# Transports



## Crazy (Feb 15, 2004)

Which transport do you think had the most impact and/or effect on the outcome of the war.

I say the C-47. Without it, the para-trooper landings at D-Day would have been rather interesting


I have the Horsa glider on there because it played a large role in post-D-Day operations, and the 323 because it's just cool 8) Not that they'll get any votes...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 16, 2004)

since when is me323 cool? j/k its awesome thats its so strong and on a side note try killing one in fb very fun


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

killing one? man, you've ruined the purpose of the 323! Try landing a one-oh-nine on the top of one. It can be done! I've seen screenshots of this feat


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2004)

ooooo really? any chance you can put em on?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

If I can find those pics again, sure


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2004)

well, it's gotta be the C-47 aint it.......


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Crazy said:


> If I can find those pics again, sure



I think it was at IL2Skins and Dietrich posted them  

I'll have a look.

Hot Space

BTW C-47 8)


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

It was Vik that posted them, but either his bandwidth is dead, or he removed them   

I liked my idea, though. 109 on a TB-3 under a bridge


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2004)

well the C-47 of course, for its D-Day work  but i was tempted with the ju 52 cos it had an 1100lb bombload 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

it did, bit it was crap as a bomber really


----------



## Crazy (Feb 17, 2004)

Suprising. I thought the 52 would get more votes. But I suppose it had a large post-war impact compared to the effect it had on the war


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2004)

If anyone is listening where can i find good info on WW II fighters


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)

well, here of course! im not talking about myself (obviously) but most of the people on the site are dead friendly and knwo loads about planes 8) (sorry for putting anyone in the spotlight )


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2004)

in my opinon, the ju-52 had the most impact during the war. without it, the landings on crete (which, in contrast to the normandy airborne ops, were successful) couldnt have been carried out. yet the c-47 succeeded very much in the aftermath of the war, namely in the berlin airlift.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah the ju-52 is great , but not as great as the C-47 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2004)

Yeah Ju52's were great....at getting shot down!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

they weren't exactily great bombers either


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

speaking of the ju-52, isnt that similar to the italian savoia-marchetti sm.81?


----------



## Crazy (Mar 2, 2004)

One could say that...

The "bat' was armed, though. The 52 only had a single gun, and that was only on one varient. Also had a 2000lb. bomb load, but could carry 4000lbs. if nessecary, whereas compared to the 'bomber' version of the 52, which could only carry 1,102lbs.


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 13, 2004)

Here! Just ask mate!

btw, I have (grudgingly) to go for the Dakota, although I far prefer the Ju 52 meself...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

why'd you HAVE to go for the C-47 then?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

i know what he means, the ju-52 was temptng for me too


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

it wasn't for me.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

i wouldnt be 8) but if the sm.81 was there id have gone for that


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 23, 2004)

Well now the C-47 (DC-3) was a great impact on war and post war, but I think the Ju-52! Use it in any condition and could even be put on floats! I am not shore if the C-47 can claim that, I have seen it on skis. But I think the list is a little small but the c-47 was given away to every one.

the ju-52 just was a cool looking plane with three engines and could do everything!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

> the ju-52 just was a cool looking plane with three engines and could do everything!



the SM.81 was cooler 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 29, 2004)

why was the SM.81 cooler? The JU.52 was so good a what it did, yes it was not a god bomber, but troops and suplies! It helped to keep Rommel in North Africa. That and the sm.81 was not made in such great numbers!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

butit was a better bomber and practically the same as the 52, and it was italian! all italian planes are cool IMO


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

The Sm.81, that was the Sparrow wasn't it? I can't remember, more I learn about tanks more of the aircraft information gets knocked out of my head. 

I'd have to say the C-47, it's still in civil action now, although, I did see a JU-52 at Manchester airport when I was going on holiday...I'm going to say C-47 just because it was so well used and did it's job brilliantly. The Ju-52 did good in France 1940 and Africa but...I don't know.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

And how were the Crete landings succesful? The Germans lost like 25% of their attacking force and those landings were what made everyone realise aerial assaults would only be good behind enemy lines, not full on assaults like that. 

The airborne landings on D-Day went well, for the British anyway. They achieved all their objectives...6th Airborne says in your face 101st.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

> The Sm.81, that was the Sparrow wasn't it?



i think it was the pipistrelle 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

Well, I was way off.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

no matter  youve learnt something at least

and btw..... this post makes me #1 poster  woooooo screw you lanc  8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 7, 2004)

The C-47 was made in so meny numbers they were given away as Lend-lease!

As for the 101st Normandy landings going poorly, try dropping that meny troops in the night to try and get bridges and cross roads, while deep behind the lines. While it went all bad, one good thing was the Germans did not know where they were goin, so they were tied up all night.

As for the British airborn, they were mostly in gliders and had vastly different objectives. But they were pulled by Halifaxes, a great plane that was better then a Lanc!!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 7, 2004)

The British Airborne were to capture bridges over Orne River and Caen Canal, attack Merville Battery, destroy bridges over Dives river and hold Ranville ridge. Which they all did quickly and effectively. 2nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire with only the loss of 2 men captured the two bridges, the first unit to complete its objective on D-Day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

> Halifaxes, a great plane that was better then a Lanc!!



more versitile yes, better, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 10, 2004)

Lanc, I thought you would say that  But I think they do not get the credit they shodd, at least in the States.

Plan_D: thanks, I did not know the British airborn drops were that good. I hope thought that you would agree that with all the miss drops the US airborn had it did confuse the German's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

we used allot of decoys aswell, you know, just dummies with parachutes..................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 11, 2004)

how did they pop their parachutes......???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

they line jumped..................

(p.s. i was hoping someone would quote my last post and say "who, the americans?")


