Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[bronzewhaler82]

But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball .

Why exclusively the B-24s turret? Is that because it was such a crappy bomber?

and i don't mean to nit pick (well, I DO actually 8) ) but wasn't the turret exclusively made of metal rather than plastic? 8)

 

[MP-Willow]

But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball .

Why exclusively the B-24s turret? Is that because it was such a crappy bomber?

and i don't mean to nit pick (well, I DO actually 8) ) but wasn't the turret exclusively made of metal rather than plastic? 8)

No that would not be the "A crappy Bomber"! The ball was a metal frame but did need to let the gunner be able to fire and see it. I think that the B-24 was the Besdt bomber available until it was surpassed by the B-29 and even then the Liberators did a lot of work and sufferd much for that big silver monster. The libs were used everywhere for almost every thing!!

 

[bronzewhaler82]

Yes I have heard that the B-24 Liberator was an excellent bomber but if it was the best (in your opinion) then why wasn't it used as widely as the B-17?

 

[MP-Willow]

It was not used as much because most of the B-24s were in the PTO. the longer range was needed to cover the pacific's vast spaces of nothingness. In the ETO it did surve with distiction, but it did have some problums with its fuel pumps and the new Davis wing. But all and all I would have flown in one over the B-17. I think though it truly lost out because the b-17 had just greater Marketing and public support. But overall the better range, bomb load, speed, and the B-24 was very versital as an airframe. I have not read about B-17s as cargo, or flying the hump regularly. They were almost all taken out of the Pacific because of poor range.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ah, finally, some-one with an equal hate for the B-17............................

 

[MP-Willow]

Hate is a strong word lanc. But I would say that I have no love loss for the B-17, though it did bring a lot of airman home even if the bomber was falling apart in flight.

But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?

 

[ahanswurst]

The lower ball turret gunner was the worst position in my mind. He had to be of smaller stature to fit in the turret and if the turrret was jammed and could not be retracted he would be killed on landing as the turret would be crushed during landing. The tail gunner would be the second most dangerous position as a lot of German aircraft would fire on the aircraft coming up from the rear. The waist gunner was the probably the safest position to be of any of them. The B-17G model had the chin turret added to protect the front of the aircraft plus there was the top turret gunner and 2 side .50 caliber machine guns for more firepower

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?

well, i'n hardly spoilt for choice, but I'd say the B.I special................

 

[MP-Willow]

Lanc, Why?
ahanswurst: You speak like the waist would be safe I have read stories from gunners who have talked of shell starting in the cockpit and stopping in a waist gunner or other part of the palne. They are in the mittle and well they are trying to shoot at people who want to kill them.

The ball was the worst, but you got to see it all first, the flack, bomb strikes. I am a short guy so the ball would be where the crew would but me!

 

[bronzewhaler82]

But Ball Turret gunners DID have safety lines in case the Turret fell off (because they had no parachutes) and the Ball was a very small target to hit by a German fighter

I still think that although the Ball was undoubtably dangerous
(as someone else already said EVERY position was dangerous)



I think the Tail was the worse place to be - personally i think it went in this order...(worse at the top)

1) Tailgunner
2) Waist
3) BTG
4)Nose
5)Cockpit
6)Flight Engineer
7)Radioman

As i say - NONE of them were 'safe' but i think there were definately some positions i would rahter be in than others!

 

[brad]

nose in a crash rear gunnar on a bomming run

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Lanc, Why?

'cos it looked pretty cool.................

 

[cheddar cheese]

theres such a thing as a cool lancaster?

 

[bronzewhaler82]

Yeah Lanc...i've heard of the 'ugly' lancaster but never the 'cool' one

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it's so coll it was almost frozen..................

not to mention the fact it carried te largest convetional bomb of the war............ (you can't say the B-17 did that, can you..........)

 

[bronzewhaler82]

No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13)

To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship...

 

[cheddar cheese]

im sorry, i have to corect some things here 8)

ceiling on a lancaster is 24,000 feet
range is 2530 miles on a lanc
speed of a b-17 is also 287

8)

 

[brad]

No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13)

To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship...

how could you say the b17 was better it lost 398 crew in the duration of the war

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...

 

[Maestro]

hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime...

Hmmmmm... I have to point something out: radar was invented by British, not German. 8)

That was one of the many reasons why Britain won the BoB.

(At least, that's what my teacher said in my "History of the 20th century" course in High School.)