Would you rather be in a B-17 crew in 1942 or a U-boat in 1943?

Would you rather be in a B-17 crew in 1942 or a U-boat in 1943?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd rather be a PBY pilot and cruise around the islands dunking on nip supply boats and picking up downed air crew and banging the shit out of the native bawds in between my monthly check-ins with the squadron CO.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well too bad that’s not an option

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hella frickin based, can I be on your crew?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Get in loser, we are flying over to the Solomons to trade some Australian porno mags for samurai swords from the Marines and then stopping by the tender to get one of the boatswain's mates to sew a sailor cap for our mascot cat, 'Big Hairy Pussy'

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      baste, someone post the pic, you know which one

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There really should be a vignette movie or a short episode series or anime about this. Lt. Givesafrick's adventures in the Pacific and the weird shit he sees on patrol. Something comfy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean it's basically just Tales of the Gold Monkey

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >GET THOSE FRICKIN PT BOATS!!!11111

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >WHAT THE FRICK ARE MERCHANT SHIPS DOING WITH THAT MUCH FIREPOWER?!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      B-17, I’d rather get shredded by 20mm HEI than drown in an underwater sarcophagus.
      I just hope I get deployed in the Pacific so I can hang out with this guy
      And get pisseyed on shitty rum and chase native girls

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      B-17 but I'm ditching to join these guys

      Hella frickin based, can I be on your crew?

      Get in loser, we are flying over to the Solomons to trade some Australian porno mags for samurai swords from the Marines and then stopping by the tender to get one of the boatswain's mates to sew a sailor cap for our mascot cat, 'Big Hairy Pussy'

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B-17, at least I'd live comfortably before being blasted by flak

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B-17 by far.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      B-17 because I get to actually bathe and enjoy hot food between missions

      >local man takes stand against racism

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously B-17. There was at least a chance of survival. Also, imagine the raging hard boner you'd get from taking down a fighter with an M2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To expand on that, what position do we think is the best? I'm voting chin gunner.
      >Get to shoot the shit with pilot and copilot
      > Not crammed in a tiny glass coffin
      >Fantastic view

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty poor choice fampai. The big glass nose offered very little protection, plus if Jerry is making a head on attack you're right in the crosshairs. Personally I'd probably want the top turret, but statistically the ball turret had the best odds - provided the bomber doesn't suffer a rapid shootdown

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >big glass nose offered very little protection
          >Implying glass is worse protection than the tin foil skin of the rest of the plane.
          I got bad news, buddy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I got bad news, bud-ACK
            Even disregarding the survivorship bias the nose doesn't do well

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Pilot and co-pilot being so good is actually due to survivorship bias. Can't records stats on crew casualties if the plane went down after single BF109 made a pass and rekt the wienerpit area.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That was my point

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm gonna go with tail gunner. The raw power of two .50cal MG's at my command. Fantastic view. If I actually hit a Kraut fighter I know it's me who did it because I basically have absolute coverage of my field of fire. Decent chance of a successful bailout if my bird goes down. Also a pretty high casualty/KIA rate in that position so I have a good chance of dying in battle (one-way-ticket to Valhalla).

        Important to note that statistically the gunners in heavy bombers had a very very low success rate against fighters. Most German fighters were shot down by Allied fighters, not by dudes wielding M2's in the hulls of B-17's. I've seen interviews of B-17 crewman and Army Air Corps officers who basically conveyed that putting MG's on bombers to ward off fighters was just a means of improving the confidence of the crews. Even with a ton of training it's incredibly fricking difficult to hit a fighter with an MG from a bomber, let alone down one

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It was also Ade O'Clarkes position

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think the point wasn't the kills, it's the hail of fire to discourage the fighters.

          Even though the .50 was probably one of the worst airplane guns (by weight/performance) of WW2, it meant that fighters were strongly discouraged from just camping on a bombers six. Stukas have been slaughtered over England because they could fire back only with a single 7.92, even worse than a single .50.
          If you camp on a bombers six where the bomber would be an easy target, 10 .50 would also get easy firing solutions at you. Otherwise a single fighter could have slaughtered 5 bombers per sortie, the B-17 ain't evading shit.

          By forcing the Jerry to make higher speed, higher deflection angle passes, the rate of bomber kills went down, even if the rate of fighter kills in return wasn't significant.
          That said, the best approach to that seemed to be a geniune high performance bomber as in the Mosquito, not trying to shoot your way through. At the end, the bombers were successful because entire hordes of mediocre to decent fighters escorted them and simply outnumbered the Jerrys.

