4 Likes
Yeah I was wondering that too, also the seriously weak firing angles on the tail gunners is errr, harsh shall we say.
11 Likes
From what I can work out it might be the case that it could carry 16 x 112 lb bombs, but only 8 x 230 lb bombs, because carrying any more would exceed the maximum bomb load mass.
10 Likes
From Francis K. Mason’s The British Bomber Since 1914, p.94:
“The bomb load could comprise one 1,650lb SN bomb, three 550lb, three 520lb, eight 250lb or sixteen 112lb bombs.”
Further confirmation might be found in H. A. Jones’ The War in the Air Being the Part played in the Great War by the Royal Air Force: Appendices. Vol. VII, but the Internet Archive version is missing the critical Appendix XXVII.
It is missing quite a few of its loadouts though.
8 Likes
It’s probably because gaijin doesn’t want to make this an overpowered bomber by giving such a massive load. In reality it would still suck because of its speed and terrible gun angles
3 Likes
Oh boy, that big bomb and the 520/550s would be lovely to use ha
2 Likes
Reserve tier Lancaster
1 Like
i mean at 1.0 a 1650lb bomb is definitely a SN, super nuke
3 Likes
That annoys me. They can’t fire behind them at all, those gunners can only shoot sideway. Are you telling me they can’t slightly turn their gun to shoot at least above the tail? Ridiculous.
1 Like
Here’s a table from John A. MacBean’s Bombs Gone detailing the specs of the various WWI bombs, which includes the 1650 lb SN bomb that folks seem to be interested in:
The 1650 lb SN bomb was 132 inches (335 cm) long and had a diameter of 18.5 inches (47 cm); filling was 800 lbs (363 kg) of Amatol (TNT equivalent is almost the same), which makes it slightly more powerful than the American 1000 lbs. SN apparently stood for Essen, the target of these large bombs.
Also, I believe the explosive content of the 230 lb RFC bomb is incorrect. It should be 49.9 kg instead of 45.4 kg of Amatol, but MacBean is a secondary source and two are needed for bug reporting. There’s also this image posted on the GWF which corroborates MacBean, but the poster didn’t give details on the document, so some archive diving might be needed to find the source:
2 Likes
I’ve created an issue for the missing loadouts here: Missing loadouts for H.P.12
Also, C. H. Barnes’ “Handley Page aircraft since 1907” contains this image:
A Handley Page O/400 (H.P.12) carrying a 4000-lb bomb at Aberdeen, apparently as part of demonstrations organised by Billy Mitchell of the US Army. It allegedly also deployed a 2000-lb bomb in the sinking of SMS Ostfriesland earlier. I couldn’t find corroboration for this, but a 1.0 bomber carrying a 4000-lb would be pretty awesome.
6 Likes
And it would still be balanced as well because the aircraft itself sucks. Although it should probably go up a few BRs.
1 Like
+1 low tier PE-8
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qQf1mOZW9sfI
I know its unlikely to go through and prob just get closed for no evidence that they should be able to fire over the tail, but heh thought I would give it a try and get us the power of using our lewis guns to defend from you know, where 90% of enemy planes attack from…
It’s so annoying how they can close stuff like that. They’re forcing us to prove it, instead of them having to prove that it isn’t able to fire through the tail. It’s a bad practice to force users to prove something, when there isn’t any evidence for or against the thing that needs changing.
How do they know that the gunners can’t fire over the tail?
1 Like
Yeah… also a lot of images I have seen show the plane with a twin lewis gun mount on the nose, not just a single, also a thing that someone with time/money to buy books could look at xD