What Cargo Plane had the most impact during WWII

[Daryl Hunt]

You were given the figures for the North Atlantic route of over 500 million Tons. And you were given the over 8000 Fighters and Bombers by way of Nome Alaska along with millions of tons of other supplies. Plus you were given the hundreds of thousands of trucks by way of Iran. All of this by the Lend Lease Program by the US, Canada and Britain yet you deny it every happened. It started right after Germany attacked the USSR and almost drove your country across the Urals. Your USSR was half a second from losing Moscow, something no one had ever been able to do before. Your Fighters, even as crappy as they were, were largely destroyed on the ground and you had no real Air Force so for awhile, your Air Force was primarily made up of USSR Junk, Hurricanes, P-39s and P-40s. Your Bombers were real junk and were supported by B-25s. Your Tanks were junk in 1941 and 1942 and the Brits and US sent you light and medium tanks that at least stood a chance to slow the juggernaut down. Mostly, the tanks came from the Canadians and the Brits but a few Shermans made it.

It's been historically noted that during the cold war, the USSR has downplayed the lend lease period. Especially the 1941 and 1942 period where there were NO front line fighters equal to the ME-109 and the T-34 hadn't made it's way to the lines quite yet until late 1942. Without those lend lease supplies and weapons, Moscow would have surely fallen. Yes, in the end, only about 4% of all USSR supplies and equipment were from Lend Lease but that percentage was much higher during 1941 and 1942 in comparison to 1943 and on considering the USSR didn't have very much manufacturing during that time period. It seems the Germans were parked over most of it.

You also forget that the Brits sent Toolings and Manufacturing supplies and equipment to get the new factories up and running. In order to make the toolings, supplies and equipment first you have to have a manufacturing base. In 1941 and the first half of 1942 the USSR didn't have any to speak of.

You are spewing Cold War Crap. Since the Cold War ended, Russia has repaid all Lend Lease and has recognized the importance of the Lend Lease even by attending the various Lend Lease Monuments in places like Nome Alaska. Now, I realize that it was taught differently when you went to school but it's taught differently than that now in Russia. Now, it may be swinging back to the same cold war thinking, I don't know. But it was crap then. Sort of like what was taught in Japan for many years and still is.

Your propaganda is out of date, there, Comrade.

The last explanation
-----------------------------------------------
QUESTION1
I'm not interested in your long texts, because:
When you COMPARE a Weapon, cars, food, gasoline ... provided by America for the Soviet Union, then:
- Show the percentage of this Help to the Industry of the Soviet Union
- Show the dynamics of the provision of your assistance
- Show the cost of your help
- Finally, the most important is to show the sources of your information ...

Do not show long texts and ABSOLUTELY NUMBERS of EXPENSES, this is ridiculous and is calculated on blondes ...
--------------------------------------
You do not know this answer, but I know ...
In addition, I know where you get the information, because I read in English and can compare Russian and Anglo-Saxon information ...
Answer my first question ...

=======================================
QUESTION2
Repeat for the 4th time, but you pretend that you do not notice

1. I am an American citizen
2. I run for President of the United States
3. I promise that when I become the President of the United States, then:
- Alaska will be returned to Russia
- Texas will gain independence
- Lakota Indians will create their State
Information campaigns sponsored by Russia will operate in the US ...

Can I run for President of the United States?

=======================================
QUESTION3
If you answer "NO" to the second question, then why:
1. I am a Russian citizen
2. I run for President of Russia
3. I promise that when I become the President of Russia, then:
- Crimea will be returned to Ukraine
- Ukraine will join NATO
- Information companies sponsored by America will operate on the territory of Russia ..
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------
IN RUSSIA - IT IS PERMITTED FOR THE CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENTS !!!!!!
Then, Answer the 3rd question ...
Where is more democracy?
In America or Russia?

==============================================

I expect only 3 clear and candid answers ...
You will fade and curl, then the conversation with you will be over

There are only 2 answers.

Yes, you can run for President of the United States using your criteria. You probably won't get it but you can run. Your example is just way too extreme to get elected. But you can run. I am sure that there are those that are running every time that are that extreme but they never gain any traction.

No, you can't run for President of Russia. The last few that have tried have been found their way to a prison cell. Putin will be President for Life as long as the Kremlin allows it.

Russia is by far the least of the two for Democracy. Besides, Democracy is a myth. It doesn't exist except in small groups. The US is a Federal Republic like Russia claims to be as well. Both are somewhat corrupt but Russia is just more corrupt.

There, I answered your question. But Like I said, not the answers you want to see.

Now, back to the original posts.

 

[Selivan]

- I do not agree with your 2 answers, but it's your right.
- You did not answer the first question ...
-------------------------------
Well, let's leave for the future, but I will remind you this question.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

- I do not agree with your 2 answers, but it's your right.
- You did not answer the first question ...
-------------------------------
Well, let's leave for the future, but I will remind you this question.

