# Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

What's the most dangerous position to be in aboard an Allied WW2 bomber on a bombing run...?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

tail gunner 8) its not the bomb aimer cos i learned that in a crash the bomb aimer was the safest postion to be in 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Really? I find that odd cos the nose of the bomber was usually largely made of glass and in a crash i would've thought the WORSE place to be (apart from inside the ball turret!) during a crash landing was the nose!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

apparenty not, this is just going on lancaster stats but the bloke with the highest survival rate was the bomb aimer 8) i not sure about other planes though


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Maybe the bomb aimer was the first to see the aircraft coming straight at them and jumped out...  

I don't know the worst place to be, to me, being in the bomber at all would be bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> to me, being in the bomber at all would be bad.



i hope you arent implying that you dont like bombers? 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Touche 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

touché? what was the need for that?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

I'm not saying bombers are bad because they were very useful planes. I'm saying that I wouldn't want to be in one...unless it was a mossie...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

my favourite plane is a bomber, id love to be in it


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

I'd rather be in the escort...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

depends what the escort is.......


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Where are we going to bomb?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

erm, munich


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

P-51D...I don't know if any other could reach there...unless we were sending them from France...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> unless we were sending them from France



a french escort


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

You misunderstand me, I mean if we sent them from a French airfield. Just because a Spitfire takes off from France it doesn't make it French. 
If we were flying from France, I'd go for the Spitfire Mk V.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i know, it was joke


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> touché? what was the need for that?



I was saying that to plan_D but you beat me to it!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> my favourite plane is a bomber, id love to be in it



I bet you wouldn't if you were being shot at by a Spitfire


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i would, the P108 was INVINCIBLE  (despite the fact 95% didnt make it throuh the war )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Ah...so the P-108 wasn't really invincible at all...what a let-down  

 (is this elephant dead or not? i can't tell!)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i hope you arent calling the P.108 an elephant  is a beautiful plane, just look at my siggy! dominating.....


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 1, 2004)

Such interesting. I would say the Ball turret was the worst to be. The b-24 is a good example because of its retractable feature that did not always retract. But that was the bomber to be in!! 

As for an esscort if the P-51 would have been used earlier, but I would have only wanted it if it was painted with the Orenge tail markings!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> As for an esscort if the P-51 would have been used earlier, but I would have only wanted it if it was painted with the Orenge tail markings!



i dont think thy would give you a choice


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

I think it does look like an elephant actually but i must say i happen to think Elephants are beautiful...in their own grey, wrinkly way  

As for tail colours didn't you know they gave you a choice C.C..?

"What are you going to name your bomber captain?"
"Oh i was thinking of 'Peggy Sue' or a name like that with a picture of a half-naked woman sitting on a bomb or something original like that..."
"Really? and what colour would you like the tail to be Captain?"
"Oh i think a nice shade of pink would really scare the Japs!"

Oh yes - the tail colour was very important!

It was to do with different squadrons wasn't it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

> I think it does look like an elephant actually but i must say i happen to think Elephants are beautiful...in their own grey, wrinkly way



ive suddenly decided i dont like you anymore 

(joke)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 3, 2004)

How many gunnery positions did the P-108 have C.C?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

i dunno  ill have a look 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

time for a cheap plug for the lancaster me thinks. The lanc had 3 gun possitions (4 in some cases)................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

that means the P.108 had about 20 then


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 4, 2004)

In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....



 that poor bastard in the tail...i agree that the tail was the worse position to be in...funny how no-one has voted for the rest of the plane...i think the waist must've been a pretty dodgy place to be as well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

anywhere's dodgy in a B-17............................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 4, 2004)

If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)


I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons: 

1. In a crash-landing, you DAMN well better not be in the ball turret. Be crushed so fast it wouldn't even be funny....

2. Someone my dad works with knows a veteran B-17 gunner. Apparently, some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight  And they didn't have room for parachutes, either...

But of course, we picked up on the problem real quick, by about the third or fourth version of the B-17


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight



   italians are supposed to be the people who make things badly


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)

They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.

Wondering what the hell had happened, he tried to turn the turret and it wouldn't turn at all, while he was wondering just what THAT meant there was a tremendous thump as the tail-unit landed on the snow. When he dug himself out he discovered that there was no bomber attached to his turret, just a portion of the fuselage.

The lucky bugger had had just _enough_ of the fuselage attached that the tail-planes acted as wings.

Bet he never won anything at all after that! You only get _so much_ luck in any one lifetime.

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Crazy said:


> If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)
> 
> 
> I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons:
> ...



didn't the ball-turret gunner have some kind of safety harness attached to him - a sort of uncomfortable belt that he could wear to stop him falling out of the plane if anything happened to the ball-turret? (or is that something the writer of 'Memphis Belle' the film made up?)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)
> 
> They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.
> 
> ...



BLOODY HELL!!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 7, 2004)

I think that any gunner or pilot for that matter in a bomber is in a bad spot. To have to fly stright and leval over the run and all the AAA and fighters know that so they wait. Then pick you off one at a time as the poor bombers limp home.

But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. You just do not find a lot of the gunners who sat in that ball around today. There is a great story of a ball gunner in a B-24 after a fighter attack drenched in swet with bass alaround him. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball and fly at 25,000 or 30,000 ft with out a parachute. They could only hope that the waist gunners or tail gunner could help them.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball .



Why exclusively the B-24s turret?  Is that because it was such a crappy bomber?  

and i don't mean to nit pick (well, I DO actually 8) ) but wasn't the turret exclusively made of metal rather than plastic? 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 8, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> MP-Willow said:
> 
> 
> > But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball .
> ...


No that would not be the "A crappy Bomber"! The ball was a metal frame but did need to let the gunner be able to fire and see it. I think that the B-24 was the Besdt bomber available until it was surpassed by the B-29 and even then the Liberators did a lot of work and sufferd much for that big silver monster. The libs were used everywhere for almost every thing!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Yes I have heard that the B-24 Liberator was an excellent bomber but if it was the best (in your opinion) then why wasn't it used as widely as the B-17?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2004)

It was not used as much because most of the B-24s were in the PTO. the longer range was needed to cover the pacific's vast spaces of nothingness. In the ETO it did surve with distiction, but it did have some problums with its fuel pumps and the new Davis wing. But all and all I would have flown in one over the B-17. I think though it truly lost out because the b-17 had just greater Marketing and public support. But overall the better range, bomb load, speed, and the B-24 was very versital as an airframe. I have not read about B-17s as cargo, or flying the hump regularly. They were almost all taken out of the Pacific because of poor range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

ah, finally, some-one with an equal hate for the B-17............................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 10, 2004)

Hate is a strong word lanc. But I would say that I have no love loss for the B-17, though it did bring a lot of airman home even if the bomber was falling apart in flight.

But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 10, 2004)

The lower ball turret gunner was the worst position in my mind. He had to be of smaller stature to fit in the turret and if the turrret was jammed and could not be retracted he would be killed on landing as the turret would be crushed during landing. The tail gunner would be the second most dangerous position as a lot of German aircraft would fire on the aircraft coming up from the rear. The waist gunner was the probably the safest position to be of any of them. The B-17G model had the chin turret added to protect the front of the aircraft plus there was the top turret gunner and 2 side .50 caliber machine guns for more firepower


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

> But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?



well, i'n hardly spoilt for choice, but I'd say the B.I special................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 12, 2004)

Lanc, Why?
ahanswurst: You speak like the waist would be safe  I have read stories from gunners who have talked of shell starting in the cockpit and stopping in a waist gunner or other part of the palne. They are in the mittle and well they are trying to shoot at people who want to kill them. 

The ball was the worst, but you got to see it all first, the flack, bomb strikes. I am a short guy so the ball would be where the crew would but me!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

But Ball Turret gunners DID have safety lines in case the Turret fell off (because they had no parachutes) and the Ball was a very small target to hit by a German fighter  

I still think that although the Ball was undoubtably dangerous 
(as someone else already said EVERY position was dangerous) 

 

I think the Tail was the worse place to be - personally i think it went in this order...(worse at the top)

1) Tailgunner
2) Waist
3) BTG
4)Nose
5)Cockpit
6)Flight Engineer
7)Radioman

As i say - NONE of them were 'safe' but i think there were definately some positions i would rahter be in than others!


----------



## brad (Apr 13, 2004)

nose in a crash rear gunnar on a bomming run


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

> Lanc, Why?



'cos it looked pretty cool.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

theres such a thing as a cool lancaster?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Yeah Lanc...i've heard of the 'ugly' lancaster but never the 'cool' one


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

it's so coll it was almost frozen..................

not to mention the fact it carried te largest convetional bomb of the war............ (you can't say the B-17 did that, can you..........)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13)  

To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

im sorry, i have to corect some things here 8)

ceiling on a lancaster is 24,000 feet
range is 2530 miles on a lanc
speed of a b-17 is also 287

8)


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13)
> 
> To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship...





how could you say the b17 was better it lost 398 crew in the duration of the war


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...


----------



## Maestro (Apr 15, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...



Hmmmmm... I have to point something out: radar was invented by British, not German. 8) 

That was one of the many reasons why Britain won the BoB.  

(At least, that's what my teacher said in my "History of the 20th century" course in High School.)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

Maestro said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...
> ...



i mean the Lichenstein radar that the Germans made and perfected for use in nightfighters. discovered by the brits when a Ju88 landed in Britain as a result of a compass failure


----------



## Maestro (Apr 15, 2004)

Oh, right. Sorry, I made a mistake.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

most dangerous position on a bomber? id say the missionary postion but who am i to judge


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 15, 2004)

My father who is 83 and still alive was a waist gunner on a B-17 stationed in England (Upper Ipswitch) with the 390th bomb wing. I asked him of all the gun positions on a b-17 which did he think was the safest. His reply was the waist position. He flew over 25 missions over Germany. I have his squadron book and a list of all of his missions that he flew over Germany. Of his airplane crew there are still 4 of the 10 crew members still alive. They still mail cards back and forth and they have done this since the war was over. So I vote for the waist position as being the safest. He agrees that the lower ball turret gunner was the worst position.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

ahanswurst said:


> My father who is 83 and still alive was a waist gunner on a B-17 stationed in England (Upper Ipswitch) with the 390th bomb wing. I asked him of all the gun positions on a b-17 which did he think was the safest. His reply was the waist position. He flew over 25 missions over Germany. I have his squadron book and a list of all of his missions that he flew over Germany. Of his airplane crew there are still 4 of the 10 crew members still alive. They still mail cards back and forth and they have done this since the war was over. So I vote for the waist position as being the safest. He agrees that the lower ball turret gunner was the worst position.



Just out of interest is the Ball-turret gunner one of the 4 that still lives?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> im sorry, i have to corect some things here 8)
> 
> ceiling on a lancaster is 24,000 feet
> range is 2530 miles on a lanc
> ...




I checked my source of info and according to another book i've read it states the max height a Lanc could reach was 24,500ft....but even so its still considerably less than the B-17..  

The B-17 was still faster at 323mph (i've checked several sources on this)
but you are right that the Lanc had a better range 8) ....still the Lanc doesn't seem as good as the B-17 in general


----------



## brad (Apr 16, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) (that you brits copiedGerman radar  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...


 that you brits copiedGerman radar we inented radar


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > im sorry, i have to corect some things here 8)
> ...



yes, ill agree with the ceiling, i wasnt sure whether it was 24,000 or 24,500ft, but im afraid im uncertain about the speed. im not convinced that it could do 323mph, though i am aware that it was faster than the lancaster now it wasnt by that much, it probbly could just "tickle" 300, but no way 323mph  8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

> still the Lanc doesn't seem as good as the B-17 in general



that's 'cos it was better.................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

How was it better? 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 16, 2004)

brad said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) (that you brits copiedGerman radar  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...
> ...


 uruguay didnt invent radar, look at your flag! and i meant GERMAN radar made in GERMANY by the GERMANS in GERMANY


----------



## brad (Apr 17, 2004)

no iam from britten


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

> How was it better?



payload, manourerability, versitility, looks to name a few...............


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 17, 2004)

AHHAHAHAAH the fight over the B-17 or Lanc! Just take it as a given the B-24 was made to replace the B-17! The Liberator did just that, in the Pacific and CBI. The B-17 only survived because we needed it, and that in Europe it did have a purpose, letting more B-24s go to the 15th airforce and to the Pacific. I wounder if the B-17 or even the Lanc could have made the Polesti raids and done better then the Liberators!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 18, 2004)

brad said:


> no iam from britten



Britten? well if you mean what i think you mean (IT'S * BRITAIN*FOR CHRIST'S SAKES!!!) j/k mate and if you are from *BRITAIN*, why dont you change your flag accordingly?[/u]


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

C.C.'s from Britain, he's gotthe russian flag but you don't make him change it, but then again he is the site communist, so whe'll let him off..............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

It's actually the Soviet Unions flag, not Russias.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

> whe'll



lanc, i realise you are usually in a hurry to make posts, but the spelling, REALLY  8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

Question all, we were talking about worst gun positions to be in and I was wondering if any of you have info on ball turret gunners and there stories? I would like to hear from B-24 crews, but would settle for B-17. But it must have been bad, because they were phassed out of the B-24s in 1944, the B-24Ls had the sperries replace wish manual guns to save weight and the fighters were not that much of a worrie. But I am not shure I would have liked that. Any thoughts?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

if you scan back through the pages of this topic, there's lots about ball turret accidents....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

Yes I have read some, so I should read more? Just thought to ask before I dive into all the past posts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

up to you.......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

Jee thanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

no don read the, that way you post suff ad get your numberf posts up 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 19, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> no don read the, that way you post suff ad get your numberf posts up 8)


whazzat


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

sorry, its my ruddy keyboard  
'no dont read them, that way you post more and your number of posts goes up 8)' is what its supposed to say 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

i'm shocked at your attitude ................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

The original post was asking about worst position on a bomb run wasn't it? On the bomb run the main concern was flaks since the Germans didn't wanna fly through that stuff either. Given that fact I'm not sure there was a best or worse position since flak hits were pretty arbitrary.

On the question of fighter escort to Munich . . . P-38Ls could hace done it. Earlier Lightnings were the first allied fighters over Berlin.

The reason the B-17 was more popular than the B-24 are two fold, I think. The B-17 was used predominately in the ETO and the European war received much better press coverage that the Pacific or Med. Also, the B-17 was tougher and the images of B-17s coming back to England absolutely shot to ribbons made a very lasting impression.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

but the B-24 was amazingly tough aswell..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

It was amazingly tough, but probably not as tought as the B-17. Regardless, the B-24 never got the press that the B-17 did because it primarily served in out of the way theatres (ie. everywhere but Europe).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

the B-24 was the plane that won us the battle of the atlantic....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

And the most used bomber in the Med., the Pacific, the Aleutians, and, by the way, there were nearly as many Libs built as Forts and Lancs COMBINDED. But for some reason the Lib was never seen as that great a plane by the public. Maybe they didn't like it's looks.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 3, 2004)

Lighting Guy, you have helped some, but the B-24 was just as rugged as the B-17, and if you say that to B-24 crews who were brought home in an all shot up Liberator, they would have words with you.

I will agree that the P-38 was a good fighter that was one of the first who could profive the escourt. And yes the Liberator got less press, but if you like WWII art, there are some great posters and War bonds stuff fore The Libs and Ford's Willow run plant, that was just a great site. The Lib was used in every Theature and proformed with high marks. It's airframe was used for bomber, trasport, and even tanker. 8)

Question how is it that your posts are so high when you just joined?

Lanc, we are agreeing, the Liberator was the deal that helped seal the atlantic, that and the crazy production of the Jeep carriers. 8)  

This thread is a little off topic, but that is fine. As for the thought that flack hit alaround, I would have to say that some of the German gunners could put it right up at the cocpit. Some Japonese units used captured or downed Liberators to shadow the formations to give the gunners heading, speed, and altidude. They would stay until the crews realized who it was, a great story about that in a book I read.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I post alot, so what? The B-24 may have been as tough as the B-17. Believe it or not I prefer the B-24. I thought we were discussing why the B-24 never achieved the legendary status that the B-17 did (at least in the eyes of the general public). The B-17 was, at least, perceived as being tougher, and that maybe why the B-17 was considered more popular. I happen to know a few B-24 crewmen. One was in the Pacific and his Lib made something like a 600 mile flight back to base sans the tail turret! That's pretty tough.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

> Maybe they didn't like it's looks.



good point, the b-24 was an extremely ugly plane, ugier even than the lancaster 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The B-24 could fly further and carry more than the B-17, or was it higher? I can't remember. 

Anyway, the B-24 dropped more bombs on Europe than the B-17. 

The B-24 wasn't the sole victor of the battle of Atlantic, it could have been won without it. But there is no denying it did an amazing job.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

i always thought the normal payload of a b-24 was slightly less than that of a b-17? and i dont think it flew higher either...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

That's why there was a question mark on the end...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The B-17 had the higher altitude by a few thousand feet. Generally a B-17 had a maximum load of 9,600lbs while the B-24 could cram 12,800lbs into it's bomb bays. A more typical load would be 5,000lbs for the B-17 (10 x 500lbs) and 6,000lbs for the B-24 (12 x 500lbs). Either way the B-24 was carrying more bombs.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

So the B-24 could fly further, and carry more..like I said..before I questioned myself on the height thing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

my sources say the maximum payload for a b-17 was 17,900 for one model (read that from someone on the site, crazy i think  ) and that the typical load for a b-17 was 6,000lbs and 5,000lbs for a b-24  8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I've just read the typical was 6000 lbs for the B-17G...and the B-24G could go 2,400 miles with 5000 lbs...obviously the combat radius would be 1,200 miles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The 17,600lbs figure for a B-17 could only be used on VERY short range missions. That load was made up of 6x1600lbs in the bomb bay and 2x4000lbs under the wing. Typically the Americans used a load of 8-12 500lb bombs. The bay of the B-24 was designed to carry 12 so I assumed that was the standard load.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The B-17G was a late mark B-17 though but the B-24G was really an early mark of B-24..so it's not really fair to compare the two..although I did...sort of..


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

Lightening Guy, thanks for the help! You are right that the B-24 was not loved by the public, just think the Boeing media machine and a name like "Flying Fortress" was a lot to compeate with. But then the B-24 was a "Liberator" so shows people are fickel. 

As for comparison, try the B-24J and B-17G. There you should find that the Lib has the range, speed and payload over the B-17. Normal loads were around 6,000 to 7,000lb a little lighter in the PTO because of the range, but it also would very for target type. B-24s could carry up to 12,000lbs of ordenance for the shorter flights. The bottum line is the B-24 had the range and layload over the B-17. That is why it was used so much in the pacific. Both planes were survivers! 8)

I will try to get better compairison numbers for the two. I used the B-24J because it is a latter model, the G was really a D built by Douglas, I think in '42? The j was also the first to be built by all 5 plants!  

Got to love smiles!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

If you are looking for info on the B-24 try this site

www.b24bestweb.com


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

Lightening Guy, I love the sight! The resurch forum is a great place to read and find crew also good for nose art. 8)

My sig still needs some help, well life goes on!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

take the rounded brackets out


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

Vitory!!! 8)

Thanks C.C, now I hope you all do like the Grand Lady!  

I hope to try and get a B-24 to put beside her, but that would mean a little work. 

I am looking for good pics of the Liberator, any of you all have sugestions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

tried google?

and back to the arument about payloads and ranges, i'm going to champion the lancaster and say it could carry a bigger payload further, thus, it's the better bomber................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Not compared to the B-29...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

the B-29 was never in the argument, it was between the B-17 and B-24, then i brought in the lancaster, there aint room for another one..........


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Hahah. The B-24 was better than the B-17...the Lancaster was better than the B-17..but I don't know about the Lanc Vs. B-24.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

the lanc beats the B-24 everywhere apart from "servivability", that was the lanc's main downfall.................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

In that case, I'd rather be in the B-24 but I would rather send out Lancasters if I weren't going to be in them...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

what would be the point, the lanc carries nearly 3 times the payload on normal missions, so whats the point in sending out B-24's when they wont do any damage?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well I wouldn't care about the damage caused if I was in the thing, I would want to get home. 

If I wasn't in the thing Lancasters all the way, they will do more damage of course but the B-24 did cause mass amounts of damage, I heard it was the bomber to drop most bombs on Axis Europe. But I don't know.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

plan_D, I have read, and if you do a google surch I think you can find it that the B-24 had the most tonage dropped.

Lanc, yes the Lancaster could take out more load, but at a shorter range, and the "Survivability" was not that great. If it could take the same amount of beating the B-24 or even the B-17 did then we might have an argument. For the night bombing the Lancaster and that big bombload were just great. But I should read up more on it. 

As for Liberator pics, I did find some on Google, and am still looking. Also looking for information on Ford's Willow Run Plant. Now if the Lancaster could have been made on a mass line like the Liberator that would have been a sight 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, well I was just a little skeptical, as I had only read it from one source. But it's no surprise the Liberator did a lot of work.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

Everything said about the B-17 in the B-17 v. Lanc argument applies to the B-24 as well. Yes the Lanc carried a bigger load but the B-24 closed the gap, plus it was tougher, better armed, and more accurate. Plus, it must be remembered that there were more than 18,000 B-24s built compared with 13,000 something B-17s and 7,000 something Lancs.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

The B-24 was my favourite bomber, closely followed by the B-25. Yes, I know the B-25 couldn't carry as much as the Lancaster or B-17..I don't care, it was a medium bomber. 
The B-29 was still the best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the P.108 was my favourite bomber, closely followed by the B-29


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

You've seen the 'Big Bombers' thread I made, right? They make me laugh, I'm trying to get a B-24, B-17 and B-29 together to compare the size, then maybe a B-52 and B-29 but I can't find any pics.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The B-24 was probably my favorite heavy of the war. And what of it's derivatives, the PB4Y2 Privateer is one of my all time favorites.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Now that just looks weird.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

It may look weird, but it had (in my opinion) the coolest turrets of any plane of the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

They do LOOK pretty cool but it's the whole thing with the tail that's weird.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

It actually made for a more stable plane. The next version of the Lib that was scheduled to be produced (B-24N) was going to feature a single fin like the one of the PB4Y2.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

It still looked weird.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 7, 2004)

I have to agree! 8)

I have been talking to another who posed the question of Lancs being built in massproduction in the US and what that might or might not have changed the war. I told him no, and it would have been really hard to do.

