# Best transporter



## cheddar cheese (Jan 19, 2004)

I have no idea what transpoter planes are used for, but my favourite is the Junkers ju 52. If anyone could tell me what the purpose of transporters was then i would me most grateful


----------



## Crazy (Jan 19, 2004)

Transport of troops, equipment, and supplies to the front and back again. 

Example: D-day - 1. C-47s painted with invasion stripes roar over France, and drop the paratroopers in to clear the way for the invasion.

Example: D-day + 5. C-47's fly over troop positions (at least when they could find them) and dropped food, ammo, and new weapons.

And so on...


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

I think the C-47 would also get my Vote  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2004)

i feel like a right idiot now, i should have guessed that, oh well just shows how stupid i am


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

The Ju 52 was just as good, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

easily the C-47


----------



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

easily the C-47


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

Ahhhh....a double   8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

yea, sorry bout that, bit of confusion there


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

ju 52/3m comes second


----------



## trackend (Feb 6, 2004)

The Dakota wins hands down. A Jeep of the sky and one of the most outstanding aircraft of all time in fact if one aircraft had to be given the title of war winning I would probably pick this as without logistics nothing happens. Ask service men from wwII and you will be suprised how many flew in one of the birds Perhaps the best tribute to the designers is that 60 years on some of these planes are still in commercial service in various countrys around the world.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 6, 2004)

Easily the C47 Dakota for me as well .

Andrew


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

once again, i'd have to agree


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

ok maybe the SM.81 for me now


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The C-47 hands down. Behind it you could make arguments for all kinds of aircraft being second. C-46 perhaps?


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

The Ju-52 wasn't bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

the SM.81 was pretty much the same as a 52, but it could carry a 4000lb bombload and it was armed


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

It was faster as well, wasn't it?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I think too many Ju-52s were shot down. I know that wasn't the fault of the plane but (to me anyway) is a serious black eye to its reputation.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

They were used in times when air superiority hadn't yet been achieved. That's why...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

yup, the sm.81 was faster and it had a higher ceiling


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Yeah, like I said, the fault of the Germans and not the Ju-52. I was just saying it's hard to overlook loses like that.


----------



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

the C-47 wins easily, the 52 second.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

sm.81 3rd...


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Agreed. C-46, fourth


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

That would be a pretty good line up. I think though that the C-46 would have been higher if more had been built.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Yes, but unfortunately they weren't built in high numbers. Why is that?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well, Curtis was a manufacture kinda on its way out. It spent alot of effort churning out P-40s and Helldivers and I imagine that ate up alot of its production capacity. Additionally, the fabulous success of the C-47 probably had something to do with it.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I suppose the C-47 was the main reason, I mean they could have moved C-46 production elsewhere. Why have two transports?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well America did like to have redundancy . . . B-17 and B-24, B-25 and B-26, P-38 and P-47 and P-51. I know they all managed to find their own little roles but they all did the same basic mission.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

In different places. And as you said with different missions, most of them were two or more role planes anyway.


----------



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

the C-47 looks better than the C-46 IMO.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

You are right there. It also had the better service record, which is why we all agreed that the C-47 was the best transport plane of the war.


----------



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

so is this topic dead now???


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

nope  lets talk about the SM.81 for a bit  ooo on the subject of savoia-marchettis, does anyone have a picture of an SM.85


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The C-46 was actually better though, wasn't it? The C-47 has more of a record though, so it obviously had the bigger effect.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The C-46 could carry more but the C-47 had a longer range. The C-46 had a higher top speed but the C-47 actually cruised faster.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Amazing, really...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The sources I've been able to check show the C-47 cruised about 2mph faster which isn't much until you consider that the C-46's top speed was 40mph faster.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

2 mph isn't much at all, if the C-47 and C-46 were both carrying the same amount, the C-47 could carry it further? Or was its range just superior when empty. 

I take it C.C hasn't seen my pic of the Sm.85 he requested.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I haven't seen anything on range loaded, but I would imagine the C-47 would have been capable of carrying it further.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

thanks, plan_D  only just saw it


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

So C.C. what about that interesting little plane SM.85?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

erm, i dont know  im just going through the process of finding pictures of every plane i can, and i couldnt find on on the sm.85 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

C.C sorry for the repeat post, but i was reading up on the SM.85 divbomber, but it was just that and a one hit wounder that had one mission! Made of wood and underpwered, most italian designs seem to have that flaw, two Piaggio 500hp engines. The one mission they could not find the target.  

So this being transports, why not pick another stay in Italian design SM.81?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

the SM.81 is one of my all time fave planes


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

We've all come to realise that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

just making sure


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

Why in the world do you like Italian aircraft that much?


----------



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

i think it all started with the P.108................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

Why not the P.108 is a plane that had a lot of upside. Also the SM.79 and 81 come to mind. These are the three that I like and know C.C dose as well! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

yup! i dont know why i like italian planes, they just have so much more character than any other countries planes, and they look great 8) and although they rarely did make a good plane, when they did they were great at their job (SM.79/81, Fiat CR.42 Falco, P.108, etc 8) )


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

While they were used. The Italians were hardly good troops (look at the trouble they had with Greece) who seemed to have little real interest in the war. And the were out of it by late '43.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Beaten by the Greeks, and the British when they outnumbered the Brits 6 -1. The RA and Italian Navy did account for 1/5th of RN losses, so I suppose they weren't THAT bad...still bad though...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)




----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

But the Italian Navy had the Royal Navy battle outnumbered (in the Med) anyway at the start of the war an never pressed that advantage.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

They did out number the RN, they still did well to sink 1/5th of all those RN vessels sunk.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

But had they pressed that advantage, they might have been able to force the Royal Navy out of the Med, the supply lines to the Afrika Korps could have stayed open, and then . . . well, yikes.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

That advantage could have kept out the Americans and Allies from pushing as fast across Noth Africa or at the least delaying and forcing more troops and recorces. It might have kept them in the war longer, but that is doubtful.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

Very doubtful because even though the Italians out numbered the RN the RN knows how to conduct naval operations effectively. Negating any number advantage. The RN knew all it had to do was to keep the vessels that it needed, in the required area. This gave advantages in the certain areas of the Med they needed. 
Plus the RN crews were the best in the world, superior to the Italian naval crews. 

And even when the Italians out numbered the British 6 to 1 in 1941, the British counter attacked from Eygpt capturing 130,000 Italians with 1,200 dead and 500 wounded. And these Italians were supplied to the best, they just couldn't handle British supremecy in tactics, and combat itself.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

What weren't the Brits best at?  

Anyway, the Italians were very poor troops period (army, navy, and airforce) and everywhere they went (more or less) German forces had to bale them out. Still, regardless of the quality of their crews, the ships of the Italian fleet were modern and powerful and certainly could have been put to better use than they were.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

Most everything that the Italians made, ship, plane or what have you could have been used better by anyone elts. If they would have thought why not just have the Italians hold Itally, not try to make an empire and then just be a production force in the Po vally! 

I do not think it would have worked, but hell an idea.


----------



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

> They did out number the RN, they still did well to sink 1/5th of all those RN vessels sunk.



but that's only because the RN didn't engage in many big naval battles..........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Do you want to run that by me again MP-Willow, the Italians equipment was the best? 

Lanc, that's right but the reason is they didn't need to. Naval warfare is completely different to air or land warfare. 