          I wonder how the kill rate would be if the Americans unfricked their cannons, like the tail gun on the B-29. You could probably put 6-8 cannons with 4 gunners in there for the same weight.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't matter. Gunners were a glorified placebo effect. They wanted to wittle down the Luftwaffe piece by piece and the strat was to replace bombers faster than Germany could replace fighters. Then, in middle 1944, when the Luftwaffe couldn't fight anymore, the USAAF went into full Mustang spam.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Gunners were a glorified placebo effect
              They weren’t. Pilots were shot down by defensive fire, but more importantly it forced interceptors to make high speed deflection attacks.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My grandfather allegedly downed two Fw 190s as the tail gunner in a B-26. I'm inclined to believe it since he flew 90 missions and got pulled out of the channel twice. (all second hand from my great uncle since grandpa never talked about the war to my dad or uncle)

          It was also Ade O'Clarkes position

          Skies closed due to Ade's fifties

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >My grandfather allegedly downed two Fw 190s as the tail gunner in a B-26.
            It’s likely he did. Statistically, and based on physics, the tail gunner was the best position in terms of accuracy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >putting MG's on bombers to ward off fighters was just a means of improving the confidence of the crews
          sounds plausible given the results of the B-29 raids on Japan from beginning to end.
          >initial raids are at high altitude with full compliment of defensive guns
          >take significant losses with minimal effect on target
          >change to low altitude raids with most/all of the guns stripped out to carry more bombs
          >immediately see some of the most successful bombing raids in history with far fewer losses
          >B-29 crewmen complain that the new strategy isn't as safe
          it's why I take soldier testimony with a huge grain of salt most of the time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's why I take soldier testimony with a huge grain of salt most of the time.
            Wise. It's valuable information, but it's all from the perspective and with the colouration of simply being subjective perspective. Doesn't help that it's emotionally compelling and nobody wants to call a war hero a liar.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The frick are you talking about. By the time the B-29 was operational over Japan the Japanese didn't have anything that could fly high enough to even engage them at altitude, let alone the capacity to try and repel full scale bombing raids. They stopped high altitude precision bombing because it was determined to be ineffective. The bombing campaign was the first time the effects of the jet stream were documented and it played a large part in its failure. They switched to low altitude saturation bombing with napalm because LeMay was sacked, and with him went the doctrine of precision strikes.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At least you can parachute from a B-17

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can do an individual emergency ascent from a submarine, although they were typically killed catastrophically rather than crippled and abandoned. But it does work, even though it seems insane.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cramped
    >dark
    >smelly
    >trapped in abyssal darkness of Lovecraftian horrors
    vs.
    >cramped
    >cold (but you got heated jimmies)
    >fresh O2 at all times
    >can always skydive to safety (axis captivity)
    I'll take the B-17, thanks. They're pretty cool too.

    That said, please don't stuff me in the ball turret.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >axis captivity
      >safety

      Don't look up what mobs regularly did to downed pilots

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sarcasm, my dude. Though, to be real, I'd still take my chances with the germs and japs over crushing darkness of the deep sea. It creeps me the frick out.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I had no idea the Russians were using seaplanes to interdict Japanese supplies and rescue downed American pilots in Ukraine, while engaging in recreational consensual fornication with the native women through a policy known as BAC (Big Aviator wiener) diplomacy.

    Are you mentally ill?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Would you rather be in a B-17 crew in 1942 or a U-boat in 1943?

    Yeah, frick boats...

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As long as the radio is between me and the enemy I'll take the B-17.
    >RIP Big Black person 1-3's many, many, many dead radios

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Funkerkrieg, declared by Goering himself

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That was insane
      I started playing B17 a lot after those threads and I've only had like 2 radios get hit

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i've never seen a bomber crew death that looked like a good death
    when these things and their crews go, it's pretty bad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >get shot
      >die
      Its war, what more do you want? Meanwhile:
      >its been weeks since you or your crewmates showered
      >you're eating around the moldy edges of the food left
      >you're forced hundreds of feet underwater for hours or days
      >breathing stagnant air
      >one good depth charge/hedgehog/Fido and you get to experience the fun of sinking to crush depth
      Gimme a minengeschoss to the chest any day over that

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Duh, B17
    Less likely to die and I'm not locked in a vault with 30 farting Germans for months

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’d take option 3: Avenger crewman
    Avengers are cool.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i dont care for water

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you asked me what US combat role I'd want in WWII, I'd say
    >Non-bomber USAAF
    >Non-sub Navy
    >Infantry in Europe
    >Bomber crew
    >Sub
    >Infantry in the Pacific

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have more experience as an U-boat captain, but damage control in dark, flooding u-boat at the bottom of the sea is a lot different when you can fast forward time

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *