy paste (M60 Predator), three copy paste (Spitfire w/ pontoons), and now a B-29, come on snail, you’re better than this.
This is a cool C+V though
Why is it rank V
Different trees have different BR crossover thresholds for vehicles that can be in ranks. As such, one vehicle in one tree can be one rank, but different in another tree.
For the UK tree 6.7 / 7.0 is the threshold of where a vehicle can be Rank IV or V. In the case of the Washington, it fits neatly before the Canberra at Rank V, as opposed to creating a sole 3rd row in Rank IV
a bomber we don’t need, there’s plenty of choices you could have chosen that are british, plenty of prototype bombers were made
real. I have no idea why they made a devblog from this but then again, that can be said about the majority of devblogs recently.
idk, but I always felt like back in the day, each devblog was a joy to look at and it kept the hype up.
1 Like
goated
the UK used so many US-made planes, including B17, 24, 29, 26, 25 among others. I love to see lend lease in the UK tree
2 Likes
Unfortunately there were no British bombers in this gap. This was literally the aircraft the RAF chose in real life (Washington) to fill this gap (Between the Canberra and the Lincoln) precisely because there was nothing else between them.
4 Likes
Wait, we can really annoy the americans and refer to this as the Bone
2 Likes