brit tax.
1 Like
IT GETS THE H2S BLISTER RAAAAAAHHH!!!
11 YEARS BUT AT LEAST IT’S A SLIGHTLY NEW MODEL THANK YOU GAIJIN!!!
no this is NOT a sentence
As much as I am a huge fan of the Vulcan, the game isn’t quite ready for it yet. I would love to see a nuanced folder of Vulcans added when whatever is happening with the nuclear thunder gamemode in development happens.
I’d like to see the Vulcan B1 (NOT a pure delta! Those were development aircraft ONLY), B1a (basically a B1 with ECM kit from a B2), an early spec B2 (freefall bomber mid 60s configuration to early 70s configuration with researchable modifications) and a much later spec B2 (mid 70s onwards once it got the RWR on the fin)
FYI B1 is the variant designation not the aircraft name in British service. Washington B1 not B1 Washington. The same goes for all British bombers.
Avro Twentyninecaster
1 Like
Are we ending here today?
I’m personally more of a fan of the Handley-Page Victor, but the Avro Vulcan is a cool piece of work nonetheless
Sad to see something that doesn’t really need to be added take a valuable slot in an update that something cooler could have been
1 Like
The Grand Slam bomb would be near useless ingame.
The 12.000lb HC bomb that the Lancasters currently have, has a TNTe of ~6350kg.
The 22.000lb Grand Slam bomb has a TNTe of ~6600kg. This is an increase of 250kg TNTe, for a total of 10.000lb more in total weight of the bomb. At the same time, the bomb has a detonating mechanism where it only detonates, after it have penetrated 40m of earth, or 6m of concrete. Meaning it would only explode 40m below ground, and most likely doing no damager, since all the energy of the explosion would be absorbed by the ground.
i know that they wouldn’t be good on grb. but if they actually put a mode for bombers where you had to destroy heavy facilities like U-boat stations or bunkers it would be perfect
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.
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.
1 Like
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.
2 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:
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
1 Like