# WHat was a better Paratrooper transport of WWII?



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

WHat transport was best of WWII? Was it the C-47 or Ju-52. I know the Ju-52 had some defensive armament but never really did it fight its way into a target like C-47's did towards the end of the war. If you guys could, could you basee it off, 10 points being the best and like, Durability, carrying capacity, Speed, armament, stuff like that i would just like to see what you guys think and thank you!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 1, 2008)

I would think the JU 52 had much more combat flying then the C47


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 1, 2008)

C47...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2008)

C47's by a huge margin. The C47 simply had the range, payload, speed and strength that the JU didnt have.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks guys!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 1, 2008)

The greatest aircraft of WW II gets the nod....the C-47.

TO


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

Did either side ever use bomber aircraft to transport troops or supplies? Or was it not practical?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17s and B-24s were used to drop supplies, but they weren't fitted with enough seats to drop paratroopers.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 1, 2008)

The British used the Halifax as a paratroop aircraft and sometimes to drop supplies as well. As for the best it has to be the C-47.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

When considering the "whole picture," the C-47 hands down.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

I think the SHort Stirling was converted from a bomber but i am not positive.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I would think the JU 52 had much more combat flying then the C47



PB - with due respect I wonder how you measure 'combat time'? 

If elapsed time from first flight you are dead on 1930-1945 as the first flight of DC-3/C-47 was five years later... but combat time? - if you go by sorties the 47 wins by a huge margin as so many more were produced and operated in every theatre of the war... and several wars afterward to compound the service.

Number of Airborne Ops? of size equal to or greater than a Battalion? C-47 by huge margin. Ju-52 - Crete.. but what else? Just for 82nd AB at Regiment size and above, North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Normandy, Nijmegen, Rhine - then look to Puking Buzzard drops (formally Ft Campbell's school for refined ladies), Dragoon/Riviera - and then on to the Pacific - just for US drops.

Speed, trooper load capacity, cargo? - huge margin to 47. Wikipedia not always reliable but accurate in these comparisons.

The Ju 52 flew first, was occasionally used as a bomber and had some defensive armament - but the defense was worthless against flak or fighters so why bother?

I think my vote stays with the Gooney Bird.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 1, 2008)

evangilder said:


> B-17s and B-24s were used to drop supplies, but they weren't fitted with enough seats to drop paratroopers.



The Carpetbagger B-24s were used to drop Jedburgh/OSS at long range in onesy/twosey numbers but not exactly airborne equipped. Halifax and Lanc did same thing. Wouldn't be suprised if He 177 also used same way but I am not sure of any instance.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

THe He-177 couldn't it was cramped in there and its fuselage had many teething problems and Hitler said it was too dangerous........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The Ju 52 flew first, was occasionally used as a bomber and had some defensive armament - but the defense was worthless against flak or fighters so why bother?




_"The 57th FG was the main unit involved in the "Palm Sunday Massacre", of 18 April 1943. De-coded Ultra signals had given away a plan for a large formation of German Junkers Ju 52 transport planes to cross the Mediterranean, escorted by Bf 109s. An ambush was planned, using three squadrons of the 57th, a P-40 squadron from the 324th FG and a small group of Desert Air Force Spitfires. They intercepted the German formation and shot down at least 70 planes, with only six or seven Allied airplanes being downed."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

C-47 was the best plane of WW2 period so it is the best transport as well.

The Junkers Ju 52 is a great aircraft as well. The old Tante Ju is still flying over here in Europe as well.

I would like to point something out though neither C-47s or Ju 52s "fought" there way though as indicated in the very first post.



B-17engineer said:


> THe He-177 couldn't it was cramped in there and its fuselage had many teething problems and Hitler said it was too dangerous........



What fuselage problems did she have?

She was actually a very stable aircraft and very well built. The He 177's problems were with its coupled engines which cought fire until the problem was later solved. If the aircraft had been designed with 4 seperate engines rather than 4 coupled engines it would have been a very good heavy bomber.

Also are you sure it was cramped? It was actually a large aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 1, 2008)

drgondog said:


> PB - with due respect I wonder how you measure 'combat time'?
> 
> If elapsed time from first flight you are dead on 1930-1945 as the first flight of DC-3/C-47 was five years later... but combat time? -
> 
> ...


 and here is the question
"WHat transport was best of WWII? Was it the C-47 or Ju-52. I know the Ju-52 had some defensive armament but never really did it fight its way into a target like C-47's did towards the end of the war." 
All I contend is the 52 probably flew in more hazardous conditions on a day to day basis then the 47 . 
The C47 was light years ahead of the Ju52 otherwise


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

I am soooo sry i didn't mean fuselage i meant the Engines sry i am tired from staying up all night.........This is a quote from a bomber pilot (He-177)"The fuselage was beggining to break up on us then our engine caught fire"

The He 177 "Grief" was the closest Germany came to developing a Strategic Bomber during the war. Due to its faults and the Luftwaffe doctrine, it never appeared in numbers to strike a decisive blow on any target. As with the Manchester, dive bombing was one of the intended roles, the fuselage couldn't take the punishment. But 43 177's suffered from structual failure in flight. To acheive high performance though low drag, the He-177 was fitted with its 4 engines mounted in pairs one behind the other, driving a common crankshaft. THe surface-evporation radiator system proved inadequate and the rear engines often overheated and caught fire. The enormous torque from these powerful motors coupled with the long fuselage could casue the sircraft to swing on take-off and landing and crash or collapse. Hundreds of faults 64% had to do with the fuselage were found only a few were corrected this was because the Luftwaffe though better engines would fix the problems


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> ....
> All I contend is the 52 probably flew in more hazardous conditions on a day to day basis then the 47 ....



The C47 ops in the SW Pacific and CBI were hazardous even if no one was shooting at you.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 1, 2008)

The Piper Cub?
The Lysander?
What about the Maxim Gorki? It had the chaps on the outside of the plane!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The C47 ops in the SW Pacific and CBI were hazardous even if no one was shooting at you.


Ok I'll cede that point flying into Stalingrad in the winter was not the equal of that


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Ok I'll cede that point flying into Stalingrad in the winter was not the equal of that



Flying in cloudy weather over the Owen Stanley mountains in NG was probably one of the more exciting things any pilot can do. Even today.

Same with the air routes into China and Burma from India. They named the line of wreckage of the planes that crashed "The Aluminum Highway"


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Flying in cloudy weather over the Owen Stanley mountains in NG was probably one of the more exciting things any pilot can do. Even today.
> 
> Same with the air routes into China and Burma from India. They named the line of wreckage of the planes that crashed "The Aluminum Highway"


Think about flying at about 100 knots low over antiaircraft ,small arms , the temp is cold with blowing snow and then landing on an airfield that is being shelled. I think given the options my chances of survival would be far greater in the 47 .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> I am soooo sry i didn't mean fuselage i meant the Engines sry i am tired from staying up all night.........This is a quote from a bomber pilot (He-177)"The fuselage was beggining to break up on us then our engine caught fire"
> 
> The He 177 "Grief" was the closest Germany came to developing a Strategic Bomber during the war. Due to its faults and the Luftwaffe doctrine, it never appeared in numbers to strike a decisive blow on any target. As with the Manchester, dive bombing was one of the intended roles, the fuselage couldn't take the punishment. But 43 177's suffered from structual failure in flight. To acheive high performance though low drag, the He-177 was fitted with its 4 engines mounted in pairs one behind the other, driving a common crankshaft. THe surface-evporation radiator system proved inadequate and the rear engines often overheated and caught fire. The enormous torque from these powerful motors coupled with the long fuselage could casue the sircraft to swing on take-off and landing and crash or collapse. Hundreds of faults 64% had to do with the fuselage were found only a few were corrected this was because the Luftwaffe though better engines would fix the problems



Exactly and what caused these problems? The Coupled Engines.

The actual design and construction of the Greif was very good. It just should have been developed with 4 seperate Engines instead of Coupled ones.

Now lets get back on topic of *Transports*.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

C-47 gets my vote... But, what about the C-46 Commando and C-54 Skymaster?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> C-47 gets my vote... But, what about the C-46 Commando and C-54 Skymaster?


Both great aircraft - the C-46 was more expensive to operate and maintenance was more extensive. The C-54 was the next step up for carrying personnel but was not as easily loaded as the C-47 - it also could not really operate on dirt strips, something the C-47 can easily do


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

The best method of landing paratroops is of course, the Glider


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2008)

The C-46 was used more for flying the hump than the C-47. It had a larger capacity and could climb to altitude faster. But, as Joe pointed out, they are more expensive to build and operate and they aren't as common as C-47s.

As an interesting aside on the C-46, both of the C-46s flown by the CAF today, "China Doll" and "Tinker Belle", were caught smuggling drugs out of South America and were impounded by the DEA. Quite a history.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

Gnomey said:


> The British used the Halifax as a paratroop aircraft and sometimes to drop supplies as well. As for the best it has to be the C-47.



How many paratroops could the Halifax carry? 



evangilder said:


> B-17s and B-24s were used to drop supplies, but they weren't fitted with enough seats to drop paratroopers.



Could any large bomber (B-17, Stirling etc) be used to carry troops if they were not airdropping but landing at an airfield? (For example to a captured airfield?)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2008)

Technically, any aircraft could carry troops, it's a matter of how many the aircraft could carry. The B-17 could easily be used to parachute from the bomb bay, but the problem was that there were not a lot of places for a fully outfitted paratrooper to sit, much less get into the airplane. The crew doors are narrow and not easily entered when carrying all the gear a paratrooper would be wearing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2008)

Glider said:


> The best method of landing paratroops is of course, the Glider


Providing no one landed in front of you!


----------



## Freebird (Jan 1, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Technically, any aircraft could carry troops, it's a matter of how many the aircraft could carry. The B-17 could easily be used to parachute from the bomb bay, but the problem was that there were not a lot of places for a fully outfitted paratrooper to sit, much less get into the airplane. The crew doors are narrow and not easily entered when carrying all the gear a paratrooper would be wearing.



I guess it would be more feasable as a "troop transport", carrying soldiers not in full gear. (obviously if the airfield at landing was not a combat zone) 

How does the space in a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster compare to a C-47? Wikipedia lists the C-46 as carrying 50 troops, the C-47 28 troops or 6,000 lbs of cargo, the B-17 or Lancaster carrys triple that amount of weight. Could the bombers carry 50 - 60 soldiers or would space be a problem? (I'm assuming that the soldiers would be only in light gear and could use some kind of folding seat?)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2008)

There wouldn't be a way to get that many troops in a B-17. Keep in mind that the B-17 and B-24 carried a bomb load, but also a host of defensive armament. The bomb bay is just big enough to carry the bomb load, which is the main carrying load. A 250 Lb. bomb is considerable smaller in size than a 250 Lb. man. I know that a few transport hacks were made from both B-17s and B-24s, but I don't have what they could carry in terms of numbers of personnel. I don't know about the Lancaster.


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Providing no one landed in front of you!



Details, it just adds spice to the day


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 2, 2008)

Sweden used a couple of B-17's (I think) for air services, I can't remember how passenger it carried...they didn't have combat gear or paras to worry about though...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

The Lancaster was used to drop supplies into Holland on numerous occasions, and I'm sure they would have been used elsewhere in a similar fashion. The Whitley was used as an air transport, and many of the early airborne drops were made from the Whitley. Jumping out of the Whitley was hazardous because the men had to hang their legs out before jumping which caused many broken jaws as their legs were taken away by the air and their faced smashed on to the aircraft as their left the aircraft - this was known as "ringing the bell". 

The Red Army used the Tb-3 as their first airborne carrier, the men would hang on to the wings then just let go over the drop zone - very crude. 

The best carrier would probably have been the C-46, but the C-47 was cheaper and easier to build thus giving it more presence on the battlefield and being the overall winner in the argument.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 2, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The best carrier would probably have been the C-46, but the C-47 was cheaper and easier to build thus giving it more presence on the battlefield and being the overall winner in the argument.



The C-46 was never a well liked a/c despite the greater performance and load capacity... but it did a great job in the Pacific and CBI. It was a disaster as a Paratroop transport as it was much more vulnerable to fire due to crossover fuel line leaks in Fuse - and only dropped tropers once in ETO - the Rhine drop. IIRC they lost a lot of them, proportionately compared to C-47, to German flak. 

It was replaced quickly, post WWII, from USMC and USAF inventory, by the C-54. 

Big airplane when compared to C-47. Some are still flying commercially


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Big airplane when compared to C-47. Some are still flying commercially



In Alaska - I know some people who worked on them there - not fun!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 2, 2008)

freebird said:


> Did either side ever use bomber aircraft to transport troops or supplies? Or was it not practical?