The B-24 and B-17 did a great job and I think in its roll so did the Lancaster. It did infact drop that big golf ball into the dambs


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

They was a very hard operation, and they did it with great success. It caused a lot of trouble for Germanys industry if only for a short time.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 7, 2004)

Plan_D what was only a short time? German Industry took a big hit.
I ges it would be a short time because they were able to disperse and some went into underground caves, if I read that right.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Yes it took a big hit and it effected German industry for only a few months, the Germans were very good at getting back up to scratch. The German production went up every year from 1939 until 1945 when it fell dramatically.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

within 36 hours the germans had 1400 workers on th site of the dams, now thats fast................

and it was a very important mission, at the time the US and russia were begging to doubt the usefullness of the RAF, the dambusters raid was the success they neede to prove themselfs...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

The Dambusters raid was a very successful raid. But you have to remember, Wallis was hoping it would end the war. In retrospect, there was no one raid that made the difference but rather is was the effect of all of the raids.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Well said Lightning Guy, although there were several raids that had more of an effect than others. The Dambusters being one of them...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I would agree with that. I would count the Ploesti raid in that group too. Looking back, it seems rather silly that both the British and the Americans really thought that spectacular raids like these would be enough to end the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Yes, but it's a lot easier for us to say it now since we've got the whole war in the past.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

there are definatly some raids that stand out above the rest, most of them involving low level bombing...............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Amiens...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

And insanely high loss rates . . .


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Schweinfurt (sp?) That's what you get for not believing in the British code breakers..Black Thursday.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I believe that's right. I was pointing out that low-level bombing (at least with heavy bombers) usually resulted in totally unacceptable loss rates.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

it depends, like you say, it you were in a mossie, you would be pretty safe, if you were in a lancaster, there were quite heavy losses, like the dambusters, 19 aircraft left, 8 didn't come back.................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 10, 2004)

It was low leavel with bombers not for that bit. Polesti was a great idea, but the B-24s were just not for the 1000 ft hight. Now if they could have made a heavy that operated that low, it might be interesting.

But at the time planners thought the raid could have a great and devistating impact, well a few raids latter they were right.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The Mosquito was the best low-level bomber, a heavy at low altitude is really risky because of its size, and speed (or lack of). The Dambusters raid is a good example of heavy bombers in low with devestating effect, but high losses. 

Amiens is a great example of the ideal aircraft, doing one of the best bomb jobs of the war. They were flying under 20 ft, that's lower than the wall they were going to hit. 
They dropped their bombs and had to pull up get over the wall. One navigator even said he looked up to see a German sentry looking down on him...  

Briefing for the B-17s 'Target for today: Bremen ball bearing factory' 
Briefing for the Mosquitos 'Target for today: Amiens prison, west wall and sentry garrison building'


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

B-25's were flying that low in the Pacific. There is one story about a B-25 pilot who drug his tail bomber through the sand on some island for several hundred feet. He claimed that he had to fly slow so to see in the windows of the Japanese bunkers so he'd know what to shoot at!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

don't forget the dambusters bomber that lost his upkepp in the sea and got his tail gunner wet, that's low............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Yes that was very low. But (and I think the records point to this) low-level bombing in a heavy bomber wasn't a good way to stay alive.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Yes, it wasn't the best of ideas.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I could understand it being tried the first time. But it's all those raids that came after the first one (I'm not even sure which that would have been) but you think the Allies would have learned their lesson.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but if you had a big target to hit with a big bomb, you would have to use a heavy...................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, but these big targets wouldn't always have had to been hit from low level.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And the truly big bombs (Tallboy, Grand Slam) were only effective if they were dropped from a high altitude. And the lower level means more accuracy which means a smaller bomb can be used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but if you have to hit a big target a small bomb won't do, and what if you need the range that a mossie couldn't offer but a heavy could?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

By 'big' target I assume you mean armoured, since if it's big you use more planes. 
The range of a heavy would be a deciding factor, so that would be a reason.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And you probably wouldn't be trying to low-level bomb then.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

it depends on the target, the dams were a big target, but the only way to hit them was at low level.................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

That was a rare case though, the bomb involved was also an ingenius and rare case.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The low altitude of the dam busters raid was required by the nature of Upkeep.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 12, 2004)

But the dam missions were a rare and special event. Excicuted with a new special bomb from the heavy. 8) 

B-25s flew as low as the pilot dared, or could. The solid nose Js were low fast and could sting a target but good. 

Question, please do not get mad with me, but I have read that those raids were not that effective in the overall sceam of the war?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

What raids? The Dambuster raids affected the German production from the Ruhr Valley for a good few months. 
The Amiens raid freed members of the French Resistance that were needed for the spying network. 

The B-25 raids I do not know much about, but they were not heavies anyway. The Mosquito pilots were flying at very low level also, at Amiens they flew lower than the wall that they were going to bomb, under 20 ft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The B-25 (in American hands at least) didn't see much action over Europe (the B-26 being preferred). Most of the solid nose Js were in the Pacific. Their low-level strikes against shipping (like Bismarck Sea) and against airfields (raids around Rabaul) were absolutely lethal.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I have read a few things on B-25 raids but I didn't want to comment because I know little of the B-25, although I do love it as a plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I think it's most devestating raids were on the Japanese airfields in the South Pacific. Even before the B-25J had arrived, a guy named Pappy Gunn (appropriately) had modified basic B-25Cs to take 8 .50cals in the nose plus two in the top turret. Their bombloads were made up of 'parafrags' - nastly little 25lbs parachute bombs with a super-sensitive fuze, and a B-25 could carry roughly 100. The B-25s would come across a Jap airstrip about 6 ships across with their guns blazing and parafrags poppin out the bomb bay. There wouldn't be much left after that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

> But the dam missions



no foul langauage in here please


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

That's pretty mean Lightning Guy, smart move by the B-25 crews. 
Now, now C.C don't abuse your power.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

They were a key component of eliminating Japanese airpower in the South Pacific.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I always did love the B-25.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

The only thing used in the SWPA that could challenge them was the A-20 which I always loved.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i think the A-20 id stupid, it looks ugly.......................


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I honestly don't know much about the A-20.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

It was the most used light-attack bomber of the war. In addition to the Americans, the British and Russians used it extensively. The French had it order but I'm not sure if any reached them before they gave up. The later versions carried 6 .50cals in the nose, two in a dorsal turret, and a free-swinging ventral gun. Bombload was a max of 4,000lbs and speed around 340mph. The early versions did look kinda weird but the late models with solid nose and dorsal turret looked really sharp.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Sounds nice, I'll have to research it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a3/a3-2.htm

That's the USAF museum's online archive file on the A-20. Should provide a good starting point.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I'll check it out


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

I prefer B-25H. 14 .50's in all: 8 in the nose, two in the dorsal turret, one in each waist blister, and two in the tail; One 75mm cannon in the nose for ship busting; 8 rockets under the wings; 3,000lb of bombs or 1 Torpedo externally. Top speed? 275mph. Not bad if I say so myself for such a heavy load, and the fact that after it sunk a bunch of ships if it wasn't shot down, it would go faster since it would be lighter.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Except that experience showed that the 75mm wasn't as effective as it had been hoped. That's why the J model went to all .50cals in the nose for a far heavier rate of fire.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

It could sink a destroyer in 7 shots. End of story. That sounds effective to me. It had 21 shots. Luck+Good pilot=Three ship kills from the cannon. One perhaps from the fish. For sure one from the rockets, depending on the target size. Perhaps one from the Mg's if ,again, the pilot gets lucky; this time hitting a magazine or fuel line. This is indeed possible, a Mustang once sunk a Destroyer with its guns. I believe the cannon would be better than extra machine guns.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

That's a lot of ship sinking


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

Yes, yes it is. (more than a Mossie undoobitably)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yup, the b-25 is a cool plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

one of the better looking twin engined planes of the war.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

That's a lot of theoretical ship sinking. The 75mm's low rate of fire meant only 3 maybe 4 rounds per pass and only the last one or two shots is really likely to score as long range shooting from an airplane isn't very accurate. You have to remember that destroyers carry virtually NO armor and the concentrated machine guns would have been more than capable of chewing a massive hole in the hull.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

Lightening Guy, I would have to agree that the low velocity 75mm cannon was not that great for the ship busting. The solid nose with the 8 or even ten .50s were better. Though I do not understand why the USAAF would not have added some 20mm or 30mm cannons with the B-25? 

As for the A-20, it was a great attack aircraft that was only replaced the really great A-26. The Boston, was flown more with the Russians, then others. As for the French order of the A-20, they were given to the RAF after France fell. If was a small order I think about 10 airframes, but I am not shore. I hope that helps. The A-20 was a very good attack platvorm. 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> That's a lot of theoretical ship sinking. The 75mm's low rate of fire meant only 3 maybe 4 rounds per pass and only the last one or two shots is really likely to score as long range shooting from an airplane isn't very accurate. You have to remember that destroyers carry virtually NO armor and the concentrated machine guns would have been more than capable of chewing a massive hole in the hull.


Well anywho, I prefer the big gun because it's basically a howitzer in a plane. Also, they were probably able to get more than 4 shots off, not only if they had a fast gunner, or else just the fact that the gun when fired was like the ultimate airbrake - aerial Brembos. Besides, if you didn't like the gun, you could always use the ten forward firing guns. (I say ten because the dorsal turret could be locked forward just like on the A-20 or A-26, i can't remember) Plus, the big gun could be saved for bigger prey like a sub or small carrier (there weren't that many big sized ones) like a merchant ship with a deck, or coastal targets with the rockets and bombs instead of the fish. Another thing i have remembered is that the B-25's in the pacific were one of the first advocates of bouncing bombs - only these maniacs did it with 500lb GP bombs! - which was used to great effect.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

Here's some info for you. The B-25H was retired in 1944 because there was nothing left in the Pacific that a 75mm would hurt and a cluster of .50cals wouldn't. Army tests with the weapon revealed that in the time it required to get off 4 rounds the B-25 would travel 1,000 yds. That means that even if you open fire at max. effective range you are getting REALLY close by the time you loose that last round. And the initial skip-bombing tests in the Pacific were actually done by B-17s.

MP-Willow, the first solid nosed versions of the A-20 were fitted with 4 20mm and 2 .50 cal in the nose. The 20mm weapons could only carry 60 rounds versus 350 rounds for the .50 cals. Additionally, the 20mm cannon fired rather slowly and was prone to jamming. So the later versions when to a fixed armament of 6 .50cals with 350 rpg.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 16, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Here's some info for you. The B-25H was retired in 1944 because there was nothing left in the Pacific that a 75mm would hurt and a cluster of .50cals wouldn't. Army tests with the weapon revealed that in the time it required to get off 4 rounds the B-25 would travel 1,000 yds. That means that even if you open fire at max. effective range you are getting REALLY close by the time you loose that last round. And the initial skip-bombing tests in the Pacific were actually done by B-17s.
> 
> MP-Willow, the first solid nosed versions of the A-20 were fitted with 4 20mm and 2 .50 cal in the nose. The 20mm weapons could only carry 60 rounds versus 350 rounds for the .50 cals. Additionally, the 20mm cannon fired rather slowly and was prone to jamming. So the later versions when to a fixed armament of 6 .50cals with 350 rpg.


 Retiring it makes sense, but not using it in the ETO after they hit the beaches doesnt - can you say bunker busting? Can't do that with your beloved .50 cals now can you? I'll answer fir you, NO! There's also the numerous convoys and one BIG target - Tiger II. If a Hs-129 can use a 75mm gun against tanks, why wouldn't a better plane with a better gun be able to hit a bigger target? I didn't know that fact about B-17s TESTING
bouncing bombs, but thats the thing, they TESTED them.
Done rambling.

Off topic, but i now have a feel for some WWII weapons. (American only and just holding and aiming them, no clip, not even with dud bullets, and no firing; don't wanna do that at the mall during a little military expo....)
M1 Garand Semi-automatic rifle minus clip-Heavy and too big for me because of the big stock, but still fairly easy to aim- i put the stock under my arm although if I was to fire i would use normal procedure. Then again, I'm 13 and 5 foot 4 inches; C.C. would be a good tester since he's non-Asian (not racist, just saying most Asians are small - you know it's true) adult sized at 14.
M1A1 Thompson minus clip-HEAVY!!!! easy to handle, nicely sized stock, nice sights, but HEAVY!!!
M1A1 .30 Caliber Semi-automatic Carbine (Airborne version with folding skeleton stock with and without clip-not much difference, the clip was empty)-Sweet like honey.... Light, good sights, light, nice design with the stock and clip containers in pouches on the stock, and light-VERY light.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

it's better for a gun to be heavy, it's easyier to handle, take shotguns, most people prefer the 12 bore to the 20 bore because it's easyer to handle and, due to the extra weight, gives less of a kick..................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

It's not good for a gun to be heavy, far from it. You don't want to be carrying a really heavy gun for miles, try telling someone in the war that a heavy gun was good. I don't think you'd like carrying a Bren gun for miles. 

Those guns being heavy Germans, probably weren't, no offence but as you said you're 13 and 5'4. Soldiers are at least 18, and trained meaning a bit more bulk. The Stg.44 now that was heavy, but it was the worlds first assault rifle. 

Lanc, have you ever fired a Lee Enfield Mk.4, heavy and it kicks like a mule. 

The 75mm would have been good for taking out tanks, and that's only because they'd hit them on the top. A 75mm would have never been able to take down the huge bunkers of the German Atlantic Wall, some of them were 4 metre thick walls which a 75mm shell would just bounce off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The problem with the B-25H in the ETO argument is that the B-25 wasn't used (in American hands at least in the ETO). Plus P-47s and P-38s loaded with 500lb bombs and 5in rockets were capable of taking out any tank the Germans had. Also, and I know this sounds farfetched but I've seen it in several sources, the .50cals had a surprising about of success against German armor. Alot of German tanks carried spare fuel externally (a prime target for API ammo) and some P-47 pilots even became skilled at richoceting their shots off of paved rounds into the underside of German armor.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Lightening Guy, thanks for the bit on the 20mm cannons and the A-20s. I have not read a lot on the differnet cannons, maybe that should be my next bit of reading. I still wonder about the seeming lack of use of the cannons in USAAC aircraft. I know the later P-38s had some, but that was not till the J and K models. But I gess it comes down to the thought of fireing speed. The 0.50 inch machine guns were fast and in numbers could take out a lot of things. 

A note on the B-25H it also took out the co-piolet position. I am not shure how that affected the mindset of differnt aircrews, but that would seem a little unnerving for me. 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I have also read that Lightning, but it was more luck than anything, bouncing it off the ground. The velocity of the 12.7mm round sometimes compensated for its low calibre.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Lots of rounds put on target helps as well. buttets are cheap!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

> Lanc, have you ever fired a Lee Enfield Mk.4, heavy and it kicks like a mule.



no but i've used a .308, that's also a bolt action and more powerfull than a .303..................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

It's not always power, it is the design of the rifle as well. The 20mm sniper rifles they use now don't have as much kick as Lee Enfield because they have counter recoil on them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Every armed version of the P-38 carried a cannon. The YP-38 through the P-38D were armed with a 37mm gun. The P-38E and all later models switched to a 20mm weapon. The P-38K MP-Willow referred to never went into service and only one was ever produced (in fact it was an extensively modified P-38E).

The B-25H was used exclusively in the Pacific were long, overwater flights were the rule and so the lack of a copilot was considered a liability and the copilot position was reinstated for the B-25J.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

12.7mm can take out lighter tanks, with lucky deflections and high rates of fire. One 20mm would have had a hard time, a very hard time. A 37mm could take out tanks, but again as there was only one it would have been hard.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

The API ammo that America preferred for ground strafing was surprisingly effective. It was capable of penetrating the top and rear of armor of most anything short of a Panther. And the high rate of fire helped to achieve those lucky hits on the heavier tanks. Supposedly it wasn't that uncommon for .50 cal rounds to slip through air vents and cause all kinds of havoc ricocheting arouond. But 37mm would have been better. I often wonder what it might have been like if America had kept a few of the P-63s for ground attack.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

Lightening Guy, thanks for clearing things up.

P-63s  They were for some odd reason not liked, but I have not understood that. I know a lot were sent out over lend lease, but that is all.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Well, officially it is stated the the P-63 was considered "obsolete" by the time it was being produced. I don't quite buy that as it's performance was comparable to other front line fighters and considerably better than the P-39. Some authors have speculated that the USAAF was reluctant to use a fighter who's main strength was ground attack. I'm not sure how true that is. If America had kept the P-63 I'm sure it would have been fitted with 8-10 rockets. Combine that with the centerline 37mm cannon and we would have had a first-class tank buster.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

The Pz. IV and below are classed as medium to light tanks, 12.7mm could have done significant damage to these but not really practical. The pilot will be more lucky, if anything to achieve a kill on tanks above Pz.II with .50cal. 
One 20mm and one 37mm might achieve kills up to Pz.IV without lucky hits, but even then the Pz.IV could take a hit to its roof from a 20mm without damage. The 20mm and 37mm would have been better hitting from behind, and the 37mm could kill up to the Pz.IV without lucky deflections, and probably a few VERY lucky people could take out Pz.V Panthers with it. These were very heavily armoured tanks, and with such light armament, 12.7mm, 20mm and 37mm it would be very lucky to achieve good kills. Especially with only one cannon, slow rates of fire don't make up for its lack of hitting power.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

Which is why I brought up rockets. Assuming the P-63 entered service with America, rockets could have been used against Panthers and Tigers and the 37mm weapon would have been very effective against anything lighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

yeah but it's true to say that any rocket armed aircraft could take out a tank...............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

The rocket armed aircraft were good some of the time, but how effective were they? The early rockets were unguided and tended to stay a lot. But then so to ultramodern guided bombs. But more to the point, the Panthers and Tigers were just hard to take out. For a single attacker. If two P-63s were to work together that might work. And remember they still had a bomb load to drop.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

but they even used swordfish with rockets!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

How did we get off the topic of bomber positions?

Anywho, so i should read more on rockets. If i could just read all day I would, even then not be able to learn and read all that there is about the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

The Swordfish did carry rockets but it wouldn't have the durability or performance to loiter over a battlefield looking for targets.


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

depends on the year for US "Heavies" During 1943 and spring of 1944 the Luftwaffe generally attacked from the front so the nose was the most lethal place to be. From the summer-July 1944 onward tail attacks were the more consistnat norm especially carried out by heavier Fw 190 Sturmböckes so the tail postion which was usually terminated first had to be the wrost postion on a B-24/B-17.

As for the RAF lanc and halibag at night 8 out of 10 German night fighters were attacking underneath with the Schräg-waffen in 44-45 so it did not matter what position U were in. The crew just hoped the rear turret gunner was on his toes and sharp enough to discern a descending nachtjäger before the critical blow............

v/r

E ~


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Most rockets were perfectly good enough to take out tanks, it always depends on the aircraft, you can't unleash the rockets if you are dead. A Swordfish would probably get ripped apart circling around a battlefield under heavy AA fire. 
Even without Wirbelwinds (which came in 1944) the tanks themselves were mostly equipped with 7.92mm AA MGs, which may seem little but in large numbers, that's a lot of lead. And even then, the 20mm Flak, 88mm Flak and 105mm Flak are all very, very deadly. You need to either be fast or heavily armoured, the Stringbag was none of them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Given the choice between a B-24 tail turret and a B-17 tail turret, I would choose the B-24 any day. At least there you have some armor protection.


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

LG :

Against the 2cm and 3cm Minen Geschoss you have no protection.......

Erich


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

I didn't say it was great. But in a B-17 you don't even have protection against 7.92mm. I don't have the exact amount with me but there was somewhere around 100lbs of armor surrounding the Consolidated A-6 tail turret. Probably not enough to stop a 20mm round, but possibly enough to deflect it and certainly better than the 17.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

LG I made a pretty general statement as the 13mm's fired agsint the tail of the US heavies was to mark for range and then the German a/c were to close in and use their heavy cannon


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Not all had 13mm, it would have been more ideal saying 'use their MG'. Anyway, tail hanging isn't the best of ideas in my view. Just leaving yourself an easy target. 
I'd just rather not be in a bomber at all.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

I'm talking about the summer of 44 onward not earlier with the 7.92's


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Well regardless of what was being shot at me, I would rather have SOME armor inbetween me and the incoming round rather than NONE. I haven't made the comment that the B-24's tail was "safe" but it was safer than the B-17s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

what i don't get is how the B-17 had more armour than the lanc, but the lanc was heavier...............


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

I do beleive though that industrious tail gunners asked ground crew at times to heavy the load and put in 2-3 inch steel plates under and to the sides of the tail position. Not sure if this helped though............yes some is better than none.

E ~


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

erich, I agree that looking at the times are important. I found a quote about cannon shells entering a B-24 at the nose and exploding at the waist. I will try to find it again. 

As for the Hilifax, if they would had left the belly guns in and maybe developed a twin .50s MG system it might have helped. Not every plane in the formation needed H2S. 8)


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

As for RAF 4 engine jobs I could never understand why the belly was not covered as the German Schräge-Musik weapon(s) were so effective on the under sides of the fuselage and wings...........

yes please find the article on the B-24. would love to read it.

E ~


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

Thanks I will try. I found it while looking for somthing elts and now I will try.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

You'll never find it while trying to, it always happens. 
I think the RAF 4-engined bombers cared more for payload, as they were bombing at night. Having less guns is less weight, and more room which gives you a larger bomb-bay, and more excess lift for more weight in bombs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

That was an advantage but was partially offset by the ammunition the RAF bombers carried. Yes .303cal is a lot light than .50cal but the tail turret on a Lanc had 10,000 rounds! I haven't run the numbers but I imagine the weight in ammo for a US and a British heavy bomber would be pretty similar.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

10,000 rounds, if only a B-24 could have had that 

I have a question for you all? In my surch for all things Liberator I am baffled by that in the program they never increased the P&W engines from the 1200hp. Even with the greater armor, guns gear, and bombs. Why not have moved up to the larger P&W engines? I can only think it was because the couls had to fit and the wing design. Any thoughts?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what i don't get is how the B-17 had more armour than the lanc, but the lanc was heavier...............



errrrrm...because the b-17 had a carbon fibre space frame fuselage?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

> That was an advantage but was partially offset by the ammunition the RAF bombers carried. Yes .303cal is a lot light than .50cal but the tail turret on a Lanc had 10,000 rounds! I haven't run the numbers but I imagine the weight in ammo for a US and a British heavy bomber would be pretty similar.



i doubt it, the B-17 carried 1.5 tons of ammo on a normal mission, and that's with a mer 4 tons of bombs



> I think the RAF 4-engined bombers cared more for payload, as they were bombing at night. Having less guns is less weight, and more room which gives you a larger bomb-bay, and more excess lift for more weight in bombs.



you're right, the lanc was 69ft long, with a 33 ft long bomb bay, that left no room for a dorsal posistion................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Ok lanc it you say "no room" then why is your nice color photo of the Lanc showing a dorsal gun? Or the different information and photos I seen with it. Some with 4 .303 guns others twin .5?


