Speed vs guns as pertaining to transports

[Saxman]

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.

Ask any B5N pilot how much use that peashooter in the tail is against Corsairs, Spixteens, and La-7s...

[Lusche]

Speed. Time is most critical in offensive transport missions. Often you only have a small window of time. Both variants are dead meat in 9 out of 10 cases when there is no friendly fighter cover, so you better hurry before the cap is getting broken, or the town pops back up.

We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.

[Volron]

I would op for the guns.  For a little added bonus, I'd bring a gunner along with me.

While I will not deny that speed is critical, more often than not, there will be ONE con that has some how dodged the CAP or came from another base.  While the peashooters don't do a lot of damage, they still do just that, damage.  And it could be between just you and that one con from base capture.  As mentioned before, MOST people don't even bother trying to dodge fire from guns like those.  This is where that kind of attitude can work in your favor.  Aim for the cockpit and you'd be surprised how often you will kill the pilot with a peashooter.

[SmokinLoon]

when the area has lots of baddies there, I'll opt for the slower but armed Ju-52.  If my chances are slim I'll at least take one of them enemy bastards down with me. 

If tactical surprise is needed, I'll take the faster and unarmed C47.

All in all, I'll take the Ju52 like I take the SdKfz 251 more often than the M3 because I like not doing things the easy way all the time.   

[Shiva]

We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.

And because the game doesn't have enough variation in ground surface to make the considerably larger ground-contact area from the SdKfz 251's tracks a consideration.

[moot]

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.

When's the last time you saw a C47 successfully egress from hotzone?

Speed. Time is most critical in offensive transport missions. Often you only have a small window of time. Both variants are dead meat in 9 out of 10 cases when there is no friendly fighter cover, so you better hurry before the cap is getting broken, or the town pops back up.

We already have a similar situation on the ground. People do not chose the M3 over the SdKfz because of the .50cal, but because the M3 is significantly faster.

I'll take the 251 almost all the time.  It survives ack better and can take down some impromptu buildings with the rockets.  Now that you mention it I'm curious what the time difference is between a 251 and M3 in driving to average town from GV spawn.

[grizz441]

When's the last time you saw a C47 successfully egress from hotzone?

Never, but that was not the original question.  If a C47 had a gun on it and was 50 mph slower it would still never egress from a hotzone because everyone dives in on the C47 as if it was an Me262.

[moot]

So why are you better off with the C47?

[horble]

I'd take the guns.

From Hell's heart I stab at thee!

[EskimoJoe]

So why are you better off with the C47?

Speed. The peashooters would do nothing against 5 (approximated)
late war monsters, and the extra speed means you could possibly
be past the area where those 5 late war monsters would be, before
they even get there.

[moot]

30% difference in speed, so yeah it's significant. That'd mean .. ~8min for the C47 vs ~11 for the Junkers, for an adjacent field capture assuming 25mi distance. But you're still dead slow in the C47 and have to plan in advance what your path to map room or friendly GVs is going to be, so there's not much difference in that respect.  And when you're caught there's no chance of escape unless it's a Val or something chasing you down. 

In a situation like Grizz describes, which is the majority of the time in AH - correct me if I'm wrong, 160 or 230 mph is no different as far as survivability is concerned.  The fast fighters catch you in seconds and the slow ones have little chance of missing their shot once they're caught up. 

I think we'd have to have it in game to really see if one of the two is clearly better.

[Oddball-CAF]

  I choose the faster, ungunned version of the two. I then immediately assign my X.O. to fly it
while I up a Tempest.

[Karnak]

30% difference in speed, so yeah it's significant. That'd mean .. ~8min for the C47 vs ~11 for the Junkers, for an adjacent field capture assuming 25mi distance. But you're still dead slow in the C47 and have to plan in advance what your path to map room or friendly GVs is going to be, so there's not much difference in that respect.  And when you're caught there's no chance of escape unless it's a Val or something chasing you down. 

In a situation like Grizz describes, which is the majority of the time in AH - correct me if I'm wrong, 160 or 230 mph is no different as far as survivability is concerned.  The fast fighters catch you in seconds and the slow ones have little chance of missing their shot once they're caught up. 

I think we'd have to have it in game to really see if one of the two is clearly better.

The way I see it is the C-47 increases your chances of not encountering an enemy fighter by reducing the travel time. Once an enemy fighter does find you the speed will make little practical difference unless it is a Hurricane Mk I or something like that, which is highly unlikely in the Late War MAs.  Once encountered I would say the Ju52 has a marginally higher chance of success as it is possible to down a fighter with the 13mm gun, but it is heavily stacked against you.  Overall I think the C-47's speed makes it better, but I can definitely see the appeal of the guns on the Ju52, even if for no other reason than what horble posted.

[Lusche]

I'll take the 251 almost all the time.  It survives ack better and can take down some impromptu buildings with the rockets.  Now that you mention it I'm curious what the time difference is between a 251 and M3 in driving to average town from GV spawn.

M3 is 50% faster. 48 to 32 mph. "Need troops town A55 quick!" ... 

[mbailey]

  I choose the faster, ungunned version of the two. I then immediately assign my X.O. to fly it
while I up a Tempest.