C-47 as a bomber

Nathan · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:13 am

I was just wondering...would the C-47 had made a good bomber?

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:27 am

THe B-18 and B-23 had alot of parts from the DC-2 and the DC-3.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:29 am

It was used as a bomber to poor effect in El Salvador vs Honduras, rolling bombs out the door on an airfield attack in 1969! I would think a C-47 would suffer casualties worse than that of the Luftwaffe bombers over London. By the time you uparmored and armed the A/C it would be REAL SLOW!

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_156.shtml

Nathan · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:29 am

Good point.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:35 am

Nathan wrote:

I was just wondering...would the C-47 had made a good bomber?

As MD touched on, the bomber C-47 was called the B-18, and it was...

...very average.

IIRC, the Israelis did the rolling 'em out of the door trick too.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:37 am

On the other hand, the AC-47 made good use of the airframes qualities. Very stable as a gun platform, heavy load capability, good linger time. Just don't take it out in daylight or if the enemy has ANY radar controlled weapons.

Nathan · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:01 am

The C-47 and B-18 are two different aircraft. Sure both from same company...and some of the same parts. But they are apples and oranges to me.

But anyway thanks for the info.

Nathan · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:01 am

The C-47 and B-18 are two different aircraft. Sure both from same company...and some of the same parts. But they are apples and oranges to me.

But anyway thanks for the info.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:28 am

Two C-47s were among the first Israeli Air Force kills - being shot down over Tel Aviv by Avia S-199s while on makeshift bombing runs.

Ryan

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:42 am

Nathan wrote:

The C-47 and B-18 are two different aircraft. Sure both from same company...and some of the same parts. But they are apples and oranges to me.

If you're gonna ask these kid of questions, have a closer look at the answers - the types they aren't as different as you think.

You've got two routes. You either take a C-47 and throw bombs out of it, which is highly inefficient (and answered above) or you add bomb racks, better configuration etc, etc...

...so take the DC-3/C-47 design, and develop it into a bomber proper. The B-18 Bolo was developed from the DC-2, the DC-3's predecessor, and in all practical purposes a bomber version of Douglas' transport family.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... asp?id=470

Then the B-23 was a further development, starting with the DC-3 and making a bomber out of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-23_Dragon

But was late, and just not good enough.

So The C-47 makes a poor bomber, whatever you do. No hypotheses needed.

Cheers,

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:17 am

And this whole time no one has mentioned the 32 R4D-6S's that were rolled out of the Oklahoma City factory during the war equipped with 4 bomb shackles, a radar, and one of which sank a German U-Boat of the South American coast during the war.

I think the C-47 series would have made a decent light bomber, but the problem would have been defense.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:41 am

Totally forgot about those. I was thinking a bit on the similarity of usage for the FW200, designed as a airliner, converted and pressed into service as recon, cargo, anti-shipping. As long as no one shot at it, it was a useful A/C, aside from tending to break up on landing! :shock:

Ju52/3s were also employed as bombers in Spain......didn't work well, so they didn't try that again! If it is designed to carry people or cargo, perhaps THAT is what it is best used as! But when you are caught short, you will use what you have.

Robbie Roberts · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:59 am

Didn't John Wayne use a DC-2 to drop bombs on the Japanese in "Flying Tigers"? If anyone could do it, he could! He was the Chuck Norris of his day!:shock:

Robbie :wink:

cozmo · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:27 pm

Um...Chuck Norris waited years before he allowed his mom to give birth to him because he knew he couldn't compete with the "Duke".

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:56 pm

Thanks CapFlyer, I wasn't aware of those R4Ds. :oops:

Any pics or more info?

Holedigger wrote:

Ju52/3s were also employed as bombers in Spain......didn't work well, so they didn't try that again! If it is designed to carry people or cargo, perhaps THAT is what it is best used as! But when you are caught short, you will use what you have.

Not sure about that, what's your view based on?

Having researched the early Ju 52/3m bombers for an article, I understand the Ju 52/3m was a perfectly effective bomber in the earlier stages of the Spanish Civil War. It wasn't a lash-up either, with internal bomb cells and a defensive barbette on the rear fuselage and a 'pot' for a bomb-aimer gunner. The bomber version (you're right that it was designed as a transport) wasn't a disaster at all. There was a vogue for bomber transports in the mid 1930s, (Savoia Marchettis being the other main type used in the Spanish war) which were good enough at the time, but by W.W.II were no longer viable.

The Ju52/3m bomber was outclassed later in the Spanish Civil War, but no more so than other contemporary types, and for the same reasons; speed and armament. To suggest it wasn't very good misses the point it was the main type of the period and responsible for the bulk of the bombing, with a reasonable survival rate and average accuracy (that's another story!).

Cheers,

Warbird Information Exchange

C-47 as a bomber

Who is online