Sunderland Vs Catalina

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

Attachments

  • wiking.jpg
    wiking.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 84
And how the Cat was better AND better looking than the Sunderland.
 
the fact you've said that obviously means you have a huge knowledge, becasue you're right...............
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back