Most Dangerous Position on a WW2 Allied bomber? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The most dangerous position on a World War 2 bomber would be in a tail turret. For instance, if I were alone in a tail turret, I would be killed by flak if an enemy plane damaged the tail turret. The perceived ineffectiveness of the B-52 tail guns against enemy warplanes in Operation Desert Storm was the reason why all B-52 bombers were stripped of tail guns.
 
JESUS H. "TAP DANCING" CHRIST........STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geo, he will not!
Unless he finds another place for his "conquest" and leaves. There is still
GettyImages-687814184.jpg

I learned something though: Every time I open "What's new" I check not only the name of the thread but also the year below. If it's 2005, I already know who's grinning behind:D: Superman.
In case like this I don't even open the tread.
Cheers!
WsMezPx.jpg
 
Hey... I have no idea what you are talking about... never the less... My guess is that the most dangerous position in a bomber was in the rear...
Why...because most of the shooting came from the rear, the plane being taled...
Indeed, doesn't the pilot (and on B-17/24 co-pilot) have an armoured seat? He's the one guy protected from the rear.
 
The most dangerous position on a World War 2 bomber would be in a tail turret. For instance, if I were alone in a tail turret, I would be killed by flak if an enemy plane damaged the tail turret. The perceived ineffectiveness of the B-52 tail guns against enemy warplanes in Operation Desert Storm was the reason why all B-52 bombers were stripped of tail guns.
Bollocks, Mynarski of the Mynarski Lancaster fame was awarded his posthumous VC because the tail gunner he tried to rescue actually survived the burning plane crash landing without a crew. In many situations the pilot and frequently A.N. Other were required to keep a damaged bomber flying straight and level to allow the crew to bail out, they frequently couldn't get out themselves. I am tired of you dragging up threads started by people who are no longer with us but were valued members when they were alive, it is sick and disrespectful. When the LW and some RAF squadrons were using head on attacks the most dangerous place is obviously not in the tail, same for Schrage Musik attacks.
 
The most dangerous position on a World War 2 bomber would be in a tail turret. For instance, if I were alone in a tail turret, I would be killed by flak if an enemy plane damaged the tail turret. The perceived ineffectiveness of the B-52 tail guns against enemy warplanes in Operation Desert Storm was the reason why all B-52 bombers were stripped of tail guns.

No B-52's were intercepted during Desert Storm...

The actual reasons the guns were removed was:

"My decision to eliminate the guns from the 'BUFF' was not an easy one," General George L. Butler, then head of Strategic Air Command (SAC), wrote to the aerial gunner community in the fall of 1991. "It stemmed from the collapse of the soviet threat and the leading edge of very sharp budget cuts… Our Air Force is going to go through a lengthy period of turmoil as we adapt to a dramatically changing world."

The U.S. Air Force's Last Tail Gunner Has Retired

Why do I bother? It's not like you will respond.
 
When you realize each B-24 and B-17 had 2 waist gunners it looks like all the gunner positions were pretty much the same.
Matter of fact no position in the aircraft seems to be that much safer than any other.

What is curious is that more pilots than co-pilots made it out of the shot down aircraft to become POWs.
 
The most dangerous position on a World War 2 bomber would be in a tail turret. For instance, if I were alone in a tail turret, I would be killed by flak if an enemy plane damaged the tail turret.
Most tailgunners were alone in the tail position and out of curiosity: what happens if flak damages the turret?

The perceived ineffectiveness of the B-52 tail guns against enemy warplanes in Operation Desert Storm was the reason why all B-52 bombers were stripped of tail guns.
The real reason they removed the tail guns from the B-52, is because a B-52 is faster than the Bf109 and Fw190.

So now you know... :thumbleft:
 
When you realize each B-24 and B-17 had 2 waist gunners it looks like all the gunner positions were pretty much the same.
Matter of fact no position in the aircraft seems to be that much safer than any other.

What is curious is that more pilots than co-pilots made it out of the shot down aircraft to become POWs.

More copilots than pilots are listed as "EVD" (evaded capture?). Not sure if that explains the difference.
 
Spoke a while ago to a WW2 B-17 gunner - according to him, the most dangerous positions were the tail gunner and cockpit. Tail gunner because most attacks were initiated from astern, cockpit because the attacking fighters knew that once they killed the pilots, the airplane was gone. One of the "safest" positions was, oddly enough, was the ball turret.

Jake
 
Spoke a while ago to a WW2 B-17 gunner - according to him, the most dangerous positions were the tail gunner and cockpit. Tail gunner because most attacks were initiated from astern, cockpit because the attacking fighters knew that once they killed the pilots, the airplane was gone. One of the "safest" positions was, oddly enough, was the ball turret.

Jake
That is perception , told to you by a survivor.
 
Can the bombardier fly the aircraft?

There are instances where other crew have flown the a/c and even landed the a/c.

Before going overseas my dad was at a CC training base. He was a WO and occasionally piloted the a/c. There was even crew that took off the a/c until a sea gull caused the a/c to crash landed, no casualties.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back