Sunderland Vs Catalina

• Jul 16, 2004

• #161

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 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.

 

• Jul 16, 2004

• #162

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

did i ever say it was??

 

• Jul 16, 2004

• #163

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Jul 16, 2004

• #164

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 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.

 

• Jul 16, 2004

• #165

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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??

 

• Jul 16, 2004

• #166

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 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.

 

• Jul 17, 2004

• #167

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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....................

 

• Jul 19, 2004

• #168

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

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

 

• Jul 21, 2004

• #169

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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.........................

 

• Jul 21, 2004

• #170

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 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.

 

• Jul 21, 2004

• #171

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Jul 21, 2004

• #172

D

dead parrot

Airman 1st Class

108

0

Jul 7, 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.

 

• Jul 21, 2004

• #173

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

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