Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

cheddar cheese · 04-04-2004, 08:24 AM

that means the P.108 had about 20 then

Gemhorse · 04-04-2004, 09:07 AM

In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....

bronzewhaler82 · 04-04-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemhorse

In a B17-B24, the ball-turret would be hairy, but in British, definately the tail-turret - I remember reading Braham or Cunningham's story and a damaged Lancaster landed at their airfield - been shot-up by a Nightfighter, and they had to hose the rear-gunner outa what was left of his turret.- Mind you, the mid-uppers could cop it too. My VHS copy of Memphis Belle is a good example of Gunners at work- in daytime....

that poor bastard in the tail...i agree that the tail was the worse position to be in...funny how no-one has voted for the rest of the plane...i think the waist must've been a pretty dodgy place to be as well

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-04-2004, 02:43 PM

anywhere's dodgy in a B-17............................

Crazy · 04-04-2004, 09:03 PM

If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)

I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons:

1. In a crash-landing, you DAMN well better not be in the ball turret. Be crushed so fast it wouldn't even be funny....

2. Someone my dad works with knows a veteran B-17 gunner. Apparently, some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight

And they didn't have room for parachutes, either...

But of course, we picked up on the problem real quick, by about the third or fourth version of the B-17

cheddar cheese · 04-05-2004, 06:18 AM

Quote:

some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight

italians are supposed to be the people who make things badly

kiwimac · 04-05-2004, 08:34 PM

Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)

They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.

Wondering what the hell had happened, he tried to turn the turret and it wouldn't turn at all, while he was wondering just what THAT meant there was a tremendous thump as the tail-unit landed on the snow. When he dug himself out he discovered that there was no bomber attached to his turret, just a portion of the fuselage.

The lucky bugger had had just enough of the fuselage attached that the tail-planes acted as wings.

Bet he never won anything at all after that! You only get so much luck in any one lifetime.

Kiwimac

bronzewhaler82 · 04-06-2004, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy

If the B-17 is dodgy, the Lancaster is outright fatal (to it's crew, anyhow)

I would say the ball turret is the most dangerous place to be. For two reasons:

1. In a crash-landing, you DAMN well better not be in the ball turret. Be crushed so fast it wouldn't even be funny....

2. Someone my dad works with knows a veteran B-17 gunner. Apparently, some of the earlier B-17's had a rather touchy ball turret. It had a tendency to fall off in flight

And they didn't have room for parachutes, either...

But of course, we picked up on the problem real quick, by about the third or fourth version of the B-17

didn't the ball-turret gunner have some kind of safety harness attached to him - a sort of uncomfortable belt that he could wear to stop him falling out of the plane if anything happened to the ball-turret? (or is that something the writer of 'Memphis Belle' the film made up?)

cheddar cheese · 04-06-2004, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Although the rear-turrent on any bomber was dangerous, I remember years ago reading about a rear-gunner of a Halifax / Lancaster. (One or the other)

They had been attacked by a nightfighter and there was a tremendous bang which knocked the RG out for a few seconds, when he recovered the Night-fighter was gone so he tried to talk with the rest of the crew over the intercom. No reply.

Wondering what the hell had happened, he tried to turn the turret and it wouldn't turn at all, while he was wondering just what THAT meant there was a tremendous thump as the tail-unit landed on the snow. When he dug himself out he discovered that there was no bomber attached to his turret, just a portion of the fuselage.

The lucky bugger had had just enough of the fuselage attached that the tail-planes acted as wings.

Bet he never won anything at all after that! You only get so much luck in any one lifetime.

Kiwimac

BLOODY HELL!!!

MP-Willow · 04-07-2004, 02:42 PM

I think that any gunner or pilot for that matter in a bomber is in a bad spot. To have to fly stright and leval over the run and all the AAA and fighters know that so they wait. Then pick you off one at a time as the poor bombers limp home.

But the B-24s ball turret was the worst place. You just do not find a lot of the gunners who sat in that ball around today. There is a great story of a ball gunner in a B-24 after a fighter attack drenched in swet with bass alaround him. One would have to be crazzy to get into a plastic ball and fly at 25,000 or 30,000 ft with out a parachute. They could only hope that the waist gunners or tail gunner could help them.

bronzewhaler82 · 04-08-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

) but wasn't the turret exclusively made of metal rather than plastic?

MP-Willow · 04-08-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronzewhaler82

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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? :lol: Is that because it was such a crappy bomber? :lol:

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 · 04-08-2004, 05:55 PM

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 · 04-09-2004, 01:55 PM

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 · 04-09-2004, 02:04 PM

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