C-47 as a bomber

[CAPFlyer]

James, there's several resources. A quick google search found an article done by Ted Short for douglasdc3.com, mention on Randy Wilson's "Ghost Squadron" website, and a few others referencing the R4D-6S and the work they did.

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/ ... r4d-6s.htm (AeroWeb)
http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/r4d.htm (Randy Wilson's page)
http://www.douglasdc3.com/r4d/r4d.htm (Ted Short's article)

[marine air]

If you read Col. Toliver's book "Fighter General" about Adolph Galland, he recounts the use of the JU-52 as a bomber on a couple of seaports. Basically the Germans were strapping bombs onto anything that would fly in a surprise max effort. The JU-52 lost its effectiveness against the Spanish fighters once they knew it was more than just a slow transport.
Let's face it, history has judged the C-47 to be the greatest transport of it's time. It only had 1200 hp. engines and with any guns, self sealing fuel tanks, and armor plating, it just would have been lousy as a bomber. Yes apparently it was tried as a maritime patrol but so too was the Stinson 105 and the Rearwin Sportster.
As far as the AC-47, just ask Colonel Hal Weekly about that program. He was the C.O. of the unit that pioneered the idea woth the AC-119's. He said they found the AC-119 proved to be not very manueverable, and too big a target. Although he is known for the B-17, he has about 4,000 hrs in the C and AC-119, all variants. He said the AC-47 followed the AC-119 because it could carry a sufficient weapons package, was a smaller target, and much more maneuverable in tight places . Of course for those who want it all the AC-130 was later developed!

[JDK]

Thanks guys, it's proven to be an interesting discussion, certainly a couple of things I din't know.

James, there's several resources. A quick google search found an article done by Ted Short for douglasdc3.com, mention on Randy Wilson's "Ghost Squadron" website, and a few others referencing the R4D-6S and the work they did.

Great refs, particularly please to see 'our' Randy's stuff here. I saw 'Ready 4 Duty' in the UK when she was over in 1994(?) but I didn't pick up on the history before; nice to be eddicated.

However I was interested in the tech details too; particularly the bomb equipment, and I wonder how it was sighted; I know that RAF Coastal Command Libs and Sunderlands often used the Skipper's judgement rather than a bomb aimer when attacking a U-Boat.

If you read Col. Toliver's book "Fighter General" about Adolph Galland, he recounts the use of the JU-52 as a bomber on a couple of seaports. Basically the Germans were strapping bombs onto anything that would fly in a surprise max effort. The JU-52 lost its effectiveness against the Spanish fighters once they knew it was more than just a slow transport.

Thanks for that. Most interesting. Do you have a date or details of the raid/s? There's little reliable firsthand or contemporary accounts and most information is highly unreliable for various good reasons, I found. I'll dig through the refs I had if there's interest.

It sounds like a lash up of transport Ju 52/3mg4e types, perhaps later in the war. The earlyJu 52/3mge and Ju 52/3mg3e were dedicated to the bombing role, and as effective as other contemporary bombers. They were, of course, outclassed by the later Do17 and He 111 as well as the SB-2 on the other side, but these were a later generation of course. The JU52/3m was critical in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War, and effective, Guernica was only one of their 'battle honours' doing the bulk of the work there, while other types were assisting/leading - today we'd regard it as an average performer, bombing was going through a revolution in concept at the time. Later in the war, and particularly if lashed up transports acting as bombers, they'd be very vulnerable; not least due to less field of fire cover lacking the 'pot' underneath!

Further thoughts welcome!

[RyanShort1]

According to one of my sources related to the other DC-3 thread ( http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=25599 )

There was a bomber version of the Li-2. The Russian modified the Li-2 as a bomber and it was called a Li-2VV. It had both external and internal bomb racks. For more information I would suggest that you pick up Lisonov Li-2 the Russian DC-3 published by Midland books.

Ryan

[JDK]

According to one of my sources related to the other DC-3 thread...
Ryan

And I've just remembered that Carl Gustaf von Rosen operated a DC-2 as a bomber in Finland against the Russians. IIRC this one survives!

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/swedish_ ... _rosen.htm

[Aeronut]

Remember that the RAF fitted SIX bomb racks under their Dakotas to carry the parachutists containers, instead of the US Parapacks.
The UKs supply containers were originally designed to fit in the bomb cells and use the bomb releses of bombers such as the Whitley, Stirling and Halifax all of which were based around the 500 lb bomb (the containers matched the overall size of the bombs). Therefore, theoretically, the RAF could have carried / dropped 3000 lb of bombs from a Dakota - and still carried a load in the cabin.

[marine air]

Um , I think you guys are missing the point. Why did MIT graduate Jimmy Doolittle choose the B-25? HOrsepower and speed have a lot to do with survivability. YOU can strap anything to anything but you are going to have more losses. The DC-3 would have been an easy target to small arms fire on the ground much less anything more sophisticated, IMHO.

[JDK]

Um , I think you guys are missing the point. Why did MIT graduate Jimmy Doolittle choose the B-25? HOrsepower and speed have a lot to do with survivability.

I don't think anyone's 'missing the point'; that's generally agreed. But I didn't know about the R4Ds, where speed and horsepower are irrelevant for an anti-U-Boat aircraft, for instance.

And, as ever, while Nathan seems to have fire off the original question and wandered off having lost interest, some of the points made have been very eddicational.

Cheers,

[Nathan]

And, as ever, while Nathan seems to have fire off the original question and wandered off having lost interest, some of the points made have been very eddicational.

I'm still here.

[JDK]

Good man. There will now be a short exam.

[Nathan]

Good man. There will now be a short exam.

I still don't consider the C-47 and B-18 the same though. Yes I actually collect B-18 photos. So I do know what a B-18 looks like.

BTw...can I copy off your test paper James?

[JDK]

I still don't consider the C-47 and B-18 the same though.

No one's saying they are 'the same'.

Making a bomber out of a C-47 or DC-3 can go various routes, depending on how good a bomber you want and how many changes you want to make, or money you want to spend. What's interesting is that most routes have been tried - more than I'd realised, even oddities like Aeronut's Dak supply pannier racks and the R4D. The B-18 remains one of the 'from DC family to bomber' solutions.

You prepared to take a blind quiz on all the combinations, with or without pics? I'm not.

Cheers,

[Nathan]

Hi James,

I know I asked a stupid question. I just wanted to make a good discussion out of it. Looks like it worked. I don't think the C-47 would have made an ideal bomber. Remember during wartime anything and everything can be utilized to conduct war. Looks like the AC-47 worked out good though.

[JDK]

I know I asked a stupid question.

Hey, not a stupid question - as I've said, I learned a lot out of it. The biggest problem is a) not asking what might seem a dumb question - we should, and b) assuming one knows all the answers.

[Nathan]

I used to know a lot of history stuff. But my old site became inactive and well you just end up forgetting things after time.

I bet I could teach you some stuff on Pearl Harbor you never knew. Oh man those where the good times. I miss em!