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 12, 2004)

thanks Lank! That was not that nice, but I can understand it. 8)


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

C47of course.... cheadder what are you on about with that stick


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

It would have been very confusing for the Germans, with Americans all over the place. They did the best they could, and the operation was a success, no one can complain that much. 
Although, I could think of many complaints...


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 13, 2004)

Plan_D: You have a point, but are you defending the Germans? If they would have just shown some backbone ad moved the panzers Normandy would have goe very poorly.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2004)

The Panzer Divisions were all in Calais, anyway it took us a while to take Cherbourg, and the surrounding areas. I wouldn't advise trying to tell the veterans in the tanks going through the Bocages there were no tanks. 

Driving along in your innocent little Sherman, then, BAM! 88mm shell from a Tiger in the trees rips your tank apart.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

> C47of course....



while the american airdropped their troops from C-47s, us brits prefered to use horsas...............

Also part of what made the landing so successfull was that the germans were so fixed on the idea that we were going to attack calais (one of the only 2 places both us and the germans knew we could land), that even when we did invade they thought at first that it was a diversion and were still expecting the main attack to come at calais. Don't forget though that we had huge diversions in the south east corner of the country, it's quite funny really, there was 7 men driving in a truck driving round the dover area that we creating the radio traffic for an entire army in the hope the germans would intercept this, which they did, and make them think that, along with allot of inflatable tanks, our army was in the south east, very clever i think. They also had the same scheme going on in the north with te radio traffic to make the germans think we were about to inade through Norway................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

even after all these weeks ive known about that it still cracks me up


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

can't say i blame you...............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

Well, it was simple and effective. Those poor Germans had no way of knowing otherwise, hahaha.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 17, 2004)

True Plan_D, I was trying to say that if the tanks that could have moved earlier were to when most of the Shermans were still on the boats, then that would have made a differance. I was thinking about the order Hitler gave to lot let the tanks move untill he gave the order? Is that just a crazy story told or true?

Also were the germans bombing the fleets in the channel before D-day of Overlord?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 17, 2004)

The Hitler order gave, not to move the tanks unless he authorised it is true. And Hitler was asleep at the time of the invasion, no one would dare wake him up. 
The bulk of the German Panzers was in Calais, and were not moved straight away to Normandy because of this deception. Also, Hitler being asleep. Another thing is that a lot of Sherman Crabs made it ashore with the landing forces, or a mere few minutes behind except on Omaha (that's why it was so bad), the reason for that was the currents were too strong on the run to Omaha. 

Not to sound too arrogant here but another thing was the 6th Airborne on the Day of the invasion destroyed several bridges, and held off many attacks on the bridges they were holding. 
The American Airborne were to perform just as well in their villages and towns. 

I don't recall any huge air strikes on the fleet in the channel, I imagine they were gearing up to throw the LuftWaffe over Calais, and plus teh Allies Air superiorty would have stopped it somewhat.


----------



## Archer (Apr 17, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Don't forget though that we had huge diversions in the south east corner of the country, it's quite funny really, there was 7 men driving in a truck driving round the dover area that we creating the radio traffic for an entire army in the hope the germans would intercept this, which they did, and make them think that, along with allot of inflatable tanks, our army was in the south east, very clever i think. They also had the same scheme going on in the north with te radio traffic to make the germans think we were about to inade through Norway................



Yup, not sure if the Brits had a unit similar, but the US had a special unit dedicated to deception, the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops. IIRC Churchill liked the idea (and I think it was originally proposed for the Brits, but do to their position it would be hard) and pressured the Americans into it. They went to some famous art colleges/schools and recruited people. The unit had many specialist, ranging from fine arts artists that made camo so real it looked real (compared to the normal camo used) and also to make camo stand out, but not so much as to make it obvious they wanted the Germans to see it. There were also radio specialists that had to learn the accents, unit specific lingo, and everything else so they could take over a unit's (up to a division once IIRC) identity on the radio without a noticeable change to the Germans. There was a lot more they used, like inflatable tanks, planes, jeeps, and trucks. Convoys of their vehicles with only two people in the back, so it would seem they were full to anyone glancing in the back. If they thought someone was giving the Germans information (such as someone some of the officers were living or interacting with) they would feed them false information. They had halftracks with naval speakers on jacks on the backs to make noise at night, from tank movements, to infantry talking. Not only this, but they had to do it so it would sound right in the given atmospherics (they had their own meteoric unit IIRC to help with this). Halftracks drove around at night to make tread marks in the dirt, etc. I remember they operated on the peninsula to the west or Normandy, which I forget the name of, and bottled up a lot more Germans then they numbered, many of which were SS. They also operated in the crossing of the Rhine IIRC, during the Battle of the Bulge, and all along the front from the Atlantic to Italy.

Their halftracks had the most firepower of any as far as one member knew, for three people they had the mounted .50, a .30 machine gun, a bazooka, each had their own carbine, grenades, etc, more than three people would normally need. The vehicles all had explosives packed into them, so if they were damaged or couldn't get away from the Germans they could obliterate the vehicle and keep their secret.

They repainted their vehicle markings for the majority of their missions to maintain their identities, and on at least one occasion had an officer from the outfit they were pretending to be walk into the HQ thinking it was their outfit, and not recognize anyone. On occasion they also had neighbouring infantry units complain that they didn't give them armoured support, even though they saw it and heard armour at night and once (Battle of the Bulge maybe) were ordered to pull back since they didn't stand a chance against the Germans. For the rest of the war and beyond the unit that had been left on one of their flanks despised the unit they were pretending to be, which resulted in many accusations of cowardice and fights, although the one unit had no idea why  

The book I read:


Another book I just read of:


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 18, 2004)

there was also FUSAG (First U.S Army Group) which had Patton, a famous and high ranking general (as we all know, right?) ,in charge at first against his will. they did this because since patton was well known, the Germans would take FUSAG to be a regular division/battalion/whatever (i dont really know the order system for that) and after that, he (Patton) was replaced and put in charge of the Third Army(as it should be!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

it was all very clever.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

Thanks all. I have herd of the US units, and the Phy ops stuff with Patton, a great General! Also the Brits were in on all of it even before the Yanks I think. Blechly Park, just outside of London, was the center for the brits. But in the end the fake of the attack to Calise and the missinformation was a key to make Normandy work. The airborn was just amazing holding the positions and most all outnumbered and running low on everything. 

