SM-82 CANGARO AXIS TRANSPORT/BOMBER its time....again

[alpini13]

USED BY THE ITALIANS AND GERMANS AND OTHER AXIS NATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WAR.many different camo scemes used wartime,used for axis supply and paratroop jumps and early on was used as a bomber.   a good addition to the axis plane set as it fills many roles including.....italian bomber,italian and german troop and supply transport,africa scenario axis bomber,malta scenario axis bomber,main arena axis supply and troops(unarmed).huge perk point  builder in the bomber catagory.

simply have it armed when bombs are the payload,and unarmed when troops or supply is the payload



General characteristics
Crew: 4
Capacity: 40 troops
Length: 22.9 m (75 ft 1½ in)
Wingspan: 29.68 m (97 ft 4½ in)
Height: 6.0 m (19 ft 8.25 in)
Wing area: 118.6 m² (1,276.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 10,550 kg (bomber 11,200 kg) (23,259 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,020 kg (bomber 18,410 kg) (39,727 lb)
Powerplant: 3 × Alfa Romeo 128 RC.21 9-cylinder radial engines, 708 kW (950 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 347 km/h (187 kn, 212 mph)
Cruise speed: 250 km/h (135 kn, 125 mph) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (59 kn, 68 mph)
Range: 2,100 km (1,134 nmi, 1,864 mi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Armament
1 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) Scotti machine gun in dorsal turret
3 × 7.7 mm (.303 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in ventral and lateral positions
4,000 kg (8,818 lb) bombload

[alpini13]

somebody add some color pics of camo skins,please

[Karnak]

Again, I think it a bad idea.  The bomber needed for the Italian planeset is the SM.79-II.  The Axis transport, in addition to the L2D that we have, should be the Ju52.

[gyrene81]

gotta agree with Karnak on this one (as much as it pains me  )

here are some pics of the sm.82 canguro...

[alpini13]

yes,good point, but with one plane,you could fulfill both of the roles you talked about....remember, the sm-79 was a great torpedo bomber and attack aircraft......in the med/africa area.....from 1940-43. it is not a troop transport. and so its usefulness would be limited to the early arenas and a couple scenario's.......the sm-82 would be far more flexible and useful in game.    the ju-52 would be a goos traditional transport for the axis.but only a transport...and a slower than the c47 currently in game transport at that, the sm-82 would be about as fast as the c-47,and so BOTH would be used in main arena,and the ju-52 would not be a bomber in game.......and so, with a long list of aircraft that people want to have in game.....and a limited number being added per year. the sm-82 would be the most BANG for the buck,and add to the italian plane set. the sm-82 was used by the italians before 1943,and both italian airforces after 1943(1943-45)and the germans,and other axis nations.it was used in every axis european theater.the sm-79 was not.

[Karnak]

Trying to combine them, which it won't as we'd still need the Ju52, isn't worth losing the SM.79-II over.  The odds of getting two Italian bombers is practically nil The Italians are a sideshow compared to the Russians for which we still haven't gotten a bomber.  That being the case I think that we ought to put all efforts behind the SM.79-II, a far more capable bomber than the SM.82.

The SM.82 works as well for the Germans as does the L2D.  A substitute is a substitute and that means we'd still need the Ju52.

[alpini13]

why would we need a ju-52 now...the sm-82 would fullfill the role,was used in real life and would also fullfill other roles as well.............as for the russian planes set. yes they need a bomber of sorts....but they already have 8 great planes and just recently had two added to the game, the italians have two aircraft..total. and there are countries not even represented in the game. we need some of those aircraft as well. think about this..the allies have late war bombers..the axis dosent,and the axis dosent have a troop transport.   the japanese have only early war dive and torpedo aircraft,the allies have later war dive and torpedo aircraft.the british dont have any of their own tanks..just the converted sherman firefly...shouldnt they have a matlida,crusader,churchill,cromwell,or challenger tank to represent them?  there are many things needed,but show me another candidate that will fullfill as many roles as the sm-82

[Arlo]

The Ju-52 and SM-79 are both more iconic. The Junkers would be used in every European event that features German paratroopers. The SM-79 would be used in every Med event that features Italian bombers and torpedo bombers.

[gyrene81]

considering the production dates and bomb capacity, it would make a suitable substitute (albeit slower) for the sm.79 and a faster substitute for the ju-52...we use plenty of substituted aircraft now, this one wouldn't be a far stretch for any event the other 2 could be used in.

[Arlo]

I don't think bomb capacity* (in a very limited role) trumps theaters of operation.

SM-82 (1939-1944): The Med, Africa

JU-52 (1935-45): The Med, Africa, Western Europe, Eastern Europe

*Ju-52 3,300 lb bomb-load versus SM-82 8,818 lb (utilized less than half as often).

A lot more Ju-52s  were built (4,845) and shot down than SM-82s (about 720).  

[gyrene81]

oh come on Arlo, admit it, you just want those long slender...torpedoes.     


since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?

[Arlo]

since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?

[Karnak]

oh come on Arlo, admit it, you just want those long slender...torpedoes.     


since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?

(Image removed from quote.)

Which means we need it even less.  The Ju52 is clearly the next transport, if any, that should be added.  The SM.79-II is clearly the Italian bomber that should be added.

That leaves the SM.82 standing when both chairs have been sat in.

[alpini13]

its funny  one guy mentioned numbers of aircraft built...the ta-152 only had about 70 produced,the p-47m had about 130 produced,and the f4u-4 and f4u-c were also made in very limited number...BUT WE HAVE THEM.so numbers as an argument,dosent work.  and remember the sm-82 was used in russia,greece,yugoslavia,romania as well, not just the med/africa.  and so with numbers as an argument,we can throw that out the window. look at usefulness.  yes the j-52 is a more iconic plane....but the sm-82 is better at this role. and the  sm-79 is a more iconic plane. but the sm-82 would fulfill this role as an added benifit..not just that role, as the other two are limited in, neither the ju-52 or sm-79 can do both.....the sm-82 CAN DO BOTH.    so lets review. any scenario or role the sm-79 and ju-52 can do in any area,can be done by the addition of one plane instead of two...the sm-82. and in some cases the sm-82 can do it better,it was a real aircraft,used by the axis in numbers and had a good war record. and with the addition of this one aircraft. it can save us time and effort by adding one plane instead of two.

[jag88]

Just to give the queen some use:

He 111 H-20/R1, or the H-23. 10-6 Fallschirmjägers.



After all, thanks to this aircraft odds of seeing a German multiengine aircraft in the near future are slim, might as well give it some purpose.