The 'best' transport of WWII

[Corsarius]

Seeing that my 'best rotary wing' poll went up like a lead baloon, I'm starting another one:

What, in your opinion, is the best transport of WWII. Not necessarrily the most tonnage carried overall, or the most successful as an airliner, just the 'best' by payload/range/usefulness.

My bet is the ME-363 Gigant. That sucker was HUGE, was able to take tanks etc no sweat, and with it's clamshell doors and low-pressure 'caterpiller' footprint, it was a precursor to STOL transports such as the Hercules, and even bigger (payload-wise), the Antonov Ruslan, or the C5 Galaxy. If Goering had more of these when he was trying to resupply Rommel, I wonder how things would have turned out?

For more 'conventional' transports, my fave would be the Savoia-Marchetti S.M.82 Canguru

[simon]

My bet is that if Goering would have had more Me323 Gigants (Typo there Corsarius?) the only difference would have been that the Kill rates for RAF pilots in the Med would have gone up by the same amount. These things were death-traps unless you had total air supremacy and no matter how much they were up engined or up gunned it just was not possible to get them to stand a chance against fighters. If Malta had fallen, maybe, but then we're back to what ifs.

Without trying to go for the ubiquitous C-47, which I'm sure would ultimately get the vote, what about the likes of the Airspeed Horsa?

I think these can be classed as transport aircraft since although they were intended for a one way trip over short distances, around the time of Overlord there was no better way of getting a sizable number of troops past a contested beachhead.

[Corsarius]

Bah. Silly typos.

OK, Africa was probably a bad example, without any sort of air defence proper..

How about Stalingrad, then. One of the world's first real attempts at resupply by air. With the Messerschmitt version of the C-130 to resupply, what do you think would have done to the campaign?

[simon]

Again, the Soviets would have shot them down in huge numbers. At Stalingrad the only airfield close enough for fighters to operate was the Ptomnik strip in the Stalingrad pocket itself. The Soviets could engage the German transports at will with fighters or directly from the ground with artillery.

The German transport arm in 1943 was completely inadequate to supply the 6th Army and their only hope throughout the encirclement was either a breakout by land to the west (Which by the time it was really required they were too weak and poorly supplied to even attempt), or the hope that General Hoth's hastily assembled and poorily equipped tank Korps could break the encirclement and rescue them, which was never going to happen as they were just not a strong enough force to manage that.

The Gigants would have made a momentary difference, and then only the Me323s, for any Me321s it would really have been a one-way trip. The Me323s with their low speed, zero manouevrability and poor armament, would be little more than cannonfodder for the Yaks, MiGs and LaGGs.

Your go again...

[Corsarius]

Fine fine. I conceed. However, anywhere there was worthwhile air cover (not even total, remember that the 323 was not ENTIRELY defenceless, and didn't they build a 'gunship' version of it for heavy ground attack?), the Me323 was massively useful. I simply like the idea of the 'caterpiller' landind style, the huge payload, the 'clamshell' doors, and the STOL ablities if equipped with JATO.

I mean, it's basically the precursor to the Hercules we use now, and even in a fighter-dominated environment they are still not shot down in huge numbers. Things were different then, I understand, but I think that more Gigants would have resulted in much greater flexibility for the German army. The same goes for my rationale for rotary-wing transports (which were available and mostly overlooked by the Germans. The Allies, with Sikorsky as their inventor, did not create contra-rotating blades and thus their helicopters were smaller, but much less stable.)

[simon]

One place I think the Gigant could have made a real difference would have been if it had been available and if the Luftwaffe could have established and maintained air superiority over Kent for any sort of duration, it really could have tipped the balance if they'd ever tried to go for Seelowe.

The thing is though even then each Gigant could only transport a single light tank, or a quantity of troops, or some supplies. You would need a huge quantity of them to land a force anywhere that would be capable of launching anything more than a pin-prick raid. And then you'd still require some sort of local superiority on the ground and air to give it a serous fighting chance.

It is difficult to point to any single actual engagement or campaign where the Gigant would have proved decisive, but I will admit that a large number of Gigants with a dedicated and trained Airborne unit could potentially have made the lives of the Allies difficult and been a thorn in the side. Similarly if used to move urgently needed supplies closer to the front lines under heavy fighter escort, they could have been very useful.

The thing is I just don't think they would have been used that sensibly, and any extras that were available would have been wasted either over the Mediterranean or trying to bail out Paulos at Stalingrad.

Yes, they definitely set a precedent and can possibly in some ways be seen as the common ancestor of all modern supersize transports, but the reason the Hercules hasn't been shot down in huge numbers is that so far thankfully there hasn't been WW3, if there ever is the Hercules would require at least air supriority, fighter escort, and if it was going to attempt to land at all, local ground control. All the time it's operating in peacetime, or under conditions in which the enemy is at best a third rate airforce, or more often non-existant, you can get away with it. But in all fairness the only reason they are used in the way they are is precisely bacuse of those reasons.

The only problems with the JATO and RATO units on the Gigants is that these are only any good if you have a spare set for the other end, or a few handy Bf110s waiting to haul you back into the sky again. Besides the RATO units were almost as unreliable and dangerous as the Me163 (He says deliberately baiting...). ;)

[Corsarius]

Hmmm. I've never really speculated on Seelowe. I've seen all sorts of interesting and fairly conflicting 'what if' scenarios regarding it. From total annihilation of the British to absolute destruction of the Germans. I'm not so chuffed about the ability to carry a tank anywhere. Modern tactical air transports still can't carry more than one or two. It's the huge amount of troops and materiel that I find impressive. Stretcher bearers, airborne field hospitals, kuebelwagens, communications gear...

Who knows what could have been done with this plane in hindsight? Place a wurtzburg radar in a rotating flat scan dome on top and have the world's first AWACS?

As for JATO, I think that 'fat albert' (the C-130)of the US Marines routinely operates at airshows using JATO. You must admit, for all their danger, they do work reasonably well. The early walther 'rockets' used a very simple principle, which is that Hydrogen Peroxide reacts upon touching metal. So all you REALLY need for the JATO boost is a fuel tank, a metal grille at the end, and a pump. The result was outstandingly simple and relatively safe, a principle which is still used today. And no, I'm not going to rise to the Me-163 quip.....[^]

[Ricky]

Yes, I fully agree, the Gigant was a marvel, and ahead of its time - which was kind of the problem - no-one really knew how to use it.

How about the Junkers Ju52, surely the most versatile WW2 transport plane (also used as a bomber, a minesweeper, etc etc)

[simon]

The Bristol Bombay was almost as versatile as the Ju52/3m, and was infact actually used as a bomber in WWII, whereas I think the Ju52/3m was only used as such in the Spanish Civil War. Additionally the Bombay was better armed and faster, although numerically far less significant.

[GregP]

The Me-323 was an interesting aircraft but, one of the best? No way.

There were about 210 Me-323's built. My bet is that most were lost to enemy action.

The 323 might have been a great transport in the absence of combat, but the C-47 surely lived longer and had a much greater impact on WWII than the Me-323.

So did the C-46 and alomst every other transport of note.

Tell me why you picked the Me-323 other than the fact that it opens at the front and could carry a decent load.

[simon]

My guess, and I don't wish to put words into Corsarius' mouth here, but this is just my take on it:

The Me323 was a kind of brief glimpse of the future, of what modern armies take for granted on their current super-size transports. Think about it, the Gigant could carry 120 battle equipped troops, I don't have the figures for the others all to hand but they vary between around 12 in some cases up to around 30 in others, meaning you needed fleets of aircraft just to transport a combat ready infantry battalion.

To look at the practicalities of it, let's say you want to land a company of 120 men (Or the equivilent in stores or provisions), all you need is enough time to land your plane, relatively little time to get the kit off whilst you refuel and then it's off into the wide blue yonder again.

