GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Up through the "F" variant of the B-17, the front was lightly armed.
Due to the frontal attacks, the Chin turret was introduced on late "F" types and became standard on the "G".
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Up through the "F" variant of the B-17, the front was lightly armed.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.
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.
clock positions so 12 would be the front, 6 the rear.Great info - now in the 2nd part, numbers 1 - 12, which one is from head on or the nose?
Yes, no need for deflection shots.So, based on those numbers, bomber formations were primarily being attacked from the front or rear.
Possibly check out the Mediterranean Air War Series by Chris Shores et. al. Frank Olynyk expressed a possible interest in doing a by position casualty count for the heavy bombers as part of the research, using the relevant MACR. I do not know if it has been done or published. The cause of loss would affect crew survival chances, both total and by positionAccording 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
What does this dissertation have to do with the most dangerous position for a crewmember aboard a bomber?Possibly check out the Mediterranean Air War Series by Chris Shores et. al. Frank Olynyk expressed a possible interest in doing a by position casualty count for the heavy bombers as part of the research, using the relevant MACR. I do not know if it has been done or published. The cause of loss would affect crew survival chances, both total and by position
The data I have is simply total casualties for the entire war, the 8th AF B-17 listed as lost to fighters had an average crew size of 9.74, of which an average of 3.6 were killed. For flak losses 9.16 and 2.93. Reflecting the changes in crew sizes in 1944. From 1,429 B-17 losses to fighters and 1,379 to flak.
Early losses had higher casualty rates, to end May 1943, 112 B-17 lost to fighters, average crew size 10.05, of which an average of 5.54 killed. For the 38 B-17 listed as lost to flak the numbers were 10.03 and 4.18.
From a slightly later set of data, which has 4,508 B-17 losses of which 1,440 to fighter, 1,405 to flak. Collisions saw an average of 6.5 men killed per aircraft, crashes 3.6, fighters 3.57, take off accidents 3.04, flak 2.93, flak and fighter 2.85, friendly fire (usually bomb) 2.67, mechanical failure 1.7. Fatalities on aircraft considered to have been lost to fighter attack were 5,143 men, flak 4,123, collisions 1,607 then crashes with 519, out of 12,815 fatalities.
An incomplete list of 8th Air Force B-24 losses indicates close to half of the men on board were killed when the aircraft was shot down by fighters, while losses to flak had a slightly higher fatality rate than the B-17.
What does this dissertation have to do with the most dangerous position for a crewmember aboard a bomber?