5 Favourite Planes

• Aug 4, 2004

• #161

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

generally the tail gunner was the most likely to be hit, but i think the tactics were to sweep acroos the rear of the bombers......................

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #162

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

Ive seen both kinds of attack... High sweeping attacks, and tail on...

I would think that a slower tail end approach would more likely force the fighter damage, as opposed to a high G fast diving attack...

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #163

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

but remeber that after the war someone somehow managed to work out that only 1 in every 6000 rounds fired from defensive posistions on american bombers in the ETO actually found their target.....................

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #164

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

This i can believe... You had a better chance of gettin syphilis from a sheep than shoot down an attacking fighter....

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #165

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

teir main role was to deter the attackers, i mean, would you rather go for a bomber that will fire at you, or one that wont..................

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #166

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

A wall of lead is a great deterrent to any fighter pilot....

 

• Aug 4, 2004

• #167

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

I wouldn't hold to that sheep-syphilis comment though. The claims of enemy fighters shot down by American bombers may have been exaggerated, but they were considerable. I think the variety of weapons the Luftwaffe tried (such as 210mm rockets, large caliber cannons, etc.) illustrate how effective the combat boxes were.

 

• Aug 5, 2004

• #168

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

but don't you think that carrying 1.5 tons of ammo on the average mission is a bit extreme when you're carrying 6000lbs or less of bombs??

 

• Aug 5, 2004

• #169

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

LOL good point.....

And the sheep/syphllis comment was a joke LG...

 

• Aug 6, 2004

• #170

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

Not necessarily when that 1.5 tons of ammo allows you to bomb in daylight producing greater accuracy.

 

• Aug 6, 2004

• #171

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

Ive been reading alot about German pilots recently.. And a surprisingly high number of Aces went down to the gunners on some of them bombers... I was surprised.... Guys with 80 kills.... and more...

 

• Aug 6, 2004

• #172

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

Les, LG can't get jokes don't bother with them.

Well it's all luck if you get hit by a bomber or not, so I'm not surprised.

 

• Aug 6, 2004

• #173

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

Not necessarily when that 1.5 tons of ammo allows you to bomb in daylight producing greater accuracy.

Click to expand...

but they still needed fighter escort..................

 

• Aug 6, 2004

• #174

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

Not saying they didn't. But they did considerably better than British or German attempts at flying daylight raids.

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #175

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

British didn't have fighter escort during the early daylight raids. And the German bombers were much lighter than American bombers so they were never going to be successful.

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #176

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

Not saying they didn't. But they did considerably better than British or German attempts at flying daylight raids.

Click to expand...

the B-17 was designed as a daylight bomber, and you're right, it was one of the best daylight bombers of the war, the lancaster and halifax were designed as night bombers, as such they didn't need to be so overloaded with guns that there was no room left for bombs......................

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #177

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

As for the German bombers, they were tactical close support bombers. Not suited for strategic bombing campaigns.

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #178

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

and ask yourself, would the B-17 have been as good as the lancaster or halibag at night, i doubt it....................

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #179

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,639

23

Apr 1, 2004

Waste of time, it had a stupidily small bomb load. You'd never see a B-17 carrying a 13,200 lbs bomb.

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #180

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

or a 22,000lb grand slam for that matter.......................