Speed vs guns as pertaining to transports

[Karnak]

For this argument, set the base speed of the transport at 165mph.  You are then given a choice, knowing you will be flying into areas where you are likely to encounter hostile things such as La-7s, Spitfire Mk XVIs, Bf109K-4s, P-47Ms and Ki-84s, of taking a dorsal mounted 13mm machine gun and a beam mounted 7.92mm machine gun on each side or you can have an extra 70mph.

So, do you take the 165mph transport with the three guns or the unarmed 235mph transport?

Why do you take the one you chose?

[Debrody]

Unarmed. Or that  1*50cal and those two peashooters will save me?   

[moot]

Without knowing more it looks like a toss-up.  Whether you're more likely to be detected early or later.. Or detected while below or above hostiles.. Whether there will or won't be friendlies there to disrupt.. How sturdy the transport is, assuming both are equally durable... What does the defensive gun coverage look like IE how are the blind spots? etc..

The given hostiles are all so much faster than 235 mph that I'd bet on the armed configuration.  Assuming the given information really was all there was to it.

[Melvin]

Which one turns quicker?

[Karnak]

Which one turns quicker?

For the purposes of this discussion, all performance characteristics are the same between the two other than the guns and the top speed (and a bit of acceleration past ~140-150mph obviously).

[sunfan1121]

Even at 235 your still a sitting duck. I'd rather be a duck with a gun then a fast duck.

[Kazaa]

I'd take the extra speed, but both options sounds like a suicide mission to me.

[gyrene81]

karnak's question is about the ju-52 vs c-47...wondering why anyone would want the ju-52 since it is very slow...and it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the c-47.

thing is where karnak is thinking it would be a hangar queen, it would get more use than one might expect simply due to the guns...both aircraft are slow compared to the aircraft mentioned in the op, having even a remote opportunity to deal out some damage in an attack is better than no chance at all.

[Noir]

wot we're getting the RATO goon? 

[Soulyss]

With my aim, having a couple guns wouldn't do me any good anyway.

[Krupinski]

I'd have to take the guns, would rather go down knowing I fought back and possibly caused damage than doing nothing at all.

[Karnak]

karnak's question is about the ju-52 vs c-47...wondering why anyone would want the ju-52 since it is very slow...and it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the c-47.

thing is where karnak is thinking it would be a hangar queen, it would get more use than one might expect simply due to the guns...both aircraft are slow compared to the aircraft mentioned in the op, having even a remote opportunity to deal out some damage in an attack is better than no chance at all.

You are right that it is about the Ju52 and C-47, but you are wrong about the reason for the question.  I am curious as to which one different people prefer and the reasons for it.  Both answers have strong points.

[StokesAk]

Speed, if I can avoid the other fighters it will be much easier to sneak through going faster to get out of a hot zone.

[Crash Orange]

Speed. Not to outrun anything, but higher speed means less time exposed on the approach.

Those guns would be absolutely useless - in this game that just isn't enough firepower to deter anyone.

[grizz441]

The chances of killing a late war monster with the aforementioned guns at the speed at which you listed is slim to none.  Engaging in itself is not ideal, getting tfo of dodge is the goal.  The faster ride will give you the best chance of getting out of hostile territory.  Since both planes have the same maneuverability, both will be able to make bogey's miss their B&z slashes equally.  My strategy would be to head for the promised land, and make bogeys miss me when they take passes, then keep on going.  Engaging is death.  Choosing bb guns over an extra 70mph wouldn't be a good choice.