Well ofcourse I was just saying the tail gunner didn't have much more room than the ball either. I mean I think the ball was probably the worst and most confined and most dangerous but the tail was not much better.
Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?
- Thread starter bronzewhaler82
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
cheddar cheese
Major General
I still think it was the tail however.
I think it would be the ball turret because not only did they have to contend with fighters but they could not get out of the ball if powered failed and the access door was not in the right spot, they were pretty much enclosed in glass and then imagined if they could not get out the gear did not come down on landing. I would hate to be in the ball.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and the fact that they were known to simply fall away for no reason..........
Another good reason. Think of the FLAK hitting your ball turret to as you flew over hostile Germany. That had to really suck.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
wel you could get hit by flack anywhere in a bomber, exept in the ball you saw it coming..................
exactly I would hate the ball.
cheddar cheese
Major General
the lancaster kicks ass said:
That was only on very early planes, the problem was fixed and this didnt happen after about 1942...
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
It depends a lot on the model. In the ones with the power tail gun unit and little cockpit, the gunner could move to get his head down under the armor plate. On the earlier models, he had no protection and so he could not move to a safer position. On all models, the ball turret gunner has almost no options.
=S=
Lunatic
And that is why the ball is the worst position.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
what i find really weird is that the lanc's rear turret (dunno if it was on all planes) but the entry doors were armoured, but they were behind the pilot, what's the point??
It could have to do with the CG (center of gravity) of the aircraft. If you put to much weight in one certain spots it can make the aircraft dificult to fly and in some cases impossible. When we first got to Iraq we had the same problem when we installed armor plating in our Blackhawks, we had to calculate the CG to make sure that our aircraft would still fly correctly. That would just be my guess though.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well i don't think so because it was only a few mm and on a plane that size that extra weight wouldn't make a difference............
It does on all aircraft even a 747. 1 pound of weight in the nose of the a blackhawk can shift the CG a couple of inches which does not sound like a lot but will alter the flight characteristics drastically.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
dude the armour would have weighed more than the difference between a small tail gunner and a large one, a problem the lanc managed with fine................
It also depends on where the weight is placed you have to take into fact that everything in the aircraft has to be placed there so that the CG is not out of balance. It does not matter if the weight is in the nose or the tail or in the middle of the aircraft. Now that may not be the reason why there was no armor there, that was just my guess.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and it was a good guess but i don't think that's the reason....................
Well what do you think the reason was?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i dunno!!
I dont know what kind of seats are installed in the cockpit of a Lanc but I know the cockpit seats in the blackhawk have less armor around them in the airframe because the seat itself is made out of kevlar, maybe the Lanc had similar seats obviously not kevlar but maybe steel.
- Status
