Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MP-Willow]

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]

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

 

[MP-Willow]

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]

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

 

[Erich]

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]

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]

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]

LG :

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

Erich

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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

 

[Erich]

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]

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)