With a C-46 Commando it's the same, only you need to repeat this about 4 times, the same landing and take off sequence with the possibility that plane #2 can't even begin to land until plane #1 has taken off. In the same time a unit of Gigants could have got a respectably sized Battalion down. A C-47 or Ju52/3m unit would take even longer.

The difference with a modern airforce (Say the USAAF with C-5 Galaxies), you don't even attempt this unless you have local air superiority and a reasonable local ground control, the Luftwaffe had to try and use the Gigants where one, and sometimes both of these elements were lacking. The result was that they were shot down in pretty large numbers. A case of reasonably good technology just without the thinking to use it correctly.

A bit of a contradiction perhaps given my earlier comments, but there you go. I guess I just enjoy playing devils advocate sometimes!

[Corsarius]

Thanks Simon, You're pretty much on the money.

I see the Me 323 as the precursor to all modern military battlefeild heavy lift transports.

I LOVE the Ju52 and the C-47. Please don't get me wrong, and as military transports they could (and in the case of the Dakota, sometimes still are) be used in a modern environment. But try transporting large amounts of stuff in them.

The Me 323 had it's share of problems, and yes it was used in areas of less than total air supremecy, but would you use a Hercules today in an area of less than total supremecy? Without a heavy escort, I'd assure you not.

The Gigant had a massive area for troops/cargo/logistical supplies/tanks, it was one of the first military aircraft to be truly RO/RO (roll on, roll off) for vehicles etc. It could also operate from semi-prepared airstrips (and thus the innovative caterpiller undercarriage) that other transports would have had trouble with, and it could operate with JATO to shorten it's takeoff distance.

Effectively, I see it as a WWII C-130 hercules, a beloved aircraft that no-one has seen fit to replace since the '60s because there is pretty much nothing better availabe. The EUROFLAG aircraft is at best a copy of this sterling plane.

So the Gigant is my favourite because it really showed what transports could be like. It was massive because it needed to be, had clamshelldoors because nothing else would work, was lightly armoured and armed because it was a transport and shouldn't have had to be.

While those may say that it was a lumbering transport, I will point to the C-47, which flew in all theatres of war with NO armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, and often were shot down in great numbers if air supremecy wasn't provided. Ditto for the Ju-52, the Kanguru, and all the other transports. It's a transport, not a fighter!

[simon]

I just recently read a reference to the heavily armed Gigant-Gunship. The reference was only brief, but it indicated that only a few were built as an Escort-Fighter type concept along the lines of the YB-40 of the USAAF 8th AAF, however it soon became apparent that the concept wasn't practical and proper escorting fighter aircraft were a better option.

The weaponary list does make impressive reading though, it seems to be bristling with 20mm Mg151/20s!

[GregP]

OK Corsarius,

You say, "Try transporting large amints of stuuf intthe." I say the C-46's and C47's transported more material than all the Me-323's ever built. C-46/47's flew everything over the hump in the CBI theater, and they transported an astounding amount of cargo in Europe and the Pacific theater.

I don't happen to have a list of sorties in front of me, but I iamgine the sortie rate for C-47's alone is more than 100 times that of the Me-323's.

[simon]

No-one was disputing that the C-46, C-47, and probably the Ju52 flew more tonnes of cargo overall, the difference is that the Me323 could carry more tonnes per sortie.

[Mechanic]

The Gigant was an impressive aircraft, but not a neccesarily good one. Slow and not that impressive in performance. Used as a fuel carrier they used more fuel than they transported. The Arado Ar232 however has more in common with modern aircraft. The undercarriage enabled it to cross 5 ft ditches on runways for example. Built in 2 and 4 engine variants it was meant to be a Ju52 replacement. It was nicknamed the centipede, for the row of bogey wheels under the centreline of the fuselage. Only a few were built.

[GregP]

The C-47 is a shoo-in for the best transport, or at least the most significant.

The Me-323 was just a mistake, pure and simple. They built a large cargo glider that needed the equivalent of three Bf 110s to tow it ... and they ALSO had huge quantities of French Gnome-Rhone radials lying around, just looking for some mediocre place to go ... so why not make a really mediocre non-glider transport? All they needed were some mediocre French propellers, which just happened to be lying around. Presto, the Me-323.

Oh yeah, if you happen to be a soldier in the Me-323 being transported, don't lean on the fabric covering or you might fall through it!

I view the Me-323 as a sure victory for any armed plane it encountered, possibly even a Piper Cub with a rifle strapped to it. If it flew low enough, any decent little league pitcher could knock a hole in it since he probably threw a fastball that was faster than the Gigante.

C'mon guys. Ya' gotta' think of a better candidate than old "instant kill". AT least the pilots of Gigantes couldn't GET very high, so they didn't have that far to fall. Most were shot down at treetop level since that was the service ceiling on any number of French Gnome-Rhones. Add two more, and you might get to, maybe, 80 feet?

Before I'd even CONSIDER the Me-323, I'd look at a flying boat, such as the Coronado, the Bv 222, or the Kawanishi H8K Emily series. They could all haul some decent cargo tonnage and had unlimited landing spots ... as long as it was on a coast or a river bank, that is.

The Bv 222 and the Emily also had a decent turn of speed, especially when compared with the Me-323. Of course, a turtle has a decent turn of speed when compared with the Me-323 ... but, I digress.

Where was I? Oh yeah, how about one of the good flying boats instead of the overgrown balsa model airplane mentioned above?

[simon]

"I view the Me-323 as a sure victory for any armed plane it encountered"

The same broadly can be said for the C-130, and as Corsarius pointed out, C-47s unless operating under heavy fighter escort would also suffer very heavy casualties. The difference is that the Allies had the practical advantage of having airbases with long range fighters close enough to provide the C-47s, Horsa gliders and their Tugs with a good fighter cover, and had the common sense to stage most of our airborne assaults at night.

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe lacked the intelligence or common sense to do this merely that they lacked many of these luxuries that made the C-47 successful. I think to a degree it's the same kind of thing as the Devastator's terrible reputation. Both were used incorrectly so the type's reputation as a whole has suffered for it.

I don't dispute that there are other worthy contenders out there, the Ju52, Bristol Bombay, C-46 and C-47, even the Lancaster and Halifax were used as Transports at the very end of the war, I suppose the famous "Spruce Goose" could count? So let's hear more about specific types and why you think they're better...

[Ricky]

Greg, while a good Flying Boat can and does make an excellent Transport plane (cf: the excellent work performed by Short Sunderlands during the Berlin Airlift), there is a slight practical problem of where to land them.
The only 'large' Flying Boat with true Amphibious capability that I am aware of in WW2 was the later marks of Catalina. And the Catalina, while being an excellent patrol craft, was not really cut out as a transport.

:)

[GregP]

All too true! Catalines were good at a lot of things, but cargo hauler wasn't one of them.

Still, teh Martin Mars could haul prodigous quantities of cargo and troops. The Hughes H-4 was also designed for that role, though piston engines weren't quite up to the size and weight of the thing.

Hey, at least it FLEW, if only once.

The Bv 238 was also capable of hauling vast cargo quantities.

Maybe they wanted to use lakes for landing areas? Or big rivers? Who can say. Maybe some former Luftwaffe flying boat driver.

The XC-99 was a real cargo hauler but, with a population of one, can hardly be considered as significant. It also needed long, paved runways capable of supporting heavy loads.

Nope. Can't be the XC-99.

[Notta Brit]

Typo there, Greg.:D Anyone going to mention the Bv-222 flying boat transport?

[Ricky]

You can!

Yes, a great transport (huge), but with the problem that it can only land on water. Which kinda cuts down the usefulness, as it cannot deliver its cargo exactly where it is needed, like a C-47 can.

[simon]

And there was me thinking you saw it more as a rival to the B-29 Notta Brit! ;)

[Notta Brit]

Annnnnnnnnnd... you mistook me.;)

[Notta Brit]

Hugeness was part of the problem, as it was hard to build due to size.

[GregP]

All kidding aside, the Me-323 was a precursor to today's great transports, and French Gnome-Rhones aren't that bad as engines, either.

The Avro York was quite a heavy hauler and 257 were built starting in 1943.

The French MB.0161 was a nice airplane, but wasn't exactly numerous. 1 was built.

The Boeing 314 Clippers did yeoman duty despite a population of only 12.

The Bpeing XB-15 was converted to a transport, but was only one airplane.

The French Breguet 731 was a seaplane transport, but only 2 were built.

The Bristol Freighter wasn't yet invented.

The Budd RB-1 Connestoga made the war, but only 25 were built.

The CANT Z.511 was neat ... only 1.

They made 3000 Curtiss C-46s and they did very well.

The Dewoitine D.338 was nice. Population 31.

The Douglas XB-19 was operated as a transport. Population 1.

Douglas made 14, 426 C-17 / DC-3s. GREAT plane that is STILL AROUND making money.

Junkers Ju-52 was a German workhorse. 5015 made.

Kawasaki made 121 Ki-56s. A copy of the Lockheed 14. They also made 507 Ki-57 / MC-20s.

Lockheed made a lot of Model 10s, 12s, 14s, and 18s. They were light transports.

The Martin China Clippers were womderful, but there were only 3.

The Martin Mars was probably the champ, but they only made 6, of which 2 are still flying in Canada.

Messerschmitt made 198 Me-323 Gigants. They were good transports, but not suited to combat.

Potez only made 1 CAMS 161 flying boat transport, so it is far from significant.

Savoia-Marchetti made 91 SM.75s and developed the SM.87 (4 units) from it. They made 400 SM.82s and they seemed to work well. The SM.95 was a nice-looking transport. Population 23.

Short made several nice flying boats. Empire and Shetland come to mind, and the Sunderland was pressed into service as a transport on occasion.

Sikorsky S.44s were not much of a factor in WWII.

Tachikawa made 1368 Ki-54s. Very light transport.

Yakovlev made some Yak-16s, but they were light transports only.

As I look it over, I missed a few, but not significantly. The C-47 and C-46 were FAR and AWAY the most numerous .... and moved the most cargo. Does that make them the best?

Dunno .... I say they were great planes, but that's just me. However, DC-3s and C-46s are STILL running commercial routes around the world over 60 years later. Can't say that for Ju-52s or any OTHER WWII planes escept the Martin Mars ... and there are only 2 of them used as fire bombers.

Still hauling freight for profit 60 years later makes these two number one in my book, and the C-47 is by far more numerous than the C-46.

[simon]

I can't help feeling that the poor humble Bristol Bombay frequently gets overlooked in the Transport category. Whilst it was perhaps more the equal of the Ju52 rather than the C-46/C-47 it performed both of its planned roles as bomber and transport until the US took over production of Transports.

That aside, in addition to the York, there was also the Stirling MkV, and (Shudders with the mention) the Buckingham.

Of course none of the above four British planes survive, but at least one Ju52 is still flying operated (Last I heard anyway) by it's original owners Lufthansa. Perhaps not profitable, perhaps not in numbers (Not overly surprising, consider the conditions they had to operate under on the Eastern Front and Mediterranean agaisnt the relative luxury of air superiority the C-47s enjoyed) but still airworthy.

Other worthy contenders, perhaps the He111? It was called upon to operate as a transport on numerous occasions and again airworthy examples of at least the CASA built He111s survive. As with the Ju52, perhaps not for profit, perhaps not in numbers, certainly not surprising either...

So where does that leave us?

I'd say that none of us would dispute that the C-47 has more than fair claim to be the most significant transport, as for the best... there still seems to be some disagreement there.

What about the worst Transport then? The aircraft whose cargo transporting abilities were so dismal that it barely warranted filling the tanks to get the thing airbourne?