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

The Liberator was probably fine, and there was no need for an uprated engine. If not being that, fitting would have been a problem. 

The Lancasters with dorsal guns probably had a smaller bomb bay.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

Lanc, I was referring to the fact that the fewer guns of the Lancaster did not make that much difference as those guns carried more ammo than an American plane (a considerable amount of weight). MP-Willow, the PB4Y2 Privateer was a naval version of the B-24 featuring a single tail. It's engines were rated at 1350bhp each. However, they were unsupercharged since patrol bombers spend their time at lower levels.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

You forget the weight of the guns though, add weight of ammo (even if less) you have a lot more weight. And the B-17s were higher calibre, which is a heavier gun as well as ammo.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

I decided that I should run the numbers and I believe the B-17's guns and ammo weighed about twice that of a Lanc. So I was wrong on that point.

That being said I still believe the longer bombbay of the Lanc and the more powerful engines were what allowed in a heavier bombload.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> then why is your nice color photo of the Lanc showing a dorsal gun?



because all lancs carried a dorsal turret, there was no room for a dorsal and ventral...............



> That being said I still believe the longer bombbay of the Lanc and the more powerful engines were what allowed in a heavier bombload.



true, also the lanc had less crew and other things a daylight bomber needs.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The Lanc could carry a dorsal and ventral turret. Granted it was very cramped, but could be done.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

LG, thanks for the reminder of the Priviteer. I have read about it, but have not remembered the engines. But then I like the PB4Y1 with the twin tail, but that said thanks for the help. Still would have liked to see it atleast tested on the Liberators. With 5 plants putting out airframes why not let one say the Conalidated plant in Sandiago work up a prototype. so the Js could have had the speed proformance that they once had. i should read up more on the engines. It is an interesting thought.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> The Lanc could carry a dorsal and ventral turret. Granted it was very cramped, but could be done.



only 150 were fitted with both................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Thus it could be done. And removing the ventral guns had more to do with their ineffectiveness that the space they took up.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Or you they could have tried to fit Rolls-Royce Merlin straights in the Liberator...  

The Ventral and Dorsal guns could be done on the Lanc, but that's more crew, more weight and more to go wrong. So, you've either got less bombload or less range none of which you want to lose.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I don't think it really made THAT much difference. We are only talking about a few hundred pounds for turret, ammo, and crewman (not that much when talking about a 30 ton plane) and the drag on the ventral turret was minimal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

they must of had their reasons or they wouldn't have taken it off..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I've mentioned the reason several times. It was ineffective, small field of fire and even smaller field of vision, and sighting guns through a periscope never worked.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

exactily, it could only go 100 degrees each way and had 500 rpg...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I've seen 750rpg. Anyway, it wasn't a very good design so the Brits yanked it.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

Any extra weight makes a difference, so adding that to your reasons, the RAF had every reason to not fit it. 
Also I wasn't only thinking of the extra weight from the crew member, I was thinking of the extra life lost when the thing goes down.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

> when the thing goes down.



can we bit a bit more optimistic and say if???


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

I was expecting that, ok we'll say if.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

wy were you expecting it ............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

Yes because bomber Comand and the 8th were loosing a lot 
I love the B-24, but am not ashamed to say that they did go down and that crews were fighting un uphill battle to make the 35 missions to get home. If the air core only saw the value of the long rage escourts sooner, the P-38 was ready willing and very able.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i just whached a documentary on UKTV History saying you had a 1/3 chance of completeing your tour of operations in RAF Bomber command............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

channel 5 tonight, 9:00pm, watch it... i shall give no more info


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

ok, looks like it's down to me, there's a show called "Fighter Plane Dig... Live", they're trying to dig up a hurricane that rammed a german bomber heading for buckingham palace..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

yes and it sounds good cos ive seen a review of it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

yes, and we all know how reliable they are.................


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

I didn't watch it, I watched Captain Corelli's Mandolin. 

B-17 crews said that there was more chance of surviving the whole war than the first 5 missions. For simpletons, they were saying if you survived the first five missions, you are likely to survive the whole war. Which wasn't true but it shows how many were lost inside of their first five. 
After your first five, you were no longer a rookie crew.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

I have a B-17 sim that mentions that after you complete you first five missions. MP-Willow, I the problem with using the P-38 as a long range escort sooner is that the P-38 was THE fighter for the Med. and every P-38 that would be spared was being rushed to North Africa. The remaining few were slowly trickling into the Pacific. As it was, the 8th never had more that 4 groups equipped with the P-38.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

'The Mighty 8th' I have that game, somewhere. I never played it much, I don't know why, I loved the original. I read that in a B-17 book my brother has...maybe I should dig the game up and get playing.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

'The Mighty 8th' I heard it on there. I also read something along those lines in a book my brother has about B-17s. That's a great game.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

the programme was good 8) a lot of the information was incorrect, but the actual point of the programme was very good.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

I've been impressed with the game. Although I think people get wounded far too often. I know the daylight bombing raids were extremely dangerous but I don't think I've ever flown a mission that I did have at least 3 people get injured.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

C.C., can you give some of this "incorrect" information..................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2004)

I read an artical about the Hurricane being dug up. It sounded interesting, but I live in the states so not able to see the program.

LG, thanks for reminding me that the P-38 was the Fighter in the med. I had read it but as most things I read promptly forget while looking for other information. Would it had made a difference if the 8th could have had the P-38s that were redirected for TORCH? 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

Probably. When the Lightnings were finally used in the escort role bomber losses did drop dramatically. Their own losses were rather high (poor tactics, lousy weather, and mechanical difficulties) but the bombers were getting through and that's the point of an escort fighter anyway. The problem with that possibility is that the North African campaign would have had a much tougher go of it without the P-38s.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Without getting too far into the game; your men do get injured too much and mine even get injured over England. It's like they trip over some ammo something. 
Or maybe one is whittling his wood to the shape of a B-17 and cuts his finger (You'd get that if you've seen Memphis Belle). 

Has anyone seen that Captain Corelli's Mandolin? It's pretty good, it's about the Italians occupation of this Greek island...it's funny, and good with a few historical inaccuracies that I liked pointing out...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

nope, i was watching that fighter plane dig 8) does captain corellis mandolin have any P.108's in it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

nope, i was watching that fighter plane dig 8) does captain corellis mandolin have any P.108's in it?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

No. The only plane I believe you see in it is the Ju-87.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

i must see that then


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

is it flying??................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

or is it a wheezy little model thats extremely manoeverable, like the stukas in battle of britain


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

they're funny they are..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

yup, you know they based them directly on my personality


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

what, "little and weasy"??..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

yup


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

to true, i just realised, i still havent voted in this poll.............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

Lancaster it is not to late 

I have a question for you, I was reading about the RN and its use of F6F Hellcat fighters, Martlets I think they called them, anywho they flew escourt for some of the raids on the Tirpitz. What do you think of that?

LG- as for the P-38s I just wish the USAAC was more forward thinking. They had the plane and could have done a lot with it. But they had some really good longrange heavy fighters but did not use them until later.

Now back to topic, is the position in the bomber make any differance if it is a B-24, b-25, or B-26. this to be Heavy, medium, or light?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

I'm not sure what you were looking for asking about the Hellcat's use against the Tirpitz, but the Seafire lacked the range to be any kind of an effective escort. 

On the bomber question, I believe the B-24 actually carried more armor to protect crew positions (on the B-17 only the pilots really had much) so I would think the B-24 might have been safer.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

LG-as for the F6F they did have a good range, and again that is what I read, could be a bad sourse. The Seafire was not that bad, the Mk. II was a better range. The RN did use them thru Korea so it could not have ben that bad.

You are probable right on the B-17 armor, though they did try to improve it but generaly things were poor.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

The most serious attempt to improve armor on the B-17 was on the YB-40. However, the extra weight towards the tail made the plane very hard to handle and the armor improvements were not continued on with the B-17G.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

The YB-40 was an armament improvement more than anything. Extra guns and ammo, I don't think the armour was drastically improved.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

From _B-17 Flying Fortress_ by Roger Freeman:

"These aircraft had extra heavy and armament and armour for acting in an escort role." 

He also notes that the YB-40's empty weight was a ton heavier that the basic B-17. Now granted two extra turrets and 5 extra guns had been added but that can't account for that much weight. There must have been a pretty impressive amount of armor on board.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

Ok all you the YB-40 was a gun platform that could not really keep up with the B-17s after they dropped bombs. Most of its weight came from the extra armor and amunition. It had some 32 more boxes and that is not all of it. As for improvments to the B-17G the chin turret was carried over to the production Gs. 

home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_12.html  this site has some good info about the program. It did have some flights but the slow speeds on return trip and the tail heavy problums along with the fact that the ships really were not that much better at killing fighters just killed the project. 

That is a lot from a guy who is not a great fan!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I was just making the point that the B-17 itself never carried that much armor for anyone but the pilots (excluding the YB-40). In general, crew members on a B-24 were better protected.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

the B-24 could take allot more damge than a B-17, then again, so could a tiger moth...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

considering B-17's were stronger than lancs, that really doesnt say a lot about the lancaster does it


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

I wouldn't say the B-24 could take more damage than a B-17. The B-17 was quite possibly the toughest airframe in the war. That being said, crew armor on the B-24 was much improved. As an example, the Martin upper turret on the B-24 had a 3/8in steel plate mounted in front of the gunner that moved with him wherever he turned. Neither the Sperry nor Bendix upper turrets on a B-17 were so well protected.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

the turrets on the B-17 were tiny though, there was no room for armour for it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

tiny turrets = harder to hit


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2004)

The B-17 was in need of being replaced as the B-24 was to do that, but production was needed for both. Also I think boeing would not have let the B-17 go.

Now here is a thought for a position the radio man or gunner on a Grumman TBM


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2004)

hope this image comes out but it is from our data base on Sturmgruppen actions against US heavy bombers. This is the rear of a B-24 getting peppered by Luftwaffe 2cm and 3cm rounds after the tail gunner position has been knocked out. As I had said earlier by July of 44 the tail position was usually the first to get cloberred as most of the Luftwaffe day fighter attacks were now from the rear. once the tail position was no longer active, a German fighter could easily sit behind the tail and blast away without any interference except and Allied escort.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2004)

continuation................the Fw 190A-8 pilot made his attack from the right side of the bomber and shot out the right inner-engine and hit the tail section, this section of cine film shows the tail getting eliminated and the left inner engine being struck. Another pic I have of the same incident shows the attack completing down the left wing with strikes against the the left outboard engine with the result that the B-24 drops off to the left and explodes.............pretty terrifying


----------



## Maestro (Jun 8, 2004)

A picture like this one ?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

And granted the B-24's tail didn't have the armor to withstand that but it was more likely to stop machine gun rounds or flak splinters than a B-17. 

C.C. Tiny turrets doesn't mean smaller, more difficult to hit people (and protecting the person is the reason for armor anyway).

M.P. I would say the radio man had the worse spot of the two as the turret on a TBM was equipped with bullet-resistant class.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

That's actually a very good picture, Erich. Even if it is tiny. Attacking the tail must have still be risky buisness for the Germans, after all coming straight at you, the tail gunner had an easy target. 

The B-17 could take a lot of damage, Lanc. I think the pictures of the damage sustained by returning bombers shows how tough they were.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

That's a great pic Maestro. I think that damage was caused by flak though and a direct hit from an 88 would do that to just about any airplane.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

interviews from Luftwaffe pilots confirm that if the cowling mg's were still installed tha they would use these to take out the tail gunners position due to the longer range of the 13mm's over the cannons. once the tail gunners was removed then the cannons were used to finish the job. maestro's photo is indeed from a flak burst hitting the bomb load but must admit that when a Sturm Fw 190 attacked with the heavy 3cm Mine shells the same effect happened. the 3cm round created such terribl carnage within the aluminum skin that it must of been pure hell for those crew members who lived through a company front attack.

two cents worth........

Erich ~


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

continuation and sorry again for the small pic. This is another photo from the one I posted above........... ashould of posted this before as it is out of order.

will look to see for another and different scenario against the B-24's.........

back soon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

i can't make it out, what is it??


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

the right wing fuel tank has been hit by a Mine shell. As I said the pics are out of order, and this is probably number 3 in a series of 8 pics. The cine film goes fairly fast and we had to spot shot the film to get in sequence to determine just where the German rounds were landing. Sorry to say my data pics are not coming up like I had intended.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

i'm sorry i stil can't make out either pic...........................


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

another pic out of order, plain to see the right inner engine has exploded and vaporized in the smoke before the German pilot fires off on the tail gunner and other wing


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

this is a crap picture but look at the right stabilizer as it is hit with a high explosive round. The tail position has already been hit and it appears the German pilot is going to attack from the right rear of the bomber but he does not, in other sequences he pulls the FW 190 to the left and rakes the left side of the fuselgae and left inner engine before banking off.....


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 9, 2004)

Nice pics but it is a painnfull site to see the B-24 all shot up like this. 

As for the TBM, ok the radioman was bad, thinking that he was sitting in the middle more chance to be hit from frount and back. Also they had to fly so low and slow and just pray for top fighter cover.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

MP yeah it is pretty dreadful I have another 30 sec's of cine film showing a rear attack on a B-24 all silver, and the Fw 190 literally tears this B-24 to shreds, with the left engines literally come off the wing due to the HE rounds. Gross and graphic, those bomber boys did not have a chance


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 10, 2004)

There is the fairly common footage of a B-17 getting chewed up that turns my stomach because you can plainly see that the tail isn't firing and the ball isn't even moving.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 10, 2004)

That is why I must respect all the men who flew on those missions  It did get a little or a lot better with the new fighters P-47D, but still all that flack


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2004)

MP it was a terrbile year of summer through winter 1944 to February 1945 with the three heavy Fw 190 gruppen. I've got quite a few first person accts from US and German vets and simply you just did not want to be part of a posstion on a 4 engine bomber when coming under a Luftwaffe single engine fighter attack. nearly all combats took place from the rear and if possible to the Germans, out of the sun. It proved still on several occassions with the numerical superiortiy of the Allied escorts that even they could not be everywhere at once. The 445th bg lost 30 B-24's out of 38 on a raid to Kassel on 27 September 1944. The Fw 190 gruppen came in from the rear and tore the B-24 unit up when they made a wrong turn. IV.Stum/JG 3 made the first attack and shot down over 17 B-24's and went through the formation so fast they were not fully detected and lost no Fw's. within 1 minute JG 4 and JG 300's Fw 190's came through and finished the lot and only during the last 1 minute or so did the P-51's of the 361st fg (yellow jackets) save the day from total annihilation. the P-51's claimed 18 Fw 190's and Bf 109G-6's from I./JG 300, II.Sturm/JG 4 and II.Sturm/JG 300.

Personally I will take the seat of a fighter pilot any day........

have some of the suriving crewmen accts and they are filled with terrible memories....


----------



## Erich (Jun 11, 2004)

one of a sad sequence as a B-24 lib gets creamed by a Sturm Fw 190


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

> There is the fairly common footage of a B-17 getting chewed up



you notise there's comparitvly little of the lanc in the same situation.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

No, just a lot of Lancs taking Shrage Musik through a fuel tank and exploding . . .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

but still, there's little footage of it 8)................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

where have you got that idea from when he said:...



> No, just a lot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

he said they take lots of Shrage Musik through a fuel tank and exploding, i said there's little footage of it......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2004)

That's because that was happening at night.


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2004)

am not sure of any occassion where the German night fighter crews took a camera in hand on any mission throughout the war. All you have is first hand accts. of RAF crewmen in other RAF bombers viewing a Lanc or Halibag getting vaporized in the ensuing explosion. 

there of course Mossie cine films of GErman nf's getting hammered.

also realize the few raids during the day by Lanc forces. don't worry there are some but very little German day time fighter camera cines of Lancs getting blasted............does that make you feel better ?

E ♪


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

Lanks going down, yes spread the pain  Erich thanks for your help. I was reading about the P-51 and some say that the two major detractants of it were the lack of cannon and that it could not take a lot of hits. What are your's and other's thoughts?

As for being in a fighter you might be safe for a while 
The bombers did take a tarrible price for what they did.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 14, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Lanks going down, yes spread the pain  Erich thanks for your help. I was reading about the P-51 and some say that the two major detractants of it were the lack of cannon and that it could not take a lot of hits. What are your's and other's thoughts?
> 
> As for being in a fighter you might be safe for a while
> The bombers did take a tarrible price for what they did.



Just something you forgot (or may be you didn't know) about the P-51 that I want to point out...

The lack of cannons of the P-51 was corrected by the RAF... they added 20 mm cannons to the P-51B and called it the "Mustang III".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

> German night fighter crews took a camera in hand on any mission throughout the war



didn't germans have cameras in the nose sincronised witht the guns??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

I don't think the absence of cannon hurt the Mustang very much. The Browning .50cal compared very well to the cannons available (better rate of fire plus equal or better muzzle velocity and range). The API ammo was very effective against the German fighters. Also, the lighter ammo allowed a considerable higher amount of ammo to be carried (which is important for an escort fighter). All it all, the .50 cal worked perfectly fine.

As for durability, the P-51 itself was fairly rugged like most Western designs. It carried adequate pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. The only true weak point was the coolant system but that was a common weakness to nearly all liquid-cooled engines.


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2004)

because the 109 and 190 in late 43-44 were used as bomber killers the addition of heavier or more of cannon were placed on these tired machines. the P-47 and P-51's could easily blow any German a/c away with their .50's before the German a/c could get in range with their 2cm and 3cm weapons.

this was of primary reason the development of air to air rockets was established in the spring of 1943 on the 109/190 and then later on the Bf 110G-2 so these a/c could lob these rocket rounds amongst the US bombers, blow holes in the 'pulk' and then during the chaos close in and shoot up the remaing bombers, some of them crippled. the is was theory anyway. In 1945 of course we have talked about the missile developed for the Me 262A with the same results. fire the missiles out of range of the .50's and then close in for the kill with the 3cm cannons.......

E ♪


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

So we've established that the .50cal armament was not a liability on the P-51.


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2004)

no it wasn't a liability at all ! firing .50's like cutting butter with a warm knife


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Just a few facts. A one second burst from the 6 .50cals of a P-51 would unleash 75 rounds adding up to 7.28lbs of lead on target. Or if you prefer it in terms of kinetic energy, 1370kW.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

where did you learn that??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

There is a website that lists some very interesting statistics on WWII aircraft armament. Of course the numbers are fairly simple to come up with it you have the basics of the gun and a little skill with mathematics.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

have you got the adress for the website??


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

type in Tony Williams in google and see what comes up. He has a site and a forum and is one of your English kin. A very knowledgeable gent


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Or just go here . . . 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

Thanks all. I did read about the RAF's use of the 20mm on the Mustang III. I just have been thinking of the holes that the German fighters were putting into the US ones and that a 2cm shell makes a good whole and could take lessshots to knock out the target. But I was not thinking about range and volume of fire, edge to 0.50 cals. But still I wounder why the US aircraft did not look into more cannon use. This would be true for the ground attack versions of the P-47 and others who could use the harder hitting cannon for tanks and bunkers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, even a 20mm cannon is limited in its usefullness for ground straffing. It was better than .50cal but still didn't have the power for knocking out a Panther or Tiger. This US didn't show much interest in developing a good medium sized cannon furing the 1930s, placing more emphasis on 37mm for air-to-air (which was just stupid). But once the war got going, the .50cals made perfect since for the US planes. They were very rarely going to be facing any aircraft too large to bring down by .50cal fire and the smaller ammo allowed a much larger ammo load to be carried. That is important for an escort fighter which may have to engage in a lengthy, running battle without the chance to disengage to rearm.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

ok LG I read the info on the gun hitting power you posted and I am understanding better. But with the P-47 being this great ground attack platform why not put on two 4cm cannon? I know it would be low-velocity and have a small payload, but the hitting power would be there. But then the P-47 did assapt bombs and rockets so that might have been ok.

Just thinking of the Hurricaines with the 4x40mm cannons ripping into tanks.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

You mean the two 4cm cannons. Guns weren't needed to be high calibre if you had rockets, and bombs to do the drop on heavier armoured tanks. 
The majority of tanks could be destroyed by 37mm cannon from the top, so the really high calibre guns were a needless extravegance.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

America never put much interest in developing true ground attack planes. Some designs were in the works but it was quickly becoming apparent that rockets and bombs could be used on existing fighters to knock out armor, and the regular armament could take out anything lighter and still be used in the air-to-air arena.


----------



## Erich (Jun 17, 2004)

wonder if I am asking too much here.......... ?

would the worst position be associated with which type of bomber ? Some such as the Lanc and halifax had their belley turrets removed and were open to underneath attacks(Schräge Musik) and so the whole crew was at risk through 43 till war's end. The B-26 tail gunners eveidently were quite proficient and the tail position was quite dependable with their rearward 'stinger'. Wasit position was not an enviable spot during 1943 early 44 when the Luftwaffe made side attacks quite frequent. Would think hte belly turret because of it's limitations would be susceptible to under -belly air attacks aas well as Flak bursts ! yuk, no thanks guyz

thoughts ?

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

I would agree with that. I don't think the nose of a B-17 would be very safe. The pilots did have some armor in front of them but the bombardier and navigator had nothing but aluminum and plexiglass. When a group of 190s or 109s came in head on, that must have been scary. I think things would have been a little safer in the nose of a B-24 with that heavy Consolidated or Emerson turret, both of which had some armor, right up front.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

i think erich's right, the worst place on a american bomber would be the ball turret, for a brittish bomber the tail......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

As Erich has shown with his sad pictures of the B-24s the tail was not a great place, but I am not going to say the ball was the worst. I have read of ball gunners saying it gave a great view and you had the first shots at what was coming up, mostly the flak. But B-24 gunners did have the highest kill amounts from what I have read. 

Now I would say the bombadier on the run when he had control and the plane could do little to avoid the flak and fighters. Than any spot on retur because it is a given that the fighters would come to taer in again on the shot up birds.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

actually the bomb aimers on brittish bombers had a better servival rate than any other crew member as the escape hatch was righ under his posistion....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

MP-Willow, did you mean kills over German fighters? Because that's not what I've seen. I don't have the numbers of hand, but I believe B-17s shot down more German fighters and had a higher kill rate (kills/sorties flown) than the B-24s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

but a post war study found out that only 1 in every 6000 shots made it on target................................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

I've not seen that stat and it may be true. But the American bombers did manage to shoot down a lot of German fighters. Certainly they did better than the German bombers did during the BoB.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

They sure did, they were bit more heavily armed though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2004)

if we use the He-111 as the model for the BoB bomber, it had 5 hand aimed machine guns and if i remeber correctly, only 3 gunners, the B-17 had up too 12 machine guns, 8 of which were in power operated turrets, not a very fair comparison................................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

LG-I will try to find the referance for the B-24 kills but I do know they had a good amount. It is hard to compair the He-111 and the allied bombers. Maybe the 111 to the Weligton or B-25, but not the 4 engines heavies. 