LG, still digging at it, are we? Britain and Germany were the two best forces in World War 2 overall. America had some great aspects, and a great economy. Russia had an amazing population to throw in, and by 1944 had some pretty decent tactics that had been revived from the 30s.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

i think MP-Willow means that if the italians had put all their effort into making equipment rather than building an empire, they would have made some pretty good equipment for the other countries.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

i think MP-Willow means that if the italians had put all their effort into making equipment rather than building an empire, they would have made some pretty good equipment for the other countries.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

C.C thanks. Yes, I was thinking that. They did have some good ideas and things, but they could not seem to execute the plan. I think they might have been able to protect the supplies to Rommel much better, maybe if they were able to produce the P.108 in numbers or let the Navy have an air arm.

This was to be on transports, and they in relation to this bit on Italy and North Africa seemed to fall pray to a lot of Spits and P-38s


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

P-40s shot down a lot of the Ju-52s moving across the Med. and even the B-25s got in on that action.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

lots of things in the med were shot down. A lot over Malta. Ben reading up on that, more reading to come.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 5, 2004)

The dakota certainly


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 5, 2004)

The dakota certainly


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

Did you mean the Dakota for best transport plane of the war or being shot down over the Med? I'm not aware of any C-47s being shot down over the Med. I'm sure it probably happened, but not in extremely large numbers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

he probably means best transport


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

I would agree. As for the med, I am almost tempted in looking 

C.C. nice fighter, to bad it was Italian.


----------



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

what would have happened if the germans had completed the Graf Zepplin??????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

surely thats a question for the "what if?" thread......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

It would have set in a port in France or Norway while Great Britain committed half of the Royal Navy to keeping it there just like they did with every other major German ship.

The basic thing is the Graf Zepplin wasn't that great of a design. First consider the use of 16 5.9in guns. Artillery that heavy is totally useless on an aircraft carrier and only adds weight that could be better used on other things. On a displacement of about 24,000 tons it only managed to carry 42 aircraft (on a similar tonnage the Yorktown CV-5 could easily carry 90+). Furthermore, the Bf-109 would have made a very poor carrier fighter was its long nose and narrow landing gear track would have made landings a nightmare.


----------



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

even worse, the offensive power would have come from stukas............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2004)

It is simple to say that the RLM was trying to jump into the carrier game and would have faced the same trials that the USN, IJN, and RN had some 10 years earlier. Though the Bf 109T that was the right model for the carrier, was designed I think an Fw 190 type would have been better. Do any of you have more information about any of the other aircraft types other then the 109 that were to be on the Graff Zepplin?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

The only other aircraft progressed with was the Ju-87C Stuka. It was a navalized version of the basic Ju-87 with folding wings, arrestor hook, inflatable dinghy, and inflatable air bags in the fuselage and wing that could keep the plane itself afloat for 3 days in calm weather. Here's some stats . . . 

Engine: Jumo 211 Da - 1,200hp take-off; 1,100hp @ 4,920 ft
Speed (with weapons and fuel tanks): 178mph @ sea level, 193 mph @ 9,840ft, 199mph @ 16,405 ft
Cruise: 190 mph @ 16,405ft
Range (w/bomb): 332 miles
Range (w/bomb and tanks): 721 miles
Weight: 11,773lbs max
Span: 43' .75" (16' 5" folded)
Length: 36' .75"
Height:12' 4.5"
Wing area: 336.91' sq.

Not the most impressive numbers but the Japanese did very well with the comparable D3A 'Val.'


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

The Graf Zeppelin was plagued by internal rivalry, mainly from the jealousy of Herman Goering, the ass at the end of the Luftwaffe. It would have been an used for attacking Convoys, which gives the Atlantic Convoy a bad time...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

As a raider, it might have had some success. For fleet battles, it was all wrong. If the Graf Zepplin had started causing any real trouble, the USN could have sent over a couple of Essex-class to show the Germans what a real aircraft carrier ought to look like. And a fight between 109Ts and Hellcats might have been rather interesting.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

Or more likely the Royal Navy would send it's Carrier Battle groups since they'd be closer. And Swordfish would send it to the bottom.


----------



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

and seafires against 109s isn't a very original dogfight.......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 9, 2004)

All good thanks! As for the USN to show what 40 years of carrier resurch would be like the Essex-Class would work but look at the number of planes and the armore for the Zepplen I bet the CVEs could have even given her a hard time. But to see a Hellcat and a 109 dance in the sky would be nice. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 10, 2004)

I wouldn't have wanted to attack the Graf Zepplin in a Stringbag unless it was at night. As much as I love the old Swordfish, it would just be fodder for a 109. But a coordinated strike of Helldivers and Avengers covered by Hellcats would have decimated her.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2004)

They Royal Navy would have hunted it, it would have been closer for a start. They might have not used a Carrier to sink it. Submarines, torpedo boats. It's only one carrier, unless it got out into the Atlantic and got used on the convoys (which is what it was meant to do) it would have been on the bottom in days, like the Bismarck.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 10, 2004)

True about the Cats and Helldivers.  But it also had a lot of guns on her, probably to many and that took away from the amount of planes. It would have been set up with its own battle group, and then the race for the Atlantic, and sit out in the middle and raise hell 

The RN would most likly have come and we could have seen a great Atlantic carrier war, short but a battle. The fleet would have come maybe from the Med, and that might have let Malta fall or at least given the Italians a better shot.


----------



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

oh come on, we're talking about the italians here....................

and tha chances are the germans would treat it like the bismark, they wouldn't want to lose a their only carrier and so would hold it back most of the time through fear of the RN.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 12, 2004)

They didn't hold the Bismarck back, they held the Tipitz back because the Commandos blew up St. Nazaire.


----------



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

sorry, my mistake, my favourite plane did destry it afterall..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

You also have to understand that a German battle group would have include the Graf Zeplin and perhaps two other warships. Germany only had a handful of warships capable of sailing into the Atlantic. The Royal Navy could have hunted her (and very well may have) but I do not like the idea of attacking a target defended by 109s in a Swordfish.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2004)

You don't have to attack with a carrier.


----------



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

This is a quote from a book called "The Ship Busters" it is a series of true stories about ship-busting, on one occasion the pilot had to hit a ship with fighter escort sailing north in a swordfish.............

"...it wasn't the 109s that scared us as the stringbag could easily out manouver them, the was the flak that was the main threat..."


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

The Stringbag could outmaneuver a 109 but the Stringbag lacked the power for sustained maneuvering. 109s would have torn them to shreds. 

You didn't have to attack with an aircraft carrier, but you would if you had one available. Billy Mitchell, Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Princes of Wales and Repulse all proved that aifcraft (and thus the aircraft carrier) were supperior to the battleship. It should also be noted that the Graf Zepplin could outrun any battleship in the Royal Navy and had the firepower to outgun any cruiser (a waste of tonnage but true). Any surface force attempting to come to range with the Graf Zepplin would have been forced to endure several waves of attacks and probably suffered heavy casualties. Another aircraft carrier was clearly the best option.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

Why use Swordfish when the RN had avenger and duantles aircraft. Aso the seafire could have helped to take on the 109s. Or hunt the fleet with subs. In anycase if the battle group would have been able to get out into the atlantic it would have been a marked target from east and West. but while it lasted convoys would have to be in greater fear. A sufface battle group and the Wofpacks would be a scarry! 8)


----------



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

but the problem is getting it into the atlantic, it either had to go through the channel, or around scotland, i wouldn't want to do either................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

It would have run around Scotland through the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap. 

