Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sorry shortround6, still not convinced; your post just tells me that the C-47 did what the Ju 52 had done, but just a bit better; not really a 'game changer' in the strictest sense of the term. My reference to the Ju 52 was specifically to the Lufthansa examples expressly sent from Germany for airlifting Franco's army into Spain from North Africa, not to their use as a bomber/transport. Lufthansa is Germany's national airline. The bomber/transport was not the best in an actual combat arena, because it did both jobs rather poorly compared to a dedicated type. Clearly not a game changer.
During the war, the JU 52 alone transported more than 4,400 tons of cargo to the front
I largely agree with your post, parsifal, but I have to say, I honestly don't think the C-47 itself was a game changer. It most certainly deserves to be in the list you posted above - and I agree with the list, but these were aircraft that played critical roles in the course of the war, historic because they were good at what they did. To this list you could add the likes of the de Havilland Tiger Moth, the Airspeed Oxford, the Stearman Kaydet etc for the same reason.
In my opinion, a 'game changer', as Kryten put it, changed the tactics of the enemy and forced new designs through to counter the new threat, i.e. changed the face of the war, technology etc. For example, the entire DC-3 family would be more appropriate, rather than just the C-47; the DC-3 was a game changer because after it entered airline service, airlines could be categorised in either one of two ways; those that operated DC-3s or those that didn't. Those without DC-3s would end up in one of two situations, they would either: go out of business, or buy DC-3s. To me that's a game changer.
Sure, the C-47 delivered vast numbers of Allied toops to the different battlefields, but that was its job and the enemy were expecting that; the 'game changer' with regards to a battlefield scenario that's discussed in the posts was the difference having those troops there to fight made to the outcome of the battle, not really how they were transported to the battlefield. If this was the case, then the humble bicycle, a random horse encountered along the way to ease walking if the drop zone was missed, the landing craft for seaborne invasions, even the humble boot then becomes a game changer.
All these things aided the troops to get to the fight, as you would expect them to do so in a warzone. That doesn't make them game changers in the strictest sense of the term. Their impact on the enemy's tactics was minimal as individual items (although it would be pretty rotten to go to war in flip flops instead of boots!), but the fact the troops were there fighting certainly tipped the balance in their favour.
An interesting thing about the Ju 52/3m; during the Spanish Civil War, without it, Franco's army would have been stranded at their training camp in North Africa and the war might not have gone the way the fascists wanted it to. What's more, the transports were Lufthansa examples!
I havent followed krytens definition of what is a gamechanger, because i think the basic proposition is faulty. The assumption here is that technology equates to major changes to warfare or major changes to outcomes. whilst it is generally the case, often it is the way that resources are used that lead to major changes.
hi neumann
you mentioned two examples of technology that act as game changers. for clarity i quote:
"The Me 262, being a jet meant that fighter technology and application would never be the same because of the advantages that jets offer over piston engined fighters. The Atom bomb; possession of the Atom bomb alone, without its application brought about nuclear stalemate, which continues to this day. These are examples of what I take Kryten to mean in his 'game changer' thread. These examples are closer to the true definition of the term. I don't understand how you can claim that this proposition is faulty.
In the case of the me 262, it changed the design of aircraft, ushering in (along with the Meteor) the jet age. And yet, in the context of WWII what did either the meteor or the 262 actually achieve in terms of combat operations that actually affected or changed the nature of the war. The 262 never got the chance to prove its potential, and neither did the meteor. If you view the technology in the context of the war, and the results they achieved 9per your business model) they achieved nothing really....
In the context of the Atomic bomb in the war, it was certainly a game changer, in every sense. It represented a technological revolution that still affects us and the way we fight wars. I doubt there will ever be a "Total War" of national survival ever again, because of the principal of MAD.
In the context of the war itself, the bomb had a profound influence on Jaspanese resolve and led directly to their surrender. many have argued that this would have happened anyway, but at the very least, the bomb saved millions of lives by avoiding the scenario of national hari kari that the japanese had set themselves in 1945. Perhaps some could be accused of overstating the effect of the bomb, but no-one can legitmately argue that it didnt change many things....not least the balance of power.
The 1940 German invasion of Norway would have been impossible without it. So would the 1941 invasion of Crete. Without the Ju-52 transport the 1942 Demyansk Pocket becomes a German defeat instead of a German victory. Probably quite a few other encirclement battles also. Ju-52 transports were crucial in allowing Luftwaffe fighter and bomber units to rapidly relocate to other airfields, allowing CAS to keep pace with Heer units on the move.
The USA took these lessons to heart, producing a massive C-47 fleet to support both themselves and Britain. But it was the Ju-52 that got there first.
This information is from "Hitler's Pre-Emptive War" by Henrik Lunde.
Largest air transport operation in military history up to that time.
582 transport aircraft (mostly Ju-52s) flew 13,018 sorties.
29,280 troops delivered. 21% of total troops delivered.
2,376 tons of supplies delivered.
QUOTE]
There has to be something wrong with these figures. This works out as each Ju 52 sortie delivering 2.3 troops plus 180kg of cargo. (Total weight about 410kg)
Even if a return flight is counted as a second sortie it still comes in as 4.6 troops delivered and 360kg of cargo.
(total weight about 820kg)
The distance from Hamburg to Oslo is about 800km.
I can only think that some of the Ju 52's were delivering fuel, for their own return missions, and that this figure is for 'net' cargo delivered, some accounting error or a misprint.
Well, the C-47 could carry about 50% more troops/cargo almost 50% faster over 100% more range?
And while the bomber transport wasn't the best idea going the fact that the British had been building them or using air transports for military purposes since the early 20s Vickers Victoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Means the idea itself wasn't confined to visionaries or sci-fi writers before the Spanish civil war. The Requirement that led to the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow, The Bristol Bombay and the unsuccessful Armstrong Whitworth AW.23 also show that the British were pursuing the idea of the military transport even if their execution may have lacked something.