What B-17 position would you want

I got a new book called, "Gunner" and it is about aircraft gun positions on different aircraft. It has a chart on this subject.
In the USAAF, the safest position in a heavy bomber was the ball turret. These conclusions were drawn from a detailed analysis in which 1,117 air-battle casualities were tabulated. These figures were drawn from 8th AF B-17 and B-24 bomb groups. There were 110 men killed, 1007 wounded.

Bombardiers 17.6 %
Waist Gunners 10.5 %
Tail Gunners 12.5 %
Navigators 12.2 %
Radio operators 8.5 %
Top Turret Gunners 8.4 %
Pilot 7.4 %
Co-pilot 6.6 %
Ball Gunner 5.9 %

They also have crew position survivability charts for the Wellington, Lancaster, and Halifax for Jan-June 1943. The survival rate for all Halifax positions is horrible compared to the other aircraft. I can type those also if there is an interest.

 

Lets see those other stats too.

 

Outstanding TA! I have been looking for those numbers for quite some time now.

 

I was surprised at the ball gunner survivability. In any case that must have been a very uncomfortable location, not to mention the access difficulties.

 

Crew Position and survivability in Bomber Command aircraft from The Crucible of War 1939-1945, The Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force Vol. III

The figures are for Jan-June 1943 (bad time for Bomber Command)

Lancaster

Pilot 9.6

Navigator 13.8

Wireless operator 11.9

Flight engineer 12.4

Bomb aimer 13.2

Mid-upper gunner 8.5

Rear gunner 8.0

Halifax

Pilot 20.8

Navigator 36.2

Wireless 32.5

engineer 34.0

bomb aimer 31.4

Mid upper 27.3

Rear gunner 23.4

Wellington

Pilot 14.6

Navigator 21.0

Wireless 18.5

no engineer

bomb aimer 18.5

no mid upper

rear gunner 14.6

 

Went for Turret gunner, never could face the engine....You missed my favourite, a little less dngerous and definately a Murphy trait in life for the safer option...Ferry pilot. Hopefully taking the least dangerous route and carrying 4 parachutes.

 

For sure....Pilot, for me, the most interesting and challenging position of all.

thank you

 

I went for the right waist gunner...

I chose it because being at the side of the aircraft I have a better view of my enemy and a lot more leway to aim and lead my target plus in the event of a head on pass on my position I have the advantage of leading him VERY easily.

Its all about the speed and the lead....

Regards,
MARNE

 

actually I find flying in a B-17 or B-24 in any position during 1944-45 senseless and suicidal in the face of Luftwaffe rear attacks.

if you have had the oppourtunity to witness Luftwaffe gun cams of that period you will know what I mean

v/r E ♫

 

Somebody had to do it!

In fact 28,000 gave their last full measure doing it, 26,000 became P.O.W.'s doing it and 28,000 went missing doing it! God Bless the Royal Air Force and the 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th Air Forces!

It definitely shortened the war by going straight to Germanys guts the Ruhr Valley and the like.

Not to mention the formations in which the Americans flew in were meant strictly for defense. Unfortunately, in the wing cameras of the Luftwaffe; the aircraft is vibrating so much that you can't really see the thousands of oncoming rounds coming right at the guy with the camera, from the 39+ M2 .50 Cal. "Ma Deuces" firing at him!

Regards,
MARNE

 

remember this is a what-if. We have B-17 Sam who served I believe in the 91st bg and his bg got hammered pretty bad at Merseberg in late 44 as I have been in touch with him and many US AF vets both bomber and fighter over the past 35 years.

Frankly I do know a bit about the air war having relatives in the Luftwaffe serve and die.

without doubt the RAF bomber command and the US airforces brought about the closing of the Third Reich and it's idiotic notion of world domination.

but as I say flying at way below freezing temps in the skies over the Reich during the day or night would not suit me well with only 1 inch or less of aluminum or armor to combat deadly 2cm and 3cm HE and HEI rounds. The B-17/B-24 formations were at the mercy during the whole years of aerial combat to the Luftwaffe single/twin engine fighters until the Jug and STang became available and were able to do "their" escort work. Any US bomber crewmen will tell you they saved their butts repeatedly in the air .........

I think you get my point now

 

In the End, there were B17 & B24 still flying over Germany, despite flying "suicidal" missions.

The Luftwaffe failed to cause enough damage to stop these missions despite their fantastic arsenal and super-experienced pilots.

The losses of the USAAF, while substantial, never approached breaking point.

 

Although it's true that no 8th AF mission was ever turned back by the German defences, it must be accepted that Schweinfurt in October 1943 did bring about the curtailment of deep-penetration missions until greater numbers of escort fighters were available.

 

I think without anyone knowing it you all are proving my point. again a what-if , the Sturmgruppen had it been made available during 43 and without US fighter protection ......... good bye US bomber formations.

I'm getting OT so will leave it stand ....

 

IFF the Luftwaffe was able to decimate some raids, I'm sure the USAAF would have pulled in its horns, changed targets & tactics and waited for the escorts.

It may have seen more emphasis on French & Benelux targets or the nearer German Cities.

 

Pilot,

or the position of flight engineer, taking that top dorsal turret

 

top turret please !

bombardier...eh ive got too big of a conceince(sp?) to worry about dropping the bombs on the wrong target. pilot...no thanks either.

tail would be intense...but HIGHLY risky.

like others said before me...top turret...heck of a view and more area to cover

 

I'm currently reading a book called 'Sunrise Serenade' , following the story of one B-17G crew of the 452nd BG.

It's interesting to note that in the Group's first 40 missions, February-April 1944, 131 men were killed.

Thos broke down as follows :

Bombardier : 22
Waist-gunners : 20
Co-pilots : 15
Pilots : 12

The other positions ; ball / upper / navigator / radio and rear lost between 11 and 13 each.

'Which indicated that there was no safe position on the plane' - at least in early '44.....

 

I don´t think being a pilot or co-pilot facing the armored FW190 attacks face-to-face is less dangerous than being , say, a rear gunner, really.

 

I'd rather be a Co-Pilot, maybe a pilot, but knowing I'd be the last one to bail out, if ever posible, is not my cup of tea. Gunners? My last choice. Bombardier? I wouldn't like the idea, but I suppose somebody had to do the job, so I suppose I would have obeyed orders too. Flight engineer or Navigator would be challenging for me