Most dangerous position in a B-17

[KraziKanuK]

I know there was a thread on this but I had trouble finding it.

Scroll down to see the numbers for the B-17 casualties of the 95th BG(H).

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

 

[BombTaxi]

Waost Gunner was the most exposed, and would therefore have the highest casualties, but Id hate to be in the front. Id be *insert adjective here* myself when the fighters came in head-on!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Think about being a wounded waist gunner, exposed to 50 degree below zero temps in a shot apart B-17!

 

[Wildcat]

I'd have though every position was dangerous!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Like one guy said on the old thread - What's the most dangerous position in a B-17? INSIDE

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yes but did the figures for the waist gunner take into account for the fact there was two waist gunners, on on each side, thus making the chance of one being KIA effectivly doubled?

 

[Anonymous]

I think most KIA's involve the loss of the entire crew.

There are approx. twice as many waste gunners lost because there were two waiste gunners, no other catagory has two crewmen.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Maestro]

Personnally, if I had to choose a position in a B-17, it would definately be the upper turret or the tail gunner.

I think the ventral turret is the worst position. (Because if your plane got shot down, you were trapped in there !)

 

[KraziKanuK]

I think most KIA's involve the loss of the entire crew.

There are approx. twice as many waste gunners lost because there were two waiste gunners, no other catagory has two crewmen.

=S=

Lunatic

What about the cockpit?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Personnally, if I had to choose a position in a B-17, it would definately be the upper turret or the tail gunner.

I think the ventral turret is the worst position. (Because if your plane got shot down, you were trapped in there !)

In 1978 I worked for a company called Aviation Warehouse outside of Los Angeles - a salvage company that also did a lot of movie stuff. We got a hold of several Sperry ball turrets and even set one up on improvised scaffolding. If you crashed with one of these extended, you would probably break the bomber it was in in 2 and I even think you might survive. The plexi on this thing was several inches thick and the actual structure was a big forging, again several inches thick. We got the thing running and it was like a carnival ride until we burnt the motor out (boy was the boss pissed!). Anyway, from what you may read about the ball turret:

1. You had to be small. I'm 5'9" and could not fully fit in it.
2. You could egress from it, the lower half would fall away.
3. You had to be nuts to want to go in that thing!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

my word that's one hell of an aviatar..........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

my word that's one hell of an aviatar..........

Got it fixed, it scared the hell out of me when I realized what I did

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

me too............

 

[FLYBOYJ]

me too............

Sorry

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i mean, what if a young child came on here and saw that..............

 

[FLYBOYJ]

YEP, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!

 

[Nonskimmer]

Crap! I missed it!

 

[CharlesBronson]

Related pictures.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

 

[FLYBOYJ]

YEP - SEEN THOSE AND THE GUYS IN THE BALL SURVIVED!

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Bomb Taxi said, "Waost Gunner was the most exposed, and would therefore have the highest casualties, but Id hate to be in the front. Id be *insert adjective here* myself when the fighters came in head-on!
"

To make matters worse, the closing rate between the fighter and bomber is added onto the velocity of the projectiles from the fighter's guns. If a head on attacking fighter is doing 340mph and your bomber is doing 230mph, that's an additional 830 feet per second. (About the velocity of a .45 ACP at the muzzle)