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.
if we use the He-111 as the model for the BoB bomber, it had 5 hand aimed machine guns and if i remeber correctly, only 3 gunners, the B-17 had up too 12 machine guns, 8 of which were in power operated turrets, not a very fair comparison................................
 
LG-I will try to find the referance for the B-24 kills but I do know they had a good amount. It is hard to compair the He-111 and the allied bombers. Maybe the 111 to the Weligton or B-25, but not the 4 engines heavies.


Ok here is a twist what position is the worse in a German, Italian or Japanese bomber? I would vote for any just to be in the plane as trouble. Some of the ames of the Japanese craft like one shot wonder. The Japanese bombers had surviveable issues.
 
Well, I don't know about safety, but I know I wouldn't have wanted to be the belly gunner on a He-111. I've seen the position close up and it looks uncomfortable and vulnerable.

I think it is fair to compair the kill totals of the He-111 and the B-17 (which had as many as 13 MGs standard and some even more in field modifications but only 6 were in powered turrets as the tail postion had no power). Such a comparison shows that the B-17 was much more suited to the role of daylight strategic bomber than the He-111.
 
The He-111 was never designed as a strategic daylight bomber anyway. It was a close support bomber.
 
But since the Germans lacked a strategic bomber it was required to fulfill that role and was inferior in it. Yes the B-17s needed escort, but even without it, they were never turned back and still presented a danger to the attack German planes.
 
Never turned back because they just kept going no matter what. Schweinfurt for example, what was that 40% loss?
 
Ok so they were a bit mission focused and crazy at times, but the Ballbaering runs the war, along with oil. Kill one and you are rippled kill both you win the field.

AS for the STratigic bomber I am still dumbfounded as to why the Fw 200 and other 4 engine bombers were lot more fully developed. The 200 had its problums and Hitler did not think he needed them or that they were good, but he did know the limitations with out and what England had. The bases and plants in western England and Acotland would have been in range more. But again this is just me, I like the 4 engine heavies and the Fw 200 had a lot of promise.
 
the germans didn't consider them nessisary, during the 30's they were expecting war with neighbouring nations, so a heavy bomber wasn't nessisary.........................
 
40% losses? I don't think so, out of approximately 360 bombers, 60 were shot down. That's 16% losses. A lot of the planes that returned had to be written off but I seriously doubt that ammounted to another 24% of the force. The heaviest loss rate I know of what the B-24 mission to Ploesti. Approximately 1/3 of the B-24s employeed where shot down and many more written off.
 
40% of serious damage, complete loss and written off. 60 shot down, that's 600 lives. On top of that the Germans didn't bomb in such huge raids as that. It's not really comparable in my opinion. The B-17 being designed for strategic bombing and tactics being drawn up for it was obviously superior.
 
That number sounds better. The costs in human terms was higher than 600 since a lot of the bombers that made it back were carrying dead crewmen with them. It was a horrific mission, but I don't think there was another plane in the world at the time that could have done it with the probable exception of the B-24.
 
I don't deny that. I'm saying though through bravery a determination (And trust in their plane) they would keep going. While the Germans who weren't really in large enough numbers, or a suitable plane would find turning back a more resonable idea.
 
I believe the Germans matched those numbers during the BoB, they did have something like 1300 bombers on hand but they never practiced the mass formations that the Americans did.
 
Polesti on 1 August 1943 was a ery bad day for B-24s! Of the 178 planes that laft 58 did not return and most that did were all shot up. That low level raid did do some damage, but crews growned and shuttered when they were told in mission breifings that the Target would be Polesti as they were to go back more times to kill the oil. I am looking for more information and details about that mission and return trips. Also polesti was hit almost a year before but with only 13 b-24s I think, it did little damage from high altitude.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Snautzer01
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
874
Vahe Demirjian
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
nuuumannn
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
Thumpalumpacus
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register