Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[Erich]

no it wasn't a liability at all ! firing .50's like cutting butter with a warm knife

 

[Lightning Guy]

Just a few facts. A one second burst from the 6 .50cals of a P-51 would unleash 75 rounds adding up to 7.28lbs of lead on target. Or if you prefer it in terms of kinetic energy, 1370kW.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

where did you learn that??

 

[Lightning Guy]

There is a website that lists some very interesting statistics on WWII aircraft armament. Of course the numbers are fairly simple to come up with it you have the basics of the gun and a little skill with mathematics.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

have you got the adress for the website??

 

[Erich]

type in Tony Williams in google and see what comes up. He has a site and a forum and is one of your English kin. A very knowledgeable gent

 

[Lightning Guy]

Or just go here . . .

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

 

[MP-Willow]

Thanks all. I did read about the RAF's use of the 20mm on the Mustang III. I just have been thinking of the holes that the German fighters were putting into the US ones and that a 2cm shell makes a good whole and could take lessshots to knock out the target. But I was not thinking about range and volume of fire, edge to 0.50 cals. But still I wounder why the US aircraft did not look into more cannon use. This would be true for the ground attack versions of the P-47 and others who could use the harder hitting cannon for tanks and bunkers.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, even a 20mm cannon is limited in its usefullness for ground straffing. It was better than .50cal but still didn't have the power for knocking out a Panther or Tiger. This US didn't show much interest in developing a good medium sized cannon furing the 1930s, placing more emphasis on 37mm for air-to-air (which was just stupid). But once the war got going, the .50cals made perfect since for the US planes. They were very rarely going to be facing any aircraft too large to bring down by .50cal fire and the smaller ammo allowed a much larger ammo load to be carried. That is important for an escort fighter which may have to engage in a lengthy, running battle without the chance to disengage to rearm.

 

[MP-Willow]

ok LG I read the info on the gun hitting power you posted and I am understanding better. But with the P-47 being this great ground attack platform why not put on two 4cm cannon? I know it would be low-velocity and have a small payload, but the hitting power would be there. But then the P-47 did assapt bombs and rockets so that might have been ok.

Just thinking of the Hurricaines with the 4x40mm cannons ripping into tanks.

 

[plan_D]

You mean the two 4cm cannons. Guns weren't needed to be high calibre if you had rockets, and bombs to do the drop on heavier armoured tanks.
The majority of tanks could be destroyed by 37mm cannon from the top, so the really high calibre guns were a needless extravegance.

 

[Lightning Guy]

America never put much interest in developing true ground attack planes. Some designs were in the works but it was quickly becoming apparent that rockets and bombs could be used on existing fighters to knock out armor, and the regular armament could take out anything lighter and still be used in the air-to-air arena.

 

[Erich]

wonder if I am asking too much here.......... ?

would the worst position be associated with which type of bomber ? Some such as the Lanc and halifax had their belley turrets removed and were open to underneath attacks(Schräge Musik) and so the whole crew was at risk through 43 till war's end. The B-26 tail gunners eveidently were quite proficient and the tail position was quite dependable with their rearward 'stinger'. Wasit position was not an enviable spot during 1943 early 44 when the Luftwaffe made side attacks quite frequent. Would think hte belly turret because of it's limitations would be susceptible to under -belly air attacks aas well as Flak bursts ! yuk, no thanks guyz

thoughts ?

E ~

 

[Lightning Guy]

I would agree with that. I don't think the nose of a B-17 would be very safe. The pilots did have some armor in front of them but the bombardier and navigator had nothing but aluminum and plexiglass. When a group of 190s or 109s came in head on, that must have been scary. I think things would have been a little safer in the nose of a B-24 with that heavy Consolidated or Emerson turret, both of which had some armor, right up front.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think erich's right, the worst place on a american bomber would be the ball turret, for a brittish bomber the tail......................

 

[MP-Willow]

As Erich has shown with his sad pictures of the B-24s the tail was not a great place, but I am not going to say the ball was the worst. I have read of ball gunners saying it gave a great view and you had the first shots at what was coming up, mostly the flak. But B-24 gunners did have the highest kill amounts from what I have read.

Now I would say the bombadier on the run when he had control and the plane could do little to avoid the flak and fighters. Than any spot on retur because it is a given that the fighters would come to taer in again on the shot up birds.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

actually the bomb aimers on brittish bombers had a better servival rate than any other crew member as the escape hatch was righ under his posistion....................

 

[Lightning Guy]

MP-Willow, did you mean kills over German fighters? Because that's not what I've seen. I don't have the numbers of hand, but I believe B-17s shot down more German fighters and had a higher kill rate (kills/sorties flown) than the B-24s.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but a post war study found out that only 1 in every 6000 shots made it on target................................

 

[Lightning Guy]

I've not seen that stat and it may be true. But the American bombers did manage to shoot down a lot of German fighters. Certainly they did better than the German bombers did during the BoB.