# Sunderland Vs Catalina



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Which in your opinion was a better plane for the Maritime Recon and patrol role - 

Short Sunderland: a plane with a 2980mile range, 14 defensive guns (and room for depth charges and radar fitting), heavy armour plating, a max height of 17,000ft and a max speed of 217mph...the Germans called it the 'Flying Porcupine' because of the sheer number of weapons it had and its ability to survive against overwhealming odds- A sunderland was once attacked (while staionary) by two patrolling Ju88s - one 88 was shot down and the other badly damaged and retreated. It was used effectively to patrol the seas and detect and sink submarines..it was also used as a resuce plane

The Catalina had a range of 2545miles, 4 defensive machine guns and 4000lbs of bombs, mines and depth charges. a max height of 14,700ft and a max speed of 179mph. Given the name 'catalina' by the RAF who were so impressed with the aircraft they ordered 50 of them from the US in 1939. They were used by many countries over the world including Australia, Canada, East Indies and France (  ) Later models were fitted with Radar and some of these were even shipped to the USSR in their efforts against the Germans. 

All in all these planes were both excellent at what they did and i often think of them as both 'unsung heroes' as you don't often hear about them in the history books..in fact i hate to compare them but i would be interested in what you guys think...cheers


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 16, 2004)

Sunderland!

Kiwimac


----------



## Andrew (Apr 16, 2004)

Sunderland for me too.

Looks more like someones Gin Palace than a fighting aircaft though .


----------



## nutter (Apr 16, 2004)

they were both great planes but as a brit i'll have to go for the sunderland


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

10 letters: S U N D E R L A N D  easily, ive recently become rather fond of it 8)


----------



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

gotta be the sunderland...............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Right...well i vote for the Catalina! (Just cos i feel sorry for it now  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Does anyone have any true stories about incidents that happened in either a Sunderland or a Catalina? If yes, would be interested to hear them 8)


----------



## Crazy (Apr 16, 2004)

Being an American, and not wanting to disappoint Bronze, I'm going to say the Catalina, although the Sunderland is nice. Catalina looks better, IMO 8)


----------



## Archer (Apr 16, 2004)

Catalina looks a lot nicer, although the numbers for the Sunderland are impressive.

Some Cat rescues:
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/historyq.htm

I also recall reading an article about PBYs in Flight Journal at the end of which they included a quick recounting of a unique rescue. In short, a destroyer was sunk (I forget what by) and no ships were in the immediate area. A PBY landed and got about 100 (IIRC) of the crew aboard and rendez-voused with another destroyer and transferred the crew. It took off, flew back to were the destroyer had been sunk, and got the rest of the crew (not quite 100 IIRC) aboard and waited until the destroyer arrived when the crew were transferred to the destroyer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

crazy, that pic you posted loks really out of perspective


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 17, 2004)

Amusing that its in British markings but.

Kiwimac


----------



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

> crazy, that pic you posted loks really out of perspective



it's cos it's banking.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

i know, but look at the rear of the fuselage compared with the rest of the plane


----------



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

looks alright to me..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

it look twisted


----------



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

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 21, 2004)

I think it looks lovely, it isn't out of perspective at all - the Catlalina was a lovely looking plane, especially with British markings... 8)


----------



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

it didn't look as cool as the sunderland.................


----------



## Andrew (Apr 27, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Does anyone have any true stories about incidents that happened in either a Sunderland or a Catalina? If yes, would be interested to hear them 8)



The German U Boat U461 was sunk on the 30th July 1943 in the Bay of Biscay,North West of Cape Ortegal Spain, by a Sunderland from 461 Squadron RAAF , the Sunderland was coded U.

It was one of 3 U Boats sunk that day


----------



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

3 in one day, that's pretty impressive...............


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 27, 2004)

Catalina = Better Range 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Apr 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> 3 in one day, that's pretty impressive...............



Ther oither 2 were U462 U504, these were sunk by gunfire from the Sloops HMS Kite, Woodpecker, Wren, Woodcock


----------



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

that's not so impressive..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

> Catalina = Better Range



Sunderland = better plane 8)


----------



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

i gotta stick with C.C. on this one, the sunderland was better.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

but i think the catalina looked better - sunderland was better though 8)


----------



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

i don't think it looked better............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

you wouldnt 8) british patriotism again....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I'm going to go with the Catalina based on it's range (very important in patrol) and it's versatility. Check the Black Cats site posted on Page one for some really good reading.