Ok here is a twist what position is the worse in a German, Italian or Japanese bomber? I would vote for any just to be in the plane as trouble. Some of the ames of the Japanese craft like one shot wonder. The Japanese bombers had surviveable issues.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Well, I don't know about safety, but I know I wouldn't have wanted to be the belly gunner on a He-111. I've seen the position close up and it looks uncomfortable and vulnerable.

I think it is fair to compair the kill totals of the He-111 and the B-17 (which had as many as 13 MGs standard and some even more in field modifications but only 6 were in powered turrets as the tail postion had no power). Such a comparison shows that the B-17 was much more suited to the role of daylight strategic bomber than the He-111.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

but even with al those guns it still needed fighter escort, as did most daylight bombers....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

The He-111 was never designed as a strategic daylight bomber anyway. It was a close support bomber.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

But since the Germans lacked a strategic bomber it was required to fulfill that role and was inferior in it. Yes the B-17s needed escort, but even without it, they were never turned back and still presented a danger to the attack German planes.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

Never turned back because they just kept going no matter what. Schweinfurt for example, what was that 40% loss?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

Ok so they were a bit mission focused and crazy at times, but the Ballbaering runs the war, along with oil. Kill one and you are rippled kill both you win the field.

AS for the STratigic bomber I am still dumbfounded as to why the Fw 200 and other 4 engine bombers were lot more fully developed. The 200 had its problums and Hitler did not think he needed them or that they were good, but he did know the limitations with out and what England had. The bases and plants in western England and Acotland would have been in range more. But again this is just me, I like the 4 engine heavies and the Fw 200 had a lot of promise.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

the germans didn't consider them nessisary, during the 30's they were expecting war with neighbouring nations, so a heavy bomber wasn't nessisary.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

40% losses? I don't think so, out of approximately 360 bombers, 60 were shot down. That's 16% losses. A lot of the planes that returned had to be written off but I seriously doubt that ammounted to another 24% of the force. The heaviest loss rate I know of what the B-24 mission to Ploesti. Approximately 1/3 of the B-24s employeed where shot down and many more written off.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

40% of serious damage, complete loss and written off. 60 shot down, that's 600 lives. On top of that the Germans didn't bomb in such huge raids as that. It's not really comparable in my opinion. The B-17 being designed for strategic bombing and tactics being drawn up for it was obviously superior.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

That number sounds better. The costs in human terms was higher than 600 since a lot of the bombers that made it back were carrying dead crewmen with them. It was a horrific mission, but I don't think there was another plane in the world at the time that could have done it with the probable exception of the B-24.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

I don't deny that. I'm saying though through bravery a determination (And trust in their plane) they would keep going. While the Germans who weren't really in large enough numbers, or a suitable plane would find turning back a more resonable idea.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

I believe the Germans matched those numbers during the BoB, they did have something like 1300 bombers on hand but they never practiced the mass formations that the Americans did.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

That's what I meant. Plus those 1,300 include Stukas.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

amount other poor designs, such as the Do-17


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Not that many Stukas, only about 300 maybe. That would leave something like 1,000 twin-engined bombers.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

Polesti on 1 August 1943 was a ery bad day for B-24s! Of the 178 planes that laft 58 did not return and most that did were all shot up. That low level raid did do some damage, but crews growned and shuttered when they were told in mission breifings that the Target would be Polesti as they were to go back more times to kill the oil. I am looking for more information and details about that mission and return trips. Also polesti was hit almost a year before but with only 13 b-24s I think, it did little damage from high altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2004)

i know it's a extreme case but of the 18 planes that left for the dambusters raid, 8 planes, 56 men didn't come back................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

The Augsburg raid on April 4, 1942 was even more extreme - 7 out of 12 shot down. I know that was a daylight raid but I think the point is well made that heavy bombers were virtual death traps in low-level missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

but often the only way to get the job done.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 26, 2004)

Maybe, but the actual damage this raids accomplished have often been highly debated.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

they had a huge effect on moral, which can only be a good thing, the only reason they weren't as successful as they could have been was becasue germany had an amazing ability to recover from attacks, look at the dams raid, within 48hours they had comething like 20,000 workers on the site......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

Heavy bobers at low levels, is always bad  But now a missle will to the trick. The damb raids were a show the the RAF was lookig at every angle to try ad stop the Germans. As was Gerany.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2004)

the dams raid was almost prurey for show, we knew it wouldn't have a huge effect...............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

I've read that Wallis was hoping to end the war with that strike.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

So thouhts on each end?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

yes i'd heard about wallis, but everyone else know it would do very little, even the doc. realised that in the end......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

But it was done and made Germany think of moving troops or AA gus around and they had to take the time and resourse to fix the dambs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

but that's one of the things they did very well, one of them was fixed in a matter of weeks................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

The point was, Wallis (at least) was hoping to bring the war to a hault in a matter of weeks. Instead, a substantial part of the damage had been repaired in a matter of weeks. The raid did exactly what it was supposed to do, it's effects just weren't what had been hoped for.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

it gave the newspapers a field day however............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 2, 2004)

In terms of publicity and propaganda it was a phenomenal success. It also proved thet bomber command could hit a pinpoint target at night (ironically, that precision strike still resulted in massive area damage).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

and the best part was that the raid didn't have to be played up, it realy was as good as they said....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

So why not go back and try to take out the dambs again or kep them out?
The RAF did very good Area bombing, even the US daylight raids were area bombing though that turm was not liked or used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

i think you're the first american on the sight to openly admit that.....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 3, 2004)

Not trying to be cheeky, just pointing this out.

Sight as in Eyesight, or the ability to see.

Site as in Website, or a place like a Bomb-site, or any other type of place.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

you'll get over it............................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

Lank thanks. I have been reading a little and some tv stuff has shown that it really was just a play on words. The US Norton was very good when it was used in the Arizona desert but it did not do as well under war conditions. Also time has passed and we can admit to some things now yes?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

does that post seem out of context to anyone else??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

What me? Ok maybe a bit, but it was to write to you Lanc. I should have sent you a note. Anywho a new question for bomber positions, thoughts on Dive bombers?

Havig read some and need more reading always, I think they were not that great of a place to be. But to be in a Ju-87 over Spain or latter part of Barbarosa


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 6, 2004)

> But to be in a Ju-87 over Spain or latter part of Barbarosa



If you meant "later" or "latter", I still think it's a bad choice. Technically operations have no real "end". So with this in mind, the "later" part or "latter" half of Barbarossa would be around '43-'44. Not a good time to be in a Stuka...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2004)

it would be ok over spain, as long as there were no enemy fighters, soldiers with rifles, kids with slingshots or old men with walking sticks, as all of the above could take out a stuka...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

I believe most dive-bombers had some sort of armor protecting both the pilot and the gunner didn't they?


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2004)

the Ju 87 had a better refinement of armor as the variants progressed especailly around the pilot on the D and G kanonvögel. The canopies on both had extra armor plus armored glass increased.........

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 7, 2004)

but none of that would save you from an enemy fighter..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

Depends. Most aircraft in WWII were well protected against rifle-caliber rounds and many had adequate protection against 12.7-13mm ammo.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Sorry for my poor typing, I think faster then I type and read on the scream before posting. I do not think that the Stuka had that bad of a career. If it was that bad Lanc, whay was it used for so long? Was it just because that was all they had?

If you dislike the Ju-87 that much why not the SB2C-3, most of the Helldiver problums were worked out by then.  Divebombers are one of my weaker types.


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2004)

actually a P-61 was shot down at night by a rear gunner/Ju 87D-5 in NSGr 1 or 2 on a night harrassement mission.............. so yes depending on the angle of deflection of a mg round the Stuka armor could withsand some punishment. Usually 2cm rounds would make mince meat out of it.......

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

Concentrated 20mm fire would make mince-meat out of anything flying. 

MP - the Stuka was used for so long because there was nothing to replace it. If you note, it was withdraw from service over Britain well before the BoB was over and had virtually disappeared from service against the West by 1942 (the exception being the night-flying Stukas). It only enjoyed any sort of prolonged success over the Eastern Front where the Luftwaffe maintained superiority longer than anywhere else.

The Helldiver is probably one of the most maligned aircraft of the war. The early version did have problems, but the later versions -3,-4,-5 more than made up for them. The Helldiver sank a greater tonnage of Japanase shipping than anyother aircraft.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 8, 2004)

Was the Stuka also used throughout the North African campaign, or was it knocked out there, too?. It's greatest strength of course was its incredible precision. After being withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe didn't really have anything to hit the small radar stations any more.

There was an armor plate between the pilot and gunner, but that didn't help the latter much when attacked from behind. I read somewhere recently that the rear gunners joked they themselves were the armour for the pilots.


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2004)

Yes the Stuka was used in Nord-Afrika.

It was superior on the Ost front of course during 43-45 as a Soviet tank buster. slow it was, it made an ideal dive bomber and pak platform. Even quite well as a night harassment a/c as it would cause the Mossie and P-61 nf's to nearly stall when chasing them. The Stuka crews at night would useually fly in a section of threes hoping the rear gunner/radio-operator would watch out for Allied nf's. A flick over of the wing and the Stuka was gone to the deck and usually in ground haze where it could escape or perform it's bombing/strafing runs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

The Luftwaffe had success using fighter-bomber versions of the Bf-109 and Bf-110 against the radar stations. The Luftwaffe stopped the attacks because they failed to realize how successful they were, not because they lacked the tools.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 9, 2004)

Yes, but they only had a single test unit of these planes with pilots trained in the techniques, not enough to maintain a sustained attack on the radar stations--not that the Luftwaffe ever tried to. But they were very effective, as you say, when used against radar and other targets.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 9, 2004)

The only time the Stuka could be used during the day was with air superiority. Once the idea of it being invicible had been washed away by the Hurricanes and Spitfires it was an easy kill. Except for the Soviet pilots. 

Barbarossa ended in 1942 when Operation Typhoon started.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

The Soviet pilots improved dramatically over the course of the war as did their planes. By about 1944 or so, the Stuka required air superiority to be effective there as well (and the Luftwaffe was rapidly losing that).


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

Yes, but what I was stating was that the Ju-87 was unable to perform in the Western thearte after 1940, effectively. Of course still in 1942 it was being used in the desert but with very heavy losses.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 10, 2004)

the thing was they had nothing else to use, so they had to use it................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

Same thing with the Japanese and the Zero.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 11, 2004)

Divebombers seemed to have died out by the end of the war--I wonder why. The diving attack technique still seemed legitimate. Was it because of cannon and fast-flying ground attack planes like the Tempest? Why not make a dive-bomber fast and/or armoured like the Il-2, and keep going with the basic concept?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2004)

how's that the same, the japs used the zero because it was an exelent fighter, not just because they had nothing else, the stuka was used becuase even though it was rubbish, they had nothing else.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

After 1943, the Zero was clearly outclassed. Even the A6M5 was still 20-30mph slower than the Hellcat and and 50-70mph slower than the Lightning and Corsair.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2004)

but it could stil outmanouver it....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2004)

In Burma, the Spitfire Mk. V and VIII that arrived in 1943 out-classed the Zero and there were eight Zeros lost for every Allied aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

Kill Ratio's for the Hellcat 19:1, Corsair 12:1, Lightning 11:1 - the Zero had maneuverability, but it was basically obsolete.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 12, 2004)

At the point in the war when most of those kills were being racked up, many Japanese pilots were deplorably undertrained, they had few safe bases and were _very_ outnumbered. Someone like Sakai could still maneuver his way out of being surrounded by a squadron of Hellcats.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

LG, that wasn't Spitfire 8 : 1 it was one Allied aircraft, not one Spitfire.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

Dead Parrot I would agree that the well trained pilot could still make the A6M5 dance in the sky, but it was behind in the needs of war, self sealing tanks, and engine power. The Allied planes made poor pilots still look ok. Also the A6M5 still could not take a lot of damage. Nice to see you on, we needed some new voices. 

Your sig is that Sakia?


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 12, 2004)

Yes, definitely agree about the Zero, especially the lack of armour--I was just trying to make excuses for those sky-high kill ratios of American planes...

The Japanese did have quite a few nice planes that _could_ have replaced the Zero, but as you all pointed out already, there was nowhere left to build them. The real problem of course, was Japan could never ever have beaten the US in the first place... even the military in the beginning figured that they could only conduct a 2-year war before running out of money/materiel/supplies etc. But then they got all carried away and ended up with flattened cities and idiocies like the Ohka...

That is indeed Sakai--don't know that much about him, but I thought it was a cool pic and figured Japan is a bit under-represented on the board  

Cheers for the welcome.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

they're right, we needed someone new on the board..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

Dead Parrot, if you get the chance pick up the book Samauri. I think you would enjoy it. Sakai was the highest scoring Japanese ace to survive the war (64 kills). And lets not forget that one of the reasons Allied pilots had more skill late in the war is that their aircraft made them more survivable.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 12, 2004)

Off topic, but does the thing I've circled look like a "Flying Pancake," or WHAT?! 

I know it's impossible since that is a Japanese wartime photo, but it looks like it very much!


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Off topic, but does the thing I've circled look like a "Flying Pancake," or WHAT?!
> 
> I know it's impossible since that is a Japanese wartime photo, but it looks like it very much!



Actually, I suspect this photo could be a post-war publicity shot, because of (a) its better quality and (b) the fact that Sakai looks a bit older than most of his war time pics--so you might be right on the plane...

Lightning Guy: I have read his book and really enjoyed it. Don't have a copy anymore, unfortunately...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

I doubt that is a flying pancake. But the background is of such poor quality that it would be hard to make anykind of positive ID.


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2004)

could this be one of the Japanese heavy bomber destroyers. Not familiar with the B-29 killers but I believe there was one a/c armed with four 20mm weapons that had a huge engine ? you guys would know........

E ~


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 12, 2004)

Erich said:


> could this be one of the Japanese heavy bomber destroyers. Not familiar with the B-29 killers but I believe there was one a/c armed with four 20mm weapons that had a huge engine ? you guys would know........
> 
> E ~



Hmm... The N1K2-J Shiden Kai had 4 cannon, and was used for home defense. Some Ki-61 Hien had four cannon, too, with various engines, mostly inline but some with radials.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 13, 2004)

The Ki-44 Shoki 'Tojo' was an Japense Army interceptor. It had a huge engine in relation to the rest of it's body. If this is a fighter, the rear of the plane looks too narrow to be a N1K2 and the cut-down rear fuselage eliminates the J2M for the list of suspects. I think the other possibility is the Ki-84 Hayate 'Frank.' There were versions of both the Ki-44 and the Ki-84 armed with 4 20mm weapons. Personally, my money is on the Ki-44 but I thought I'd post profiles of each so everyone can decide on their own.


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2004)

DP thanks for the great profiles ! yes I agree with you thinking it maybe the lower model. anyone else have thoughts ?

E ~


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2004)

excuse me it should of read Lighting Guy...........sorry


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 13, 2004)

No problem. That's an easy mistake to make.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 15, 2004)

could that car help to identify if it was post war?? if someone knew if it was american or not that could tell us if it was for puplicity or a wartime photo......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

I think you've got about the same situation as with the plane. You are more likely being able to say what the car isn't rather that definitely saying what it is.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 15, 2004)

i think CC would have been able to help us here.................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, since my sig started this discussion, I feel a bit obligated to try finish it...

I looked around on some Japanese sites, and it appears that the same pic is used for the cover of the latest Japanese edition of his autobiography. Here it is on the Japanese Amazon site:

http://tinyurl.com/4v2j8

Maybe I'll try to get a copy and check the picture credits.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

i think this will turn into something of an epic until it's sorted.......................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Okay, I just ordered the book, so hopefully let you know in a few days...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

should we open a book on the outcome??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm going to laugh when the caption doesn't even mention what's in the background. At best you might get a location and a date. But anyway, it would still be a great book to have.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

i think he meant he would look at the picture credits, they sometimes say when the picture was taken/copywrited...........................

and have you had any better ideas??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

That's what I mentioned, that a location and date are the best you can hope for. I've already made my suggestion that the plane appears to be a Ki-44 Shoki and I haven't heard anyone offer any better possibilities.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Yes, just to clarify, I hope to resolve the "when was it taken?" issue, not the "what is the plane?" issue


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

lets just hope it doesn't just say "1945"..........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 17, 2004)

Dead Parrot, thanks for sticking around. As has been said before we missed having a voice f rom Japan. 

Now can we try to get back to the topic. But stick with Japan a bit. What about being in one of the Patrol bombers say an H6K early in the war. They even tried to bomb Pearl in 1942, but weather foiled it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2004)

bit booring though..................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 17, 2004)

Not if you had big sexy all day and night drinking parties with women onboard just to take away teh tediousness... Those things are huge, ya know....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2004)

Spenldid, this calls for a sexy party.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 17, 2004)

Is there Family Guy in the U.K.? (England in particular)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2004)

There used to be. And I loved it so much, I've got every Season on DVD. 
When I shut down my PC it says 'Well, I'd love to stay and chat but you're a total bitch'.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 18, 2004)

Re: Japanese bombers, I reckon any position in most of them would be pretty deadly.

But the H8K would have been a bit safer (and probably one of the very few Japanese planes NOT to be used for kamikaze missions later on). I think it was H8Ks (not H6Ks) that went on the 1942 bombing mission against Hawaii. They did drop their bombs, but cloud obscured the target.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 19, 2004)

Sorry to go off topic again, but about the plane in my siggy:

The book arrived today, and apparently the picture was taken in September of 1939. It shows Sakai about to go on a flight to test the high altitude, electrically heated flight suit he is wearing.

This means the plane is not a Ki.44 or Ki.84, both army planes anyway and unlikely to be on a navy base. Now that we know the time period, I wonder if it's most likely to be an A5M of some kind? The angle of fuselage looks about right, and it had a fairly fat looking radial in front too.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 19, 2004)

Dead Parrot, I will look at what I was reading to see if it was an H8K, but I think they came into service latter? I would agree that the flying boats might be safer from the lack of being sent on one way missions, and they were well protected, the H8K that it. 

AS for being a partty boat that might be a good idea! They got that big for range. The Seiku, H8K-L could hold 64 troops max, but that was at the expance of range.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 19, 2004)

Willow--the book I'm looking at says the Hawaii bombing mission was the H8K's first mission, which would be why it seems early, maybe. Here's one link:

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/h8k/

Man, the more I read about this plane, the more I like it. Pretty impressive stuff.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

I think that front end is TOO big for an A5M. Also, there is no sign of the bump following the open cockpit. I wonder if it's even a single-engined plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2004)

BTW, I'm all for the party idea, PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 23, 2004)

Dead Parrot, yes you might be right. I read the artical and I have seen it before, but it makes me wounder why other then save wieght and be less complicated they did no make it an amphibian? We mentioned this problum before but why not look into it? 

As for your party Lanc, if you can find an H8K that is airworthy, then get back to me. As of now there are non, but I have been thinking of what itould take to make a modern replica?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2004)

We don't need a H8K for the party. Party at my place!!!


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 23, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> (snip)...but it makes me wounder why other then save wieght and be less complicated they did no make it an amphibian?..(snip)



It was an amphibian though... Do you mean why didn't they make a non-amphibian version?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2004)

> We don't need a H8K for the party. Party at my place!!!



PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > We don't need a H8K for the party. Party at my place!!!
> 
> 
> 
> PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!



You know, the beach is great for parties, too....


We just need the women...


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 24, 2004)

DP, everything I have read is the H8K was a stright flying boat. It had beaching gear, but could not land on it.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 24, 2004)

Flying boat party: Great Idea. But we might need seperate planes to keep the plane fanatics segregated. Say an H8K for the Mossie lovers, and, well, an Ar 196 should be okay for the rest...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2004)

> an Ar 196 should be okay for the rest...



LG in other words..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 24, 2004)

I'm surprised you Mossie fellows wouldn't want a Sunderland . . .


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 24, 2004)

He's got us there, mates... 



The Sunderland IS bigger...



*BUT THE BEACH IS BETTER!!!*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 25, 2004)

and we would be safer in a sunderland..................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 25, 2004)

Not exactly...

The H8K has 20 mike-mikes everywhere... (H8K2 had 5x20mm and 4x7.7mm MG)

But the Sunderlands hull does seem to be wider and taller...


(That way we can fit some tall women in.)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 25, 2004)

But the H8K was by far the more heavily armed of the two.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 25, 2004)

Are there any records of H8K encounters with Allied aircraft? I've read about Allied pilots being very hesitant to take the Emilys on, but does anyone have any stats and/or anecdotes about specific fights?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 25, 2004)

I have a pic (in a book~no scanner) of an Emily with the inner right engine in flames and other damage on account of being attack by an A-20 or A-26.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2004)

GrG has the best idea, party on the beach. You can fit tall women in open space, not too tall. I don't like tall women.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 26, 2004)

plan_D said:


> GrG has the best idea, party on the beach. You can fit tall women in open space, not too tall. I don't like tall women.




Neither do I, but I mean the kind that because they're tall, they're fit and have a nice body...




(Like Gisele Bundchen and Adriana Lima, the two Victoria secret models)




Guys, I have an announcement.


I am going on vacation later today, and because my family's house in Brasil only has 56k dial-up, I will be posting less.


I shall be gone for 36 days.


See ye all around!






Oh yeah, LANCE WON THE TOUR!!!


----------



## Maestro (Jul 26, 2004)

plan_D said:


> GrG has the best idea, party on the beach. You can fit tall women in open space, not too tall. I don't like tall women.



A long time ago (like in the 30s-40s-50s), I would have said that I don't really care if a woman is tall or not.

But now, with all the weird things we see on the streets, sometimes I really wonder if she REALLY is a woman. So I'll say that I prefer women under 5 feet 6 inches. 

And GRG, have a nice trip in Brazil. I wish you a lot of fun with cute women.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2004)

> I don't like tall women



it depends, i don't like "leggy" women, some are alright though...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I'm just more into short girls, under 5'6 and I'm good. My last girlfriend was 5'0 and she was 17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

the girl i fancy's very short, she got great legs though....................