Please remember that the Germans also had multible divisions in Italy being held up in that bruttle slow fighting. If Germany had not tried to deffend that ground it would have more troops in western France. That was the first time Itally has ever been taken from South to North.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 20, 2004)

Bletchly Park was the HQ of ULTRA, the Engima code breakers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

> Engima



   oh, enigma  (sorry, that was a bit of a cheap shot  )


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 20, 2004)

isnt it Bletchley park??? and wasnt the counter-propaganda (example: a flyer that was dropped containing information on how to sabotage guns, bombs, trucks, etc. in factories by the workers) team also based there?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 21, 2004)

Thanks all. I just remember seing a TV special that I thought said the Bletchly Park was the hope to the British Commonwelth Propaganda and Inteligents stuff.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 22, 2004)

Two mistakes and I get a bashing, C.C I don't know how you have the cheek with the amount of mistakes you do. Yes, it is the enigma and it is Bletchley Park.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

calm down...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

Calm down? I was calm, did you see any exclamation mark?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> Two mistakes and I get a bashing, C.C I don't know how you have the cheek with the amount of mistakes you do



 that wasnt me, that was the keyboard 8) anyway, i make magnificent errors, the one about drapping bombs sparked an argument about what it was


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

A bad workman blames his tools, as they say. 

Yes, I was the first to question your 'drap' mistake.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

did we ever figure out what it was?...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

> A bad workman blames his tools, as they say



ive been waiting for someone to use that cliché  but havent you noticed a decline in spelling errors on my part recently? it because my keyboard is fixed 8) anyway, if you wanna see spelling errors read some of the lancs posts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

hey, your posts make mine look good...............


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

They do, actually.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

they used to, now we have a new computer with a perfect keyboard, dont expect too many more spelling errors from me now 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I will be expecting because I know they'll come.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

fine


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Ok then. 

I'm getting as bad as you two now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

wow


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

wow


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

No, wait no I'm not. I don't keep doing doubles.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

8) as for spelling and typing errors just read my stuff. It will show up. Mostly I am thinking and typing fast and not watching my screen or reading before I post. What were we talking about here anywho?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Transports, I think. Most of it was taken up by the D-Day landings, I think.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

so then lets try to get back to the begining. Or not but lets talk Berlin Airlift!  planes were in and out in a short order. What do you all think? That was a true Transport operation!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, yes it was. Although I do not know much about the operation.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

whereas i do not know anything about the mission, ive never even heard of it


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

What DO you know about World War 2?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

it had guns and planes in it and hitler was a bad man, says mummy


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Well, for once, I can't argue with Cheddar there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

hey hey, remember im a fan of the p-38 just like you


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

Well then that's something else to your credit.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

a-thankyou 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (May 7, 2004)

C.C, it would have to be another thread all to its own, but I will say it here the Berlin airlift changed the face of modern trasports. The US Air Force has some nice information on the operation, but I will only say that flying everything a city needs to survive on airplanes for over 400 days, that is an operation!

Now for transports that you might know more about, anyone hear of the 445th bomb group that resuplied Patton durring the bulge? This is the website I saw it under, but it is underconstruction, 445th-bomb-group.com

For you P-38 fans, have you seen this site, thaought it was a great story, 
www.thelostsquadron.com


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

> No, wait no I'm not. I don't keep doing doubles.



hey hey hey, i think i've only ever done one double.............


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

I was actually refering to C.C with that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

ah, i'm sorry............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 10, 2004)

Lanc, that was not nice, you just post alot !


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

He does post a lot, but recently at least 90% of his posts have been on topic.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 12, 2004)

On topic is good! So are we going to get back to ours?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

What was it again? 
Oh yes, Transports, what are we saying about them? I like the C-47 the most probably because of its combat record.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

C-47. It was used just about everywhere and with great effect. It was also very successful in the civilian market.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, a very good standing military and civilian record.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

the 52 has more character


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

How do you define character in an airplane?


----------



## R Pope (May 13, 2004)

Gooney Bird rules! One C47 was equipped with a monster set of Edo floats and amphibious gear. It was way too high to load and unload easily, so no more were built.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

The Ju-52 did have more to its looks but it wasn't better. Plus when the Russians got hold of the C-47 (Russian designation Li-2) they turned a few into gunships, and the Americans copied the idea and called them Spookies, I don't believe any were used in World War 2 but they paved way for the A-130 Spectre gunship.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

The AC-47 didn't come along until Vietnam. It carried 3 7.62mm "miniguns" which would each put out 6,000rpm. These bad boys were turned loose on the Ho Chi Min Trail and were murderously effective. 

The Japanese also copied the C-47. There version was called the L2D "Tabby" and about 500 were eventually built.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, well the AC-47 was a copied idea off the Russians. And as I said led to the AC-130 which gave those down in Fallujah a rude wake up.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i prefer the C-47 to the 52....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i dont, but admittedly the c-47 was more effective 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The Ju-52 was very effective early war, Poland, France, Crete, North Africa. The C-47 was better though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

North Africa was also the beginning of the end for the Ju-52. P-38s patroling the supply lines made a turkey shoot out of them and B-25 pilots even managed to shoot some down.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

The P-38 in 1943 yes, but the British were there from 1941. The N. African campaign was the last for the Ju-52 on a huge scale though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

it was very efective at dropping paratroopers as well.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

But again, it only had the chance to do that early in the war when Germany was still on the offensive.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

WEll the Ju-52 a great trimoter was just a great thing. The 52 still served well to the end of the war. Were did you read about the B-25 kills of Ju-52s? 

