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.
my sources say the maximum payload for a b-17 was 17,900 for one model (read that from someone on the site, crazy i think ) and that the typical load for a b-17 was 6,000lbs and 5,000lbs for a b-24 8)
 
I've just read the typical was 6000 lbs for the B-17G...and the B-24G could go 2,400 miles with 5000 lbs...obviously the combat radius would be 1,200 miles.
 
The 17,600lbs figure for a B-17 could only be used on VERY short range missions. That load was made up of 6x1600lbs in the bomb bay and 2x4000lbs under the wing. Typically the Americans used a load of 8-12 500lb bombs. The bay of the B-24 was designed to carry 12 so I assumed that was the standard load.
 
The B-17G was a late mark B-17 though but the B-24G was really an early mark of B-24..so it's not really fair to compare the two..although I did...sort of..
 
Lightening Guy, thanks for the help! You are right that the B-24 was not loved by the public, just think the Boeing media machine and a name like "Flying Fortress" was a lot to compeate with. But then the B-24 was a "Liberator" so shows people are fickel.

As for comparison, try the B-24J and B-17G. There you should find that the Lib has the range, speed and payload over the B-17. Normal loads were around 6,000 to 7,000lb a little lighter in the PTO because of the range, but it also would very for target type. B-24s could carry up to 12,000lbs of ordenance for the shorter flights. The bottum line is the B-24 had the range and layload over the B-17. That is why it was used so much in the pacific. Both planes were survivers! 8)

I will try to get better compairison numbers for the two. I used the B-24J because it is a latter model, the G was really a D built by Douglas, I think in '42? The j was also the first to be built by all 5 plants!

Got to love smiles!
 
Lightening Guy, I love the sight! The resurch forum is a great place to read and find crew also good for nose art. 8)

My sig still needs some help, well life goes on!
 
Vitory!!! 8)

Thanks C.C, now I hope you all do like the Grand Lady!

I hope to try and get a B-24 to put beside her, but that would mean a little work.

I am looking for good pics of the Liberator, any of you all have sugestions
 
tried google?

and back to the arument about payloads and ranges, i'm going to champion the lancaster and say it could carry a bigger payload further, thus, it's the better bomber................
 
the B-29 was never in the argument, it was between the B-17 and B-24, then i brought in the lancaster, there aint room for another one..........
 
Hahah. The B-24 was better than the B-17...the Lancaster was better than the B-17..but I don't know about the Lanc Vs. B-24.
 
In that case, I'd rather be in the B-24 but I would rather send out Lancasters if I weren't going to be in them...
 
what would be the point, the lanc carries nearly 3 times the payload on normal missions, so whats the point in sending out B-24's when they wont do any damage?
 
Well I wouldn't care about the damage caused if I was in the thing, I would want to get home.

If I wasn't in the thing Lancasters all the way, they will do more damage of course but the B-24 did cause mass amounts of damage, I heard it was the bomber to drop most bombs on Axis Europe. But I don't know.
 
plan_D, I have read, and if you do a google surch I think you can find it that the B-24 had the most tonage dropped.

Lanc, yes the Lancaster could take out more load, but at a shorter range, and the "Survivability" was not that great. If it could take the same amount of beating the B-24 or even the B-17 did then we might have an argument. For the night bombing the Lancaster and that big bombload were just great. But I should read up more on it.

As for Liberator pics, I did find some on Google, and am still looking. Also looking for information on Ford's Willow Run Plant. Now if the Lancaster could have been made on a mass line like the Liberator that would have been a sight 8)
 
Yes, well I was just a little skeptical, as I had only read it from one source. But it's no surprise the Liberator did a lot of work.
 
Everything said about the B-17 in the B-17 v. Lanc argument applies to the B-24 as well. Yes the Lanc carried a bigger load but the B-24 closed the gap, plus it was tougher, better armed, and more accurate. Plus, it must be remembered that there were more than 18,000 B-24s built compared with 13,000 something B-17s and 7,000 something Lancs.
 
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