WHat was a better Paratrooper transport of WWII?

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[evangilder]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

Providing no one landed in front of you!

 

[Freebird]

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]

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]

Providing no one landed in front of you!

Details, it just adds spice to the day

 

[Lucky13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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