The Russians armed transports, Li-2 were even a little better then the C-47s. They looked a little more rugged. The japs coppied downed Goonie Birds. It was also the first AirForce One. Or was that the C-54? I should check my notes. Any pictures of the C-47 on floats? Now we are talking


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

I have one, but unfourtunately, I don't have a scanner. All i can say is that it looks ultra-class!


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

Thanks. I was just woundering!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

Impressive pic. According to the book Airwar, by Edward Jablonksi, on April 11, 1943 a group of B-25s escorted by P-38s was flying a shipping sweep over the Med. when they came across of group of Ju-52s. Both the Mitchells and Lightnings joined in the fun and shot down 21 of the Junkers. There is a pretty cool pic in the book, if I had a scanner I'd post it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

i've got pics of it too...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

impressive pic, its only a model


----------



## Crazy (May 16, 2004)

After some google sleuthing, I give you, the XC-47C!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Those couldn't have done much for performance or handling.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The Li-2 was a copy of the C-47, but the Russians turned them into Gunships, as well as transports. Which the Americans then copied which became the AC-47 Spooky. 

The Ju-52 wasn't impressive by late war, the paratroop operations of the Germans was minimal. And the transport was mainly done on the ground. 
Apart from in the few encircling incidents that the Germans got themselves into. I say few because the Germans were very good at organisation and would be able to retreat before being encircled.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Paratroop operations were minimal because of the disaster the German paratroop force suffered at Crete (Operation Mercury). Hitler had lost faith in them (not to mention MOST of them). Plus paratroops are generally an offensive weapon and the Germans had very little offense going in the later part of the war. The German paratroops mostly served as regular infantry much like the Allied paratroopers after Market-Garden.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Som,e great looks at a C-47 on floats  I wonder about the payload and it just took a pritty plane and made it look crazy. But it shows that they put it everywhere.

Question after Market-Garden, the Allies did not have a lot of places to use paratroops, yes? Please corect me if I am at falt.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The did a drop on the Rhine. And that's about it. 

Yes, Crete proved that you can't use paratroopers as the main force, with 25% losses that was a bad performance.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Interesting. Question, this being more a what if, but we are talking paratroops, would they had made any difference in the Bulge if dropped? Could they have say helped to open the way to Anterp?


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

You mean if the Germans dropped them? No. The Germans didn't need them anyway, if the 101st hadn't held on as they did the German Panzers would have overrun our oil reserves, and probably pushed all the way back, deep into France before an effective counter attack could have been mounted.


----------



## Crazy (May 17, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Apart from in the few encircling incidents that the Germans got themselves into. I say few because the Germans were very good at organisation and would be able to retreat before being encircled.



Yes, and look at the magnitude of those encirclements. Stalingrad, for example. The airlift to the Sixth Army failed miserably. The army needed a minimum of 300 tons of supplies per day, and often didn't get more than 100 tons.

/rant

The Ju-52 was a good plane, but (IMO) wasn't used to it's potential


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

That wasn't the German generals fault. Von Paulus ordered a retreat but he was told by Hitler to stop it, and take Stalingrad. Had the Von Paulus been allowed to do what he wanted, those Germans would not have been encircled. As I said, they were very well organised and disciplined. 
And even then, the only place the Russian broke out to encircle the 6th Army was through the Romanian held lines.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Hitler wanted to hold Stalingrad for its symbolic importance (city of Stalin and all that) and for the same reason Stalin wanted to take it back. Strategically it wasn't that important to either side and yet it became perhaps the key battle of the Eastern Front. All because of the leaders' egos. . . interesting.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

Interesting. Ego seems to be a big player in war yes?
I will have to agree the 101st holding out was a BIG reason maybe the only reason the Bulge held. I am not shure how they did it, but they did.

Crazy, is that a P-47? I am trying to test myself, so I could be really off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Ego is a huge matter in war. In happened all over the place. No examples of the Japanese need be sited but the Brits had Monty and we had Patton, 'nuff said there. 

Yes MP-Willow that is a P-47. Specifically it belongs to the 355th FS, 354th FG, 9th AF.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

thanks, I hope to get a little better on identifing aircraft as i read this forum and talk with you all.

Yes but Patton did get the job done. I am not so high on Monty, maybe because of Patton and Monties slow break from the Normandy Beachead. 

I think Stalingrad would have been a key point for the Germans in that it could be a major supply and transport hub in the south. I will have to read more on that, to get a better underatanding, but it would give an invading army a comand of some key water ways. But the city was almost flat ruined in the fight so the Germans would have had little to use.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I'm not too high on Monty either (Market-Garden was a fiasco) but he was a good armor commander and did a fine job against Rommel in North Africa. But any commander (be it Monty, Rommel, Patton, whoever) almost always got into trouble when they let ego affect their command.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Monty was a very good General. Operation Market Garden was a good idea, he just failed to listen to his recce group. Even then the operation only just fell short. 
1st Airborne (The ones that held Arnhem Bridge for 9 days against the 10th SS Panzer division) had to be dropped in three stages because the Americans had taken most of the C-47s allowing them to be dropped in one. Even then the 1st Airborne held Oosterbeek and held Arnhem road bridge for 9 days expecting relief from 30 Armoured Corps on the 3rd day. 
The 82nd tasked with taking Nijmegan, failed. They took the south side but had to wait until the 30 Corps arrived to take the bridge. 
101st tasked with taking Son Bridge also failed. The bridge was blown and 30 corps had to stop to build a pontoon bridge. 
30 Corps was also delayed in Eindhoven by the Dutch crowds. So, what should have take 4 days took 10 which resulted in the capture of 3 of the 4 intended bridges. 30 Corps being British was delayed at Eindhoven, again at Son, then again at Nijmegan the bridges that should have been captured by the Americans. Through no real fault of their own, they failed. 
The 1st Airborne, the only real heros of that operation held out without supply, an airborne division against the full might of the 10th SS Panzer division for 9 days before evacuating. 

