Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

Whats the most dangerous position on an Allied Bomber during WW2?

  • Nose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cockpit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Top Turret Gunner

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Radio Operator

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Waist Gunner(s)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ball Turret Gunner

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tail Gunner

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read an artical about the Hurricane being dug up. It sounded interesting, but I live in the states so not able to see the program.

LG, thanks for reminding me that the P-38 was the Fighter in the med. I had read it but as most things I read promptly forget while looking for other information. Would it had made a difference if the 8th could have had the P-38s that were redirected for TORCH? 8)
 
Probably. When the Lightnings were finally used in the escort role bomber losses did drop dramatically. Their own losses were rather high (poor tactics, lousy weather, and mechanical difficulties) but the bombers were getting through and that's the point of an escort fighter anyway. The problem with that possibility is that the North African campaign would have had a much tougher go of it without the P-38s.
 
Without getting too far into the game; your men do get injured too much and mine even get injured over England. It's like they trip over some ammo something.
Or maybe one is whittling his wood to the shape of a B-17 and cuts his finger (You'd get that if you've seen Memphis Belle).

Has anyone seen that Captain Corelli's Mandolin? It's pretty good, it's about the Italians occupation of this Greek island...it's funny, and good with a few historical inaccuracies that I liked pointing out...
 
Lancaster it is not to late :)

I have a question for you, I was reading about the RN and its use of F6F Hellcat fighters, Martlets I think they called them, anywho they flew escourt for some of the raids on the Tirpitz. What do you think of that?

LG- as for the P-38s I just wish the USAAC was more forward thinking. They had the plane and could have done a lot with it. But they had some really good longrange heavy fighters but did not use them until later.

Now back to topic, is the position in the bomber make any differance if it is a B-24, b-25, or B-26. this to be Heavy, medium, or light? :)
 
I'm not sure what you were looking for asking about the Hellcat's use against the Tirpitz, but the Seafire lacked the range to be any kind of an effective escort.

On the bomber question, I believe the B-24 actually carried more armor to protect crew positions (on the B-17 only the pilots really had much) so I would think the B-24 might have been safer.
 
LG-as for the F6F they did have a good range, and again that is what I read, could be a bad sourse. The Seafire was not that bad, the Mk. II was a better range. The RN did use them thru Korea so it could not have ben that bad.

You are probable right on the B-17 armor, though they did try to improve it but generaly things were poor. ;)
 
The most serious attempt to improve armor on the B-17 was on the YB-40. However, the extra weight towards the tail made the plane very hard to handle and the armor improvements were not continued on with the B-17G.
 
The YB-40 was an armament improvement more than anything. Extra guns and ammo, I don't think the armour was drastically improved.
 
From B-17 Flying Fortress by Roger Freeman:

"These aircraft had extra heavy and armament and armour for acting in an escort role."

He also notes that the YB-40's empty weight was a ton heavier that the basic B-17. Now granted two extra turrets and 5 extra guns had been added but that can't account for that much weight. There must have been a pretty impressive amount of armor on board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back