My bet would be the Bristol Buckingham, although the limited employability of any of the flying boat types would also merit consideration.

[PMN1]

What would have been the effect on C46 and C47 production if just prior to 1939, there had been a twin engined cargo aircraft in production by a British company that looked like today's cargo aircraft with a high wing, low floor, beaver tail and cargo hold not obstructed by undercarriage etc?

Would the US build an equivalent at the expense of C46 and C47 production?

[curmudgeon]

What would have been the effect on C46 and C47 production if just prior to 1939, there had been a twin engined cargo aircraft in production by a British company that looked like today's cargo aircraft with a high wing, low floor, beaver tail and cargo hold not obstructed by undercarriage etc?

Would the US build an equivalent at the expense of C46 and C47 production?

Which was the first high wing, low floor transport in mainstream use?
The design seems universal in WW II gliders (and hence in motorised gliders) but seems missing in the mainstream through WW II ...

[PMN1]

Which was the first high wing, low floor transport in mainstream use?
The design seems universal in WW II gliders (and hence in motorised gliders) but seems missing in the mainstream through WW II ...

Well the US had the Budd Conestoga and Curtiss C-76 Caravan both of which had design problems, but the original Fairchild C-82 design was initiated in 1941.

[curmudgeon]

Well the US had the Budd Conestoga and Curtiss C-76 Caravan both of which had design problems, but the original Fairchild C-82 design was initiated in 1941.

and flew immediately post-war?

[Ricky]

Which was the first high wing, low floor transport in mainstream use?
The design seems universal in WW II gliders (and hence in motorised gliders) but seems missing in the mainstream through WW II ...

Me 232? I guess it has that because it derived from a glider...

[Kutscha]

Me 232? I guess it has that because it derived from a glider...

As well as the Gotha Go 244.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_Go_244

[Pioneer]

For me it would have to be the Curtiss C-46 Commando for the allies.
A better all round performer than the Douglas C-47!
As for Germany I would have to say the Arado Ar 232B-0.
Its a pity for the Luftwaffe (and for that matter the Army) that they never got around to replacing the obsolete and overworked Junkers Ju 52/3m with the more capable and more modern Junkers Ju 252!

Regards
Pioneer

[Ricky]

As for Germany I would have to say the Arado Ar 232B-0.

I think Pioneer may have hit on the answer to curmudeon's question. The only slight issue is 'widespread service' (only 20 built, not all even used on frontline service), but given the Luftwaffe's priorities, we could probably excuse that. It was certainly the first of its kind (designed from the start to be a high wing, low floor powered transport with rear loading ramp) that was accepted into service.

[curmudgeon]

I think Pioneer may have hit on the answer to curmudeon's question. The only slight issue is 'widespread service' (only 20 built, not all even used on frontline service), but given the Luftwaffe's priorities, we could probably excuse that. It was certainly the first of its kind (designed from the start to be a high wing, low floor powered transport with rear loading ramp) that was accepted into service.

The 'millipede' looks like it! It was designed as a modern military transport. I can forgive them the production run of ~20. By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe could no longer provide sufficient air superiority to rely on air transport and all the lines of communication were internal, so trucks, trains, barges were cheaper and had greater capacity.

Thanks Pioneer.

[GregP]

The best transport, bar none, was the Liberty Ship. Ha!

[Ricky]

The best transport, bar none, was the Liberty Ship. Ha!

Yeah, but the take-off run was hugely long!:p

[GregP]

It was all due to density altitude and the lack of ability to achieve liftoff velocity. Other than that, no problem!

[Lightning]

Hi All,

An all-around good transport plane has to be relatively cheap to build, able to carry a respectable payload; have good range; be able to operate out of unimproved airstrips in poor weather conditions; have a short turn-around time; and be easy to repair and maintain. The C-46, C-47, and Ju52 fulfilled these requirements very well.