BTW, loving the siggy Plan_D............................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Leg man, eh? 

Of course you love my siggy, it's a F.6 Lightning, you have to love it. Not from 11 Squadron though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

> Leg man, eh?



partly, not if they're really fat legs, that wont do at all, and the arse goes a long way to the whole look of the legs aswell.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Obviously I meant if they were good looking legs. The ass does have to be good on the chick, or it doesn't work.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

let me tell you, the arse on this thing's the best i've ever seen....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

She 14? If so, I can't comment. I'm too old. But good luck. Nice arses are always good, the best part on outside looks. I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

cheers, we're on summer holiday now so i wont see her for 6 weeks  but i'm not sure if she likes me...................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Nerd. That's a poor excuse. Don't know if you don't ask her. Don't you even know where she lives? If I was like that about someone I used to at least find out where they lived, their phone number..and such...it's what you do when you stalk people


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

yes i know where she lives, but i can hardly go up to her door wearing a suit, present her with flowers and chocklate can i?? and i've had opertunity to ask her out, i just haven't got the balls........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

You could just walk up normally, and be normal, and not wear a suit, and most importantly, be normal. Then ask her out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

i wish it was that simple.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

No, you wish otherwise so you can have an excuse.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

there's this other girl called sophie and things are going really well between us, we've both said we wana go out with each other, but she's already got a boyfriend who she's trying to dump........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

...and you're looking at another girl. Disgrace.  Just ask the other girl out, she doesn't have to know about Sophie..or whatever. I did that once, stole a chick off someone.  He was one of my friends as well, and he wasn't even bothered.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2004)

just realised, why am i talking to someone i don't even know about my relationships on the internet where everyone can see??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I don't know, Lanc. Why are you? 

A lot of people do that to me. Then again, they don't actually know who you are. And neither do I, so it doesn't effect you.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I did that once, stole a chick off someone.  He was one of my friends as well, and he wasn't even bothered.



... But I guess he is no longer your friend, eh ?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

He's still my friend. The thing was, she was getting really friendly with me and was moving further from him. And I wasn't even trying, so he just accepted it.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

*

* My first spam...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

The unfortunate thing being, I'm telling the truth. Me and the girl got on really well, and they weren't having the best of a relationship. So, it was only natural.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

you must have good friends.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

We are. And they were still good friends too, even though she was then going out with me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

are you still going out??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

No. She moved away last year. I'M FREE!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

i'm sure she loves you too.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

That would be awkward if she saw this, and knew it was me. Especially if she did love me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

to be honest i can't really picture her coming on to this site.............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

And you've never even met her. It's true, she wasn't very interested in anything in the way of war, or aviation. And she made that perfectly clear. I didn't complain though. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

lol, she must have been pretty fit then.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Under-statement of the century on your part. She was nice personality wise as well... ... ... just didn't like this stuff. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

what not to like about it..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

...erm...I never thought of asking her that. I imagine the answer would be the fact that people die with it. Or that she couldn't get sexual pleasure out of it, unless she sat on a humming engine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

ok i think we better get off this particalar line of conversation, it could turn nasty...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

You led it here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

fair enough....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

So the first reason I stated could be considered an answer. I suppose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

The death thing!


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jul 29, 2004)

What about Ball turret gunner- normally there was only one on the bottom, so you would be exposed to all the gunfire from below


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

But gunfire from below was just as likely to come up through the fuselage floor and strike a waist gunner, navigator, pilot, etc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2004)

but this way you see it coming................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

And that makes it better how? It's not as if the ball-turret gunner could get out of the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2004)

that's what makes it the worst posistion..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 30, 2004)

I don't quite see how. No one else was going to dodge a burst of flak or a stream of cannon shells.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2004)

but this bloke could see it coming..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 31, 2004)

And what advantage is that? The guy who doesn't see it coming is just as dead.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

That's the disadvantage, is what Lanc is saying. He gets to see his own death, I suppose.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Ball Turrent guy gets a chance to warn his crewmates that he is about to die... 

"Tell Lulu Mae I love her guys... This Jerrys got me..."


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Unless its an 'eighty-eight' because they'll all be dead if it is.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

lol....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 31, 2004)

Even if it's a 20mm, I don't think he's going to have the chance to get off a warning like that.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2004)

And even if a joke slapped you in the face you wouldn't just laugh.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

That was some funny shizit pland...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2004)

he makes a good point aswell...............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2004)

I always make good points, in my mind. But most of the time it's just complete crap.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 1, 2004)

I would agree with that  .


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2004)

You need to take a joke.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 2, 2004)

Hello all, I have been away reading other things and would say that I have read of Bal gunners warning the crews as the fighters and flack came up. The crews would just tell the gunner to shut up, they are not happy to know that the stuff is starting. We have on this topic talked of ball gunners, but why not again. 

As for the Emily's, I have not found any new info except that Dead Parrot was corect that the H8K's first operational mission was infact to bomb Pearl. 

You spent over three pages about girls and they were not even on bombers!! I am all for talking about girls as they pertain to nose art! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2004)

£5 to the person that can find the hottest piece of nose art.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 3, 2004)

ok, now what is "The hotest"? What type of rules do we have? I have some collected and if you can give some more info may even show some.

Now I would for kicks like to know what if any thoughts of the female members are on this or for that matter male. Tis being the use of nose art, it seems to have been an American thing mostly.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

I want my 5 pounds delivered personally to my door...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Or this one...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Or this...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Hopefully not this one...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Heres a cool couple shots...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 3, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I'm just more into short girls, under 5'6 and I'm good. My last girlfriend was 5'0 and she was 17.


Woah...

I'm 13 and 5.4in...



That would look with me as the beau, imagine an 18/19 year old...




(Hee-hee, I got to use a word I never use..~beau, how wacky I am...)


For those who like legs, Ana Hickmann (model) claims to have 1,20m of leg.


I mean each leg is 1,20m.



Weird.


Anywho, I see lanc isn't part of Ac-Dc...  (Song~Big Balls) [joking mate, I got the same thing~shyness sucks]




In response to the last post, I have no idea!


The internet is good for these things kinda.

Shyness goes away since you aren't face to face...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok i think we better get off this particalar line of conversation, it could turn nasty...............






 Too bad HS isn't here to be smutty...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 3, 2004)

OK, since I'm on dial-up here in Brasil, I'm not gonna get the url....



Go to the "Color Nose Art" section of the album and look for a B-25 with M.M.R. and a woman on the nose.


That's my entry.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

I remember reading a story about about NZ P-40 pilots nearly sticking their wings through the cockpits of American B-24s trying to get a better look at the pin-up girls painted on.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

i'm atleast 5'10 and i'm a very young 14, CC's 6'3 and he's nearly 15....................






is anyone else slightly suspect of what he's doing with his right hand infront of that piece of nose art??


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm 6'6" and 38...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

darn the pic didn't work, just look at the right hand of the man sitting on the wing of the P-47 in one of les's pics..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

All u have to do is click on the link and it pops up.. Funny stuff the LAnc.... Good eyes.... And ummm........

Why u lookin at his crotch instead of the naked woman???


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 5, 2004)

I'm at least 1 m 50... don't no what I am in feet...
Which do you Prefer? Metric or Imperial?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2004)

imperial i think................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

I'm 6'1. Yes, the more used system is Imperial. Although I can understand both Metric and Imperial as most British can.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 5, 2004)

Glad you all liked the bombergirl site, please sign the gestbook. It will have more stuff soon and is one of my favorate places to see some great art. Now for the pics the first few are B-24s  

That bit about a P-40 pilots who wanted to get better looks at the pin-ups on B-24s I have not read or been told but it makes sence. The crews had some great imaginations. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

I've also read that some group commanders actually had to censor the images.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 6, 2004)

They (nose art images) became illegal near the end of the war, but some time after that, returned to the noses of USAF aircraft everywheres about...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

> I've also read that some group commanders actually had to censor the images



that doesn't suprise me.......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 6, 2004)

LG, I wounder how god of a job that cencoring was? Most of what I have seen is pritty tastful. Granted it might be cleaned up or picked over before shown. If only more Forces did it. Do you know if the Navy had nose art?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

There was very little nose-art used in the USN. Carry-based planes had almost none. I only know of one squadron that attempted to use any, VF-27 stationed aboard the USS Princeton I believe. They painted the familiar shark mouths on their Hellcats. However, when word reached the navy brass that were ordered to repaint the aircraft in the standard navy camo. From the pictures I've seen, it seems that most USN aircraft didn't even have names. Now things were a bit looser for land-based navy units. Numerous PB4Ys boasted some rather risque nose-art.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

the RAF didn't do it much eaither, many bombers were given names, normally the pilots mother/girlfriend, or the name of an actress, but that was it....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Because we weren't/aren't lax in the military.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 7, 2004)

Thanks. LG- I can understand things being that loos for land units. I will have to try and find the PB4Y art. 

It is a shame that the RAF did not alow art did they atlest let them paint the names on the side, or display mission markers?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

oh yeah, you only have to look at the BBMF lancaster, that's exactily the type of thing they did, exept the mickey mouse is more than was normally done......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Well if you allow too many liberties then you lose discipline. And the British force is all about discipline, the commander of 6 Marine on D-Day told his troops to shine their shoes and have a shave if it's the last thing they do. And they did it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 7, 2004)

www.navylib.com

There are numerous pictures of PB4Ys on that site and some of them show the noseart.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 8, 2004)

this is the BBMF's lancaster, the bombing tally can be seen on most bombers, however the micky mouse is more than would be allowed, it would normally be allot smaller however the name's about right, nothing sexually explicit...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 9, 2004)

I imagine Bomber Command was more concerned about the low-visibility of their aircraft than the 8th AF was. That could explain the general lack of nose art.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 9, 2004)

I just realised something- on the list for the poll, they forgot the pilot and co-pilot...


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 9, 2004)

Thanks LG. Lanc did that bomber survive the war or was it rebuilt? I count over 100 missions 

I just like the art and the way different crews or more corectly pilots gave the planes carecture.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2004)

PA474 was built in mid 1945, it never saw saw service although it was earmarked for the tiger force, the war ended before it left, it spent the rest of it's life being moved between companies, it was used as a refueling testbed, it tested countless new wings amoung other duties, before being given back to the RAF for extensive restoration, the biggest tasks, to find and fit the turrets, it's hoped that it will live long into the future.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 10, 2004)

Thanks. So the nose art and mission marks are just for represntation of the lancaster or is is painted to represnet an aircraft that did see combat? I know you said the mose is biger then would have been used? 

AS for the turrets can the be replicated?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 10, 2004)

the turrets are originals, as is most of the equiptment (the only items that aren't original are those that have to be modern for safety reasons, there's also a second set of controlls, it's to precious not to), which explains why they were so hard to find, the paint scemes are changed every couple of display seasons, they represent many different squadrans, it always keeps the registration PA474, the canadian lancaster Mk.X C-GVRA (the only other flying exapmle) is civilain owned and is not as well preserved (or shiney *druel*) as the BBMF's example.........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 11, 2004)

Thanks. So are you on the list to get a ride when the oprotunity comes?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 12, 2004)

THERE'S A LIST FOR THAT, WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 13, 2004)

I was just askig. Because it sounded like there was a list. Maybe you should ask. I would love to have a ride even though the Lancaster is not my lost loved bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

i'd give anything to fly one....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

I know there are some touring B-17s and B-24s that you can get a ride on . . . runs about $500 though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

Ouch... $500 beans is alot, but probably worth it...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

I think it would be . . . but I don't exactly have that kinda scratch to throw around.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

OK...... If u had $500 bucks given to u and ur choice of what aircraft to fly in, what would u pick??? The 38????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

beiung a single seater he'd have to be the pilot, i doubt they let you do that.........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

I believe there was a 2 seater training variant....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

Bf-109 Two-Seater...


Yum.

Too bad none survived the war.




There was indeed a Gustav Trainer with twin controls.

That or a two-seater Fw-190.




But any, and any at all?



Me-262 Single Seater.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

There were a few P-38s modified as a two seater but the ride was extremely cramped. There is one heavily modified P-38 still flying. It has the nose of a BTO radar equipped P-38 except the nose is clear plexiglass and then a space behind the pilot that looks a lot like the R/O station on the P-38M. I believe it should be able to carry a couple of passengers. That would be some ride.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

more room in a lancaster though.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

More speed and manuverability in a P-38, though...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

And a hell of a more thrilling ride....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 15, 2004)

i recon a ride in a lancaster would be just as fun as in a P-38, and i'm not saying the lancaster was more manouverable than the P-38, but the lancaster was one of the most manouverable bombers.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 15, 2004)

Well you Ride Happy people. The Collins Foundation in the states has rdes on the B-24  and B-17 for $400 or you can tour it on the ground and talk with the crew. EAA is about the same for there B-17. 

Yes the Bf-109G-12 was a two seat trainer and I love it. Back seat was cramped, but it is the only two seat trainning model they made. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 16, 2004)

but by then the war was as good as lost for the germans, so it was useless training new pilots...................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 17, 2004)

It is never useless to train pilots. But I find it strange that it was a G-12 that was used and not done sooner. G-12 came into service in 43 I think yes?


----------



## Plane Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

No way,man. I'd rather be in a p-51d or a Spitfire Ixe in the same situation than be a sitting duck!


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 17, 2004)

I recall reading somewhere recently that a group in Europe are restoring a two-seater Bf-109...


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 17, 2004)

A group in Germany creates parts for 109s and I think they might be working on a 109. They also make replicant Fw-190s if any one is interested. 

As for the Spitfire IXe a good pick and better then the P-51D, but I would take one of the Italian fighters say the Re 2002 or the 205V if it was built to the same quality as the US plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 17, 2004)

Those may have been the best fighters the Italians had to offer, but there were plenty of other fighters that were better.


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 17, 2004)

Yes I will give you that, but if they could have been produced in the same numbers and crewed with the same leavel of pilot is what I was thinking. As it was the Italians were out of the war before these plane really got rolling. 

They would have made being in a bomber in Italy much more difficult.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2004)

> They also make replicant Fw-190s if any one is interested.



i've read about them, they look really realistic, you'd never tell they were fake without a close up inspection, they're planning to make 12 in total...................


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 20, 2004)

But they are not "fake" they are reall airworthy planes. If you use Fake to say they are not aircaft built from 1935 to 1945, then yes, they are "fake". I like the turm repicates, and why not build new airfrimes. I would rather see one of these go racing in Reno or on a BoB flight, then a bird with real war history that should be presurved. WE have few aircraft who flew in the war and can tell that story.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 20, 2004)

how can you say that, any original aircraft that can fly should do just that, look at PA474, it does allot of flying, doesn't mean it's not being preserved, the RAF maintain her to an unbelievable standard, all parts are original, the only part that's not original is the addition of a secondary controll system..............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

The Reno air races....now thats spectacular


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2004)

exactily, you can't keep planes on the ground, they belong in the air...........


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 22, 2004)

Lanc, yes they should be preserved! What I want you to understand is that if we make replicas of say a bf 209 or a Spitfire then they can be flown more, harder and under war conditions for say the airraces or Living History stuff. The planes with cobat can still and should still be flown and maintained, but we could really see how a spitfire stood up to a bf 109, or an A6M. With this thought we could preserve these planes for future generations. 

We might not be able to recreate all the types but some of the fighters maybe yes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2004)

> Lanc, yes they should be preserved



and they are, very well, like i said, look at PA474, it's in perfect condition...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> exactily, you can't keep planes on the ground, they belong in the air...........



the reno air races arent a light-hearted potter over the desert...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

> a light-hearted potter



WTF is a "potter"???


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 23, 2004)

I agree with you all, but if say at an air race we could race a P-51 and Ki-84 both that are replicas then they can be pushed in nearly war like condiditions. If they were to crash or the pilots have to bail we would not be lossing an ireplaceable plane, but just a coppy. what do you think of that?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 23, 2004)

a "potter" is english slang for "going slowly"


----------



## MichaelHenley (Sep 24, 2004)

My mum uses that a bit.... and shes only remotely british!
ARRG!


----------



## Crazy (Sep 24, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> I agree with you all, but if say at an air race we could race a P-51 and Ki-84 both that are replicas then they can be pushed in nearly war like condiditions. If they were to crash or the pilots have to bail we would not be lossing an ireplaceable plane, but just a coppy. what do you think of that?



I think I should love to own a racing replica P-51 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

id prefer the real thing, then when you crash you have the fun of restoring it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2004)

i doubt you'd be able to restore it after a crash................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

i would, im a wiz with a welder and a rivet gun...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

i doubt you'd be able to find al the parts................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

i would bodge them  like i said:



> im a wiz with a welder and a rivet gun...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

so you'd make a merlin engine??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

yeah, its do-able  anyway i expect getting parts for merlins isnt too hard...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

that's only because the merlin's a very common engine (as far as WWII engines go)...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

exactly 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 27, 2004)

it'd still cost quite a bit............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 27, 2004)

who said id pay for them?


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 27, 2004)

That is the whole point if you have the replica then it can be flown hard and fast and if you get cracked up not as bad as loosing say a 60 year old Spifire that flew 100 combat missions.

My real dream would be to build a bomber, but I will stick to the RC plance for that. 

CC: what plane is that in your Sig? is it a Yak-7? Hitting what?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 27, 2004)

Il-2 hitting some He-111's 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 28, 2004)

sure is 8) that was the first time i ever attempted ground kills


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2004)

First time while flying a Sturm??? What the hell u been shootin at then???? U aint tryin to dogfight in that pig are u???


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

I dogfight in the IL-2. I think I have 3 air kills...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

You mean uve gotton lucky 3 times.....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

No, I actually chased one of them for a while...and got him with my 37mm.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

That musta been painful....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

I think he got sexually excited.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

Huh??? The guy u shot down??? I seriously doubt that after u shot his ass down with a 37mm there wasnt anything left to get excited with....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

Maybe that was a scream of extreme fear and pain, oh well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 29, 2004)

i get the feeling they would have been screams of pain.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 29, 2004)

Les, i dont dogfight in the Il2, god no  i mean i usually focus on dogfighting, flying stuff like the FW-190D9 and Bf-109 G-12. I use the 262 occasionally too. That was the first time id tried a ground kill so thats why i used the IL2...


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 29, 2004)

CC, thanks I need to work on my VVS aircraft ID.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 29, 2004)

Welcome 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

OK CC that makes more sense....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

"Sense" being a relative term of course


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 1, 2004)

and what was wrong with using the stuka............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 1, 2004)

it has crap armament  it handles like a pig and its bloody slow too 8)


----------



## plan_D (Oct 2, 2004)

He has three excellent points which all roll into, the Stuka was crap.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

It wasnt crap for the first 3 years of the war..... With established air superiority, that plane struck fear into the hearts of millions....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 2, 2004)

Well, the first few months in the West. As soon as the Stuka was discovered not to be invincible (along with the Wehrmacht) in the Battle of Britain it had started to loss its edge.

It did always have something on the Eastern Front though. It was a good plane, if air superiority was gained.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 2, 2004)

I gotta find that post bronzewhaler82 made once about the good points of the stuka


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

> the Stuka was crap.





> It was a good plane, if air superiority was gained.



Man, youre sounding just like John Kerry...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2004)

> it handles like a pig and its bloody slow too



can't the same be said for the IL-2??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 2, 2004)

nope, the IL2 is dead easy to fly actually. Its a good plane for the novice to start off with.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 2, 2004)

No. The Stuka was crap as a plane, ONLY good if air superiority was there. SO it was crap overall. No John 'Horseface' Kerry in there.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

Horseface.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 3, 2004)

> it handles like a pig





> the IL2 is dead easy to fly actually



how easy it is to fly is not the same as it's manouverability................


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

His face is huge. "Hey, John are you upset?" Kerry - "No..." "Then why the long face!?" Buh-zing. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > it handles like a pig
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And handling is not the same as manoeverability.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Found it 



bronzewhaler82 said:


> Yes the Stuka was a fine dive-bomber....as long as there wasn't any of the following in the immediate vacinity...
> 
> A) An enemy fighter
> B) Anti-aircraft guns
> ...



8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Rudel was one of the greatest pilots of WWII and he was shot down over 30 times in the Stuka.... 

But if u look at the combat claims for German Aces over Russia, there are many many kills confirmed over Il-2's....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

I was thinking of asking the question what would win in a dogfight between the IL-2 and the Stuka, but its kinda obvious aint it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Il-2 wins 2 outta 3 and 8 outta 10.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

And that means....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Il-2 better in head to head dogfighting....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Yeah i know that  I mean the 2 outta 3 and 8 outta 10 bit...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Il-2 wins 2 out of 3 combats, and 8 out of 10 combats.... Basically a hands down competition...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Ah i see. 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Did u just put ur glasses on??? Or did u finally remove that blindfold???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

No i moved my balls out the way


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

That makes for an ugly mental picture....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Good  It was Supposed to.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

U suceeded in your quest....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Did i have a job to succeed or was it fairly straightforward?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 3, 2004)

lol, and people say i spam..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Pretty much straightfoward


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

lanc, spam is someone posting a random message that has nowt to do with anything. This was a proper discussion that just progressed in to something off-topic. There is a difference 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 4, 2004)

ok back onto the original topic, i think the most dangerous posistion will depend on the bomber.............


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 4, 2004)

Lanc what bomber type and mission profile? I say a torpeado plane that dose not have high cover is going to take a lot of hits and the pilot is the worst place. But as the B-24s showed even they flying high got a lot of pain from the flak.

So hear is a question, would you rather fly into flak or fighters?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 4, 2004)

I would rather fly into fighters. That way your gunners would at least have a chance of taking the fighters out. And as you would be in a bomber you would be in a formation more than likely - strength in numbers. Also there would probably be fighter escort.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2004)

Schwalbes would still rip you all apart.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 4, 2004)

Yup....

But I would still take the enemy fighters situation over FLAK anyday of the week... Ive read some after action reports from bomber crews and its almost sickening the loss of life there was... One article I read stated that on a run over Dusseldorf (I think) in the matter of 1 minute, 20 B-17s went down to FLAK.... They were on their bomb run, armed and open, when the FLak hit...

Thats insane....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2004)

Yes, I don't like the prospect of a 88mm or 105mm FlaK shell ripping into the bombers bodywork. But I think the prospect of being chased down by a Schwalbe blazing four 30mm is just as scary.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 4, 2004)

After seeing some of the pictures of flak over some targets, I think I would rather take my chances with a fighter. Not that either sounds pleasant, but at least with the fighter you can see it coming. Flak just hits. You could wind up well ventilated by either though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2004)

> And as you would be in a bomber you would be in a formation more than likely - strength in numbers



that's not really true, the americans thought that if they put their B-17s in huge formations they would be able to protect each other, didn't really work...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2004)

in theory it works


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2004)

But in practice it didn't. In fact a lot of the time they ended up shooting each other.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2004)

thats the problem


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2004)

I thought it was a benefit in American regimes, easier to shoot each other. 

