WHat was a better Paratrooper transport of WWII?

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

There were 10,050 C-47's made (Including after the war which would be the DC-3) and only 3,140 C-46's made.

224 mph-C47 < 269mph-C-46

28 troops-C47<50 troops-C46

So in some catagories the C-46 is better but......It had high cost to make and matinence.


18 troops-Ju5 2< 28 troops-C47
165 mph-Ju52 < 224mph C-47

But the Ju-52 had 3 machine guns which provided a little protection but barely. So in conclusion the C-46 was best but the C-47 was used more often
in combat.
 
B-17engineer said:
So in conclusion the C-46 was best but the C-47 was used more often
in combat.
Click to expand...


Ahhhhh, no.

You're only considering range and the amount of troops the aircraft could carry. What about maintenance, operating costs and flight characteristics? The C-46 had a higher wing loading - in the air it was a brick.

This is from Wiki..

"It wasn't until March 1945 that the C-46 saw duty in Europe, joining the USAAF in time to drop paratroopers in the push for the Rhine. The C-46 proved inadequate for combat. Due to a poorly designed fuel system, gasoline leaked out of the lines and pooled in the fuselage at the wing root and was easily ignited by ground fire. So many C-46s were lost in the drop during the crossing of the Rhine that airborne leaders forbade the airplane's use in future airborne operations. Fortunately, the war ended soon afterward and no further airborne missions were flown.

Despite its success as a wartime military transport, postwar operations revolved around the more plentiful C-47 series with the result that the Commando reverted back to its original civilian role, at first being considered as a commercial airliner by Eastern Airlines. One of its major drawbacks compared to the C-47 was that it had a much higher (up to 50% greater) operating cost, mainly due to its prodigious fuel consumption."

I knew people who flew and maintained both aircraft - everything I ever heard about the C-46 was negative when comparing it to the C-47.
 
Operationally, the C-47 is the clear winner. The drop on the Rhine was a disaster for all involved, the C-46 was certainly unlucky to have its baptism of fire in the ETO on that mission.
 
One little tidbit to think of when comparing a aircraft that was designed as a transport and being used for the paratrooper role, and a bomber being used for dropping paratroopers is the airspeed at which you jump out and "hit the silk".

The C47, C46 and Ju both could slow down to a reasonable speed and have the troops jump out with a reasonably spaced stick, with the aircraft still at a safe speed above stalling.

The bombers on the other hand would need a higher airspeed with the attendent problems of troop dispersal and/or eqmt being ripped off the bodies.

In my skydiving days, on exit, I noticed you can definatly tell the difference between an airplane going slow and and airplane going fast. And slower is safer (for the skydiver)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

How Common Was Friendly Fire Among Bombers In WWII?
Replies
0
Views
750
Lucky13
A Day In The Life Of A WW2 Fighter Pilot - Jim Mitchell
Replies
0
Views
95
GTX
Lockheed P-38 Lightning, One of America's Most Unique WWII Warplanes
Replies
3
Views
514
Barrett
B
W
WWII US Bomb duds, behavior, and why finding them in Europe 80 years later is a challenge
Replies
2
Views
723
Gnomey
M
The Tiffy was Pissy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register