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.
What me? Ok maybe a bit, but it was to write to you Lanc. I should have sent you a note. Anywho a new question for bomber positions, thoughts on Dive bombers?

Havig read some and need more reading always, I think they were not that great of a place to be. But to be in a Ju-87 over Spain or latter part of Barbarosa
 
But to be in a Ju-87 over Spain or latter part of Barbarosa
Click to expand...

If you meant "later" or "latter", I still think it's a bad choice. Technically operations have no real "end". So with this in mind, the "later" part or "latter" half of Barbarossa would be around '43-'44. Not a good time to be in a Stuka...
 
it would be ok over spain, as long as there were no enemy fighters, soldiers with rifles, kids with slingshots or old men with walking sticks, as all of the above could take out a stuka...................
 
the Ju 87 had a better refinement of armor as the variants progressed especailly around the pilot on the D and G kanonvögel. The canopies on both had extra armor plus armored glass increased.........

E ~
 
Depends. Most aircraft in WWII were well protected against rifle-caliber rounds and many had adequate protection against 12.7-13mm ammo.
 
Sorry for my poor typing, I think faster then I type and read on the scream before posting. I do not think that the Stuka had that bad of a career. If it was that bad Lanc, whay was it used for so long? Was it just because that was all they had?

If you dislike the Ju-87 that much why not the SB2C-3, most of the Helldiver problums were worked out by then. Divebombers are one of my weaker types.
 
actually a P-61 was shot down at night by a rear gunner/Ju 87D-5 in NSGr 1 or 2 on a night harrassement mission.............. so yes depending on the angle of deflection of a mg round the Stuka armor could withsand some punishment. Usually 2cm rounds would make mince meat out of it.......

E ~
 
Concentrated 20mm fire would make mince-meat out of anything flying.

MP - the Stuka was used for so long because there was nothing to replace it. If you note, it was withdraw from service over Britain well before the BoB was over and had virtually disappeared from service against the West by 1942 (the exception being the night-flying Stukas). It only enjoyed any sort of prolonged success over the Eastern Front where the Luftwaffe maintained superiority longer than anywhere else.

The Helldiver is probably one of the most maligned aircraft of the war. The early version did have problems, but the later versions -3,-4,-5 more than made up for them. The Helldiver sank a greater tonnage of Japanase shipping than anyother aircraft.
 
Was the Stuka also used throughout the North African campaign, or was it knocked out there, too?. It's greatest strength of course was its incredible precision. After being withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe didn't really have anything to hit the small radar stations any more.

There was an armor plate between the pilot and gunner, but that didn't help the latter much when attacked from behind. I read somewhere recently that the rear gunners joked they themselves were the armour for the pilots.
 
Yes the Stuka was used in Nord-Afrika.

It was superior on the Ost front of course during 43-45 as a Soviet tank buster. slow it was, it made an ideal dive bomber and pak platform. Even quite well as a night harassment a/c as it would cause the Mossie and P-61 nf's to nearly stall when chasing them. The Stuka crews at night would useually fly in a section of threes hoping the rear gunner/radio-operator would watch out for Allied nf's. A flick over of the wing and the Stuka was gone to the deck and usually in ground haze where it could escape or perform it's bombing/strafing runs.
 
The Luftwaffe had success using fighter-bomber versions of the Bf-109 and Bf-110 against the radar stations. The Luftwaffe stopped the attacks because they failed to realize how successful they were, not because they lacked the tools.
 
Yes, but they only had a single test unit of these planes with pilots trained in the techniques, not enough to maintain a sustained attack on the radar stations--not that the Luftwaffe ever tried to. But they were very effective, as you say, when used against radar and other targets.
 
The only time the Stuka could be used during the day was with air superiority. Once the idea of it being invicible had been washed away by the Hurricanes and Spitfires it was an easy kill. Except for the Soviet pilots.

Barbarossa ended in 1942 when Operation Typhoon started.
 
The Soviet pilots improved dramatically over the course of the war as did their planes. By about 1944 or so, the Stuka required air superiority to be effective there as well (and the Luftwaffe was rapidly losing that).
 
Yes, but what I was stating was that the Ju-87 was unable to perform in the Western thearte after 1940, effectively. Of course still in 1942 it was being used in the desert but with very heavy losses.
 
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