MP-Willow, the total number of Dauntlesses delivered to the FAA was 9 and they never saw any active service. In fact, the FAA never had a truly effective dive-bomber. The Avenger didn't enter service with the FAA until 1943 but would have been the best bet.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2004)

That's another point to mention. It would have had to go up through the North Sea, well within the range of the Mosquitos and Beaufighters. Quite an easy target going up there.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Well, that was the path preferred by German raiders and they had quite a lot of success sneaking out that way. If we are supposing the Graf Zepplin was operational at the start of the war, it sneaks out with out any trouble and may well have been in the Atlantic before the war began. It probably could have made it even as late as 1942 without much trouble.


----------



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

but we know about the zepplin and would have kept a close eye on it, if it tried to move we would have seen it and attacted, it would have had it's own battle group, and you might be able to sneak one ship trough, but not an entire battle group.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

There would have been ways around it. Weather in the North Sea can be miserable and that would be an advantage to the Germans. Additionally, the Graf Zepplin wouldn't have had to sail with its battle group. They could have left port individualy at assembled at a point in the North Atlantic. And its not as if the it would have been a big battle group. For one thing, surprise is everything for a raider and it is harder for several ships to hide than for one (as you noted). Additionally, the Germans only had about 13 ships total during the war that were capable of truly functioning on prolonged patrols in the Atlantic. By guess is that the Graf Zepplin might have had 1 BB and a couple of CAs to opperate at best.


----------



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

probery the zepplin's biggest advantage would be it's speed wouldn't it, i hear it was faster than all the RN's bigger ships................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

The Graf Zepplin could supposedly do 32kts flat out. That was faster than any battleship save the Iowa class. The RN fleet carriers could match it for speed and most of the cruisers could overtake it but the British cruisers were out-gunned by the Graf Zepplin. A fight between the Zepplin and say a Town class cruiser might have been very interesting.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

That could be interesting. But I was reading that the Plan Z time line should have had the carrier ready and it could have stayed in the North Atlantic for a while, but fuel would be a big crippleing blow. It might make it out, and the RAF could miss it, but comming back in and getting back out are very dicey. All this could be mut if the Atlantic port at St. Nazier is still operational. Also the idea of this carrier waiting to go out might have fueled the RN for more designs. We will not know because Hitler jumped the war time line and politics crippled what might have been a good carrier.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

Goering was the reason it never made it out. And as mentioned the St. Nazaire dock would have had to stay intact to keep it in the war. 

Getting out to the Atlantic would have been a hard task, as with the Bismarck it would have been hunted. The North Sea was blockaded and it would have been complete luck to get through.


----------



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

the RAF would have picked it up whilst in dock proberly, ever since we weould run regualr patrolls just to check on it, if it did move the chances are it would have some form of escort, so it would have been easier to spot and we would torp. it before it made it to the atlantic, it's only chance would be to fight it's way out to the atlantic, not easy................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

But the Bismarck did get through. So did the Scharnhorst, the Gneisnau, etc. It was possible for a ship to sneak through, difficult, but possible. 

The Graf Zepplin would not have been a good carrier. It was Germany's first design and no one got it right the first time. Just look at the Langely, Furious, and Hosho as examples. The heavy armament was a waste of space and tonnage (note that both the Japanese and Americans tried this and rejected it) and the aircraft were rather hurried adaptations of land based aircraft. Further, the compliment was very small for its size. The Zepplin might have done alright as a raider, but would have been horrible as a fleet carrier.


----------



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

but it didn't have much opposistion in the atlantic, it's aircraft would be doing anti-shipping strikes, not much dogfighting...............

and it's possible to get one ship out, but not a whole battle group, and if we'd known about the zepplin we'd have flown regular patrols over it and the north sea to make sure it didn't try and "do a runner".............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

The RAF was doing the same thing with the Bismarck and it nearly escaped. If the Zepplin set sail in the winter, when the North Atlantic weather is really nasty, it would probably have a better than even chance of getting out unnoticed.


----------



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

> The RAF was doing the same thing with the Bismarck and it nearly escaped



as it was we managed to hit it before it did, then they had to move it around for repairs, they we delivered the knock out blow, what's to stop us doing the same with the zepplin..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but there were days at a time that the Bismarck wasn't being followed by RAF aircraft. And if the weather is crummy and the RAF can't fly . . .


----------



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

> but there were days at a time that the Bismarck wasn't being followed by RAF aircraft



so we pick them up the next day, it takes a while to get out to the atlantic..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

It's not as easy as it sounds. It could be done, but it would have been a challenge. All I am really trying to say is that there is a decent possibility that the Graf Zeppelin could have made it out into the Atlantic.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

Ok. So as a raider and realizing it needs improvment would a second carrier or for that matter the one that was already proposed be developed more on the lines of the USN? Or for that matter wny not have looked at the INJ carriers  They were of good design and could have helped a lot.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

The Germans didn't truly want a carrier, only the Kreigsmarine wanted one as a raider. Hitler isn't going to go out of his way to gain other countries designs when he doesn't even want one. 

The Bismarck did make it out, but it was hunted all the way. The same would have happened to the Graf Zeppelin. It would have been luck to escape the RAF and RN.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

In my opinion, it would have been a wise move for the Germans to have accepted some information exchange as the Japanese had the most advanced navy in the world in 1941. Yes Britain had a larger navy, but they had no carrier to compare to Shokaku, no battleship to compare with Yamato, no cruiser to compare with Mogami, and the Japanese arguably had the best submarines of the entire war.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

A ship is one big lump of steel without its crew.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

Japanese Navy was very highly trained. During the first year or so of the war they pretty much knocked the crap out of whatever the ABDA threw at them. That's the American, British, Dutch, and Australian Forces. In terms of crew and technology, I would say the Japanese navy was it at the start of WWII.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

They could have said that about the Italian, and German Navies as well. True, the Japanese were very well trained, and their ships were modern but the Royal Navy had a massive numercial superiority. And the Royal Navy knew how to use that to its advantage. Not something it could do in the pacific because the majority of its ships were in the Atlantic.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

Yes the RN had numbers but that still did not give them a great time. The Hood was lost, and the Japanese cut the RN to bits in in 41 and 42. They were iradicated from the Indian Ocean until they could come back wit numbers and some help from the USN.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

Excuse me, the Royal Navy were never defeated. They held all they needed to. Again you must believe Naval warfare is like ground warfare. 
And I'll say again the MAJORITY of the Royal Navy was in the Atlantic. If we could have sent the full force of the Royal Navy out to the Pacific we could have probably crushed them, but we couldn't and that's where America came in. 

And America wouldn't have had much of a chance if the Royal Navy didn't batter the Italian and German Navy.


----------



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

> The Hood was lost



1) the RN went on to destroy the ship that sunk it (the Bismark)
2) the Hood wasn't quite ready, it's armour wasn't upgraded at trhe time, it still carried it's WWI armour, and it was only sunk because the Bismark gave it a couple of broadsides, at the time the Hood was turning to send back a couple of vollys, but she was hit before she could, there's arguments to suggest that if the Hood had given the Bismark a couple of broadsides, she would have been sunk insted............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

1) The Hood had been upgraded in side armor but her deck armor was still to the standards of WWI (when aircraft attacks were considering a joke and BB gunfire didn't have the range or accuracy to hit a long distance target). By WWII all of that had changed and the deck armor of the Hood was totally inadequate. Since we are on the subject, there is a possibility that the Hood was in fact sunk by the cruise Prinz Eugen which hit the Hood several times. It has been theorized that the fires from these hits produced enough heat to 'cook-off' the Hood's deck torpedoes causing a chain-reaction sinking the ship. 