This was one mistake by Monty, but not only his mistake. He was a great General. Now, Patton was a good general but very arrogant, and he didn't care about the life of his men. Rommel, don't start with Rommel, Rommel was the greatest general of the war, and he was not arrogant just confident. You cannot fault Rommel, with his little supply he achieved a lot. The only General I mark above Rommel is Heinz Guderian. 


Now, I know this seems to be common thought that Stalingrad wasn't strategically important but that's a load of crap. Stalingrad was important for many reasons; 1) It carried the name of their leader, therefore its capture breaks moral. 2)It's a city, with a large garrison, you don't leave yourself open to flank attacks from a city. 3)It's a large industrial city, with huge industrial capacity, even when flattened the basis for a large industry is there. 4)It was next to the large Caucasus Oil Fields, and taking Stalingrad gave them a point of process and a garrison to hold those fields 5)Caucasus was the only viable place ot meet hte Japanese armies, although 1000 miles apart in China, German pressure on China might have caused their collapse and a meeting between the Japanese and German armies. Which would have been deadly for the Allied Armies.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

Plan_D, I did not even think of Germany and Japan trying to join up. I also forgot about the oil, that was a big brain frez. So I still think that the city was important. Now you said oil am I right that the oil was the objective of the German push on the city?


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

Not the only objective, but the main one. The reason they carried on trying to take it was because of Hitler wanting the city bearing the Soviet Unions leaders name. 
Taking Stalingrad gave a great area for a garrison able to hold the oil fields. Also, the industrial base was huge in Stalingrad, it was a VERY important city to have.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

Agreed! I have wanted to try and find a good book about it but have not looked around much. I have been to distracted in my reading. Or even some websites that might be good. 

Is it only the two of us writing here now?

To go to more of a topical point I was reading a story of a b-17 recon flight shooting down Japanese flying boats. It is not that bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

wow.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

what wow? I had missed you Lanc


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

A couple of B-24s in China scored a few kills over Japanese flying boats. Chennault started refering to that squadron as his B-24 fighter squadron.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Not really that amazing, I mean it's a flying boat. It's not like it had a dogfight with a Fw-190. Even then they still got kills on the 190s.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

True. I thought it was a nice story. I need to read more on Chennault. I have seemed to forget him in my B-24 readings. AH more to read! 8)


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

did the c-47 have and armerment


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I don't know of it carrying any during the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

The American C-47 didn't have armament but the Soviet copy Li-2 had a top turret. 
And then the AC-47 'Spooky' in Vietnam was armed to the teeth.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

the ju-52 was armed werent it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

sometimes it carried 3 MGs...........


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

what are mgs


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

Most transports other then the USAAC were armed with a tail gun. Ju-52s had more used to straff the field before troops jumped. The Russian Li-2 was a Licence built DC-3 with top turret and tail gun some had beam guns as well. :0 Hapy reading!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

> what are mgs



sorry, MGs mean machine guns............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

...


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

I thought the Li-2 was a license built C-47...
...The Ju-52/3m was armed, and you can quite clearly see it in most pictures of it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

The Ju-52 was armed, but this was limited to single, hand-operated 7.92mm MGs in the dorsal and ventral position; harldy imposing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

better than nothing


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

On paper yes, better than nothing. But in practicality teh two weapons were unlikely to have any effect and discouraging an attack. Just look at what happened to all of those Ju-52s trying to cross the Med.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

i dont know what happened to them, for all i know they could've shot down hundreds of planes


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2004)

Plan_D, yes sorry the Dc-3/C-47 names gets switched in my head.
They are almost the same. When you look at it.

I think the Li-2 even a little better then the C-47, I liked the ruggedness and the classic Russian thought to make it idiot proff or as close to it as posible. The guns though seem like they would not ward off a fighter


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Well the DC-3 and C-47 are the same, basically, I just wanted to be annoying because the C-47 is the military version.  

The Li-2 was probably better in some aspects, the Soviets certainly gave the Americans the idea for the gunship...the Li-2 sporting the many machine guns for ground attack...became the AC-47 'Spooky' of Vietnam.


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

> Quote:
> 
> what are mgs
> 
> ...


 i thought it was mg rover


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

> Quote:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


rover are in divisen 2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

mg rover indeed


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

Plan_D, thanks 8)

But the aircraft had a lot of differnt designations. The C-53 Skytrooper was the troop transport. it had no reinforced floor or cargo doors.
Over all the plane is a great one, and one that I would love to see fly again.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 4, 2004)

What, the DC-3/C-47? Go to Mexico or somewhere in S. America, a lot of small airlines and militaries still use them as GP aircraft.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

True, but to see it fly is the States on a grular base. It would be great to restart the production maybe on a limited bit.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

Good luck getting that to happen. I imagine the CAF probably has one still flying.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight has a C-47 flying.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

The CAF does have a C-47 flying. It's part of the Great Lakes Wing which also features a Ju-52.

http://www.greatlakeswing.org/


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

Thanks all I will have to look into it.


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 8, 2004)

thats one COOL picture


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

sure is 8) do you think the pilot knows the rest of the airfield is on fire?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

wouldn't it be funny if the 52 went up in falmes .................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2004)

NO!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

It's always a shame when one of the few warbirds left goes down. I found out just a couple of weeks ago that the CAF's He-111 has crashed.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

That happened in 2003, I believe. Get with the times. The last flying He-111 went down, killing the pilot if I remember correctly.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

I know, but I only heard about it recently. It's pretty sad because I was able to tour that plane a few years ago.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm 50-50 between C-47 and the Ju-52


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 9, 2004)

Stuka I like the picture in the sig. The Ju-52 was used for more things but the C-47 survived more maybe because it had more fighters to cover it?

As for the He 111 it was recovered but I talked with the CAF team and it will not be returning to the air, though it might be rebuilt to static, but that is a long shot.

I was reading on the bf 109 that some 34,000 were produced but only a few hundred survived the war


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

it is a great shame  i would love to see so many planes flying, even if theyre only replicas. MC.202's, P.108's et al. but im going to a battle of britain memorial flight in a couple of weeks  should be good  8)


also, looking at the poll ive just noticed that the Me-323 has more votes than the Horsa, the Horsa did actually have quite an impact 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 10, 2004)

People are voting based off of engines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2004)

well if everythings about engines, surely the 323 should be winning, then the Ju-52, then the C-47 and then the Horsa?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 10, 2004)

But the 323 was not even close to the operational use and impact of the Ju 53 or the glider.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 10, 2004)

OOps that should be Ju 52, finger slipped and I was not reading.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

and the horsa was only good where stealth was needed, primarily around D-Day..............


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 12, 2004)

thx for the complement MP Willow


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

nice siggy stuka..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

you enjoy fishing then lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

never been in my life......................


----------



## ev0 (Jun 23, 2004)

landing a oh nine oh? What is a 090?  landing?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

am i the only one confused by that???


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

Maybe someone said 'oh nine oh' some time and he's digging at it. Because of course it should be 'one oh nine'. I don't know, I'm just guessing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

i still don't get it......................


----------



## ev0 (Jun 26, 2004)

Probably just saw the wrong letters. And it was a couple of pages "away"...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

ok, i'll forget it..................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 9, 2004)

Im voting for the Airspeed Horsa, mainly because its the only one on that list ive really heard of!


----------



## toffi (Aug 9, 2004)

My vote C-54 Commando


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2004)

I thought the C-46 was the Commando. I'm not much into transport planes. 
How can you have not heard of the C-47 Dakota? It's what pulled the Horsa into the night, on D-Day. And it was the most widely used transport plane of the war.


----------



## toffi (Aug 9, 2004)

My mistake, hit the wrong numbers and didn't see.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2004)

> Im voting for the Airspeed Horsa, mainly because its the only one on that list ive really heard of!



i've gotta admit that's pretty strange...............


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 9, 2004)

Sorry, im rather new to WW2 aviation. The C-47 does ring a bell, however i cannot think what it looks like.


----------



## toffi (Aug 9, 2004)

like that:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album_showpage.php?pic_id=5494


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 10, 2004)

it's a very distictive shape, you soon learn about it, and welcome to the world of WWII aviation, i hope you keep your interest in it, and you've come to a great place to learn about it, anything you want to know about just ask, couple of tips for the site 

1) ignore mine and Plan_D's fighting, he loves me really
2) don't flirt with pips, she'll shoot you down and add her to her tally................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

1) I sure do, it's a hate-hate relationship. 
2) And I'll encourage here, because I'm her wingman. That's right, Lanc, you were here 7th Kill!


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 13, 2004)

Thankyou  Pips is a girl? I guess i should keep my stereotypes to myself then! I wouldnt flirt anyway, Im married with 2 children.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

that wouldn't stop allot of men...........................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 13, 2004)

Shame on those men. I love my wife and children very much.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

Good man Sagaris.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)




----------



## Sagaris (Aug 14, 2004)

What's so funny?


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

Ur showing a set a morals that I believe the younger posters here cannot understand...


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 14, 2004)

Yes, i reckon its all those TV programmes where relationships dont last 2 minutes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

no it's just that i've got sort of a mental picture of what LG looks like, and the way i see him he'd sound so funny saying what he did.................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 16, 2004)

How can you have a mental picture of what he looks like? You've only been able to read his posts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 16, 2004)

yes and i've been reading them so long i've gotton to know his personality, and you built around that, most people have one....................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 16, 2004)

Well when you get an image of what I look like, let me know, im quite intrigued.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 17, 2004)

few people stay long enough to get one...............


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 17, 2004)

I doubt i'll be leaving anytime soon, I have another week off work after this week and i get all weekends off. I regularly have lots of spare time on my hands.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2004)

me and plan_d spend waaaaayyyyyyyyyy to long on this site as it is.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 18, 2004)

That is a true and valid fact...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2004)

as can be seen from the many pages where it's just been us two rambling on.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

I spend more time on the site than anyone


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

I dont know if thats somethin to be proud of, or be embarrassed by...

Jurys out for the weekend...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

when you find out my social life revolves around the internet too it becomes blatently obvious its something to be embarrased by


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

Hehe...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 23, 2004)

*thinks of a discrete way to spam*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

and you've out done youself..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 23, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 24, 2004)

ammature.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 24, 2004)

Not really.. Just bein a wise ass like always...

And u really spelled that one wrong.... Badly...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 25, 2004)

i'm from the westcountry, what do you expect.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 25, 2004)

LOL... U wear cowboy boots and ride a horse out there???


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 25, 2004)

YeeHAW!! BoogaPowow!!


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 25, 2004)

you can tell by my blatant abuse of smilies that I don't know much about the "West", as you put it


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

Dude that avatar looks like crap on a stick...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 26, 2004)

I've changed it now. So... does yoda looke like crap on a stick now???


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

Nope, he looks badass.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 26, 2004)

> LOL... U wear cowboy boots and ride a horse out there



that's the west of the US of A, i mean the west of england..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

IT WAS A JOKE........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 27, 2004)

ok..........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

The West is awesome...

It's so relaxed where I live.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

where do you live??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

City of Torrance, about twenty-five minutes from Los Angeles by car and about ten minutes from the beach by bike, five or less by car.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

so you're not exactily sitting in the middle of nowhere then??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

Not at all, I'm in a very nice area (not rich, middle and a bit above class).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

middle and a bit above mmmmmmm, interesting..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

My dad is also in the process of buying an beach-side apartment in a scenic area in Bahia, Brasil.

Over view of the area ~






The apartment, which is still in construction for delivery August 2005, is to the left of the lighthouse, I believe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

wow that looks beautiful, must cost a bit though.............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

Yeah, it does.

R$135,000 for a one bedroom suite.

70.2 meters squared, I think.


R$135,000 is the equivalent of US$45,685.279187817258883248730964467, or US$45,685.28


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

US $ doesn't help me.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

In pounds, it's 25,555.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

are you sure, because you wont get a house for less than £100,000 these days................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

I'm absolutely sure, a dollar is roughly R$3 and a pound is roughly US$1.5.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 29, 2004)

oh it just seems pretty cheap...................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 30, 2004)

That's what I like to call "a crap economy."

A 2.0 Astra Sport is over R$40k, in a country where minimum wage is R$240 per month...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 31, 2004)

i've so gotta move to wherever that is..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 31, 2004)

Here's the thing: get rich in the U.K, retire, live in Bahia.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 31, 2004)

surely it would be quicker to get rich in Bahia.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 31, 2004)

No, it wouldnt be.

What makes you think it is?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2004)

because you've just said the average monthly wage is R$240 and the cost of a car is R$40, which means the cost of living's cheap, which makes it easier to get rich...........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 4, 2004)

I said R$40k.

"k" is a term used in the U.S. meaning "1,000."


Also an abbreviation of "kilo," which has the same meaning.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2004)

oh i thought that was part of the way you write the currency................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

you fool lanc....

no the idea is to get rich in the UK, then go and live in either Monaco or Turin.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 22, 2004)

The construction is in the green zone I circled, _Morro Da Gavazza_
Or "Hill of the (something)"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2004)

look's like it shoulb be pretty good.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

i dont like the sea


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

I think the C-47 and also, if WW2 had continued longer, I think we could have seen a bright spark getting the aircraft gunship idea. This was in every theatre of war the Allies fought in and provided sterling service for Paratrooper operations and glider towing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

With the YB-40 and YB-41 the gunship idea was starting to come to fruition, but as bomber escorts. They werent that good though because they couldnt keep up with the bombers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> With the YB-40 and YB-41 the gunship idea was starting to come to fruition, but as bomber escorts. They werent that good though because they couldnt keep up with the bombers



Yep, but they looked deadly!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Damn right 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

Here's another.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

i don't really think the idea would have worked though.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't really think the idea would have worked though.....



No, it didn't. The only story I ever heard of the B-40 being used with some notoriety was over Italy where a captured P-38 was being used to shoot down crippled bombers. The B-40 pilot got into a verbal confrontation with the rouge P-38 pilot, claiming he had been with his wife. When the rouge P-38 came around to attack the B-40, everyone opened up on the P-38.

This was from Martin Cadin's book "The Forked Tail Devil," take it for what it's worth


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Ive heard that story but I didnt think it was a YB-40, I just thought it was regular B-17


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ive heard that story but I didnt think it was a YB-40, I just thought it was regular B-17



I think Cadin said it was a YB-40, but I could be wrong.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Youre right, it was a YB-40 



> One of the more interesting stories in the MTO was of the phantom P-38, which was causing trouble for many crippled bombers. Beginning on June 4, 1943, a crippled bomber was coming back from a mission against the island of Pantelleria. The crew was considering bailing out of their bomber when they spotted a P-38 coming closer. They immediately relaxed knowing it was coming to their aid. The crew continued to dump extra weight from the aircraft, including the guns and ammunition. Before the crew realized what happened, the P-38 erupted in gunfire and destroyed the B-17. The only survivor was the pilot, Lt. Harold Fisher. Fisher was rescued and was the target of fury from the fighter pilots by suggesting it was a friendly P-38 that shot them down.
> 
> Several weeks before Lt. Fisher's ordeal, a P-38 pilot was low on fuel and was lost. He actually made an emergency landing just outside of Sardinia. The pilot was captured before he was able to destroy his aircraft. Italian pilot, Lt. Guido Rossi came up with the idea of using this P-38 against the American bombers. Rossi's strategy was to wait until the bombers made their attacks. Rossi would then take off and scout around for stragglers. He actually used this technique to shoot down several bombers. Until Lt. Fisher, no other crews survived to tell of the P-38 shooting them down. The American commanders were under the assumption that these missing bombers just did not make it back just as many before them. Nobody thought a friendly aircraft was the cause.
> 
> After Fisher told his story, bombers crews were alerted to look for a lone P-38, which was posing as a friendly. Fisher came up with the idea of using a decoy B-17 to attract Rossi. Fisher's idea was approved and he took off in the experimental YB-40 gunship. This was simply a modified B-17, which had more armor and guns. He flew several missions lagging behind the rest of the formations, but never encountered Rossi. Intelligence was being gathered and the Allies finally learned the identity of the pilot. They also learned that his wife was living in Allied occupied Constantine. An artist actually used a picture of his wife to paint a nose art picture on Fisher's bomber, and included her name, Gina. On August 31, a B-17 raid struck Pisa. Fisher was flying among the bombers, and was actually damaged by enemy fighters. He recovered at a low altitude and had to feather two engines. Before lone, a lone P-38 was approaching and the crew was on high alert. Rossi, using very good English, contacted Fisher, just as he did on previous occasions. Rossi immediately noticed the nose art on the aircraft and spoke with Fisher. Fisher was still uncertain the pilot was Rossi and was chatting with Rossi normally. Fisher decided to bait this pilot to see if it was Rossi or not, and began talking about Gine and her location in Constantine. When Fisher was describing intimate details of their "relationship", Rossi lost his cool. He peeled off and began his attack. Fisher ordered all guns to open up on this P-38, and Rossi had to peel off trailing smoke. Rossi intended to ram the bomber, but began breaking up and could not maintain flight. He was able to ditch in the water and survived. Rossi was later picked up and taken prisoner. Fisher was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross medal for his efforts. Fisher would survive the war, but was killed in a transport accident during the Berlin Airlift. Incidentally, Rossi was one of the mourners at his funeral.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Its a great story, indeed one of my favourites of the war