When it comes to four-engined transports, the C-54 would be my pick for WWII. Although it didn't get the use of which it was capable during the war, its quality was more than demonstrated by its performance during the Berlin Airlift.

Big is not always better. This is shown by a comparison between the C-5A and the C-130. The decision has been made that the "Galaxy" can't be used as a transport into forward combat zones because it is just too scarce and expensive to be risked losing, and if it were allowed into these areas, most of the airfields would be unusable for it. The C-130, on the other hand, can go anywhere any time with almost anything. It's rugged, and meets all of the criteria given above.

If we're talking about the "best" transport, my choice for WWII would be the C-47 followed closely by the C-46 and Ju52.

Regards,

Lightning

[GregP]

Nicely put, Lightning, as usual.

First let’s do a basic comparison.

1) Junkers Ju-52
Empty: 14,324 lb; Max: 24,200 lb; Max Payload: 9,875 lb
Max: 165 mph; Cruise: 132 mph
Built: 4,845

2) Douglas C-47
Empty: 17,057 lb; Max: 31,000 lb; Max Payload: 13,943 lb
Max: 224 mph; Cruise: 160 mph
Built: 13,177

3) Curtis C-46:
Empty: 32,400 lb; Max: 48,000 lb; Max Payload: 15,600 lb
Max: 269 mph; Cruise: 173 mph
Built: 3,181

4) Douglas C-54
Empty: 38,930 lb; Max: 73,000 lb; Max Payload: 34,070 lb
Max: 275 mph; Cruise: 190 mph
Built: 1,170

So, what can we say about these numbers:

Let's look at, say, 10 C-54's at maximum payload. Counting fuel, they could collectively haul 340,700 pounds. That would take 35 Ju-52's, 22 C-46's and 26 C-47's. Clearly, if you need to move a lot a cargo quickly, the C-54 is king.

If you need to get into and out of short field, the Ju-52 is probably the best choice.

The C-47, despite being about hald the weight of the C-46, hauled almost as much payload, making it by far the more efficient of the two.

If you look at pounds of payload per pound of loaded aircraft, the C-54 is best followed by the C-47, Ju-52 and the C-46 is last in that category.

What if we loaded up every single aircraft to maxlmium payload? Well, the C-47's would haul 184 million lounds; the C-46's would haul 50 million piounds; the Ju-52's would haul 49 million pounds, and the C-54's would haul 40 million pounds. On thef ace of it, it doesn't look like much of a metric, is it? But maybe it shows the relative ability to haul freight into a theater of war by the various aircraft.

Clearly, the C-47's could out haul everyone else if required. So, strategically at least, the C-47 could affect the outcome of a theater of war to a MUCH greater degree than any of the others ... but maybe that is not nearly as important as what transport you had available when you needed it.

If so, there were more C-47's than any of the other transports by FAR.

Also as clearly, if you could only get a few planes in, the C-54 would be the choice.

At normal weights instead of overload weights, the C-46 hauled significantly more than a C-47, but they didn't make nearly as many C-46's.

Last, range. The Ju-52 had a range of 540 miles. The C-47 went 3 times as far and the C-46 about twice as far as the C-47. The C-54 was the clear winner in rage and went a bit more than 1/3 again as far as the C-46. So, if range is a critera, the C-54 is the clear winner. But if your destination is within rangge of the aircraft you have, it isn't a factor at all.

So, it probably boils down to exactly what criteria are used to make the comparison: theater-wide freight capacity? Resupply at short notice and long range? Pick some criteria and have at it. In my book, the C-47 affected the outcome of the war the most. But that might not be the criteria that anyone else uses to select the best tansport, so it might not be a factor to anyone else at all.

[Ricky]

Greg - add the Arado Ar 232 into those figures.

[GregP]

Sorry, I just picked a few. I did not mean to imply these were "the best of all", just a list to start with.

For pure load carrying, how about the BV 238? Could lift 100,100 pounds! But ... there were certainly not enough of them to supply anyone. particularly if the "anyone" wasn't very near the water.