----------



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

but the sunderland had a fearsome reputation for being able to defend itself..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

both the planes were excellent, but the sunderland is a little more excellent than the catalina 8)


----------



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

admititly the catalina had better paint schemes..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Does anyone know if the Sunderland was every used as a bomber? I know the Black Cats flew a lot of night strikes in the Pacific.


----------



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

sunderlands had a respectible payload of a lil under 5000lb, which were mainly used to sink surfaced german U-boats.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

But did it ever attack land targets? Or could it carry torpedoes like that Cat could?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> admititly the catalina had better paint schemes..............



yeah, its a shame the only flying sunderland left has ' Ryan Air" plastered down the side of it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

> But did it ever attack land targets? Or could it carry torpedoes like that Cat could?



i never knew the cat could take torps!!! i've never heard of a sunderland taking torps, but there wasn't much need............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I don't think I've ever seen a photo, but apparently they occasionally made night torpedo drops against Japanese shipping. During the fighting around the Solomons, one Cat made a daylight run and slammed two fish into a Japanese transport. I'll be looking for a pic though.


----------



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

it could take two!!!!!!!!

i never know that, i was supprised it could take one, i take it they were mounted under the wings?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

A Catalina could take a torpedo or two 1000lb bombs under each wing (or side of the wing rather). The more usual load (shown in the pic) was 2 500lb and two 1000lb bombs. Several Black Cats (like the one pictured) were also equipped with 4 .50cals in the nose for shooting up barges.


----------



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

4x .50cal aint gonna do any damage to a barge though................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I don't know, I wouldn't have liked to be on one if it was being strafed even if only with .50cals.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

Well, whether they were using the .50cals or the bombs the Black Cats sank a TON of Japense shipping.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Just a ton, that must have been a small ship..hahaha..  
I know, I know you meant a lot..


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)




----------



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

does any one have any figures as to how many U-Boats the sunderland sank?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

nope  im guessing it was quite a lot though 8)


----------



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

i'm not sure, it proberly just detered more than it sank...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Detering was as effective as sinking. But U-boat sinkings are very hard to verify. I'm not sure an accurate account of how many U-boats a particular ship or plane sank could be determined.


----------



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

> Detering was as effective as sinking



not if it comes back once the plane had gone............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

If you're escorting a convoy it's still useful.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Exactly. A U-boat had no chance of keeping pace with a convoy when it was submerged. If the Sunderland, Wimpy, Beau, Avenger, Hudson, or whatever else was covering the convoy could get the U-boat to dive, the convoy was saved (at least from that U-boat).


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Too bad for the convoy they hunted in packs...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Yeah. The Wolfpacks were terribly effective. But it's not like the convoys were only capable of attacking/detering one U-boat at a time so that helped.


----------



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

it's a bit of a homage to the U-Boats that churchill said they were the only thing that frightened him throughout the whole war................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Yes, well they almost beat the Royal Navy but they never did


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

It took quite a bit to frighten Churchill. I have a lot of respect for that man.


----------



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

i do, and i don't, i respect him as a good leader, but i don't because he smoked.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

and he was always on the booze


----------



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

it's not so much the booze, i'm alright with that, it was the smoking.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I didn't say I consider the guy a moral role model . . . but he was a very effective leader.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Yes, I don't really give a damn that he smoked, he was a great leader, and something we needed at that time.


----------



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

it's amazing that even today his speaches inspire people............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

He was definitely needed. Especially following Chamberlain.


----------



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

i doubt anyone else could have won the war the way he did...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

You are probably right there. He was the right man at the right time.


----------



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

back on topic, the sunderland looked better than the cat..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The Cat was smoother. The Sunderland was too portly.


----------



## Andrew (May 13, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> does any one have any figures as to how many U-Boats the sunderland sank?



I can get the figures but it will take some time.


----------



## Andrew (May 13, 2004)

Andrew said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > does any one have any figures as to how many U-Boats the sunderland sank?
> ...



Well that was a lot easier than I first thought.

The Totals are
Number of U Boats sunk by the Sunderland 27
Number of U Boats sunk by the Catalina 37

I thought i was going to have to troll through an entire website about U Boats, when they were sunk and by what to find the Info, but the Info I required was part of an Aicraft History Section within the main site, which covers all Aircraft used in the battle of the Atlantic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

the was better looking and it sunk more u-boats... i still prefer the sunderland though


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

So the Cat sank more U-boats and was more versatile. It looks like this is swinging heavily towards the Cat.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

I have to admit I do like the Cat.


----------



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

but the sunderland was a better fighter................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

yup, im sticking by the sunderland 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I don't care, I like the Cat.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I've been in favor of the Cat since I got here.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

And I'm in agreement


----------



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

the sunderland was sooooooo better.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The only real areas that I see the Sunderland being superior in are speed (not extremely important in a patrol plane) and bomb load (and only by 1,000lbs are so). The Cat had more range (meaning more time to loiter over a convoy or shadow a Japanese fleet), sank more U-boats, and was more versatile. Cat wins.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

but the sunderland was far more effective at defending itself


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

That could be debated. Late war Cats carried three .50 cals (1 in each waist blister and 1 in the belly) plus two flexible .30 cals in the nose and an optional four fixed .50 cals. And those waist blisters allowed a wonderful field of fire.


----------



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

yes but it never proved it'self like the sunderland, there are many stories of sunderlands fighting off many fights without getting shot down..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

So the Cat is to be considered less effective because it wasn't attacked? Maybe the Japanese were too frightened to attack it? Shouldn't that count as being effective and defending yourself?


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The Cat did more damage to the enemy, therefore more effective.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I think that has to do with the Cat being more versatile. I've never heard of a Sunderland attacking anything but U-boats but the Cats went after Japanese shipping and bombed Japanese bases.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Therefore, better.


----------



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

it apears we have a two way spilt, me and C.C. are in favour of the sunderland, Plan_D and lighnening guy are for the cat, we need someone else to give an opinion............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but it never proved it'self like the sunderland, there are many stories of sunderlands fighting off many fights without getting shot down..............


A Bv222 Wiking once shot down a Lancaster over the North Atlantic


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

That may be but this is a conversation discussing the Cat and the Sunderland.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

And how the Cat was better AND better looking than the Sunderland.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

its not about that, its about how the sunderland was better than the cat


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

The Sunderland was a great plane, but the Cat was more versatile and (more importantly) more effective.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

unfortunately i dont have the knowledge to think otherwise, but i think the sunderland was the better plane 8)


----------



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

the fact you've said that obviously means you have a huge knowledge, becasue you're right...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

so it does  took a while for me to interpret that old bean but i got there in the end


----------



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

even though i'm cornish, i resent being called a bean.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

and whys that old bean?


----------



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

because i'm not a bean.............

back on topic, the sunderland was better...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

and you call yourself an englishman, indeed, 'old bean' is a well like phrase round here chappy  and yes, the sunderland was better 8) but look! no-ones argueing with us because its true 8) so lets hark back to the good ol' days and spam


----------



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

> and you call yourself an englishman,



but i'm a cornishman..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

cornwall is a county of england  and to think youre top set geography...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Cat - longer range, more versatile, more successful at sinking U-boats (the Sunderland's main duty), and probably the equal at defending itself (fewer guns, but heavier).


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

And all that equals Cat, better. 

You lot have sets for Geography? We didn't we just had sets for Science and Maths, which I was top in both.


----------



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

we're setted in quite a few of our lessons, i am, of course, in top set for all.................


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I took the Higher GCSE exam, in everything that I took.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

im top setted for all too, but you already knew that


----------



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

back on topic, the sunderland looked better than the cat, that's one of the things me and C.C. agree on..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

I still say the Sunderland looked too fat. The Cat had a sleeker look to its hull.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

me think the cat did look better, yes, but the sunderland was better 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The Cat was better and better looking than the Sunderland.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

i need reinforcements, i cant win an argument just by saying it was better (it was better BTW  )


----------



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

> i cant win an argument just by saying it was better



yes you can, after all, i'm backing you up, you can't loose when i'm on your side................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

But you haven't put forth any true arguments as to why the Sunderland should be considered better in a while. Fact: The Cat had longer range, ie. endurance. Fact: The Cat was more versatile, patrol, torp bombing, night bombing, barge-busting. Fact: The Cat sank more U-boats. There are three good reasons why the Cat was better.


----------



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

> The Cat was more versatile, patrol, torp bombing, night bombing



you can't use that as the sunderland wasn't needed for these roles...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > i cant win an argument just by saying it was better
> 
> 
> 
> yes you can, after all, i'm backing you up, you can't loose when i'm on your side................



yes i can, you're a liability


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Ok, Lanc, even if you discount that (which I don't think you should), you still haven't given me a reason why the Sunderland was better.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I don't need to be here on LGs side, but I am. The Cat sinking more U-Boats equals more damage to enemy, therefore more effective than the Sunderland.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

And shouldn't that really be the bottom line? The Cat hurt the Germans more than the Sunderland.