Oh..buh-zing!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 6, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2004)

That's right, I went there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2004)

very good though............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 6, 2004)

What are you on about?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2004)

Don't ask me, I'm preparing to get drunk. Don't ask him...he's well...people in the medical practice generally start the speech with "I'm sorry..." when they tell families their son has what lanc has.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 6, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2004)

i resemble that remark.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 8, 2004)

That phrase brings back memories  However on the internet it has little meaning...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 9, 2004)

yeah, it depends on how you take it..........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 12, 2004)

> yeah, it depends on how you take it..........................



Man i could say something here, but I wont... Its too easy and obvious....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 13, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 13, 2004)

and the best part is i don't actually look bad in that post.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 13, 2004)

Dude it does


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 15, 2004)

no it doesn't, it looks bad for the person it's aimed at............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 15, 2004)

It could be taken as you asking the question, as in "where do you take it?"

I dunno if i can explain it well, but there is a way in which it makes you look bad...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 16, 2004)

but it didn't make me sound gay.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2004)

It doesnt need to, you already sound gay 

sorry, cheap shot


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 20, 2004)

Now have we run our coarse on this topic? The topic being bomber positions?

I would hope not!

Why not talk Divebombers? A Hellcat would be a good bet to be alive in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

but the hellcat wasn't a proper divebomber, it was a fighter that could carry a bomb and most planes that could carry a bomb (not all due to propeller clearance), could dive bomb, that doesn't make tham a dive bomber...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2004)

I agree Lanc....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 22, 2004)

True Lanc. Having just prepared for a presentation on the Hellcat, I can say that it's primary role was a fighter and strafer. It could carry up to 2,000 lbs. of bombs (1 x 1,000 lbs. on each wing, or 6 rockets on pylons), but it was a fighter first. They had aircraft on the carriers specifically designed to be dive-bombers, like the TBM/TBF Avenger.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2004)

due to the fact the avenger had a proper bomb bay i don't think it was intended as a dive bomber, it was a torpedo bomber, the dauntless was a dive bomber.................

interestingly did you know that when the avenger was first flown they found it handled to well, to much like a fighter, so they had to "heavy up" the controlls so young pilots wouldn't get carried away with their flying.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

Makes no sense to me, handling to well? I never thought it was possible for something to "handle too well".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

well due to the fact that it was designed by the same people that made pretty damn good fighters, they'd made a torpedo bomber that was manouverable, that sounds like a good thing but it's bad for two reasons:-
1) the young pilots joining the navy were used to flying manouverable trainers, as such if they were put in a manouverable plane they may get a bit carried away with their flying and end up killing themselfs.............
2) for a torpedo launch you need a steady run, if your plane has very sensitive controlls it may jerk around suddenly just as you're dropping your fish, putting it off corse..................

also your crew mates not belted down into a seat might not approve of you flying upside down or pulling major Gs..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Oh right


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

BTW, the Navy's dive bomber for the last half of the Pacific Action was the Helldiver, a plane which did not live up to its expectations....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

i thought the helldiver was the older one and the dauntless the more modern one, wow, been getting that one wrong for a while now.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

No Lanc, the Helldiver was to replace the Dauntlass, which it did, just not so well....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Would the Me-410 be classed a dive bomber?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

No the -410 is classed as a high speed bomber and nightfighter.... The -210 can be classed as a dive/level bomber....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Hmmm, I thought it was the other way around. I dont know much about the 210/410 though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Me neither....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

BTW this is a hint towards other more informed users to enlighten us on them


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2004)

as I side note before Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

the Me 410 was classified as a bomber detsroyer not a night fighter. The nf useage was pure experimental as it never flew ops in this role with any NJG unit. Now it did fly in the intruder role over England with bomber units, KG 51 and 54 I believe.

the a/c was quite successful as a bomber destroyer with ZG 26 and 76 during 1944 before it was pulled and replaced by the Fw 190A-8 in most cases.

time for a snooze


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Thanks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

and happy sleeping...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Erich must have one hell of a memory to remember all those figures. Theres always the possibility he looks on the net/in a book though. Do you actually remember them figures Erich?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2004)

well i think he remembers allot of it, he said he's been researching most his life.....................


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2004)

Guys Lanc is correct. researching since 1963..........  

seems like an eternity ! Read way too many books and interviewed many, many veterans.

E `


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Woah 

I still think its pretty formidable how you remember it all.


----------



## MP-Willow (Oct 26, 2004)

Hello all! The SB2C Helldiver did do a good job with the roll. Yes, it might not have been as productive as the avanger. But by the -2 and -3 runs the Helldiver got squared away. The arguments that it was a fighter, are good. It could fly with fighters after the bomb runs and straff as neded. But do not say that it was just bad, or did not live up to its billing. Why not talk a little about divebombers? We hare talking about positions in bombers yes? 

As for the Me-410 it is what the me-210 should have been.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

I reckon being the tail gunner in a dive bomber must have been pretty daunting during dives, what with the fact you would not be able to see what was going on up front.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

must have been like being on a rollercoaster.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

I've read an excellent article by a gunner on a Helldiver. He said during the dive he was floating out of his seat the entire time. Other odities/unpleasantries would include being unable to hear anything (other than rushing air), the bombing of the ears (10,000+ ft change in an unpresurised cockpit), and being the first to see the bomb (since the plane would accelerate away from it).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

sounds quite scary actually.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

He said the scariest thing was not knowing if you were going to pull-out. If the pilot was hit on the way down the gunner would never know and they would both go straight in. So he always sang the USMC theme on the way down, just in case they didn't pull out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

but atleast if you didn't know if you were gonna die you wouldn't see it coming, the pilot would know he's about to die and that would be awfull..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

Only if he survived getting hit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

fair point...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

> He said the scariest thing was not knowing if you were going to pull-out.



Thats mainly what I was trying to get at.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2004)

> He said the scariest thing was not knowing if you were going to pull-out



i've just realised that could be taken in an extremely sick way..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Only you lanc, only you


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 29, 2004)

That's scary! (I'd add more, so that'd it look like it wasn't a spam post, which it isn't. Oh well. It's too long to be a spam post now )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Oh we let the odd spam post slip now and again y'know...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2004)

as long as it doesn't take us to far off topic................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

You just contradicted yourself big time there mate


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

well you're not exactily bring us back on topic yourself...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

Stop trying to worm your way out, this conversation is _your fault_ and you know it 

So then get back on damn topic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

you're the mod, you should be the one to get us back on topic.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

I just told you to


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

oh yeah, well like i said, most dangerous posistion on a bomber is still to vague, it depends on what country the bomber's from at the very least...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

I dont see why thats vague.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

because the most dangerous posistion will vary from bomber to bomber..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Ok then, the most dangerous position in general.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2004)

you can't say in, general, it's still to vague!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

I fail to see how  Ventral was pretty dangerous.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 1, 2004)

WE are looping! Why not stick to the dive bomber topic? LG had soe good stuff. But can you use your guns while floating out of your seat?

AS for ventrel gunners, I have read ball guner stories that are just to sick to relate and others that say they sweat at -30 degrees F


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

I should think the rear gunner on a dive-bomber wouldnt do much whilst diving anyway would they?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2004)

it's to vague because the most dangerous posistion will vary from bomber to bomber and it depends on the bomber's country of origin...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

Gordon bennett lanc, we're not talking about that any more!


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 3, 2004)

Is gordon bennett a new swear word ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2004)

Nope, he was a famous Britsh racing driver in the early 1900's, and his name lives on throught the British Isles as a kind of "mild blasphemy"


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 4, 2004)

But we are talking dive bombers. As for the position differig for bober types and builders, that is whay we are talking about it yes! In a dive one might not have much, but I have not found information for or against it yet,other then the floating bit.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 4, 2004)

From what height would a stuka start a dive? And does anyone have a recording of the sirens that they used?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

I seem to recall they started their dive from about 5000ft, but im not sure.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 5, 2004)

I don't have a recording, but they were called "Horns of Jericho". You might search for that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 5, 2004)

i've never heard it clearly i don't think...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

Ive got a pretty good recall of what they sound like.


----------



## Maestro (Nov 5, 2004)

Is it what you're talking about ?

(Taken from Combat Flight Simulator 1.)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 5, 2004)

Nope, that's an air-raid siren...


Hey, would you like me to snap a pic in Fs2004 of the Mk.IX that you can use as your siggy?

If so, simply state location of where you would like the pic to feature... (Example would be your hometown...)


----------



## Maestro (Nov 5, 2004)

No, thanks. I like my current one. I appreciate the offer though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

that screenhot's from CFS1 i believe?? i have that game and it's not bad but i'm hoping to get either CFS3 or IL2 when i get a computer upgrade...................


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 6, 2004)

So any thoughts on the Stukas? 5000 ft seems low to me?


----------



## JCS (Nov 6, 2004)

I had a few recordings of the sirens on the Stuka I would've posted, but I lost ALL my files yesterday.   This POS computer wouldnt start up so I had to reinstall windows.


----------



## JCS (Nov 6, 2004)

Heres one I just found:


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2004)

I know that on the B-17, the Lancaster and those bombers that did have the tail gunners that their life expectancy was measured in days rather than weeks during the heavy German fighter attacks of 1942-1943. The Germans would approach the bomber from the tail hoping to kill it. Therefore the tail gunner was the most dangerous position. Many people died in the missions over Europe as tail gunners. It wasn't until 1944-1945 that the tail gunners position became a bit safer due to the destruction of a lot of German fighters on the ground and in the air by the Allies, as well as the introduction of better fighter escort planes for bomber crews. I rest my case for the tail gunner being the most dangerous position in a bomber in general.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2004)

I agree with the idea of building replicas, as they allow the testing of different scenarios and answers to some questions. It is wondered how a Zero would have stood up to an early war Spitfire. I know the zeros were bad but both planes were highly maneovurable. It also allows us to really test the manevourability of some of these fighters and bombers to the limit. All we really know about the limitations of these fighters is what is published and even then in the WW2 publications I suspect that while the war was going on the performance of the fighters and bombers may have been understated to protect them. Also there are some German prototypes that were on the drawing board that may be worth making replicas of and we can then see and get an idea of how dangerous different bomber positions can be through the use of these replicas in realistic mission target ideas.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2004)

but the thing with a replica is you wont know if it perferms the same as the original, and the only way to find out is to test the original to the limit, don't get me wrong, i'm all for replicas, i'm just saying you should dtill fly an original if you still have it, there's no point in keeping it on the ground.....................

and whilst i see your point with the tail gunner, if a lanc went down he had the best chance of getting out mid air, and the most dangerous possistion on an american bomber would be the ball turret (that's why i said you had to be specific, you couldn't just say "which bomber" because not all had every gun posistion) because they had a habbit of simply falling out for no reason, even if they hadn't been hit, they were small, cramp and uncomfortable and you would have to stay there for hours on end..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 7, 2004)

Only the early turrets randomly fell out, the problem was overcame later in the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 7, 2004)

The most dangerous position from enemy aircraft fire was definatly the tail gunner (if the plane had a tail gunner)... He was the first thing a fighter pilot aimed for.....


----------



## Maestro (Nov 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that screenhot's from CFS1 i believe?? i have that game and it's not bad but i'm hoping to get either CFS3 or IL2 when i get a computer upgrade...................



Yeah, I'm also hoping to get CFS 3 soon... I think it would run quite well on my 3.0 GHz. I've just added a used GeForce 128 MB 3D video card I bought from one of my friend. Much better than the 64 MB (inboard) video card I had before.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2004)

we're getting an upgrade to a 2.6GHz, i'm currently running at 500MHz.............


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 8, 2004)

I have a new appreaciation for the bal gunners on the B-24 and B-17. After seeing a mock up of the ball you can feel the smallness and think of being stuck in that for hours at su-zero temps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

lanc, I was thinking a bit, if you get IL2 Im not sure if its gonna work on your computer, It might not have sufficient graphics card and its only windows 98. Remember what happened the first time i tried installing IL2 on my old computer? And we had that updated several times


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2004)

yeah the graphics are my only concern, but we're getting a completely new machine, XP, 2.6 celeron prosesser, 512MB ram, all the good stuff...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

Ah if youre getting a new machine things should be OK.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 9, 2004)

I got CFS1 A few days ago! It's all right, but I'm going to have to buy a joystick. It's too hard trying to wrestle with the keyboard!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

CFS1? A little slow on the uptake are we?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2004)

I would have to say the ball turret gunner. Atleast on the B-17. They were enclosed in this small ball and no where to hide. On top of that all that if the turrets electrical power failed they would be locked in there and then if the landing gear failed to lower they were really screwed if they were trapped in there. All that is hypothetically speaking but I would not like to have been in that turret. Not to say that other bomber crew members were not brave, they all were very brave aviators but you had to have a lot guts to climb into that ball turrett. Imagine enclosed in that glass turret with a Me-109G racing toward your with its armament blazing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 10, 2004)

MH, when you're in the cockpit view right click with the mouse and select mouse as stick, it's allot easier...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would have to say the ball turret gunner. Atleast on the B-17. They were enclosed in this small ball and no where to hide. On top of that all that if the turrets electrical power failed they would be locked in there and then if the landing gear failed to lower they were really screwed if they were trapped in there. All that is hypothetically speaking but I would not like to have been in that turret. Not to say that other bomber crew members were not brave, they all were very brave aviators but you had to have a lot guts to climb into that ball turrett. Imagine enclosed in that glass turret with a Me-109G racing toward your with its armament blazing.



I agree with you there, although I think that in general the tail position was worse, because it was only really American planes that had the ball turret.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 10, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGeladet: Wellcom to our gloeious Hovel  I am glad that you are here. I agree ball was bad, but with the ball it was the flak that was first killer then the figters. As C.C. points the ball was mostly on ASAAF craft. But also the tail was a prime fighter target. 

Can you say anything about what you are doing in Iraq?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Thanks for the welcome. I cant talk about what is going on, atleast not on the internet. You will just have to get that from the news. But I am a UH-60L Blackhawk crewchief based out of Tikrit, Iraq.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 12, 2004)

thanks. I am not looking to compromise missions just to know a little who I am talking with. 

Any other thoughts on Bomber positions? We have had some good talks and some bad ones.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Its strange that not one person has voted for the Radio Operator. I know its not the obvious choice or the right one, but you would think that in all the many monthd this poll has been around, at least _someone_ would have voted for it.


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 12, 2004)

I guess getting out of a stricken bomber from that position might be tricky, but then it would depend on the bomber - superb machine as the Lancaster was, it was a nightmare to abandon one - 11% survival rate amongst shot-down crews.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Sheesh thats bad...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2004)

and you're comparing that to what CC?? but he's right, she was a bitch to get out of, almost impossible unless you're the tail gunner or bomb aimer.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Im not comparing it to anything, but its pretty obvious that was bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2004)

well you don't know unless you have summit to compare it two, it could be suprisingly good............

it isn't though..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

But any fool can see how bad it is, and couple that to the previous comment its easy to see it was bad...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 12, 2004)

First, let me start by saying that I am certainly no expert on the Lancaster.
Now by the account of my granddad, who piloted one, the plane was a "right royal bitch" to get out of. The pilot couldn't fit through the cockpit door with a parachute on. A dream to fly, he said, but a terror to get out of.
He never exactly commented on which position was the worst, and quite honestly it didn't occur to me to ask him.  

When I see him next, I'll try to remember to ask him about it. He's now in his eighties, and the memories may be a little faded, but I'd be interested to hear his views on the subject!


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 12, 2004)

I bet he'll remember the dreaded main spar. It goes right through the fuselage. Gives the Lanc huge strength, but you have to crawl over it. I have a picture in one of my Lancaster books of someone doing just that.
It says that many a shin lost an argument there - and that's with the plane sitting on the concrete, so trying to climb over that when the Lanc is in a death dive is just not going to happen. If the aircraft recieved at direct hit by flak, there was little chance of anyone surviving, save perhaps the pilot if he was wearing a seat-type chute, which was standard issue by 1944, and later extended to rear gunners. 

Just a bit of trivia, the Lanc was a bit erratic where heating arrangements were concerned. All the hotness from the engines was piped out round the wireless op's position, so, coupled with the warmth from the set, he sweltered - even at high altitude. On the other hand, it was brass monkey time for the poor rear gunner, and, although he had a hot air hose, it got so cold back there, that many would put it up their trouser leg - hey, it's not as if you can be seen by anyone, and you gotta protect those fundamentals!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 12, 2004)

Yeah, I believe he did mention the spar, but I'll ask him Med.
In fact, I wouldn't mind hearing the old stories again.
Granddad was never too talkative about the war, but with a little coaxing (i.e. booze  ) he becomes quite a story teller!


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 12, 2004)

Cool, I wouldn't mind scanning some of these pictures from my book, 'cause some of them are real works of art. There aren't many pics of life in Bomber Command, because the goverment was really anti-camera, and officially, taking pictures was forbidden. Fortunately, crews were desperate to get a picture of themselves and their plane, and would get a sneaky pic in for posterity. 

There's a really good one of a row of Lancasters all covered in snow, which had to be brushed off by hand, with teams of really cold and sodded off looking air and ground crew!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

I read a story awhile back about a box of 4 Lancs that was attacked aggressivly by Fw-190's.... One had it wing blown off with his bombs armed and in the insuing collisions that happened, all 4 bombers went down.... And not one single chute was opened.... 2 men got out of 1 bomber, but without chutes....

I've read that the Lanc was a really difficult plane to bail from....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

oh it was, here's a run through

bomb aimer-he had it the best, escape hatch right under where he lies
pilot- small window, starbord side of canopy, had to be small to fit
flight engineer- same on port side i believe, not to sure
radio operator navigator- very small hatches in the roof of the fusilage
mid-upper turret gunner- port side entry hatch
tail gunner- this one's the funniest, open the armoured entry doors, get your 'cute, turn the turret 90 degrees to one side, and roll out back wards 

escape was one of the lanc's biggest drawbacks...............


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 13, 2004)

There all kinds of strange things that have happened when bombers were hit. You hear of stories of a single bloke being thrown out of the plane as it disintergrates in the explosion - not a scratch on him, but the only survivor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

> escape was one of the lanc's biggest drawbacks...............



armament being the other...


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 13, 2004)

So the arguments for the B-24 just got better! She had her ow falts, the thin wing did get shot up and fuel pumps had problums, but her crews could get out, well the Ball gunner had it worst. He was doomed if the waits or tail guners were hurt or forgot about him.

So Lance, if your plane had these issues why did the RAF dismiss the B-17 so fast?


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 13, 2004)

Simple. It's bomb-load is weedy compared to the Lancs. Whether or not the crew can get out easily is secondary. 

Also the B17 was originally designed for defending the American mainland - not heavy bombing raids, which the Lanc was souly created for.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

lance?? i'll assume you're talking to me..........

the RAF rejected the B-17 because it caused so many problems, we didn't like it's load carrying ability, when flying at high altitude there were numerous problems with the oxygen supply and personal heating even at high altitude it was vaunerable to fighters, the guns froze, baisically, it sucked and we didn't need it..................



> escape was one of the lanc's biggest drawbacks...............





> armament being the other...



the lanc had enough armourment for a night bomber, a ventral turret would have been usefull but it would have meant a reduction in range and/or payload..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

Well I would always thought other than the ball turret that the bombadier in his all glass work area would be quite deadly but from what I have read up there it was not that bad for the bombadier. probably because the fighters would dive down on the bombers from the rear and not attacking directly to the front. And to MP-Willow pretty much what I do is fly passengers around to wherever they go day after day. Every once in a while we get an air assault mission which are pretty cool.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Of the whole war, the B-29 was easily the best bomber.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 13, 2004)

We have argued over the "Best Bomber" already, but that will never go away. 

But Why in the Long life of the Lancaster were some of these questions for armore and escape not fixed?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

well there's many reasons the ball turret wasn't fittet, it would have meant a reduction in range, payload, manouverability, airspeed, it would have meant that the H20 bombing aid could be carried, and it was also a bit ugly, but the ball turret was fitted to around 150 aircraft.......

Frasier Nash 64

position: ventral
guns: 2x .303 Browning Mk.II
RPG: 500
gunsight: periscopic 
Traverse: +/-90 degrees 
Elevation: 0 degrees
Depression: 60 degrees 

as you can see the figures aren't shockingly impressive, and along with the factors listed above and the fact that they were used before the introduction of Schrage Musik when the attack from the rear was still the most common made the RAF deem them as, well, useless...................

and there wasn't a great deal they could do about the escape issues.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

[/quote]and it was also a bit ugly[/quote]

if they didnt like it cos it was ugly, why didnt they scrap the whole plane in the first place


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 14, 2004)

Lanc, thanks again. We are as our air arms two different thoughts on the same problum. 

Now here is a question for you all I was looking at some drawings while thinking of this issue of tail attacks and want to ask about the top/ dorcal guner. Could that gun placement help protect the tail gunner?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

I believe the top gunner could to some extent help in an attack from the rear because of its 360 degree turn radius however I believe it would have been limited in the fact that you did not want to shoot of your rudder especially in a bomber like the Liberator with its 2 rudders. It gave a clearer view of the rear to engage but if the gunner turned without sieze firing he would have shot them up pretty good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 15, 2004)

I suppose it depended on the attacking angle of the plane; If it was attacking slightly from port or starboard, the waist gunners could lend a hand, the upper turret could help in an attack from above and the ventral turret would be of aid in an attack from below.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

It was best to have all around armament all over the bomber so that it could put out the most fire in the most directions.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 16, 2004)

As for the rudders getting shot up by your own guns I think they had unterupters on the guns so that would not happen. If I am wrong please corect that. But more armor nd guns the better, but then the B-24 started out fast and well never got that speed back.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

yes any gun turret that could have it it's own plane would have been fitted with a cam to assure the guns wouldn't fire when pointed at the plane..............


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 17, 2004)

Thanks Lanc. Question for all you, this topic is one of bombers and positions what about the Coastal Comand and Sub hunting. What position on what plane would you fear the most?

For me, the nose of a PBY, just so slow and not until the .50s were in it was really under gunned.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

I dont know much about the aircraft used in that role; is it stuff like the Sunderland and Fw-200 Condor?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 19, 2004)

Ok CC, well if another can help that is why the question is there.

