Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Very true FB some of those clips on this site are real tear jerkers those poor young sods didnt have a chance i think some people tend to look at a machine being shot down and forget the unlucky bastards inside. A tank exploding into flames looks spectacular but inside its boiled flesh and screaming .FLYBOYJ said:Especially if you were "Tail End Charlie."
The highest is however, the waist gunner.According to the 8th Air Force web page the best position was the Bombardier then the top turret/Waist gunner. The worst was the Radio/Pilot. The Waist gunner position was twice as bad accounting for the fact there were two. Ball turret,Navigator, Co-Pilot were about the same. It must be noted that this is for the 95th BG and go as follows
Pilot 58kia 11wia
Co- Pilot 56kia 7 wia
Nav 56kia 15wia
Top T 47kia 29wia
Radio 58 kia 14wia
Ball 56kia 21wia
waist 102kia 45wia
tail 57kia 14wia
As you can see it doesn't matter much where you are if your inside the plane.
The highest is however, the waist gunner.
Dad was a WAG and was the tail gunner in Coastal Command Wellingtons. He was 5'11". He said he would rotate the turret as far right or left and hang out of the turret more or less scanning the sea.I just found this site today. My father's rating during The War was tail gunner. Why someone who was 5'10" was rated for the tail is beyond me. Fortunately he was such a good shot he became an instructor at Harlingen AFB Texas. Any way, he and my mom both said the running joke at any B-17 base was, "What does a B-17 pilot first ask for after a mission? Give me 2,000 gallons of fuel and a new tail gunner." He also said every B-17 belly landing he saw at Harlingen with the belly turret stuck down ended up with one less crew member. B-24's were supposedly worse.
I believe that was a matter that reached up as far as the USA congress as an issue? 10% of pilots were lost in training.Another bit of trivia courtesy the "Ol Sergeant" - Total casualties in training were almost the same as casualties in combat during The War.
Justified because of the slower speeds of the B-17 and B-24While the tail gunner was probably the most vulnerable, I would think he was the most effective. So the risk is justified by the reward.
What of other positions?
Were the waist gunners, for example, justified, or would a B-17 be better off without them?
Quite richt, In fact the luftwaffe build special FW190 for this purpose.The dismissal of frontal attacks as a deadly tactic doesn't comport with what I've read, which says that the high closing speed combined with weak frontal armament on the bombers made this a preferred approach by LW fighter pilots.
True, but the frontal attack was the tactic of the day for the Luftwaffe based on their ability to track and intercept large bomber formations. I think in the greater picture planners would assume that future operations would involve bombers being chased rather than confronted head on as this was evident when gunner positions started going away in the post war years and the last position maintained was the tail gunner.The dismissal of frontal attacks as a deadly tactic doesn't comport with what I've read, which says that the high closing speed combined with weak frontal armament on the bombers made this a preferred approach by LW fighter pilots.
Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:Someone posted some statistics about Luftwaffe frontal attacks and their effectiveness and IIRC they weren't as effective in bringing down bombers as first thought.
Great info - now in the 2nd part, numbers 1 - 12, which one is from head on or the nose?Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils
For the B-24 it was:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils
Can you imagine what the results would be while shooting at a real a/c traveling at high speed?
taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2
**************************
Attacks and hits on B-17s and B-24s, Jan - May 1944
Distribution according to direction of origin in azimuth
B-17 % distribution of 3585 attacks and 441 hits whose direction could be determined
12 - 20.2/15.6
1 - 12.5/9.3
2 - 5.9/6.7
3 - 4.5/3.9
4 - 5.7/4.0
5 - 9.1-9.2
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 5.9/6.6
8 - 3.8/2.7
9 - 3.9/2.9
10 - 3.7/3.9
11 - 10.4/10.3
B-24 % distribution of 10425 attacks and 102 hits whose direction could be determined
12 - 21.6/17.6
1 - 12.7/8.4
2 - 3.9/5.2
3 - 2.9/5.4
4 - 3.0/3.6
5 - 7.7/7.8
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 19.6/20.6
8 - 11.0/6.9
9 - 3.1/2.0
10 - 6.9/3.4
11 - 11.9/7.8
Note: might not total 100% as the graphic was hard to read.