----------



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

but that doesn't mean it was the best, it means it was used more/was made more/had better crews..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

So give a reason why you think the Sunderland was better.


----------



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

it was stronger and better armed.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I don't really consider it better armed. The Cat had 3 .50cals and 2 .30cals in defensive postitions plu 4 .50cals for strafing.


----------



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

the sunderland had 10-12 .303 and the cat wouldn't always have the defensive guns..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Each .50cal on the Cat was roughly equal to 2 .303s so the difference isn't that great. And besides, it's not as if either plane was going to run into many German aircraft over the Atlantic.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

I wouldn't say one .50cal is equal to two .303cal. So, the Sunderland is stronger, and better armed. The Cat had better range, better combat record and more versatile.


----------



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

i'm sure the sunderland could have been as versitile if it needed to be, but they didn't need it for anything else.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

yeah, we had the roc for everything else


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

The B-25 Roc was the greatest plane of the war, without a doubt. No other plane could have served as better target practice to the Luftwaffe. 

The Cat still had longer range, and better combat record. And all these could haves, they didn't though did they?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

no, because it wasnt need for them.

and the reason why the roc was so great was because it was a decoy, the 190's would all go after them whilst we came behind them in our hurricanes and spits and shot the hell out of 'em


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

The Cat still had a better range and better combat record. The Cat was better at U-boat sinking, which was the Sunderlands role. 

That's a nice thought on the Roc but Luftwaffe pilots weren't tunnel sighted. And it would have been a very awkward manuver with the slow speed of the Roc, it would be there long after the Spitfires and Hurricanes, not an effective decoy. 
I wouldn't like to be the bait though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

you might not be the bait though, you could be a roc ace


----------



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

> And it would have been a very awkward manuver with the slow speed of the Roc, it would be there long after the Spitfires and Hurricanes, not an effective decoy.



the brits would proberly be so ashamed to fight on the same side as the Roc that after they'd shot down the germans, they'd start on the Rocs............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

the rocs would have to survive the germans first though


----------



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

well of orse they could survive the germans, they were amoung the best fighters of the war..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

yup, rocs are nothing compared to Fiat G.50's or Breda 65's though


----------



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

now there's an interesting dogfight..............


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Could we call it a dogfight? You'd expect exciting twists and turns, speed and high Gs in a dogfight. With them you'd have slow moving planes, with a 5 mile turning radius (  ). More like a tortoisefight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

nah, they'd probably disintegrate before they even encountered each other


----------



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

or, in true italilain fasion, see each other and surrender............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

we never used to consider that italian fashion....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Yes we did...well the world did anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

the lanc never used to


----------



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

yes i did...................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 10, 2004)

Realizing it's not strictly on-topic, but I was just reading about the Kawanishi H8K, the candidate for best flying boat of the war. 5(!) 20-mm cannons + MGs, max speed 290MPH, max range 4460 miles. It's first mission was a (not very effective) bombing raid on Hawaii in March 1942, where the planes refuelled from a sub en route. I think it has both the Catalina and Sunderland well beat...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

There is no doubt about that. The H8K Emily was easily the post impressive flying boat of the war having armament that even a Sunderland skipper would drool over, good speed for a flying boat, and the range needed to patrol long distances.


----------



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

but it wasn't as efective as the other two...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

Wasn't built in the numbers and the Japanese weren't real clear on how to use it. If the Japanese had ever adopted a real convoy strategy, it would have been very effective and taken a toll on the US subs. But, regardless of how effective it was or wasn't, it's design was better than either.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 11, 2004)

There's a nicely preserved Emily in Tokyo at the Maritime Museum sitting on a pedastal, an impressively mammoth plane. Apparently, single plane missions could last as long as 24 hours.

Forgot to say, also, that my vote would have to go with the Catalina in the Cat vs Sunderland thing, purely on looks alone...


----------



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

i think the sunderland looked better, but that's a matter of opinion...................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 13, 2004)

For sure, taste is purely subjective. I just liked the Catalina's silver skin and that funky angled fuselage. It seemed to fit well in the Pacific, anchored off the beach of some tropical island. Maybe I'm biased because I had a 1/72 kit of one many moons ago. Though to be honest, if I had to fly in one, I'd probably prefer the Sunderland--seems a lot safer...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 13, 2004)

The Cat did a fine job of taking care of itself in the Pacific. And I think the Black Cats flew some of the neatest missions of the war.


----------



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

but he's right, i would feel safer in a sunderland........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

I'm not aware of any encounters between Cat's and Luftwaffe aircraft. If that is the case, I think you would be safer in the Cat. Even if the Sunderland was better defended (debatable), never being shot at in the first place is far safer  .


----------



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

i don't really think he think he meant it in that sence................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> ...Even if the Sunderland was better defended (debatable), never being shot at in the first place is far safer  .



Do you mean that because the Cat was in the Pacific it was shot at less than the Sunderland, which had to deal with the Luftwaffe? As Lancs suggests, what I meant was that if they were attacked by the same aircraft, I would prefer to be riding in the Sunderland.

Is the fact that the Sunderland was better defended debatable? The original Mk. I had 8 .303s, the Cat had "...up to five .30 in or .50 in machine guns" Though I do realize that superior armament is not the whole story when it comes to self-defence...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

I was refering specifically to the use of the Cat over the Atlantic. I am not aware of a single encounter between a Luftwaffe fighter and a Catalina. The standard defensive armament of a Cat was a .50cal in each blister and a .50cal a ventral position. Many were equipped with two .30cal in the nose as well. Not counting the 2 .30cals, the Cat put out a slightly higher weight of shells and about 50% more muzzle energy. The power operated turrets of the Sunderland were an advantage, but it's actual armament was less potent than the Cat's.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Just looked up the Sunderland, and apparently the Mk. III/Vs, which were the major marks, also had either two 0.50 inch or 4 0.303 inch MGs in the nose and two in beam positions. I guess it was these later marks that account for its reputation for being so heavily armed.


----------



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

but you only have to look at the sunderlands combat record to realise how well it could defend it'self........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm not saying that the Sunderland couldn't defend itself. But the Cat carried a comparable armament. And the Sunderland certainly wasn't the best defended aircraft of the war.


----------



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

did i ever say it was??


----------



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

and do you really think that a single cat, with is few hand aimed MGs, would be able to fight off 5 Bf-110s??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

I don't know. The fact that the Cat lacked turrets was a weakness, but the manual positions did have a fairly wide field of fire. The heavier weapons was a considerable advantage. And yes the Sunderland rightly earned a formidable reputation but the better armed American bombers were proven to be vulnerable to concentrated fighter attacks, so was the Sunderland.


----------



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

but you have to admit that fighting off 5 Me-110s is quite impressive??

and would you really be able to have pin-point accuracy with a powerfull hand aime MG??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

Yes that is an impressive feat. 

A part of the accuracy of an air-to-air weapon is the sight. A manual MG can have the same site as a power turret so there is no edge there. The edge of the power turret is the ability to quickly move the guns without having to muscle through the slip stream. On the Cat, I don't think the slip stream would have been that bad as the speed was fairly slow anyway, and the waist blisters must have deflected at least some of the airflow.


----------



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

it wasn't that i was worried about, it was the fact that they would shake quite a bit as you try to controll it with your hands, wheras in a turret you don't have to worry about that....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

Well even in a turret the weapon won't remain stationary. And the fixed mounts themselves were fairly rigid.


----------



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

but you have to admit they would proberly shake quite a bit when they're hand aimed, having an effect on the aim and accuracy.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 21, 2004)

It had an effect. But there were plenty of aircraft shown down by these flexible guns so it couldn't have been too much of an issue.


----------



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

i'd still rather be in a turret.....................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 21, 2004)

Hmm, but going back to the armament of the Sunderland vs. Catalina:

The Short Sunderland Mks III and V (by far the most common) had 8 .303s plus an addition pair of .50 MGs (or 4 .303s) in the nose and two in the beam postion, which made it the better defended of the two planes--the turrets were a bonus. It had a reputation, among allies and axis alike, for being a very scary plane to try to take down, being able to fight off groups of Ju88s, even. The Flying Porcupine nick was well-earned..

As I said, I prefer the Cat for emotional, like-the-look-of-it reasons, but I have never seen anyone claim it was better defensively armed than the Sunderland.

By the way, there are quite a few good shots of a Cat in Tora Tora Tora, flying and on the ground.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 21, 2004)

The Sunderland probably was better defended. But the Cat was very capable of defending itself, more versatile, and more effective.


----------