But here is another: I saw a program about the "Great Escape" from Stalag luft-3 last night. It was really interesting, but got me thinking. If the Germans had not had to deel withall the downed airman in POW camps or the airman were cooperative not trieing to escape; would that have changed the war a lot? I think yes. The escape got 76 men out and three back to friendly lands. But that surch was great. More to the point the Germans had to keep men and material back for thee camps. 

Now what do you all think?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

it was a downed airmans duty to make the enemy use as many resorces and man hours as possible in their retrival and encampment............


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

Yes true, but the Germans thought the airman might not try so hard  But also the numbers of airman downed are just staggering! But the RAF did have some very clever chaps.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

It is the duty of an aircrewman to try and escape. We are trained on evasion tactics to keep from being captured and if we are captured we are to try and escape at all means. It just does not happen that way all the time. To all the brave airmen shot down in WW2 I salute you.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

So true, I do not want to sound like I do not respect these airman. I have been reading accounts of planes that went down in the Pacific and the men floating around then being picked up days latter hundreds of miles away. Or for a good read try F"lyboys". That wil give you some good isight on the Pacific war and Japanese treatment of POWs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I keep one extra bullet for my 9mm for myself, cuz it would be better to shoot myself then be tortured and then killed by the insurgants here.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

Man I wish I had the time to tell u about all the Evade and Capture stuff I went through.... I actually got my ass beaten in training, kinda similar to how they showed it in the movie GI Jane.... 
There was also some torture methods that we were "Aquainted" with, so that we understood what we were getting into if we were to be captured... Electric shock is BAAADDDDD news....

The one thing we learned to our souls was that EVERY man has a breaking point, so escape when u can, even if it means ur life... A captured SEAL member is a hell of a political and intelligence tool........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Yeah we recieve the training SERE-C we call it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

You know guys its great to have people who have served with the armed forces like you guys have, I find it really interesting reading what youve got to say, it gives me a better insight into how things really are. I have the greatest respect for anyone who has served their country - I salute you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Thank you very much, I am just glad that there is so much to talk about in this forum even when it gets off topic, there are some great people in here and I have learned a lot about WW2 aviation which has always interested me and I hope I have been able to help others so far.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Ball turret!

It was a primary target for German fighters. Unlike the tail position, the ball turret gunner could not move at all to get out of the way, the tail gunner could duck if he though his position was about to get wacked. The ball turret had to be in just the right position for he gunner to get out, and if it got stuck, he was in serious trouble.

Finally, the ball turret gunner could not wear his parachute while in the turret. This meant that if the plane was shot down, he had to align his turret (impossible if the electrical system is out), open the hatch, climb out, put on his parachute, and then get to an exit. Try that in a plane that is spinning faster and faster as it goes down!

The ball turret was the most dangerous position without a doubt, and everyone knew it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Just a question where would the tail gunner go? Have you been in a B-17 There was no room for the tail gunner to just get up and run to get out of the way of a german fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

But I do agree with you that the ball was the most dangerous as I said in my previous posts.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

And im not so sure the gunner would leg it - if he had any sense of decency he would try to shoot the plane down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Well ofcourse I was just saying the tail gunner didn't have much more room than the ball either. I mean I think the ball was probably the worst and most confined and most dangerous but the tail was not much better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

I still think it was the tail however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

I think it would be the ball turret because not only did they have to contend with fighters but they could not get out of the ball if powered failed and the access door was not in the right spot, they were pretty much enclosed in glass and then imagined if they could not get out the gear did not come down on landing. I would hate to be in the ball.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

and the fact that they were known to simply fall away for no reason..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Another good reason. Think of the FLAK hitting your ball turret to as you flew over hostile Germany. That had to really suck.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

wel you could get hit by flack anywhere in a bomber, exept in the ball you saw it coming..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

exactly I would hate the ball.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the fact that they were known to simply fall away for no reason..........



That was only on very early planes, the problem was fixed and this didnt happen after about 1942...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just a question where would the tail gunner go? Have you been in a B-17 There was no room for the tail gunner to just get up and run to get out of the way of a german fighter.



It depends a lot on the model. In the ones with the power tail gun unit and little cockpit, the gunner could move to get his head down under the armor plate. On the earlier models, he had no protection and so he could not move to a safer position. On all models, the ball turret gunner has almost no options.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

And that is why the ball is the worst position.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

what i find really weird is that the lanc's rear turret (dunno if it was on all planes) but the entry doors were armoured, but they were behind the pilot, what's the point??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

It could have to do with the CG (center of gravity) of the aircraft. If you put to much weight in one certain spots it can make the aircraft dificult to fly and in some cases impossible. When we first got to Iraq we had the same problem when we installed armor plating in our Blackhawks, we had to calculate the CG to make sure that our aircraft would still fly correctly. That would just be my guess though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

well i don't think so because it was only a few mm and on a plane that size that extra weight wouldn't make a difference............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

It does on all aircraft even a 747. 1 pound of weight in the nose of the a blackhawk can shift the CG a couple of inches which does not sound like a lot but will alter the flight characteristics drastically.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

dude the armour would have weighed more than the difference between a small tail gunner and a large one, a problem the lanc managed with fine................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

It also depends on where the weight is placed you have to take into fact that everything in the aircraft has to be placed there so that the CG is not out of balance. It does not matter if the weight is in the nose or the tail or in the middle of the aircraft. Now that may not be the reason why there was no armor there, that was just my guess.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

and it was a good guess but i don't think that's the reason....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Well what do you think the reason was?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i dunno!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I dont know what kind of seats are installed in the cockpit of a Lanc but I know the cockpit seats in the blackhawk have less armor around them in the airframe because the seat itself is made out of kevlar, maybe the Lanc had similar seats obviously not kevlar but maybe steel.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

You say that when the rear turret is in full rotation, the door is pointing outside yes? Because this was how the gunner bailed out. Perhaps it was armoured so that when the turret was rotated around fully to say, the port side, it was designed to protect the gunner from enemy aircraft attacking from the starboard side?


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what i find really weird is that the lanc's rear turret (dunno if it was on all planes) but the entry doors were armoured, but they were behind the pilot, what's the point??



I don't think the Lancaster rear gunner could get out of the turret in flight (not sure about this). The rear turret on the Lanc has a huge sweep, so you could be aiming hard left and be attacked from the right. And there is also flak to consider.

Also, when you say "armored" that is subject to qualification. As I recall, there is no armor plate on the Lanc thicker than a quarter inch, and little of that.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

The rear gunner could get out - but he would have to crank the turret hard left or right and then open up the turret doors behind him.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

......................but he would lose his Sandwichs though if he did that  

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> The rear gunner could get out - but he would have to crank the turret hard left or right and then open up the turret doors behind him.



Right. What i meant was he was not able to leave the turret and go into the main fuselage of the plane.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)

In my grandfather's opinion (former Lanc pilot), the tail gunner had the worst deal of all.

In his early training on the type, the pilots and navigators would have to cross-train as well as rotate through the gunner positions, and he swears that the consensus was that the tail gunner position was what scared the shit out of them all.

That was one squadron's view, mind you. It may well have differed elsewhere.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> In my grandfather's opinion (former Lanc pilot), the tail gunner had the worst deal of all.
> 
> In his early training on the type, the pilots and navigators would have to cross-train as well as rotate through the gunner positions, and he swears that the consensus was that the tail gunner position was what scared the s**t out of them all.
> 
> That was one squadron's view, mind you. It may well have differed elsewhere.



Hmmm... well most lanc's didn't have a ball turret so that might explain it?

My uncle (long dead now) was a bombadier on a B-17 (and later the B-29) and he said they called the ball turret the "coffin ball" for a reason.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

I would guess the Ball Turret would be much more frighting then ANY Tail Turret going. It must of been hell trying to get out when your plane was hit and was going down.

Hot Space


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)

I think I could see why! You were really kind of hung out there, in a ball turret. And hell to escape from, I would think!


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Medvedya said:
> 
> 
> > The rear gunner could get out - but he would have to crank the turret hard left or right and then open up the turret doors behind him.
> ...



Oh no, that's not a problem - the tail is open at the back. You just can't see it, since the turret is in the way. Here - look at this close up. You can just about see a tiny gap at the bottom of the rear of the turret below that round silver bit.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

Well, I'm not sure, but I think in a documentary I saw recently they said the tail turret gunner could not move into the fuselage during a flight. Are you saying they could?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

Here's a picture inside - those are the doors to the rear turret.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)

It was a bit of a squeeze, so I'm told.


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

It must have been! Especially with an electrically heated suit on! 

It would be like the Michelin Man trying to climb into a goldfish bowl.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 25, 2004)

TY Medvedya.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Medvedya said:
> ...



Also the Main Panel that you can see was removed as well.

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Since when did you ever post on topic?


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Last Wednesday, but that was a Shopping List though  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

Well thats some cool stuff about the Lanc, I never new that. I guess that might answer your question lanc.


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 25, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> You say that when the rear turret is in full rotation, the door is pointing outside yes? Because this was how the gunner bailed out. Perhaps it was armoured so that when the turret was rotated around fully to say, the port side, it was designed to protect the gunner from enemy aircraft attacking from the starboard side?



Ah - I forgot to read this. No, that would have just been a bonus. The armoured doors behind the rear gunner are to stop bullets reaching the rest of the crew. Many a time did a Lanc get back with the rest of the crew all sitting ashen-faced up front, and the poor gunner smeared all over the perspex of his shattered turret.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

I can see that, that makes a lot of sense to keep bullets from flying up to the front of the plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Oh well - was just a thought.


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 25, 2004)

Have a look at this - a Fraser-Nash rear turret on a Short Stirling.


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 25, 2004)

This sums a night bomber raid up fairly well I think.

This snippet comes from; http://www.lancastermuseum.ca

Imagine yourself in a building of enormous size, pitch black inside. You are ordered to walk very slowly from one side to the other, then back. This walk in the dark will take you perhaps five or six hours. You know that in various nooks and crannies along your route killers armed with machine guns are lurking. They will quickly become aware that you have started your journey, and will be trying to find you the whole time you are in the course of it. There is another rather important psychological factor: the continuous roar emanating from nearby machinery. It precludes the possibility of your getting any audible warning of danger's approach. You are thus aware that if the trouble you are expecting does come, it will burst upon you with the startling surprise one can experience standing in the shower and having someone abruptly jerk open the door of the steamy cubicle and shout over the noise. If the killers stalking you on your walk should happen to detect you, they will leap at you out of the darkness firing flaming tracers from their machine guns. Compared with the armament they are carrying, you are virtually defenceless. Moreover, you must carry a pail of gasoline and a shopping bag full of dynamite in one hand. If someone rushes at you and begins firing, about all you can do is fire a small calibre pistol in his direction and try to elude him in the dark. But these killers can run twice as fast as you, and if one stalks and catches you, the odds are that he will wound and then incinerate you, or blow you into eternity. You are acutely aware of these possibilities for every second of the five or six hours you walk in the darkness, braced always, consciously or subconsciously, for a murderous burst of fire, and reminded of the stakes of the game periodically by the sight of guns flashing in the dark and great volcanic eruptions of flaming gasoline. You repeat this experience many times - if you live."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Thats a gives a good impression of what it must have been like, and that pic...ugh...poor guy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah I dont think that guy made it out alive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

i've read that account as well, to give it a name it was said by Murray Peden DFC and i've spet a couple of weeks on that site and it's very good...................


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

He might well have survived. Those look like 20mm HE hits. Often fusing on the 20mm HE rounds was such that they detonated on contact, and the image seems to indicate this. If this is so the gunner might well have only suffered 2ndary shrapnel damage and might have survived.

I think which position was most dangerous depends a lot on what plane you are talking about.

If we are including all planes with a gunner, I think there is little doubt the most dangrous position was the gunner in the IL2. It was not uncommon for a Sturmovik pilot to return with a dead gunner, they'd grab an infantryman and put him in the bloody seat, send them out, and when the Sturmovik returned that gunner was dead too.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've read that account as well, to give it a name it was said by Murray Peden DFC and i've spet a couple of weeks on that site and it's very good...................



Continuosly?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

well when i'm not on this site, thet's proberly where i'll be..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Ah... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

unless i'm on another site, in which case i wont be on that site..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Well, its logical


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

unless i have two browser windows open but then it gets complicated.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Dont confuse me


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 27, 2004)

I would not have wanted to be in a Stirling for any type of mission. But a Halifax  Maybe that would work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

For a bombing mission I think I would have wanted to be in a B-24 but just for historical reasons I would want a B-17 for atleast one mission just so I could say I did it. That ofcourse it just from what I know today, back then they would have put me on what ever they wanted to train me on.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd say the nose position was most dangerous , because wouldn't they go for the front more often ?


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> I'd say the nose position was most dangerous , because wouldn't they go for the front more often ?



Not really. It was a very difficult shot even if the enemy could get it setup perfectly. The amount of time the pilot had to aim was so small that only the best marksmen could hope to score on the actual nose of the target.

Most "frontal attacks" were conducted from above and in front, with the target being either a wing root or the cockpit area of the fuselage.

If I had a way to make the 22 mb guncam footage .mov file I have available you could look at it and you'd see that very few of the attacks in this Luftwaffe' training film are from anything close to dead on from the front. Unfortunately, my isp only allows 10 mb of webspace for each of 7 emails and I don't have a server available right now. If anyone has sufficient server space somewhere, I'd be happy to ftp it up to it for you guys to nab.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

OK thanx


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

any time............

and were safe from frontal atacks in a lancaster (or any other night bomber), as a general rule you never attack a plane nose on at night.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah but they still come from the back and shoot your sorry ass.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Most attacks were from the rear and above.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

As that is the optimum position for attack in any situation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Exactly. Anyhow if I were not the pilot of the bomber I would want to be in whatever position was the closest to the doors so I could jump out if the plane was going down. LOL


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

One of the things I find amazing about the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima was that the bomb had to be armed by ONE MAN in mid flight. For me he was the hero of that mission.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Do you mean the guy who had to crawl into the bomb bay and pull the safeties. I am not a hundred percent sure but I think that was all bombs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Well the airfield the B-29's took off from had had lots of B-29 crashes on takeoff in the past couple of weeks. The ground crew were doubtless scared by the fact that should the Enola Gay crash on take off with an armed atomic bombthat it would be catastrophic. They decided it would be a safer bet to arm the bomb mid-flight. I think that did mean what you said, but im not sure if this was the case for all flights from that airfield.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

I think that was the case on all bombers wherever they were. There were safety pins on the fuses of the bombs and they had to be removed in order to arm the bombs. I may very well be wrong but I believe they were not pulled till right before they reached enemy territory.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think that was the case on all bombers wherever they were. There were safety pins on the fuses of the bombs and they had to be removed in order to arm the bombs. I may very well be wrong but I believe they were not pulled till right before they reached enemy territory.



On a lot of planes, those pins were strung with a wire that automatically pulled the pin when the bomb was released. This freed a small prop on the nose or tail of the bomb (or sometimes both) that would have to spin enough turns to tighten a screw and fully arm the bomb.

On A-Bombs it's normal for them to be armed in flight if possible. You don't want a takeoff accident to make a crater of your bomber base!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well the airfield the B-29's took off from had had lots of B-29 crashes on takeoff in the past couple of weeks. The ground crew were doubtless scared by the fact that should the Enola Gay crash on take off with an armed atomic bombthat it would be catastrophic. They decided it would be a safer bet to arm the bomb mid-flight. I think that did mean what you said, but im not sure if this was the case for all flights from that airfield.



Ground crews had no idea what an A-Bomb was, so I doubt they were the ones who were afriad of what would happen if the B-29 crashed on takeoff! I think the decision it should be armed in flight was made long before the bomb was ever delivered to the airfield.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

They made that decision because a lot of B-29's had crashed from take-off on that airfield. If it was a larger airfield where that wasnt the case I dont think the decision would have ben made.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2004)

I think the decision to arm it in flight was just a normal procedure. You would not want an aircraft to crash on take off with armed bombs of anykind. I bet regular airfields in England followed the same procedure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

> If it was a larger airfield where that wasnt the case I dont think the decision would have ben made.



actually it wasn't just that airfield, it was pretty much anywhere in the pacific where B-29s were flown from, they would have armed the bomb in mid-flight no matter where they took off from................

and arming an atomic bomb isn't as simple as simply pulling the safetys out, there's an entire arming unit that must be inserted into the bomb, it's like when you see bombs being dissarmed, but insted of taking the fuse out, you put a rod of uranium in, however it must be screwed and bolted in, a process that that in mid-flight took well over an hour, one siple mistake could easily set the bomb off, obviously not a good thing, however the "bomb armer" as he became known spent several hours the night before practicing untill his fingers bled.........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Yup, thats why I think he was the hero of the flight.

Didnt know that was the case for all B-29's though, ta.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 29, 2004)

It is normal to arm nukes in flight for any plane where this is possible. During the cold war, B-36's and then B-52's sat loaded with nukes but without the arming core installed. Only on aircraft where the bomb was not accessible was the core to be pre-installed, and these planes were never, as far as I know, actually loaded with a live nuke.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 29, 2004)

Isn't the arming core where the plutonium "hammer" lies?



Or have nukes changed?



What I mean is this...


Little Boy was basically an encased gun, with a chamber with uranium at the end, and to set it off in mid air (it exploded some 1,440 feet up to create a "crush" effect on the buildings below), the plutonium fell from an upper chamber into the other material, thus setting off the explosion.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Isn't the arming core where the plutonium "hammer" lies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Littleboy was a U-235 bomb, it had no plutonium in it.

The Littleboy bomb contained two U-235 portions, a 16cm x 16 cm 38.4 kg hollow cylinder "target" and a 25.6kg "bullet" made up of a cylinderical stack of 6 rings approximately 10cm wide by 16 cm long backed by a tungston carbide disk and a steel backlplate all contained in a 1/16th inch thick steel case (that looked like a can). The target was actually made up of two parts (cut the cylinder in half to make 2 cylinders), and only one of these had to be removed to make the bomb "safe" (I use that term very loosly), though I'm not sure if both target cylinders were installed in flight or just one (I would suspect just one to ensure alignment).

Fatman was a plutonium infusion bomb, using a two piece steel encased plutonium elipsiod core. Explosive charges placed around the "egg" exploded with precise timing crush the core to generate the ciritical mass. This bomb did not need to be assmembled in flight the way the little boy did because of the critical nature of the timing of charge detonations required to generate fission. However, assembly of this bomb occured on the field and is generally considered the most complicated field preperation operation for any deployed weapon system. It pretty much had to be assembled in a hanger at the airbase immeadiately prior to use.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2004)

Thats cool I always thought they were the same kind of bombs only built differently.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats cool I always thought they were the same kind of bombs only built differently.



Nope. They were not sure either type would work, so both were constructed. 

The actual building of a nuke is really not that complicated. The enrichment of uranium or creation of plutonium however is extremely difficult, and handling the weapons grade material is likewise difficult. This is why it is so critical that we not allow Iran to develop the centrifuges which they can then use to enrich uranium.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

do they still use heavy water in the bombs??


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

Interesting reading! Lancaster, I have not read about Heavy water in bombs now most use a solid.

Nice to see the Ball is only 3% behind the Tail. If any of you are interested in more reading for the Atomic bombs, read "Flyboys" has some interesting stuff about the second flight to Nagasaki.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> do they still use heavy water in the bombs??



They never did. At least not in A-Bombs. In H-Bombs, it might be used as the hydrogen source material in some bombs, but it is not absolutely necessary.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2004)

Does anyone know how many tests were conducted on H-Bombs?


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 1, 2004)

Try this....

http://www.angelfire.com/tx/atomicveteran/NuclearTests.html

And for the Soviets....

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2004)

cool thanks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

> do they still use heavy water in the bombs??





> They never did. At least not in A-Bombs



then why were the germans making it for their A-bomb??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

They never actually made their A-bomb though...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > do they still use heavy water in the bombs??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was an error. Heisenburg, after the war, tried to indicate that this "error" was intentional, as he didn't want the German's to have the bomb, and tieing the development to the need for heavy water bogged down the program. Supposedly none of the non-Jewish German physicists were astute enough to catch the error.

However, I must say that looking at the facts I'm not convinced. It is easy to see how this mistake could in fact occur and I don't think Heisenburg or any member of his team were nearly as sharp as Einstein, Szilard, and/or Oppenheimer. I personally think the German team just goofed. Moreover, I doubt Germany had the resources to build a bomb in WWII anyway, it'd have taken them a decade to do it even if they were on the right track. If you investigate the scale of the Manhatten project you will see that just the centrifuge effort (to enrich uranium) was increadibly huge. And it was a gamble, there was no gaurantee it was going to work and many of the intermediate steps had to be scrapped, rethought, and another avenue tried to achieve success. It required a patience with failures that the Nazi's didn't have.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

> They never actually made their A-bomb though...



because we destroyed their supplies of heavy water..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

I know...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > They never actually made their A-bomb though...
> 
> 
> 
> because we destroyed their supplies of heavy water..............



No. It would have made no difference. But, the US intelligence people had no idea if it was important or not, so they destroyed it. Significant resources were devoted to heavy water research in the Manhattan project, because they didn't know what they were doing and thus had to cover every possiblity even though they didn't believe heavy water was necessary (and they were right). Heavy water was of no real special value as a moderator, regular water or graphite was quite sufficient and much more available.

Research the effort to create U-235 and plutonium for the making of A-Bombs. The German's were not even close to achieving this! Remember, after millions of $ were spent developing the first US uranium enrichment faclility at Berkley, it failed only producing about a gram of U-235. Another method was developed, and a huge facility at Okridge Tenn. was constructed, to produce about 90 grams of U-235 per day. And the German's had no idea that the man made elemement U-239 (plutonium) even existed or could be produced.

In fact, the German's had just established their first atomic pile and had not yet even generated a successful chain-reaction when the war ended, putting them where the USA was in 1942 at the very start of the Manhattan Project. Hiesenberg had incorrectly calculated that it would take tons of U-235 to create nuclear bomb, when in fact it only takes few kilograms (about 40 kg at the purity level of Littleboy). 

It is even possible that Hiesenburg intentionally mislead the Nazi's as to the viability of a nuclear bomb, but I personally doubt this, he did the math, and just goofed it, it's not an easy calculation only afew phyicists of the time were capable of working correctly. But the fact that no one else in the project was capable of checking his math shows just how far from a bomb they really were. The article at http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/anv/Why the Germans Failed.html pretty compellingly disputes the idea that Hiesenberg intentionally sabotaged the Nazi bomb program.

