Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B-17 versus IL76 Tail gunners ????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • uy707
    replied
    Also being with Robin's pertinent side.
    Alain

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxPower
    replied
    First of all, Thanks for you wonderful insight, Robin. Very Interesting Mate !
    Originally posted by RobinB
    Hi Guys - my opinions for what it's worth. Difficult to compare the two aircraft to determine a "winner" - different rolls between the two aircraft (bombing vs transport), different era's, different aircraft etc etc. However, any guns on these type of aircraft were used in a defensive roll in order to assist the said aircraft to complete it's designated mission - IE, deliver payloads. WW2 bombers never had electronic means to defend themselves as did aircraft of the cold war era. IE: no means of detecting inbound bogeys so the gunners role (especially the tail gunners) was primarilly observation and the pilot's eyes for situations outside of his field of vision. Yes, they would also provide covering fire to keep FW190's and ME109's honest.
    I wasnt actually comparing these two as either a winner or anything. I was just wondering the purpose and if they had the same purpose. And I pretty got my answer here.
    I have always wondered as why the IL-76's had these turrets, I havent heard any threats that really bothered the transporters anyway. Wasnt this type a military type before during the Coldwar ?

    Re take off and landing - most tail gunners sat "midships" during these evolutions and only settled into their turrets after take off. Lancaster rear turrets could only accommodate the gunners WITHOUT their parachutes - those poor guys hung their chutes behind the turret and in an emergancy, had to exit the turret, strap on chute and then bale. Not much fun being "tail end Charlie". There was the case of a Lanc tail gunner whose chute was burned beyond use after the Lanc was shot up - he bailed from 22 thousand feet, sans chute, and lived. He was subsequently captured and made a PoW. His fall was cushioned by trees and heavy snow.
    To me it sounds like it must be the worst position when shot down. Oh its my turn today ? lol

    Wow.. Such a lucky guy. I still bet he broked some bones though.

    Anyway, in closing, I think there are so many factors between the two aircraft as well as the time period they operated in to effecivly declare a "winner" - an example of this is "on paper" the B-17 was a formidible machine bristling with defensive weapons - but MANY MANY were shot down - why ? In my opinion, bad tactics on behald of the USAAF, daylight raids (because the Norden bomb sight was oly operational during daylight hours) vs night time raids, no fighter escort where it mattered, diversion tactics not fully utilised until latter stages of the war. As far as the IL-76, well it's never operated in a conflict - cold war cannot compare to WW2. Have fun guys....
    Although it never engage in a conflict, still wonders the question above. Thanks Robin !

    Leave a comment:


  • RobinB
    replied
    Hi Guys - my opinions for what it's worth. Difficult to compare the two aircraft to determine a "winner" - different rolls between the two aircraft (bombing vs transport), different era's, different aircraft etc etc. However, any guns on these type of aircraft were used in a defensive roll in order to assist the said aircraft to complete it's designated mission - IE, deliver payloads. WW2 bombers never had electronic means to defend themselves as did aircraft of the cold war era. IE: no means of detecting inbound bogeys so the gunners role (especially the tail gunners) was primarilly observation and the pilot's eyes for situations outside of his field of vision. Yes, they would also provide covering fire to keep FW190's and ME109's honest.

    Re take off and landing - most tail gunners sat "midships" during these evolutions and only settled into their turrets after take off. Lancaster rear turrets could only accommodate the gunners WITHOUT their parachutes - those poor guys hung their chutes behind the turret and in an emergancy, had to exit the turret, strap on chute and then bale. Not much fun being "tail end Charlie". There was the case of a Lanc tail gunner whose chute was burned beyond use after the Lanc was shot up - he bailed from 22 thousand feet, sans chute, and lived. He was subsequently captured and made a PoW. His fall was cushioned by trees and heavy snow.

    Anyway, in closing, I think there are so many factors between the two aircraft as well as the time period they operated in to effecivly declare a "winner" - an example of this is "on paper" the B-17 was a formidible machine bristling with defensive weapons - but MANY MANY were shot down - why ? In my opinion, bad tactics on behald of the USAAF, daylight raids (because the Norden bomb sight was oly operational during daylight hours) vs night time raids, no fighter escort where it mattered, diversion tactics not fully utilised until latter stages of the war. As far as the IL-76, well it's never operated in a conflict - cold war cannot compare to WW2. Have fun guys....

    Leave a comment:


  • ACman
    replied
    I doubt the IL-76 is as good as the B-17. My best guess is on the one on the IL-76 is for a situation where a few flights might come up to trail you unlike the B-17 where its built to be fighting constantly. Id say its there for a "just in case" factor. It wouls sure be some neat on t/o and landing.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxPower
    started a topic B-17 versus IL76 Tail gunners ????

    B-17 versus IL76 Tail gunners ????

    I wonder how much space the crewmember had when the "turret" or whatever you call it was still active. I assume it was still active during the cold war, although I wonder why it has the crewmember there as the aircrafts were already capable of flying with great speed at that time.

    [photoid=416350]

    Did the crew member on this IL-76 had the same job like the crewmember sitting at the B-17's Tail-gun ???

    [photoid=405179]



    Edit..... Wrong pic:

    Here's the right one.

    [photoid=123343]
Working...
X