I know the Germans used the Fw 200 later on in the War when they were running short of transport aircraft, particularly during the Siege Of Stalingrad. One or two were fitted out as VIP transports for Hitler and senior members of the Nazi party, but most were used to patrol the North Atlantic spotting convoys for the U-Boot wolfpacks. I can't imagine that the _Kondor_ would've made a very good transport aircraft, but the Germans were desperate and pressed it into service as a cargo aircraft anyway.


----------



## ccheese (Jan 2, 2008)

evangilder said:


> I know that a few transport hacks were made from both B-17s and B-24s, but I don't have what they could carry in terms of numbers of personnel.



We had a B-17, when I was with VC-62, that was configured for VIP (party)
transport. I don't mean they were having a party, just a group of people.
It was configured for 12 people, folding conference table, two bunks and
plush seats. The navigator was moved forward, (he was also a third pilot) to just behind the co-pilot. The radioman was moved into the nose area. The bomb bay had a small extra fuel tank, and there was flooring over it. The longest flight I made on it was from Norfolk to an AF base in Delaware (don't think it was Dover), then to Lajes AFB in the Azores, and to Casablanca, in Fr. Morocco and return the same way. If memory serves, we had nine people on board, all Admirals, and marine Generals. The Admirals had their aides, probably Lt.'s. Believe me, everything that was not needed for flight (or safety) had been removed. The company that did the commercial make-overs on the B-26's did the conversion. We had a B-25 that was converted too, but for up to six passengers.

Charles


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 2, 2008)

There were 10,050 C-47's made (Including after the war which would be the DC-3) and only 3,140 C-46's made. 

224 mph-C47 < 269mph-C-46

28 troops-C47<50 troops-C46

So in some catagories the C-46 is better but......It had high cost to make and matinence.


18 troops-Ju5 2< 28 troops-C47
165 mph-Ju52 < 224mph C-47

But the Ju-52 had 3 machine guns which provided a little protection but barely. So in conclusion the C-46 was best but the C-47 was used more often
in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> So in conclusion the C-46 was best but the C-47 was used more often
> in combat.




Ahhhhh, no.

You're only considering range and the amount of troops the aircraft could carry. What about maintenance, operating costs and flight characteristics? The C-46 had a higher wing loading - in the air it was a brick.

This is from Wiki..

_"It wasn't until March 1945 that the C-46 saw duty in Europe, joining the USAAF in time to drop paratroopers in the push for the Rhine. The C-46 proved inadequate for combat. Due to a poorly designed fuel system, gasoline leaked out of the lines and pooled in the fuselage at the wing root and was easily ignited by ground fire. So many C-46s were lost in the drop during the crossing of the Rhine that airborne leaders forbade the airplane's use in future airborne operations. Fortunately, the war ended soon afterward and no further airborne missions were flown.

Despite its success as a wartime military transport, postwar operations revolved around the more plentiful C-47 series with the result that the Commando reverted back to its original civilian role, at first being considered as a commercial airliner by Eastern Airlines. One of its major drawbacks compared to the C-47 was that it had a much higher (up to 50% greater) operating cost, mainly due to its prodigious fuel consumption."_

I knew people who flew and maintained both aircraft - everything I ever heard about the C-46 was negative when comparing it to the C-47.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes i got my info from wiki too but what ever


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Yes i got my info from wiki too but what ever


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2008)

Ask anyone who had flown or maintained both C-46 and C-47 and you will find the C-47 is the clear winner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> B-17engineer said:
> 
> 
> > Yes i got my info from wiki too but what ever





I think you are starting to see my pain as well!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2008)

Operationally, the C-47 is the clear winner. The drop on the Rhine was a disaster for all involved, the C-46 was certainly unlucky to have its baptism of fire in the ETO on that mission.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2008)

One little tidbit to think of when comparing a aircraft that was designed as a transport and being used for the paratrooper role, and a bomber being used for dropping paratroopers is the airspeed at which you jump out and "hit the silk".

The C47, C46 and Ju both could slow down to a reasonable speed and have the troops jump out with a reasonably spaced stick, with the aircraft still at a safe speed above stalling.

The bombers on the other hand would need a higher airspeed with the attendent problems of troop dispersal and/or eqmt being ripped off the bodies.

In my skydiving days, on exit, I noticed you can definatly tell the difference between an airplane going slow and and airplane going fast. And slower is safer (for the skydiver)


----------

