 | 
04-10-2004, 07:18 PM
|
#46 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Saco, MAINE!!!!
Posts: 894
Country:  | Hate is a strong word lanc. But I would say that I have no love loss for the B-17, though it did bring a lot of airman home even if the bomber was falling apart in flight.
But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?
__________________ 
Seaplanes Are so nice | 
| | |
04-10-2004, 08:25 PM
|
#47 | | Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 50
| The lower ball turret gunner was the worst position in my mind. He had to be of smaller stature to fit in the turret and if the turrret was jammed and could not be retracted he would be killed on landing as the turret would be crushed during landing. The tail gunner would be the second most dangerous position as a lot of German aircraft would fire on the aircraft coming up from the rear. The waist gunner was the probably the safest position to be of any of them. The B-17G model had the chin turret added to protect the front of the aircraft plus there was the top turret gunner and 2 side .50 caliber machine guns for more firepower | |
| | |
04-11-2004, 07:16 AM
|
#48 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | Quote: |
But my love of the B-24 is not as strong as your love for the Lancaster! What Modle do you like the best?
| well, i'n hardly spoilt for choice, but I'd say the B.I special................
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
04-12-2004, 02:55 PM
|
#49 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Saco, MAINE!!!!
Posts: 894
Country: | Lanc, Why?
ahanswurst: You speak like the waist would be safe  I have read stories from gunners who have talked of shell starting in the cockpit and stopping in a waist gunner or other part of the palne. They are in the mittle and well they are trying to shoot at people who want to kill them. 
The ball was the worst, but you got to see it all first, the flack, bomb strikes. I am a short guy so the ball would be where the crew would but me! 
__________________
Seaplanes Are so nice | |
| | |
04-13-2004, 04:57 AM
|
#50 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 661
| But Ball Turret gunners DID have safety lines in case the Turret fell off (because they had no parachutes) and the Ball was a very small target to hit by a German fighter 
I still think that although the Ball was undoubtably dangerous
(as someone else already said EVERY position was dangerous) 
I think the Tail was the worse place to be - personally i think it went in this order...(worse at the top)
1) Tailgunner
2) Waist
3) BTG
4)Nose
5)Cockpit
6)Flight Engineer
7)Radioman
As i say - NONE of them were 'safe' but i think there were definately some positions i would rahter be in than others! 
__________________  | |
| | |
04-13-2004, 05:25 AM
|
#51 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 250
| nose in a crash rear gunnar on a bomming run | |
| | |
04-13-2004, 01:53 PM
|
#52 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | 'cos it looked pretty cool.................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
04-14-2004, 06:21 AM
|
#53 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | theres such a thing as a cool lancaster? 
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
04-14-2004, 12:04 PM
|
#54 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 661
| Yeah Lanc...i've heard of the 'ugly' lancaster but never the 'cool' one 
__________________ | |
| | |
04-14-2004, 01:42 PM
|
#55 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | it's so coll it was almost frozen..................
not to mention the fact it carried te largest convetional bomb of the war............ (you can't say the B-17 did that, can you..........)
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
04-15-2004, 04:56 AM
|
#56 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 661
| No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13) 
To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship...
__________________ | |
| | |
04-15-2004, 06:33 AM
|
#57 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | im sorry, i have to corect some things here 
ceiling on a lancaster is 24,000 feet
range is 2530 miles on a lanc
speed of a b-17 is also 287
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
04-15-2004, 02:08 PM
|
#58 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 250
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by bronzewhaler82 No you can't, but you can boast the B-17 had a few advantages over the Lancaster...those namly being higher ceiling (19,000 vs 35,000) speed (287 vs 302), range (1,730 vs 2000) and defensive firepower (8 vs 13)
To be honest i don't think you could say the Lancaster was a better bomber....it may have had a bigger bomb-load but basically thats the only real advantage...I hate to say it because i'm a very proud Englishman and theres no doubt in my mind that without the Lancaster we wouldn't have won the war but i don't really think you could claim the Lanc was better....I hope this doesn't effect our friendship... |
how could you say the b17 was better it lost 398 crew in the duration of the war | |
| | |
04-15-2004, 03:30 PM
|
#59 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,043
| hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied  ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime... | |
| | |
04-15-2004, 03:57 PM
|
#60 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Canada
Posts: 2,070
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses hmmmmmm lets consider two things, one is that the B-17 flew at daytime making it prey for faster fighters that can actually SEE their target and not have to rely on (excellent) German radar (that you brits copied ), and two, it had 10 crew unlike the 5 of the lanc so half losses could be the same as the lanc but then again, it was a better plane so it didnt have to worry about hiding itslef in the nighttime... | Hmmmmm... I have to point something out: radar was invented by British, not German.
That was one of the many reasons why Britain won the BoB. 
(At least, that's what my teacher said in my "History of the 20th century" course in High School.) | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM. | | |
