Author Topic: JU 52 / wasn't this one of the most common Transport for LW ? (Read 745 times)

Saintaw · « **on:** January 15, 2001, 05:50:00 AM »

I remember reading that these were used a lot by German paratroops. I remember reading that it got shot often too

It's realy Ugly, might be a nice alternative for the C47 we have today.

NB: if I remember well, some were built with MG's ...gotta check that.

------------------
MASS/SAW
click HERE for info on III./JG 5 Eismeer

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms."

[This message has been edited by Saintaw (edited 01-15-2001).]

straffo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2001, 06:51:00 AM »

Bonus one GUN

the fear invade the niki pilot now

Jimdandy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2001, 07:21:00 AM »

Yes, I've asked for Tante Ju in previous posts. It would be nice to have a gun. It could even be a cheap perk plane for good little gooney pilots

. Here's some stats.

Ju52/3mg4e (The 8e had the gunner and I don't have spec's for it but I'm sure it's very close.):

Power Plant : 3 830hp 132T
Preformance: Top speed 168mph @sea level, initial rate of climb 689ft/min, service ceiling 18,045ft, range570miles.
In the final version there were 2 guns. One in the dorsal position and one over the cockpit. I would like to see the final version on here. It would be nice to have some self protection when transporting.

Jochen · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2001, 08:48:00 AM »

Ju 52 is too similar to C-47, why trying something new?

Me 323 Gigant, 198 build, about same number as F4U-1C's, think about it...

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey I/SG 5

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

straffo · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »

Sorry jochen 198 is not enough the limit is 200 too bad

(just kidding

)

Replicant · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2001, 11:14:00 AM »

One of the Ju52 versions had a belly dustbin style gunner.... I'd love to see a Ju52 in AH!

Nexx

Jimdandy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2001, 11:30:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jochen:
Ju 52 is too similar to C-47, why trying something new?

Me 323 Gigant, 198 build, about same number as F4U-1C's, think about it...

Again I see no one reads my stuff

LOL. I have posted a few asking for the Me 323. The real problem I see right now with it is we don't really have anything to use it's cargo capsity for. The guns would be nice for delivering troops. Although we could put an M3 or an M16 in it. It will hual 35,000lbs.

brady · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »

Yes I think the JU-52 would be cool but, A easier solution and one that Pyro might go for, it would be easier to model, is the L2D3A-1 aka Tabby,the license built Japanese version of the C47 a little faster than the C47 and armed with 3! MG's,one 13mm Type 2 and two 7.7mm Type 92MG's.487 of them being built.

Brady

------------------

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-15-2001).]

straffo · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2001, 02:08:00 PM »

Jim dig a bit in the forum you will see that the gigant is a "serpent de mer" who has been bring to surface several times

Jigster · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2001, 03:14:00 PM »

And one of the 323's specifications was to be able to haul a Mk IV tank chassis with nothing but a change in loading prodcedure. I've looked into it many times and I'm now fairly certain that often given 30,000-40,000 is a bulk cargo rating.

Btw that picture shows on of the other design requirements, a German 88 gun with tractor. That configuration is @ 30,000 lbs IIRC

Besides I'd rather have this

------------------

33rd FW www.33rd.org

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 01-15-2001).]

Jimdandy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2001, 04:08:00 PM »

C-46 Commando? Neat picture. Is it off of another game?

Jigster · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2001, 07:12:00 PM »

thats a real picture

got it off the Tinker Belle C-46 page.

Culivated fields give a very cartoonish look though, I'll admit.

Jimdandy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2001, 07:18:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jigster:
thats a real picture
got it off the Tinker Belle C-46 page.

Culivated fields give a very cartoonish look though, I'll admit.

LOL It's not that it's cartoonish it's that the dang graphics are getting so good that it's hard to tell the real thing some times. I was going to say if it was from a game the graphic are great.

Maverick · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2001, 11:57:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo:
Sorry jochen 198 is not enough the limit is 200 too bad
(just kidding )

Nope you're wrong there. 40 is the limit. (osti) Ya know.

Mav

M.C.202 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2001, 08:04:00 PM »

Maverick said:

> Nope you're wrong there. 40 is the limit. (osti) Ya know.

So us yanks get the M-26 Pershing :-) ? 2,000+ produced, 200 to Europe in time for combat,
60(?) in the field. It did see combat.

The M-19A1 would also be fun, o.k, so none got to Europe in time :-)
285 made, twin Bofors 40mm in a powered turret using H.E. and/or A.P. Twin Caddy engines and auto tranny, 30+mph.

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno