Re: 30,000 pound bomb supposedly largest..? Hmmmm.




"Rob" <teuton263@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:05fd18a5-705a-4bac-841a-1f0a913aecaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 8, 8:53?am, