Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

MP-Willow · 11-13-2004, 05:52 PM

We have argued over the "Best Bomber" already, but that will never go away.

But Why in the Long life of the Lancaster were some of these questions for armore and escape not fixed?

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-14-2004, 07:20 AM

well there's many reasons the ball turret wasn't fittet, it would have meant a reduction in range, payload, manouverability, airspeed, it would have meant that the H20 bombing aid could be carried, and it was also a bit ugly, but the ball turret was fitted to around 150 aircraft.......

Frasier Nash 64

position: ventral
guns: 2x .303 Browning Mk.II
RPG: 500
gunsight: periscopic
Traverse: +/-90 degrees
Elevation: 0 degrees
Depression: 60 degrees

as you can see the figures aren't shockingly impressive, and along with the factors listed above and the fact that they were used before the introduction of Schrage Musik when the attack from the rear was still the most common made the RAF deem them as, well, useless...................

and there wasn't a great deal they could do about the escape issues.............

cheddar cheese · 11-14-2004, 02:59 PM

[/quote]and it was also a bit ugly[/quote]

if they didnt like it cos it was ugly, why didnt they scrap the whole plane in the first place

MP-Willow · 11-14-2004, 04:39 PM

Lanc, thanks again. We are as our air arms two different thoughts on the same problum.

Now here is a question for you all I was looking at some drawings while thinking of this issue of tail attacks and want to ask about the top/ dorcal guner. Could that gun placement help protect the tail gunner?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-15-2004, 11:38 AM

I believe the top gunner could to some extent help in an attack from the rear because of its 360 degree turn radius however I believe it would have been limited in the fact that you did not want to shoot of your rudder especially in a bomber like the Liberator with its 2 rudders. It gave a clearer view of the rear to engage but if the gunner turned without sieze firing he would have shot them up pretty good.

cheddar cheese · 11-15-2004, 11:49 AM

I suppose it depended on the attacking angle of the plane; If it was attacking slightly from port or starboard, the waist gunners could lend a hand, the upper turret could help in an attack from above and the ventral turret would be of aid in an attack from below.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-15-2004, 12:04 PM

It was best to have all around armament all over the bomber so that it could put out the most fire in the most directions.

MP-Willow · 11-16-2004, 03:43 PM

As for the rudders getting shot up by your own guns I think they had unterupters on the guns so that would not happen. If I am wrong please corect that. But more armor nd guns the better, but then the B-24 started out fast and well never got that speed back.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-17-2004, 01:57 PM

yes any gun turret that could have it it's own plane would have been fitted with a cam to assure the guns wouldn't fire when pointed at the plane..............

MP-Willow · 11-17-2004, 04:48 PM

Thanks Lanc. Question for all you, this topic is one of bombers and positions what about the Coastal Comand and Sub hunting. What position on what plane would you fear the most?

For me, the nose of a PBY, just so slow and not until the .50s were in it was really under gunned.

cheddar cheese · 11-17-2004, 04:52 PM

I dont know much about the aircraft used in that role; is it stuff like the Sunderland and Fw-200 Condor?

MP-Willow · 11-19-2004, 02:13 PM

Ok CC, well if another can help that is why the question is there.

But here is another: I saw a program about the "Great Escape" from Stalag luft-3 last night. It was really interesting, but got me thinking. If the Germans had not had to deel withall the downed airman in POW camps or the airman were cooperative not trieing to escape; would that have changed the war a lot? I think yes. The escape got 76 men out and three back to friendly lands. But that surch was great. More to the point the Germans had to keep men and material back for thee camps.

Now what do you all think?

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-19-2004, 02:16 PM

it was a downed airmans duty to make the enemy use as many resorces and man hours as possible in their retrival and encampment............

MP-Willow · 11-22-2004, 02:41 PM

Yes true, but the Germans thought the airman might not try so hard

But also the numbers of airman downed are just staggering! But the RAF did have some very clever chaps.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-22-2004, 02:45 PM

It is the duty of an aircrewman to try and escape. We are trained on evasion tactics to keep from being captured and if we are captured we are to try and escape at all means. It just does not happen that way all the time. To all the brave airmen shot down in WW2 I salute you.