Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[cheddar cheese]

i would, the P108 was INVINCIBLE (despite the fact 95% didnt make it throuh the war )

 

[bronzewhaler82]

Ah...so the P-108 wasn't really invincible at all...what a let-down

(is this elephant dead or not? i can't tell!)

 

[cheddar cheese]

i hope you arent calling the P.108 an elephant is a beautiful plane, just look at my siggy! dominating.....

 

[MP-Willow]

Such interesting. I would say the Ball turret was the worst to be. The b-24 is a good example because of its retractable feature that did not always retract. But that was the bomber to be in!!

As for an esscort if the P-51 would have been used earlier, but I would have only wanted it if it was painted with the Orenge tail markings!

 

[cheddar cheese]

As for an esscort if the P-51 would have been used earlier, but I would have only wanted it if it was painted with the Orenge tail markings!

i dont think thy would give you a choice

 

[bronzewhaler82]

I think it does look like an elephant actually but i must say i happen to think Elephants are beautiful...in their own grey, wrinkly way

As for tail colours didn't you know they gave you a choice C.C..?

"What are you going to name your bomber captain?"
"Oh i was thinking of 'Peggy Sue' or a name like that with a picture of a half-naked woman sitting on a bomb or something original like that..."
"Really? and what colour would you like the tail to be Captain?"
"Oh i think a nice shade of pink would really scare the Japs!"

Oh yes - the tail colour was very important!

It was to do with different squadrons wasn't it?

 

[cheddar cheese]

I think it does look like an elephant actually but i must say i happen to think Elephants are beautiful...in their own grey, wrinkly way

ive suddenly decided i dont like you anymore

(joke)

 

[bronzewhaler82]

How many gunnery positions did the P-108 have C.C?

 

[cheddar cheese]

i dunno ill have a look 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

time for a cheap plug for the lancaster me thinks. The lanc had 3 gun possitions (4 in some cases)................................

 

[cheddar cheese]

that means the P.108 had about 20 then

 

[Gemhorse]

In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....

 

[bronzewhaler82]

In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....

that poor bastard in the tail...i agree that the tail was the worse position to be in...funny how no-one has voted for the rest of the plane...i think the waist must've been a pretty dodgy place to be as well

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

anywhere's dodgy in a B-17............................

 

[Crazy]

If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)


I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons:

1. In a crash-landing, you DAMN well better not be in the ball turret. Be crushed so fast it wouldn't even be funny....

2. Someone my dad works with knows a veteran B-17 gunner. Apparently, some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight And they didn't have room for parachutes, either...

But of course, we picked up on the problem real quick, by about the third or fourth version of the B-17

 

[cheddar cheese]

some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight

italians are supposed to be the people who make things badly

 

[kiwimac]

Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)

They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.

Wondering what the hell had happened, he tried to turn the turret and it wouldn't turn at all, while he was wondering just what THAT meant there was a tremendous thump as the tail-unit landed on the snow. When he dug himself out he discovered that there was no bomber attached to his turret, just a portion of the fuselage.

The lucky bugger had had just enough of the fuselage attached that the tail-planes acted as wings.

Bet he never won anything at all after that! You only get so much luck in any one lifetime.

Kiwimac

 

[bronzewhaler82]

If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)


I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons:

1. In a crash-landing, you DAMN well better not be in the ball turret. Be crushed so fast it wouldn't even be funny....

2. Someone my dad works with knows a veteran B-17 gunner. Apparently, some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight And they didn't have room for parachutes, either...

But of course, we picked up on the problem real quick, by about the third or fourth version of the B-17

didn't the ball-turret gunner have some kind of safety harness attached to him - a sort of uncomfortable belt that he could wear to stop him falling out of the plane if anything happened to the ball-turret? (or is that something the writer of 'Memphis Belle' the film made up?)

 

[cheddar cheese]

Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)

They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.

Wondering what the hell had happened, he tried to turn the turret and it wouldn't turn at all, while he was wondering just what THAT meant there was a tremendous thump as the tail-unit landed on the snow. When he dug himself out he discovered that there was no bomber attached to his turret, just a portion of the fuselage.

The lucky bugger had had just enough of the fuselage attached that the tail-planes acted as wings.

Bet he never won anything at all after that! You only get so much luck in any one lifetime.

Kiwimac

BLOODY HELL!!!

 

[MP-Willow]

I think that any gunner or pilot for that matter in a bomber is in a bad spot. To have to fly stright and leval over the run and all the AAA and fighters know that so they wait. Then pick you off one at a time as the poor bombers limp home.

But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. You just do not find a lot of the gunners who sat in that ball around today. There is a great story of a ball gunner in a B-24 after a fighter attack drenched in swet with bass alaround him. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball and fly at 25,000 or 30,000 ft with out a parachute. They could only hope that the waist gunners or tail gunner could help them.