2) The RN could have sent everything they wanted to to the Pacific in 1941 and probably would have run into a slaughter. BB's are no match for carrier aircraft (note the loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales). The RN had neither the number of quality of carriers to combat the Japanese. Nevermind the fact that in Sept. 1941 the TOTAL strength of the FAA was 387 (less than the total aircraft compliments of Japan's front-line carriers at the time). I know this will probably be taken as a knock against Britain but it is NOT. I fully believe the USN would have been slaughtered as well and that it was extremely good fortune that a full fleet battle didn't errupt immediately after Pearl Harbor. In 1941, the IJN was just THAT good.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

How could Britain send all its Navy to the Pacific? We had to blockade the Med, and the North Sea on top of protecting the shipping through the Atlantic. For that you need SHIPS!!! 

They say that Hood was sunk from cordite that the Royal Navy gunners had stacked around the turrets for quicker firing. Completely against regulations, mind you. The same thing happened to the Battle-Cruisers in the Battle of Jutland (WW1).


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

I'm not saying that would have sent them all. My point was, that the RN numerical superiority in surface ships would have meant little in the face of the quantity and quality of IJN airpower.

Everyone agrees that the Hood was sunk by a cordite explosion. The British had sacrificed protection and safefty for rate of fire. The question is, what caused the explosion. Conventional wisdom says it was the Bismarck's salvo (which it probably was). But the Prinz Eugen did score several hits around the Hood's torpedo battery which (theoretically) could have caused the tragic chain of events.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

Someone just wanted to throw in a spanner with that one. It was the Bismarck.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

> My point was, that the RN numerical superiority in surface ships would have meant little in the face of the quantity and quality of IJN airpower.



1) why would we want to send all our carriers out to the pacific??
2) we didn't need a huge number of carriers, the germans or italians didn't have any to fight back with, we were only really using them against ships, and a swordfish stands a good chance against ships....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

Well, the discussion (as I understood it) was a theoretical one about an large-scale engagement between the RN and the IJN. If the RN was serious about trying to win it, they would need carrier power, but they still didn't have the numbers or quailty to match the airpower of the IJN.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

If the RN had to face up to opponent carriers on its main operational theatre they would have put money into new carriers instead of into the battleships to face the German battleships and subs. 
No Carrier was needed in the Atlantic.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

No carrier was needed in the Atlantic? Carriers were the nail in the coffin of the U-Boat. Granted those were small CVEs rather that full fleet carriers but they were still needed.


----------



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

but they were needed more in the med than they were in the atlantic................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

Lanc, the CVEs let the convoys breath a little more. Before that the U-boats could still find wholes in the aircrat and in ship coverage. The CVE's aloud for the chase and kill more then the use of lad based planes. As good as the Coastal Comand Iarcraft were even wit Liberators the ocean is Realy big and U-boast can hide. 

LG- I agree that the USN would ave had a lot of problums if a full fleet battle would have happened before 1942. Midway could have been a really bad loss, save for luck, and skill in codes.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

That's what I said, LG. The Carrier wasn't the God send of the Atlantic, many things contributed to the destruction of the U-Boat threat. Britain unwilling to build Carriers in such large numbers proves it, no Carrier threat means you don't need Carriers of your own to combat it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Britain didn't build many carriers because the US could supply all the CVEs either nation would ever want and the RN wanted a lot of them. MP-Willow is right, there was a fairly large hole in the air cover right in the middle of the Atlantic. The U-Boat skippers quickly learned about this and made this section of ocean a veritable death trap. In WWII, the best weapon for killing a sub was an airplane and the best way to keep aircraft with the convoy was the CVE.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

Britain didn't need the fleet carriers that would have been needed to combat the IJN. Britain didn't need the carriers, they had one hell of an easier time with the small amount they had. 
The U-Boats were destroyed by a massive number of things, escorting destroyers also made a very big impression on the Wolfpacks when decent tactics were sorted out.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

I didn't claim that the U-Boats were beaten solely by the CVEs but they were the best weapon available to attack them. More fleet carriers would have been advantageous to the British. Britain was responsible for the defense of a world-wide empire (India, Singapore, Australia, etc.). These places were largely dependant on the RN for defense.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

Not as World War 2 showed. They weren't lost to Naval Power but to Japanese land forces. Australia could be defended by land based fighters. Carriers aren't needed to defend a land with a large enough base to supply fighters in an equal manner to the Carrier fleet. 

The Carrier Battles of the Pacific were over small islands with barely, if any, airfields. With Singapore, India and Australia the land bases could provide enough support.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

So are you claiming that the RN would not have benefitted from more carriers? If you read my last post closely, I was merely pointing out that the RN could have used the extra carriers.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

The RN didn't require Carriers for the defence of its empire. The only time you need carriers is when you haven't got airfields capable of hitting the area. If you're defending land that has airfields, like Australia. You don't need carriers to defend it. 

If the RN was taking the fight across the small islands, then carriers would have been needed but America was doing that part. In the Atlantic we had the carriers needed, we weren't going up against other big carrier Navies, so why build masses of them of our own?


----------



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

and aircraft weren't always the best way to a hunt a sub, the german tactics for the most part were to stay submerged during the day, and attack at night, when a aircraft won't pick you up, whereas a sonar will, and what happens if the aircraft carrier is sunk by the U-boat???


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

Radar Lanc. Every Avenger was carrying at least a basic search set and by the end of the war they were carrying the Mk. 24 FIDO homing torpedo and didn't even have to see the target to kill it. They weren't just hunting it with eyes. You do run the risk of a U-Boat sinking an aircraft carrier, but would you rather be in a convoy with or without them?

Plan_D you still haven't really answered the jest of my question. Would more carriers have been useless to the RN? If so, then it was fine not to build them but carriers were the brunt of naval power and without them the RN wasn't nearly as impressive as a fighting force as it might have been. Had there been a carrier to defend Singapore it might have lasted.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

No, Britain didn't need anymore carriers. Singapore wouldn't have lasted any longer with one, it was overrun by Japanese land forces. The Carrier would have had to leave once it's dock had been taken.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

Carriers are pure power projectio and mobility. A carrier fleet can used the weather to hide it, like the Japanese did so well. Also the carrier ovig is not a fixed place in space, so the attacking force has to maintain contact or at least know where they are. U-boat huntig was when refind a co-operative effort as stated a lot of different units were used, but the CVEs allowed the convoy to maintain its course while the planes were out chaseing the subs. A fleet carrier force in the Atlantic might have been nice, but as Plane_D has said no fleet carriers to oppose it. Now if the German or Italian Carrier programs were to have come on line the story might be different.

The RN could have benifited in the Indian ocean with flet carriers, say three to help with patrol and as stated power projection when land based planes are limited in rage and arms. Also look at the location of Singapore and how important it was. Yes it was taken by land units, but a carrier force would have helped to make the war planners think things over and that might have been what the deffence needed, a little more time. But what Singapore needed was to be concidered valuable and deffended with top rate arms and men, that was not what happened. So tis ramble is over you my all rant at me or just ignore this muse.


----------



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

but we're talking about more use of carriers in the atlantic................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Actually, I thought this started as a comparison between the IJN and the RN. The IJN had a huge advantage in carriers, carrier planes, and carrier pilots in 1941 and that is really the end of the matter. 

Now, this isn't my idea, I've seen it on history programs but it is interesting the Singapore surrendered (slightly different from being over run) almost immediately after the Prince of Wales and Repulse were lost. If the RN had more assests in the area, i.e. carriers, it might have held out longer.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

No, the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk on the 10th December 1941 in the China Sea by torpedos. In February 1942 by the 15th despite very brave resistance from the Australian, British and Indian defenders, Singapore surrenders leaving 80,000 captives. 

MP-Willow, these people were top rate. They could have held it if the Coastal Guns on Singapore could be turned inland. They were never expecting a land invasion. The area had air cover from all around, a carrier wouldn't have done anything new.


----------



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

it would only make another, very expensive, target.................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

On not of the Singapore incident a Carrier was on it's way there. The 'Prince of Wales' and 'Repulse' were set to meet with the fleet-carrier 'Indomitable' but went on without it. Why they did that I don't know. I think they wanted to get them to Singapore as quickly as possible.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Plan_D, the Idomitable ran aground of the course of Jamaica while working up in Nov. of 1941. That delayed her long enough that she missed her rendevous. I don't think she would have been much use against the Japanese at the time (her fighter compliment was 9 Sea Hurricanes and 12 Fulmars). Still, some air cover is better than none.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

That's the thing the RN in Singapore didn't have any Seaborne aircover. Land based aircraft were still there.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

And as we have discussed elsewhere, still no match for the IJN and the Zero.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

So with that said, here is a thought to get you to think IJN and USN, if the IJN could have been able to replace the pilots lost with similarly or better trained pilots at did the USN would the IJN have faired any better in 1942?


----------



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

it's close to call because you have to remeber that by late '42 the americans were getting good pilots of their own, but i think that if the japs had been able to replace their early war pilots, they would easily hold the advantage for much longer......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

The Japanse did very well throughout 1942. Midway was a big blow but it was into 1943 before their pilot quailty really started dropping off. The fighting in the Solomons and around Rabaul really took its toll. However, even if Japan could have replaced their pilots it wouldn't have made that much difference in the end because Japan couldn't produce or replace the aircraft at a pace that would match the US.


----------



## Piaggio108 (Jun 25, 2004)

Piaggio P.108T!
"The P.108T with its three belly doors could accomodate up to five P.XII engines, 60 fuel drums, 8 torpedoes, 44 soldiers or variious loads including fighters or Vehicles."
Ali D'Italia Piaggio P.108


----------



## Piaggio108 (Jun 25, 2004)

Sorry, I posted that last one withount reading the whole topic. It was actualy on topic, which may explain it a bit.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

It is on topic, true. 

It was the economy of America that won her the war. No one could match it and especially not Japan. It may have lasted longer if say Midway was won by the Japanese but eventually they were going to be beaten.


----------



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

but if they could replace the aircraft and carriers they would have stood a good chance against america....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2004)

They couldn't have replaced them as quickly as America though. While Americas force was getting bigger, Japans would just be filling in the gaps.


----------



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

ok then, supposing both nations could produce at the same rate, i would give japan the edge.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 26, 2004)

First of all, Japan had nowhere near the industrial capactity needed to match America. No one, exlcuding perhaps the Soviet Union, did. I have heard that producing the carrier Amagi required the metal from all of the cooking pots in Tokyo. I don't know if that is true but it illustrates the blight of the Japanse industrial base. But even if Japan had been able to match the numbers of carriers, they had no design to match the fighting power of the Essex-class.


----------



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

but they had superior pilots and many would argue superior planes..............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

If the economy of Japan magically matched that of America, I would firmly believe history would be the other way around. The idea of a superior class of ship could win the war is flawed, the fact that Royal Navy vessels were at a majority WWI technology but still combated the modern works of the Kriegsmarine and Italian Navy proves that it doesn't always depend on the ship. 

The fact is though Japans economy wasn't a touch on America. America used its economic might to crush those that opposed it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

The Japanese didn't have the quality of pilots in 1944, nor did they have quality of planes. There would have had to have been a whole series of 'what-ifs' for the war in the Pacific to have gone differently.


----------



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

> The Japanese didn't have the quality of pilots in 1944, nor did they have quality of planes.



we know that, we're just sayin "if they did", and the shiden could mix it with the best of them.........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

Also the fact that Japan had inferior pilots might be something to be blame on a lower economy. Yes, I know the economy is of materials but while your economy is being bombed to submission you start losing the frame of mind to train effectively and put it all into the rebuilding of forces. 

On top of that, the need to push out troops and pilots as fast as possible was due to the increasingly desperate situation Japan was in because their economy and military was faltering on the growing might of America (by their vast economy)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

The effectiveness of Japanese pilots had little if any relationship to their economy. One of the things that were them was that only the 'very best' pilots made it through the rigorous training the IJN impossed on its pilots. The result was that the 'best' pilots washed out.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

“In the first six to twelve months of war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”

--Admiral Yamamoto in an interview with the Shigeharu Matsumoto, 
a member of the Japanese Cabinet, 1940

That quote I think sums up what we have been talking about and is better then the "Sleeping Dragon" that most like to quote. But t IJN was very good and strong. We talk about how strong the US production was, but it was never battle tested, that is we never had bombs fall on Wilow Run or Bethgaige, NY (where Grumman was producing). So we cannot tell if our production could have rebounded like Germay or would be ground down like Japan. 

For your what if mind games: Japan is able to take Eastern China in the "Few months" they said it would be and set up production there?
P.108T- that is a hoot, and well you are on the topic we sidetracked a bit for some good old carrier talk. But the P.108 was good, but more on that latter. 

Question for you all, is there any trueth to the story the Soviets just up and moved the factories over the mountains out of bomber range?


----------



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

it wouldn't suprise me with the soviots.........................


----------



## paulyb102 (Jun 28, 2004)

Yup the C-47 Dakota gets my vote and was the Starlifter or Galaxy of its day.

Paulyb102


----------



## Dan (Jun 28, 2004)

well i can't say it would be the Ju-58 because it only had 2 side gunners and a top gunner that only fired towards the back of the craft
certanly something i wouldn't want to be on during world war 2 (watch out for frontal attacks


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 28, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Japanese didn't have the quality of pilots in 1944, nor did they have quality of planes. There would have had to have been a whole series of 'what-ifs' for the war in the Pacific to have gone differently.




Quality of planes? They did have good planes. The Zero, outclassed, sure, but good nonetheless as a dogfighter. The Shiden needs no intro. The Hayate was excellent in all aspects. The Dinah was so good the Germans wanted to copy it. The Tony performed better than some 109's. The Toryu was a great nightfighter, even though it lacked radar. The flying boats were second only to Sunderlands. The Jack was not only well armed, it was good at all altitudes. The Ohka, although its mothership had problems, was untouchable and did its job excellently. The Hiryu was fast, well armed and armored. The Judy was the fastest dive bomber of the war. The Jill was an effective, but vulnerable torpedo bomber.

Be assured, quality was everywhere, but skilled pilots were not.

Concerning numbers built before anyone brings it up: 
1,742 Dinahs
1,701 Toryus
167 Emily Flying Boats
10,499 Zeroes
476 Jacks
1,149 B5N Kates
852 Ohkas
819 Ki-49 Helen Bombers
2,446 G4M Betty Bombers
3,382 Ki-84 Franks
5,919 Ki-43 Oscars
1,048 G3M Nell Bombers
3,078 Ki-61 Tonys
1,118 F1M Pete Seaplane Biplane Observers
1,435 Shidens
1,225 Ki-44 Shoki Interceptors
698 Peggy Bombers
214 H6K Mavis Flying Boats
1,094 A5M Claude Fighters (Early War)
2,038 D4Y Judy Dive Bombers
1,133 B6N Jill Torpedo Bombers


So you see, not only were the Japanese good at mass producing, (the 3000+ Franks were made in 17 months; please don't compare this to the US's industrial capability, I know the US could have made nearly 6,000 in the same period of time) but it wasn't the lack of good aircraft, it was the lack of good pilots that doomed them in the air.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2004)

MP-Willow, that is all too true. The Soviet production facilities were loaded on to trains and sent East past the Ural Mountains out of German hands.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 28, 2004)

Part two of my above post: Another thing I am trying to get across here is that these were all readilly available. Obviously not in their whole numbers, but in quite some numbers. In addition to this, I would like to say that the Shiden and Frank were given to the best pilots available, be them the most promising recruits out of training, or old hardened aces.


Just a little filler I'd like to throw in about the Ki.

Ki-84 Ia~2x 7.92mm mgs in the engine cowl and one 20mm cannon in the wing

Ki-84 Ib~Mgs replaced with another pair of 20 mike-mikes

Ki-84 Ic~Wing 20 mike mikes replaced with 30mm cannons for bomber butsing.

My preffered version would be the Ib as it is well balanced, can kill any fighter in the skies, and has plentiful ammo. The Ic had little ammo for the 30's which made it pointless for dogfighting.

Another fact, had the war been different, these could have been used to escort Japanese bomber fleets. How? Range. More than a Mustang and these had Armor unlike most Japanese planes, as well as self sealing tanks.

Imagine it~4 engine Japanese bombers (they had a flying prototype ready to be produced) attacking the Philipines, Okinawa, Wake, and Iwo Jima with Ki's and Shidens near to fend off the Stangs and Jugs while the invasion fleets come in in the Higgins-like assault boats to take the islands back, one at a time...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

With the possible exception of the Hayate 'Frank' they Japanese had no aircraft capable of exceeding 400mph on the level. The Americans had 4 I know of (P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U) and have seen some test evidence that the Hellcat could do it as well. The 'Emily' flying boat was the best of the war, far better than the Sunderland in my opinion. The Judy was fast, but little else. The Ki-61 'Tony' was considered to be easy prey by many pilots as even with its increased speed it was still slower than American fighters and far less maneuverable than the Japanese types. The Japanese did have some outstanding designs, especially towards the end of the war. However, I don't think this translated into very many outstanding planes as quality control in Japan from the latter half of '44 left a lot to be desired.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses, Yes the Ki-84 was very god, but where were these bober fleets, and fighters going to come from? The home islands were in ruien they were sharpenig bamboo spears to repeal the AMarines that wod be landing in 1946. Yes if the Ki-84 could have been given the quality of production the desig was capable of then things could be differnent. But the bomber and fighter production was ravaged.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

I personally think the Ki-84 was the best fighter the Japanese produced during the war.


----------



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

i'm afraid the only jap fighters i know about are the shiden and zero, both exelent aircraft..................................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 29, 2004)

Dear God lanc...


Anywho, the "mike mike" I kept saying above is Vietnam slang for Millimeter and "Tally Ho" means visual confirmation.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

The Japanese had a number of fascinating aircraft Lanc. You might enjoy taking a look at this site as it has info for most of the major fighters.

http://www.kotfsc.com/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

> Anywho, the "mike mike" I kept saying above is Vietnam slang for Millimeter and "Tally Ho" means visual confirmation.



there's plenty of steroetypical english sayings to that effect..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

LG -that site is a very nice one! I found it while ago and used it to read up on Japanese and Russian planes. I like how it presents the information and the different groups are helpful. 

The Ki-84 was the best Army fighter but the Navy vor political and turff war reasons never to my knowledge evaluated it. The Zero was good but it like the 109 needed to be upgraded. The 109 was but the Zero and most Japonese planes were fare behind in upgrades and developent. As I understand it they were slow and the A7M program was falterig badly.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Well, if you know much about the Japanese aviation industry, you know that the military had serious problems with interfering in the designers work. The A7M was initially designed to use a Mitsubishi Ha 43 engine of 2,200hp. The Navy suggested a more developed but less powerful engine requiring series re-enginering. When it was finally flown it was shown to be a nice plane but seriously underpowered. By the time the IJN pulled its thumb out and agreed to use the more powerful engine, B-29s were laying waste to the cities of Japan.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

True you reminded me of reading that. 

But the maine problum was Japan had no safe production or testing areas. That and the B-29s were taking out cities one a a time, and then running out of places to go


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

Well, if the Japanse had gotten serious about producing new fighters, the A7M probably could have been entering service in early 1944 before the B-29s were much of a threat and the IJN still had a few carriers to ship them on.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Ok say that was the case would the A7M had made a difference given pilot skills? We have said before that the USN / USMC pilots can be average but to get the most out of the IJN planes the pilots needed to be better, and they were out numbered.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

If it had entered service in 1944 in might have prolonged the war. The A7M was supposed to have the maneuverability of the Zero with performance better than the Hellcat and matching most of the other American fighters. Japan still would have been facing an uphill battle because of the production situation, but at least the pilots would have had a good chance of surviving combat.


----------



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

they would have benn allot beter if the IJN could train their pilts to the standard they were at the start of the war...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

But that took forever! Plus, the Japanese pilots at the start of WWII were so good because they had already seen YEARS of action against the Chinese.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

I agree the IJN had been able to fly in Chia for 4 years or more developing the skills and more to the point the aircraft. One could say that China had poorer quality planes but they did put up some strong resistance. 

As we have said the production of the US was a prblum that only Gerany, Russia, and The UK could compeate with. Do you know if Japanese subs sat off the USA WEst coast to down ships as did u-boats off New Jersey?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

Germany and the UK couldn't compete with the US for production. The Soviet Union could only compete because of British, German, French and American skill, technology and tools.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

No. The Japanese were never real keen on the idea of using submarines independently of the main fleet. Their primary role was to scout for the fleet and maybe to sneak in a shot or two at an American warship. All in all, that was probably good for us as the Japanese had some of the best subs and the very best torpedoes in the world.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 17, 2004)

So the Japanese had the oposite tactic for use of Subs then Germany? Interesting. One would think they would have been more agressive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

The war in the Pacific was more dependant on convoys and troop transports that the war in Europe. If the Japanese had employed their submarines in a more offensive role, it could have been very bad indeed.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 20, 2004)

The Japanese capability to produce planes seemed to have been severly hurt by a couple of big earthquakes in 44/45. Production of the Ki.67 Hiryu for example was really hurt by a slowdown in engine deliver due to a Dec 44 earthquake.

Deteriorating quality control and dwindling supplies hampered what production there was left of existing planes. Later models of the Ki.84 were cobbled together basically from whatever was handy, which must have made for a fragile plane...


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 20, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The war in the Pacific was more dependant on convoys and troop transports that the war in Europe. If the Japanese had employed their submarines in a more offensive role, it could have been very bad indeed.



The big plan for the subs was to shadow and weaken the main American fleet before the decisive battle, but war exercises in '39 and '40 showed they weren't up to the task. There were not enough of them, and even though the fastest had a 24 knot surface speed, it wasn't enough to allow them to maintain repeated attacks on a fleet.

Meanwhile, American subs were doing in the Pacific what the Germany's wolf packs tried to do to in the Atlantic: sending the entire enemy merchant marine to the bottom of the ocean...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 20, 2004)

I had mentioned that as being the invisioned mission of the Japanese surface fleet. I was merely pointing out that they would have been better off if they had adopted the tactics being used by the USN and the Kriegsmarine.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 23, 2004)

Right, and I was agreeing with and expanding on your point. Instead of trying to chase down US fleets, they should have been attacking supply shipping like the US subs were...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 23, 2004)

Or attacking the amphibious assault groups.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 7, 2004)

i think thet we all agree thet the c-47 was the best ju-52 was not bad.
i dont know english very well so forgive me if i have meystikes in my writing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

ok i didn't know you can't speak english that well so i may have commented on your spelling in the ugliest plane thread, can i apologise now.........................

and i think we all agree with you about the C-47......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

On impact it definately was the best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

the horsa was best for stealth however..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

And the pilots and navigators were excellent, Caen De Canal Bridge-June 6th-1944. 8)


----------



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

> And the pilots and navigators were excellent, Caen De Canal Bridge-June 6th-1944.



tell that to the houndreds of paratroopers that were scattered all over france.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

The Caen De Canal bridge was Pegasus Bridge, the glider borne troops there landed within a few metres of the Bridge.


----------



## toffi (Aug 8, 2004)

One even landed with it's nose placed into the entanglement of the defence of brigde. The Germans must have been quite surprised.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

The 2nd Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire only lost 2 men taking that bridge too.


----------



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

i meant the first part of you mesaage, i know about pegasus bridge, i'm mean the part about the navigators being exelent, i'm not saying they weren't, i'm just saying that the paratroopers scattered over northern franch wouldn't agree with me........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

I was talking about the Horsa pilots and navigators. The Dakota pilots had a hard time, but the British drop zones were not even nearly as scattered as the American ones.


----------



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

that's because, as you said, most of our's were droped in gliders.................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 10, 2004)

dont worry i fotgive....i forgive...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 1, 2005)

The C47 was the best transporter overall. It could carry 20 paratroopers! You cant beat that! It was also great in long range!!!! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

actually you can beat 20 

but i think we're all agreed it was the C-47...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

I prefer SM.82 Canguru... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

(And P.108T)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

not exactily the best though were they


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

And why not? They werent used much but they were good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

combat record, in my opinion, has allot to do with how good they were......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Whether they saw much service or not has jack to do with how good they are. If theyre good, theyre good. Take the 5 Series fighters for instance (I know I bang on about em but their a good example) they saw hardly any service, but that does stop em from being good.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

How did these Italian transports compare to the C-46 and C-47 in stats then?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Well the SM.82 could carry 40 Paratroopers, or 8,818lbs of bombs if needs be. Top speed 230mph C-47, 1900mile range and 20,000ft ceiling. It was better defended with one x12.7mm and 3x 7.7mm.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

What a random mix of numbers - do it again properly. A comparison, CC...stats from both aircraft. And the C-47 was a Cargo plane - bombload means nothing if we're talking about Transporters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Ok.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

*SM.82*


> First flown in 1938, the Canguru was a scaled up version of the SM.75 with a comparatively longer and deeper fuselage and had a fuselage of fabric-covered welded steel tube construction and flying surfaces that were of plywood covered wooden construction with the exception of the fabric covered metal control surfaces.
> 
> Production totaled about 400 aircraft and these were used mainly as transports during Italy’s participation in World War II. About 80 survived the Italian armistice in 9/43 with 50 surviving with the Italian Fascist side and 30 with the co-belligerent side. 30 remained in service after the war in the transport role powered by four 1,350 hp Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp radial engines.
> 
> ...










*C-47*


> Few aircraft are as well known or were so widely used for so long as the C-47 or "Gooney Bird" as it was affectionately nicknamed. The aircraft was adapted from the DC-3 commercial airliner which appeared in 1936. The first C-47s were ordered in 1940 and by the end of WW II, 9,348 had been procured for AAF use. They carried personnel and cargo, and in a combat role, towed troop-carrying gliders and dropped paratroops into enemy territory.
> 
> After WW II, many C-47s remained in USAF service, participating in the Berlin Airlift and other peacetime activities. During the Korean War, C-47s hauled supplies, dropped paratroops, evacuated wounded and dropped flares for night bombing attacks. In Vietnam, the C-47 served again as a transport, but it was also used in a variety of other ways which included flying ground attack (gunship) , reconnaissance, and psychological warfare missions.
> 
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Jul 11, 2005)

While I am a big fan of the C-47 and think the record does speak for itself, The C-46 could carry a bigger payload, but consumed more fuel doing so. Here are its' stats, from Warbirdalley:

Specifications (C-46A):
Engines: Two 2,000-hp Pratt Whitney R-2800-51 radial piston engines
Weight: Empty 30,000 lbs., Max Takeoff 45,000 lbs.
Wing Span: 108ft. 0in.
Length: 76ft. 4in.
Height: 21ft. 9in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 270 mph
Cruising Speed: 173 mph
Ceiling: 24,500 ft.
Range: 3,150 miles
Armament: None

Later versions carried up to 50,000 lbs in military overload conditions. It could also carry up to 50 troops, but typically carried 38.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

I prefer the C-46 it was a superior plane to the C-47. That is a good transport plane, CC - but there is another thing - was it easy to mass produce?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

No idea; its Italian. They cant mass produce anything for shit  Probably not I guess though.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

This is just my opinion but I believe that the most important thing of a cargo plane [during World War 2] was how many you could field. Most of the major transport types could carry around the same weights, the same length and at the same cruising speed. 

All weights were quite low compared to today's standards - so it's really how many you can get flying quickly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

I tend to agree. It may have been easy to produce, if for instance Germany built them, but I dont know. 400 of them is actually quite a lot for Italy. Not to detract from it though, the Italians built some pretty good transports.

I also just read that the SM.82 was drasically underpowered - If it had had beter engines....who knows.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

Italian designs seemed to be complicated to the point that even a larger industrial nation would stuggle to mass produce them. I don't know about the SM.82 though. 

The under-powered engines is almost always a given with the Italians.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 11, 2005)

For lifting capacity the Avro York needs a mention, from 1945 to the Berlin Airlift, it was always there


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2005)

that's true, her lancaster origins meant she lift huge loads!! (sorry, had to get that one in)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

The York is a Beauty.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2005)

yet you do not like the looks of the lanc?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 12, 2005)

No, they look completely different


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I'll still say C-47 as the supreme transport of World War 2 merely because of the ease of produce, wide service (among Allied and Axis nations) and "combat" record. 

The C-47 was a plane _"...born to fly..."_, it was loved by many, if not all, of it's pilots. _"The C-47 takes off on its own. To fly in the air is not necessary - the C-47 flies by itself. You just tell it where to go and make it behave. To land the C-47 is another thing. You must force it to the ground - it wants to keep flying."_ (Quotes from Otha C. Spencer) 

One thing people forget about transport missions of the war was those flown over _'The Hump'_. That transport route was the only way to "ship" supplies to China. The U.S Air Transport Command (ATC) had promised to deliver 10,000 tons a month to China for lend-lease - in November 1943 they reached 13,000 tons! 

They had to fly over mountains that sometimes went up to 20,000 feet! The average loss rate in 1943 was one aircraft for every 200 flights. Over the three years of _Hump_ flights ATC lost 468 aircraft; averaging at 13 per month. 
When pilots, crews and passengers had to bail out - the jungle canopy often waited below their feet to tangle up their 'chute strings. They would sometimes dangle 150 feet above the floor for hours, days or weeks until they died.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2005)

The C-47 did do it's duty across the Hump, but the latter half of that was mostly done by C-46s. The loss numbers you state seem a bit low, but I have seen a wide variety of numbers between about 500 to over 1000! 

There were 4 routes over the hump; Able at 21,000 feet, Bravo at 19,000 feet, charlie at 17,000 and later as the Japanese were push southward, Dog route at 15,000 feet.

Because of the altitudes involved and the peaks crossed, crews would leave their bases in India and climb above the base to altitude before crossing. Many times, they had to do this on instruments as the weather was often uncooperative. 

July of 1945 was the peak of the operation, with over 71,000 tons of cargo delivered. At the time, an aircraft was crossing the hump every 72 seconds and supplies were being deilvered into China at a rate of a ton every 15 seconds! 

Again the numbers vary alot, but there were approximately 1,300 crewmen lost during the hump operation. Bailing out over the hump was indeed an uncertain fate, but surprisingly, about 1,100 crewmen who did managed to survive and make it back. Part of the reason for that was a unit called "Blackie's Raiders". This was the fore-runner to the Air Force Pararescue service. They began search and rescue missions with C-47s and later used L-4s and were one of the first units ever to use helicopters. 

Sometimes during the search and rescue missions, flight surgeons and other crews would jump out of the C-47 to assist with medical needs and provide supplies and extra men to help get out the downed crews. But the Himalayas are tough. In some cases, men were only able to travel 1 mile per day because of the rugged terrain.

Your timing on this was great, d. I just gave a presentation on the C-46 on Saturday and got to have a guest, Wally Brown, who was a radio operator in the C-46 that flew 106 hump missions. IN 106 missions, they had one problem, an engine failure 2 hours into the mission. He said the C-46 was incredibly reliable in the CBI. He did say the C-47 was good as well, but he didn't fly in one. 

I am certainly not taking anything away from the C-47, which I believe is one of the greatest cargo aircraft in history. From it's early airline service, to cargo duties worldwide, to airline service post war. In some places, the C-47 is _still_ in use as a cargo aircraft!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

Detachment 101 rescued 125 ATC crewmen during 1943. There was only one landing strip between Dinjan and China, that was Fort Hertz occupied by 4th Burma Regiment. They used C-47, C-46, C-87 and C-109s to transport goods to China. 

In July 1945 I imagine they had received the amount of aircraft they had originally requested. Since in 1942 - 1943 the aircraft were being moved all over the place to support different operations, most of the aircraft used to be taken away from ATC. 

I don't think the 468 aircraft lost is the total. It's the total of the ATC from 1942 - 1945. I know they were flying missions prior to the closing of the Burma Road and correct me if I'm wrong but weren't ATC under a different command for a while before becoming ATC?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2005)

Yes, ATC aircraft were often diverted on the way to the CBI to support other operations where they were needed. Wally spoke of a few days they flew supplies into where the British 14th Army was operating and flying out the wounded. 

The original hump group was CNAC (China National Aviation Corporation), who flew mostly C-47s, which were converted DC-3 airliners.

In my previous post, I stated that aircraft were corssing the hump every 72 seconds and the 1 ton per 15 seconds was actually a one day total on August 1. July of 1945 was over 71,000 tons though!

The loss numbers have never been definitive. I wonder if they ever will be. I saw a 1984 aeronautical chart for that area and there were still large sections of the Himalayas that were listed as "uncharted or unsurveyed". There are also still crewmen listed as MIA from that time that have never been found.

I am not real sure of the history of the ATC, so when they officially formed is a mystery to me at the moment.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I've read a remarkable story about a C-47 landing in Burma during Operation Longcloth to evacuate some troops left behind. It proved to AHQ(I) that large transport aircraft could land behind enemy lines to evacuate the wounded and bring in supplies. The wonderful thing about the landing was that it was within 4 miles of a Japanese fighter base!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2005)

That is pretty incredible!


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I would say the Me-323 was the best transporter as despite being large it was more useful for shifting cargo, equipment etc. It would seem that this is where the ideas for Condor, Cossack and Galaxy came from. It proved the concept of a large transport plane did fly and could be very useful. Therefore it was useful as a proof of concept type plane.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2005)

Dont forget the C-54. Although not as widely used as the C46 in the war, it was superior in nearly all catagories. After the war, it completely pushed the C46 to the wayside.

Either way, the C46/C47/C54 were far superior to anything the axis nations had.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> I would say the Me-323 was the best transporter as despite being large it was more useful for shifting cargo, equipment etc.



The 323, while big and somewhat inovative was underpowered and a sitting duck, it could barely get out of it's own way. Based on cargo tonnage moved, I don't think it made a dent.....



syscom3 said:


> Dont forget the C-54. Although not as widely used as the C46 in the war, it was superior in nearly all catagories. After the war, it completely pushed the C46 to the wayside.
> 
> Either way, the C46/C47/C54 were far superior to anything the axis nations had.



Agree - there was nothing close to these aircraft and their further development led to an post-WW2 domination of the commercial aircraft market, especially when the L-1049 was thrown into the lot.

The C-46 wasn't really pushed out by the C-54, some of it's own features made it non-user friendly, but it did find use in the commercial market and a few of them are still operated in Alaska today.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

I think one of the many reasons the axis nations failed in WW2 was the lack of good air transport. Not sexy at all, but often could be the difference between winning a battle or making logistics easier.

I saw a picture taken in Guadalacanal in 1942, of a C54 evacuating injured marines back to New Caledonia. One of the many reasons the US prevailed so quickly in the battles of the SW Pacific.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

I think the situation could have been very different if the German High Command had used it differently. Sure it was underpowered, etc. but it could be used to shift heavy loads. A lot of the Italian fighters were too. The Me-323 could shift medium to heavy tanks as opposed to the Allied Tank Gliders such as the Horsa which could only shift light tanks and jeeps. I am arguing that this is an innovation that the Germans didn't take advantage of which could have been more useful for the war if used properly. True it would require air support from fighters to avoid being shot-down however, building up panzer forces with each flight could have been very useful for rapid forces deployment. Shifting of tanks and heavy vehicles can decide a battle, but the Germans didn't take advantage of this. The concept has been proven to be effective Post-WWII.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

The Me-323 was hopeles...they were getting so pummelled on the front line they only did sorties behind the lines...

The SM.82 is the superior Transport, being able to carry some 40 people, plus 8,818lbs of bombs or cargo. It could transport a Fiat CR.42 in just 4 seperate parts: The fuselage, engine, and wings. Admittedly the C-47/-47 had a much larger impact but I think if we talk in terms of sheer superiority the SM.82 would probably come out on top.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

The C46 and C54 were still superior. Range, speed and reliability is a very important factor in transports.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

I may have to concede on the reliability front but a range of 1,900 miles and 230mph puts it well in the league of the C-47.

If I wanted to be really finnicky id saythe P.108T was the best transport, which of course it was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

well the York was Britain's best transporter........


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

The C47 and C46 could land on airstrips that were that in name only.

They both had very rugged airframes and langing gear.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

As could the Italian aircraft, vital in North Africa and the Med.


----------