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

I agree - another movie script! 8)


----------



## elmilitaro (May 24, 2005)

Can't argue with that, the C-47 was the best troop transport before, during, and after WW2.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> I think the C-47 and also, if WW2 had continued longer, I think we could have seen a bright spark getting the aircraft gunship idea. This was in every theatre of war the Allies fought in and provided sterling service for Paratrooper operations and glider towing.



Actully the C-47 did become a gunship. During the Vietnam war, the C-47 became the AC-47. The whole aircraft came with nicknames like "Puff the Magic Dragon" along with Ghosty and Flying Gunship. The AC-47 was a great aircraft because it could carry those Mini-guns that were made during the war. The whole AC47 was great for attacking Vietcong at night.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Spooky...it's name was Spooky. Those others are just nicknames.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 28, 2005)

There was also an EC-47 that was used for electronic reconnaissance. I interviewed a guy that flew them in Vietnam. They were able to capture the radar signatures used by the enemy for targetting American aircraft. The funny part about that gent is that he flew P-38s in the Pacific at the end of WWII and ended up later flying the EC-47 in Vietnam! He is 86 years old now and still flies regularly. He has a Piper Tripacer.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 7, 2005)

I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

The C-47 and the DC-3 are the quite possibly the most successful aircraft ever built. We are talking about cargo aircraft here, not fighters or bombers. If you totalled up cargo carried during WWII, the biggest percentage by far would be the C-47. Prior to the war, almost all worldwide air travel was carried by DC-3s. The C-47 flew in all theaters by many countries in all different types of weather. Over 13,000 C-47s were built by America, Japan and the USSR. Today there are still over 300 of them flying, some STILL performing cargo duties to remote locations.

Yet you think the Ju-52 was better?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

d_bader said:


> I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.



The JU52 looses an engine, any engine and it could barely get out of it's own way!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 7, 2005)

yes the C-47 is really the only contender, although it's nice to see the horsa's got some votes.........


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

DB. If you have been in a JU52 the one thing that will strike you is how narrow it is and limiting for carrying cargo. It hasn't got anything like the load, performance, space, range, turnaround time or anything else that the C47 has.

The JU52 might have been OK for people but I would love to see you get some of the more obscure loads (dare I suggest mules) that the C47 had to carry.

If the Germans had decent numbers of C47's they might, just might have been able to supply Stalingrad which could have changed the whole face of the war. With the JU52 they never had a chance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

d_bader said:


> I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.



While I love the Ju-52, you can not even compare it to a C-47. The C-47 is superior to the 'Tante Ju' hands down anyday. Yes the Ju-52 was a good transport but as was stated, was not very good for cargo. 

What I am really wondering is what makes you think the Ju-52 would handle better than the C-47 did in the same environment?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Good point on the engines, Joe. In early testing with the DC-3, it took off and flew an entire airline route including landing...all on ONE engine! The C-47 was a real workhorse and a lot of people in Berlin were thankful for it and the other cargo aircraft used for the Berlin airlift.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

If you go to Rein Mein you can still the memorial for it next to the autobahn.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

One example of how good the design of the DC3 was. In 1944 a competition was organised for a new transport glider to be towed behind the C54. Douglas submitted a DC3 designated XCG-17 with no engines, tanks or other mechanical piping and it was the best performing submission. Its maximum towing speed was 270-290mph and its stalling speed was 35 (yes Thirty five) mph which was 20mph less than the CG4. Just to cap it all it had no ballast requirement at minimum weight and had the best glide angle (14:1) of any transport glider in the USA at that time plus a maximum payload of 14,000Lb.
No contracts were placed as the war ended and the end of the Glider as militery transport was over.
If that doesn't prove how good the basic design was of the DC3, I don't know what will.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

I agree with you all the way Glider.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

It was a really remarkable airplane. Here is a shot of the XCG-17 glider and the XC-47C floatplane. Both taken from the C-47 In Action book.

Also, the B-18 Bolo (called the Digby in Canadian service) and B-23 Dragon bombers were all projects based on the DC-3/C-47 design.

When I prepared my presentation on the C-47, I had no idea before I started what an amazing airplane it really was.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

There's nothing comparable service wise to the C-47. The C-46 is the only true contender, in my mind, ability wise. 

And try doing this with a Ju-52:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Hell the 47 is still used today around the world.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

Define effect, the Me-323 proved how large transports could get and still fly. In that respect the Condor, Cossack and the C-5 Galaxy are its modern descendents. Large aircraft which were built on the proof that the Me-323 offered that large transport aircraft could be built and prove very useful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Um dude if you are meaning the Fw-200 Condor, it was in service before the Me-323 was even built. If you are meaning a different aircraft, I apologize for misunderstanding.

The 323 really had no effect on the war or anything. I was not built in large eneogh numbers to do anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

The 323 proved a concept but was severly underpowered. The C-5, although big, had lots of power...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Yeap


----------