Told you that you wouldn't like the answers since they aren't exactly what you wanted to hear in the first place. Sorry, it's difficult to manipulate someone that doesn't want to cooperate with that manipulation.

 

[Selivan]

Told you that you wouldn't like the answers since they aren't exactly what you wanted to hear in the first place. Sorry, it's difficult to manipulate someone that doesn't want to cooperate with that manipulation.

Of course, I do not like "manipulation," I always say frankly ...
This is called - FREEDOM OF SPEECH
-------------------------------------------------- ---
- In Russia it's so customary to say ...
- And in America it is customary to "manipulate"!

=================================================
So you have proved that in America there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Told you that you wouldn't like the answers since they aren't exactly what you wanted to hear in the first place. Sorry, it's difficult to manipulate someone that doesn't want to cooperate with that manipulation.

Of course, I do not like "manipulation," I always say frankly ...
This is called - FREEDOM OF SPEECH
-------------------------------------------------- ---
- In Russia it's so customary to say ...
- And in America it is customary to "manipulate"!

=================================================
So you have proved that in America there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

What I have proven is that YOU have tried to manipulate. I just didn't play along. I used my freedom of speech and expression and you didn't care for it because it didn't suite your own narrative. And to top it off, you then claim American has no Freedom of Speech. Newsflash: You are on on an American Influenced Medium when you use US Message Board. Such a thing cannot exist in Russia. It could never get past the censors. If something like this does exist, please point it out.

 

[Selivan]

You are on on an American Influenced Medium when you use US Message Board. Such a thing cannot exist in Russia.

I just lie under the table ...
The man did not understand ...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are on on an American Influenced Medium when you use US Message Board. Such a thing cannot exist in Russia.

I just lie under the table ...
The man did not understand ...

You lie under the table. You lie on the table,you lie over the table,you lie next to the table, you lie just about everywhere.

 

[cnm]

We were going to 12,500 feet in the DC3 at the time of the double door pressurising incident. We beat it down. When it landed it had 1/8th of an inch of ice on its belly. Never seen that on an aircraft before or since.

 

[Bleipriester]

Here is a neat one. I give it a tie between two. The C-47 and the B-24.

The C-47 was with the Allies in all theaters hauling cargo, jeeps, troops and even towing gliders. You could even get a 105 howitzer in it if you were careful. During D-Day, it covered the skies dropping anything that could be parachuted or dropped without a chute. And it towed two gliders each full of troops. It flew over the Hump in China but it was chancy on that one since the hump was hard pressed against the C-47s max altitude. But it was used anyway.

When you stripped out the bomb racks out of the B-24, it left a lot of room for cargo. And it wasn't limited so much for altitude limitations. No, it wasn't pressurized and if you took it up so high, everyone had to be on oxygen. But the range meant it could just about fly anywhere with quite a cargo or troop load if you could get it in the door. It was used by almost all Generals for transports as well. And when you needed to get things over the Hump in China it did it great with little danger.

I think the C-47 inches the B-24 out though since it was there weeks before the US started in on WWII and was there long after WWII ended. And it could handle outsized cargo because of it's wide side cargo door.

I do not agree to this ranking. Cargo planes do not have any impact. If a model would not have existed, another would have been used. Germany´s Ju 52 for example was almost ten years in service when the war broke out. But it was still good enough to be the cargo plane for the war.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is a neat one. I give it a tie between two. The C-47 and the B-24.

The C-47 was with the Allies in all theaters hauling cargo, jeeps, troops and even towing gliders. You could even get a 105 howitzer in it if you were careful. During D-Day, it covered the skies dropping anything that could be parachuted or dropped without a chute. And it towed two gliders each full of troops. It flew over the Hump in China but it was chancy on that one since the hump was hard pressed against the C-47s max altitude. But it was used anyway.

When you stripped out the bomb racks out of the B-24, it left a lot of room for cargo. And it wasn't limited so much for altitude limitations. No, it wasn't pressurized and if you took it up so high, everyone had to be on oxygen. But the range meant it could just about fly anywhere with quite a cargo or troop load if you could get it in the door. It was used by almost all Generals for transports as well. And when you needed to get things over the Hump in China it did it great with little danger.

I think the C-47 inches the B-24 out though since it was there weeks before the US started in on WWII and was there long after WWII ended. And it could handle outsized cargo because of it's wide side cargo door.

I do not agree to this ranking. Cargo planes do not have any impact. If a model would not have existed, another would have been used. Germany´s Ju 52 for example was almost ten years in service when the war broke out. But it was still good enough to be the cargo plane for the war.

The problem the JU-52 had was it was actually many different Aircraft. While they all looked similar, they had drastically different performance from dismal to good. None were impressive. In 1930 it was an impressive aircraft but by 1936 it's day was past. But it continued on because it was dependable. It's cargo ratings weren't very good, it's range was poor and it's speed and altitude were poor. Flying out of Italy resupplying Rommel, the P-38s over the Med shot down hundreds of them. After the war, unlike the C-47 that was released to the civilian market or kept in service, most JU-52s were destroyed. Those that weren't did go on in the civilian market for at least 30 years so it's dependability cannot be questioned.

 

[Bleipriester]

Here is a neat one. I give it a tie between two. The C-47 and the B-24.

The C-47 was with the Allies in all theaters hauling cargo, jeeps, troops and even towing gliders. You could even get a 105 howitzer in it if you were careful. During D-Day, it covered the skies dropping anything that could be parachuted or dropped without a chute. And it towed two gliders each full of troops. It flew over the Hump in China but it was chancy on that one since the hump was hard pressed against the C-47s max altitude. But it was used anyway.

When you stripped out the bomb racks out of the B-24, it left a lot of room for cargo. And it wasn't limited so much for altitude limitations. No, it wasn't pressurized and if you took it up so high, everyone had to be on oxygen. But the range meant it could just about fly anywhere with quite a cargo or troop load if you could get it in the door. It was used by almost all Generals for transports as well. And when you needed to get things over the Hump in China it did it great with little danger.

I think the C-47 inches the B-24 out though since it was there weeks before the US started in on WWII and was there long after WWII ended. And it could handle outsized cargo because of it's wide side cargo door.

I do not agree to this ranking. Cargo planes do not have any impact. If a model would not have existed, another would have been used. Germany´s Ju 52 for example was almost ten years in service when the war broke out. But it was still good enough to be the cargo plane for the war.

The problem the JU-52 had was it was actually many different Aircraft. While they all looked similar, they had drastically different performance from dismal to good. None were impressive. In 1930 it was an impressive aircraft but by 1936 it's day was past. But it continued on because it was dependable. It's cargo ratings weren't very good, it's range was poor and it's speed and altitude were poor. Flying out of Italy resupplying Rommel, the P-38s over the Med shot down hundreds of them. After the war, unlike the C-47 that was released to the civilian market or kept in service, most JU-52s were destroyed. Those that weren't did go on in the civilian market for at least 30 years so it's dependability cannot be questioned.

Like the DC 3, the Ju 52 is still in service. And you got the point right, it was very dependable. There are some other models beside the Me 321/3, but none of them was built in numbers. The limited production capacity could have been the reason again. The production of cargo planes ended in mid 1944. The Ju 52 was not only slow and outdated, it also worked under unthinkable conditions, for example the supply for the troops in Stalingrad.
But it is fully agreeable to say the DC 3 was the best cargo plane of the war.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is a neat one. I give it a tie between two. The C-47 and the B-24.

The C-47 was with the Allies in all theaters hauling cargo, jeeps, troops and even towing gliders. You could even get a 105 howitzer in it if you were careful. During D-Day, it covered the skies dropping anything that could be parachuted or dropped without a chute. And it towed two gliders each full of troops. It flew over the Hump in China but it was chancy on that one since the hump was hard pressed against the C-47s max altitude. But it was used anyway.

When you stripped out the bomb racks out of the B-24, it left a lot of room for cargo. And it wasn't limited so much for altitude limitations. No, it wasn't pressurized and if you took it up so high, everyone had to be on oxygen. But the range meant it could just about fly anywhere with quite a cargo or troop load if you could get it in the door. It was used by almost all Generals for transports as well. And when you needed to get things over the Hump in China it did it great with little danger.

I think the C-47 inches the B-24 out though since it was there weeks before the US started in on WWII and was there long after WWII ended. And it could handle outsized cargo because of it's wide side cargo door.

I do not agree to this ranking. Cargo planes do not have any impact. If a model would not have existed, another would have been used. Germany´s Ju 52 for example was almost ten years in service when the war broke out. But it was still good enough to be the cargo plane for the war.

The problem the JU-52 had was it was actually many different Aircraft. While they all looked similar, they had drastically different performance from dismal to good. None were impressive. In 1930 it was an impressive aircraft but by 1936 it's day was past. But it continued on because it was dependable. It's cargo ratings weren't very good, it's range was poor and it's speed and altitude were poor. Flying out of Italy resupplying Rommel, the P-38s over the Med shot down hundreds of them. After the war, unlike the C-47 that was released to the civilian market or kept in service, most JU-52s were destroyed. Those that weren't did go on in the civilian market for at least 30 years so it's dependability cannot be questioned.

Like the DC 3, the Ju 52 is still in service. And you got the point right, it was very dependable. There are some other models beside the Me 321/3, but none of them was built in numbers. The limited production capacity could have been the reason again. The production of cargo planes ended in mid 1944. The Ju 52 was not only slow and outdated, it also worked under unthinkable conditions, for example the supply for the troops in Stalingrad.
But it is fully agreeable to say the DC 3 was the best cargo plane of the war.

I don't think the DC-3 was the best. That would probably go to the C-54/DC-4. But it was the only one that had a real impact on the war effort.