A few more links on the topic:

http://www.mnlegion.org/paper/html/manhattan.html
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/project.html
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/index.html
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/MANHATTN.HTM

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

> But, the US intelligence people had no idea if it was important or not, so they destroyed it.



hey hey hey, i aint even gonna read past that line 'till that's been put straight, it was a highly trained group of BRITISH and NORWEGIAN commandos, not an american in sight.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

And I believe they went in via Horsa's....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

nope, they were para dropped on a ice flat in norway i believe.............


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 4, 2004)

Did you see Ray Meare's programme about the mission? Only the super-tough needed apply!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Yep 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

yeah i saw that, that's where i'm getting most of this from


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 4, 2004)

The team that was sent out to make a reconnaissance of the plant had so much equipment, they had to 'shuttle' it all the way over the glacier.
That is to say, they carried half of the gear several miles, and then after dumping it, went back to get the other half. Then they would keep repeating the process all the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

and they were only able to do it by some miracle, one of the Nerwegian temm members came from that area as a child and they actually found one of the sleds he used as a child, they said they wouldn't have been able to do if if they didn't have the sled..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

it's true though..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

That sled won us the war...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

well not really as it turns out they didn't need the heavy water, how pissed off must the germans have been when they realised..............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > But, the US intelligence people had no idea if it was important or not, so they destroyed it.
> 
> 
> 
> hey hey hey, i aint even gonna read past that line 'till that's been put straight, it was a highly trained group of BRITISH and NORWEGIAN commandos, not an american in sight.................



Scuse me, it was Allied intelligence that decided to conduct the operation. Which arm executed the operation is not the point.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well not really as it turns out they didn't need the heavy water, how pissed off must the germans have been when they realised..............



They never did. Details at even this level about the A-Bomb program really didn't hit the public until about the 60's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

> it was Allied intelligence that decided to conduct the operation. Which arm executed the operation is not the point.



ah, so you're saying it was the allies that discouvered it, which means naturally means the amercians destryed it, dude intelligence destroys nothing, the people that carried out the raid are the people that destryed it, simple as that, face it, the americans didn't destry it................


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 5, 2004)

It wasn't even 'Allied' intelligence - it was strictly an S.O.E project.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> It wasn't even 'Allied' intelligence - it was strictly an S.O.E project.



No the evidence is that the orders to destroy the facility came right out of the Manhattan project. From there it was handed to the British to take care of, which they did with great results.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

> No the evidence is that the orders to destroy the facility came right out of the Manhattan project.



ah so naturally that means the amercans destryed it like you said before, as they were the ones that gave the order, i'm sorry for ever thinking the british ever had anything to do with it.............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > No the evidence is that the orders to destroy the facility came right out of the Manhattan project.
> 
> 
> 
> ah so naturally that means the amercans destryed it like you said before, as they were the ones that gave the order, i'm sorry for ever thinking the british ever had anything to do with it.............



For God sakes, when I think of the W. Front of Europe, I think of the USA and Britian as being one side. I should have said "Allies" in my orginal statement.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

You mean the whole war was not fought by only the USA? LOL just kidding.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

I think the most dangerous place on a bomber during the bomb run would be in the bloody bomb bay. Imagine getting your sodding parachute harness cought on one of those 1000 pounders and going all the way down from 30,000 feet. Keep in mind you're carrying a walk-around O2 tank so you're going to be awake for the whole ride.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

actually in a lanc the only person that could have come in contact with the bomb bay doors was the bomb aimer, the pilot and flight engineer actally could have gone straight into the props  but you have to remember they would wait a while to get clear of their plane before opening their shoot.................


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 6, 2004)

Depends on the bomber of course. The Lanc's bomb bay was completely enclosed, away from the crew. There were two little round windows fixed into where the bay jutted up inside the fuselage, so that the bomb aimer could check for a 'hang-up.'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

oh wait i've just read the original post and io get it now, i miss read it before............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Cheap Labour said:


> I think the most dangerous place on a bomber during the bomb run would be in the bloody bomb bay. Imagine getting your sodding parachute harness cought on one of those 1000 pounders and going all the way down from 30,000 feet. Keep in mind you're carrying a walk-around O2 tank so you're going to be awake for the whole ride.



Yeah but did the crew really sit in the bomb bay for the whole journey?
Thought not...


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 6, 2004)

Even Major Kong didn't do that.....


YEEEHAAAAA!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)




----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 6, 2004)

Cheap Laybor nice to hear fro you. Being in the bomb bay at the bombs away call is more a Problum for the B-24 of B-17. But then when over he target most crewman would be at the guns or flying. But I will not be surprised to read about crewman going down with a bomb.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah but did the crew really sit in the bomb bay for the whole journey?
> Thought not...



The question was asked as "What is the most dangerous position on a bomber _during the bomb run._"

Imagine you're a B-17 (this thread is not just about Lancs you know) flight engineer, and the radio compartment is hit and catches fire. Say you're the only guy who can get there (use your imagination - every other crewman aft of that position is dead or incapacitated - these things happen in war, you know) with a fire extinguisher. You try and slip through the tiny catwalk, but whoops, something catches onto the bomb. With all the straps and laces and what-have-yous on a flightsuit this isn't really implausible. And then bombs away! Not to mention Flight Engineer away.

I wonder if you'd leave a crater.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 6, 2004)

Cheap Labour said:


> I wonder if you'd leave a crater.



May be if you're not wearing a parachute...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

> And then bombs away! Not to mention Flight Engineer away.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

i could picture that...........

yet another reason as to why the lanc is a better bomber than the B-17............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Indeed...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

I'm stil waiting for people's argumets as to why they think the B-17 was a better bomber than the lancaster................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

I dont anymore, "Bomber command" has changed my views on the subject completely.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I'm stil waiting for people's argumets as to why they think the B-17 was a better bomber than the lancaster................



I think for daylite bombing the B-17 had an edge (though the concept of unescorted bombers was stupid) it was a tough honest plane that did the job it needed to. Better is not really a valid comparision the Lanc did most things better and it had a lot of soul too!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

I dont think the Lancaster would have half the character it does now if it wasnt for the dambuster raids.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 11, 2004)

I think the worst place to be in a WWII bomber was inside the plane, I know thats irreverent (my uncle was a waist gunner in a B-17 100th bomb groupe) with the loss rates so high it was incredible that these men had the courage to get into them and fly every mission. Statistics I've heard is that they had more time in combat reletive speaking and worse odds than an infantry man. My hat's off to them.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> My hat's off to them.



Ditto!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Agreed. You actually had a better chance of survival in WWII if you were a Marine than an aircrew member in Europe. Scary thought!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > My hat's off to them.
> ...



Me too!

If only I had a hat though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

ditto............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 26, 2005)

wmaxt: the riflemen would say that the aircrews are crazy to fly right into and throu the flak and fighters to drop the bombs that through it all again to get home.

Hello all I have been away in Maine on vacation!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Welcome back, Willow. 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 26, 2005)

IMO day bombing was about the most dangerous role an aircraft could do, flak, Bf109s and Fw190s are a deadly mix


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 29, 2005)

Thanks Evenglider


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

well depends on the conditions, there was nothing the luftwaffe could do to stop us bombing by day over normandy when we had total air superiority.............

and welcome back..............


----------



## Viper (Jan 29, 2005)

i would say that the ball turret would be in a 17, but in a lanc i would say the tail gunner


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

that's the general concensus............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

I will have to check, but I remember reading somewhere that statistically, the ball turret was not the worst place to be. I will see if I can find that reference.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

That will be interesting 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 2, 2005)

The Tail people! As a fan and friend of B-24s it is the tail. Read past posts for this topic. But for me I voted the ball. That is the place to be


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

well as has been said it depends allot on the nationality of the bomber, you only have 3 options on a british bomber, but many on an american one.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

What about French bombers


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> What about French bombers



That's a great picture, if it's the one I think it is I was privledged to be there at the "Planes of Fame" museam when it was taken.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

Do you mean my signature pic?


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Do you mean my signature pic?



The P-38 and Zero. When I saw it the P-38 had only 5-10 hours on it's restoration. It could be from somewhere else though (I don't remember the P-38 having drop tanks). P-38s sound SOOOO cool  a deep rumble and so smooth it makes a merlin sound rough (the turbos, it's quieter too) - no offense guy's the Merlin sounds great too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

Nice, you make me very jealous!


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 6, 2005)

Yes, P-38s did have drop tanks. You can never have too much gas flying over open water ?)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Yup, very true 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 15, 2005)

So question, have we come to agree on our worst position? Or sould be break it down by type?

Also I have a new sig picture, any one want to ges what bomber it is


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2005)

not sure we should do it by type, more by country.................

in a british bomber the worst posistion was the tail.............

an an american bomber the worst was the tial/ventral turret..............


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 15, 2005)

Ok Lanc, thought i would ask. As for type I would ask it there any difference between being in say a B-24 or a B-326?

The records say yes the B-26 had the fewist lost, but they did lot different type of missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2005)

like opperating over normandy with no enemy opposition in the air, which always helps..........


----------



## Archangel (Feb 16, 2005)

statistics says the tail it the worst place to be.
Ow, and in IL-2 FB or PF, from what direction u mostly attack a group of bombers? i think almost everyone shoots from the back to take the whole group of bombers out.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah im agreed in tail.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

Look the ball turret was the worst place to be those Me's got underneath you and shot


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

The same could be said for any position...


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yes but look for the vulnerability reports on a B17


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

see what i mean


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

I think the tail was far more dangerous...


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

you would only get hit in the tail if you were directly behind because fighter rounds were high velocity


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

We aint just talking about the B-17 here...at night, German Nachtjagers came up behind the bomber for an attack as a head on attack at night is pretty dumb, youve also gotta remember the Schrage Musik gun set up used by German nf's...


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

OH..... good point


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2005)

According to the post war analysis done by the USAAF, the ball turret was one of the safer positions to be in. According to the records of the 303rd BG, here is the order of safest to least safe, based on % of men killed in that position:

Position % KIA 
Pilot-Copilot 14.20
Radio 12.97
Engineer 12.37
Bombardier 12.06
Navigator 12.06
Tail Gunner 12.06
Ball Turret 11.76
Waist Gun 10.23


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 20, 2005)

Thanks for that table Evan. I remembered reading somewhere before that the most dangerous position was the pilots position, its really hard to get people to believe that it wasnt the ball turret!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2005)

I wasn't sure at first, but the numbers tell the story. Still, I sure wouldn't want to be in the ball turret! The waist gunner is the safest, but it has to also be the coldest position.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

in the lanc it was cirtainly the tail.............


----------



## Archangel (Feb 21, 2005)

true,.. and so it was in many other aircraft..
ow, and the tail was shurely the loneliest postition to be.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

I'd have thought the pilot would be the most dangerous place because you would be the last person out because only you could keep the plane straight and level for everybody else


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Statistically for the Americans, they were the highest rate. It would depend on the situation for straight and level flight. If the aircraft could, you could set the autopilot to hold it straight and level, but sometimes not.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 21, 2005)

Even, that info is just for the 303rd yes? When we look at it what type of missions and what aircraft were they flying? I am sirprised that the tail was not more. I have seen a lot of pictures of German attacks on B-24s at the tail.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

From what I have seen, those numbers were pretty consistent across the board for B-17s. The post-war survey done by the AAF stated that the pilot/co-pilots had the highest KIA rate.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 22, 2005)

allright im back


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 22, 2005)

Even, that is interesting. I wounder why they had the heigh rate? 
I could think that rounds fired at the tail or beam, could travel through the aircrft and stop at the pilots. That is a thought, but I would like to hear from the rest of you


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

I can only speculate why, but I would think in a front on attack, a fighter pilot would be prone to aim at the cockpit. Once you have killed the pilot and co-pilot, it's done.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

That makes sense.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 23, 2005)

ok, but you have only a few seconds to hit such an attack.. from behind you have a much bigger canse of bringing it down cuz you have more time, once you killed the rear gunner, all you need to do is take out 2 engines on one wing.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

That is true archangel. An attack from the rear has many advantages, especially with time to shoot. Like I said, I can only speculate.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 23, 2005)

But in a box formation as the 8th airforce did, you'd be looking at the wrong end of about 20 machine guns


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

In any box formation, you would be looking at alot of guns facing you. You had the top turret (or ball turret, depending on your angle) and front guns from a frontal attack. The rear you had the 2 x .50s from the tail gunner, plus possible the ball or top turret. From other bombers you could have waist position gunners as well. All in all, not a place that _I_ would want to be.

They said the tighter your box formation, the safer you would be. It is partly because if you kept a tight formation, the fighters couldn't fly through the middle of your formation and break it up. Robert Morgan talks about that in his autobiography. He attributed that as one of the reasons that the Memphis Belle made it through 25 missions. That and luck.


----------



## Chocks away! (Feb 23, 2005)

It must have been great flying an arado jet bomber 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 23, 2005)

except for the fact that there's no defensive armament on an Ar-234


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2005)

correction there are two MG 131's facing rearward on the jet.

now yes lets get back to an earlier posting of mine concerning US bombers and German SturmFw attacks from the rear. From the fall through the winter all German attacks were suppose to begin by attacking the rear of the bomber formations and knocking out the tail gunner and closing to destroy the engines. Yes if the Rotte was attacking alone they would face the onslaught of many .50's but that was not the case on nearly all missions. Only after the first pass of the Gefectsverband was it allowed then to attack from any angle to throw off the US pilots and US gunners, as there would be too many targets to contend with. This was in theory of course. Also the leader of the gruppe or the Staffelkapitän if he was leading or flying was to form up on him and go in for another attack if it was called by him to be a concentrated one in Staffel form of up to 12/15 a/c in line abreast. with only about 12 or so cases where this did come about the US P-51 escorts were there in droves to pounce upon any a/c with German crosses. Even during those fateful rear attacks the P-51 did get a jump from above and lessened the amount of German Fw's and 109's to attack from the rear initially.

Can U all imagine what it was felt like flying tail end Charlie thinking that after seeing some 100 German a/c before your eyes lined up in single abreast in 4 waves............. the whole fricking German air force is going to attack me !! It's true and this is what they thought.

E ♪


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

What a helpless feeling that must have been!


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> correction there are two MG 131's facing rearward on the jet.


----------



## Udet (Feb 23, 2005)

From a good deal of footage I´ve seen I can say the behavior of many defensive gunners on the B-17s and B-24s was kind of odd.

In many many shots, the bombers appear to be in very good condition , with no visible much less heavy damage, allowing the German interceptors to get extremely close -kind of point blank range- and get pounded like hell.

I ve seen guncamera attacks from the rear, head on attacks, attack from underneath and even a few from the sides -perhaps from rookie pilots?- and in most cases I can say I am not able to detect any defensive fire from the .50 cals, you can also detect other bombers in the foreground of the camera telling you it is a box being attacked.

It would appear to me the crews were not that effective manning their defensive toys.

Yep, I ve seen lots of cases of heavy bombers which are clearly damaged beyond redemption but still flying, surely stragglers, getting intercepted and receiving the final hammer. I am sure most of those badly damaged stragglers had many dead and/our wounded inside, the machine gun positions torn apart or simply they were out of ammo -or the combination of any of those-, and of course, no defensive fire is detected there at all.

But what of the cases when the bombers are in very good condition?

Defensive gunners of the USAAF would claim up to 10 or 11 times more enemy fighters than were actually brought down.

Of course the B-17s and B-24s shot down a number of German fighters, but it was never what they said and claimed.

I recall someone saying many of the crewmen could not operate the defensive machine guns properly and that hitting a German plane passing by at speeds surpassing 600km/hr was simply impossible. It was more the messy barrage the box could launch which brought the more German fighters down, rather than the individual skill of gunners.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2005)

Udet, others you mean something like this.....

2 examples.

10 Octboer 1943, 8th Air Force claims a total of 202 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 27.

14 October 1943, 8th Air force claims a total of 199 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 38.

although obvious overclaiming and not used to the split-S dive tactics early in the Air campaign it does show the total chaos involved during an air battle where seconds to minutes could mean sudden death....

E ~


----------



## Udet (Feb 23, 2005)

Erich:

Right! You ve got the point. Even by knowing there were not enough German interceptors to intercept every heavy bomber formation sent out, i wonder if such claim reports of the bomber crews ever made a double edged knife. "More than 400 hundred German fighters that we shot down in a few days, and they keep coming in numbers enough to cause us so heavy losses?". I wonder if moral was ever affected.

Many German pilots right at the moment of banking away from the attacked bomber would open the throttle at maximun with the obvious exhaust...so many gunners when seeing the smoke yelled "I got it!"

Adding more to what I´ve said, the very high altitude flying of many formations involved freezing temperatures with the obvious consequences on the body. Yes, i am not an ignorant, I know the crews were provided with extra-clothing (jackets, gloves, etc.) which impaired mobility of the gunner -especially the waist gunners-, armor plate for the torax, helmets, etc., so it was everything but an easy task to operate the machine guns, with the consequent low numbers of German fighters shot down in comparison with the very high number of bombers that got destroyed by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

Hitting a moving target while getting shot at and possibly turbulence and a number of other factors is difficult. Add the things you mentioned and you have a less than ideal situation for those gunners. Overclaims are common for all sides. Seeing the return fire may be difficult from the guncam footage. I wouldn't think the Luftwaffe fighters went on the attack unopposed. The accuracy, or lack of, by the gunners in the bombers certainly was good for the attackers.


----------



## Udet (Feb 23, 2005)

Evan:

Of course i did not suggest, at all, the bombers did not counterfire!

My point is that I ve seen many guncamera shots -of excellent quality- showing bombers which appear to be unharmed and the fighters got very very close and delivered their lead into the bombers, unlike some others when the defensive fire is visible.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

Hmm..I don't know why, but perhaps the camera shot were not the first aircraft to approach the bomber formations and the rear gunner was already dead. I am only speculating, of course. I am sure there could be many reasons.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2005)

you may be quite correct Evangilder as footage from German gun cams were screened and then sent off for further investigation with the proper authorities. If the gun cams were in good order and clear and sharp they then were used for training purposes and lastly for propaganda to boost morale showing up in the extensive Deutsche Wochenschau films that still can be purchased today...........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2005)

I have not gone through all the pages so excuse me if this has been mentioned before.  

I don't have the book but I think I remember reading in *Gunner*" ISBN 1-55046-332-2 that the most dangerous position in the B-17 and B-24 was the waist gunners. Believe or not it said the ball turret was the safest.


from the same book though I think I made some errors in copying(does not add to 100%) 

Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.

B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6


B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6 

Erich,

I can find no reference to any rear firing weapons being mounted in the 234B. The 234C, of which few were made, was to have a pair MG151/20s.

ref. Arado 234 Blitz, Smith/Creek


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2005)

the recon versions of the B 234 had twin rear mounted mg's. whether they fired in anger is another story as my interviews with P-51 pilots that shot these down say nothing of return fire. I suspect that the Arado jet pilots thought themselves immune to interception.

I find that waist attacks on heavy bombers during 1943 and first part of 1944 as the Luftwaffe attacks then were ordered to be from the rear as the defensive fire would only be from the tail position, once eliminated the German pilot was free to deliver the death blows privided he slow down and not fly through the defensive fire of the bomber pulk..........and that was the problem for the Luftwaffe pilots, especially the inexperienced


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2005)

Erich, those weapons went were the cameras were installed. Not much room there for both.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 25, 2005)

Udet, you raise a good question as to the different factors that go into trying to hunt down the German fighters as they came over the formations. Now remmber that the bobmer guns had but a few seconds of fire time. Most B-24 gunners has 500 to 1200 rounds, and that would be one reason why you saw good clean bombers letting the fighters get real close 

As for tail end chairly, that was never the place to fly


----------



## Udet (Feb 25, 2005)

MP Willow:

That is kind of the idea i was trying to land here.

I ve seen footage when the defensive fire is very visible when the German fighter was homing in for the kill; in some cases i can even say the interceptor equipped with the guncamera got hit since kind of moderate/violent shaking is detected in the camera, but it was not enough to bring the German down.

Having seen shots where the defensive fire is clearly visible gave me a pattern to go and see those shots i am herein referring to, and in fact no defensive fire is being fired.

The reasons for that? Many. I still have a hard time trying to figure out why. That is why i said the behavior of a number of gunners on the heavies was odd.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 26, 2005)

That I can agree with you on. Being a gunner was not a job for the light hearted.


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

If I flew as escort i'd either use a P-51D Mustang or a P-47 Thunderbolt.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 26, 2005)

Nice pic. 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 26, 2005)

It sure is!


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Compositon is just about perfect. Thirds rule , Subject entering the frame. a very good picture indeed Bounty.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

escorting british bombers at night though you have to take a mossie........


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 27, 2005)

Sorry Chaps,

Little late splitting this one.

Done

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Yesh but now the poll is gone...I dont think this thing should be done with the polls...


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 28, 2005)

CC, I would agree that the polls should have stayed. AS for the esscourt, the P-51D and P-47 were late arrivals in the war. But the P-51 could have come sooner, would that have made a difference in the escourt of bombers? Or just let the bombers have Little firends from the start? 

Yes, we seem to have some gifted photographers here.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

They did have the P-38's before the 'Stang came along 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

Not in enough numbers though, they were all fighting in the Far East


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 1, 2005)

CC, yes, but the numbers were set for Europe in North Africa. They were shipped to England then sent out for Operation Tourch.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 5, 2005)

Most dangerous position on a bomber?

Inside.


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 5, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Most dangerous position on a bomber?
> 
> Inside.


is there a position out side ?........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 5, 2005)

I've read about a VC winner who went out onto the wing of a Wellington with his parachute on to stop a fire on the wing reaching the fuel tanks


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 5, 2005)

I heard about that.


NH, there is if youre in a TB-3


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 5, 2005)

Interesting TB-3, thoughs Russian bombers were not the place to be 
But then most were so slow the German fighters had problums with them. Save for the Pe-2.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Mar 10, 2005)

The most dangerous position is a tie between the ball turret and the tail gunner. It is very hard to get out of the turret in certain positions, and the tail end of the aircraft is usually the first place hit during an attack.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 11, 2005)

Jug I agre that the tail and ball were both bad. but a P-47 out flying a Mustang? I would have to see that! And they ned to be both Stock! 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 11, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> The most dangerous position is a tie between the ball turret and the tail gunner. It is very hard to get out of the turret in certain positions, and the tail end of the aircraft is usually the first place hit during an attack.



American stats, from _Gunner_ says the waist gunner position suffered the most casualties.

@ Willow

Pe-8


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2005)

early war as the tail attacks were standard from summer of 45 till war's end. the waist position was also hit once the tail gunner was eliminated so maybe overall the stats are higher on the casualty rate


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 12, 2005)

This one is closed and a new non-poll thread on the same tpic opened.

Kiwimac


----------

