MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Yes I have read some, so I should read more? Just thought to ask before I dive into all the past posts.
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
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
up to you.......................
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Jee thanks.
cheddar cheese
Major General
no don read the, that way you post suff ad get your numberf posts up 8)
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
whazzatcheddar cheese said:
cheddar cheese
Major General
sorry, its my ruddy keyboard 
'no dont read them, that way you post more and your number of posts goes up 8)' is what its supposed to say 8)
'no dont read them, that way you post more and your number of posts goes up 8)' is what its supposed to say 8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i'm shocked at your attitude ................
................Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The original post was asking about worst position on a bomb run wasn't it? On the bomb run the main concern was flaks since the Germans didn't wanna fly through that stuff either. Given that fact I'm not sure there was a best or worse position since flak hits were pretty arbitrary.
On the question of fighter escort to Munich . . . P-38Ls could hace done it. Earlier Lightnings were the first allied fighters over Berlin.
The reason the B-17 was more popular than the B-24 are two fold, I think. The B-17 was used predominately in the ETO and the European war received much better press coverage that the Pacific or Med. Also, the B-17 was tougher and the images of B-17s coming back to England absolutely shot to ribbons made a very lasting impression.
On the question of fighter escort to Munich . . . P-38Ls could hace done it. Earlier Lightnings were the first allied fighters over Berlin.
The reason the B-17 was more popular than the B-24 are two fold, I think. The B-17 was used predominately in the ETO and the European war received much better press coverage that the Pacific or Med. Also, the B-17 was tougher and the images of B-17s coming back to England absolutely shot to ribbons made a very lasting impression.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but the B-24 was amazingly tough aswell..............
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
It was amazingly tough, but probably not as tought as the B-17. Regardless, the B-24 never got the press that the B-17 did because it primarily served in out of the way theatres (ie. everywhere but Europe).
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the B-24 was the plane that won us the battle of the atlantic....................
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
And the most used bomber in the Med., the Pacific, the Aleutians, and, by the way, there were nearly as many Libs built as Forts and Lancs COMBINDED. But for some reason the Lib was never seen as that great a plane by the public. Maybe they didn't like it's looks.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Lighting Guy, you have helped some, but the B-24 was just as rugged as the B-17, and if you say that to B-24 crews who were brought home in an all shot up Liberator, they would have words with you.
I will agree that the P-38 was a good fighter that was one of the first who could profive the escourt. And yes the Liberator got less press, but if you like WWII art, there are some great posters and War bonds stuff fore The Libs and Ford's Willow run plant, that was just a great site. The Lib was used in every Theature and proformed with high marks. It's airframe was used for bomber, trasport, and even tanker. 8)
Question how is it that your posts are so high when you just joined?
Lanc, we are agreeing, the Liberator was the deal that helped seal the atlantic, that and the crazy production of the Jeep carriers. 8)
This thread is a little off topic, but that is fine. As for the thought that flack hit alaround, I would have to say that some of the German gunners could put it right up at the cocpit. Some Japonese units used captured or downed Liberators to shadow the formations to give the gunners heading, speed, and altidude. They would stay until the crews realized who it was, a great story about that in a book I read.
I will agree that the P-38 was a good fighter that was one of the first who could profive the escourt. And yes the Liberator got less press, but if you like WWII art, there are some great posters and War bonds stuff fore The Libs and Ford's Willow run plant, that was just a great site. The Lib was used in every Theature and proformed with high marks. It's airframe was used for bomber, trasport, and even tanker. 8)
Question how is it that your posts are so high when you just joined?
Lanc, we are agreeing, the Liberator was the deal that helped seal the atlantic, that and the crazy production of the Jeep carriers. 8)
This thread is a little off topic, but that is fine. As for the thought that flack hit alaround, I would have to say that some of the German gunners could put it right up at the cocpit. Some Japonese units used captured or downed Liberators to shadow the formations to give the gunners heading, speed, and altidude. They would stay until the crews realized who it was, a great story about that in a book I read.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I post alot, so what? The B-24 may have been as tough as the B-17. Believe it or not I prefer the B-24. I thought we were discussing why the B-24 never achieved the legendary status that the B-17 did (at least in the eyes of the general public). The B-17 was, at least, perceived as being tougher, and that maybe why the B-17 was considered more popular. I happen to know a few B-24 crewmen. One was in the Pacific and his Lib made something like a 600 mile flight back to base sans the tail turret! That's pretty tough.
cheddar cheese
Major General
good point, the b-24 was an extremely ugly plane, ugier even than the lancaster 8)
The B-24 could fly further and carry more than the B-17, or was it higher? I can't remember.
Anyway, the B-24 dropped more bombs on Europe than the B-17.
The B-24 wasn't the sole victor of the battle of Atlantic, it could have been won without it. But there is no denying it did an amazing job.
Anyway, the B-24 dropped more bombs on Europe than the B-17.
The B-24 wasn't the sole victor of the battle of Atlantic, it could have been won without it. But there is no denying it did an amazing job.
cheddar cheese
Major General
i always thought the normal payload of a b-24 was slightly less than that of a b-17? and i dont think it flew higher either... 
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The B-17 had the higher altitude by a few thousand feet. Generally a B-17 had a maximum load of 9,600lbs while the B-24 could cram 12,800lbs into it's bomb bays. A more typical load would be 5,000lbs for the B-17 (10 x 500lbs) and 6,000lbs for the B-24 (12 x 500lbs). Either way the B-24 was carrying more bombs.
- Status
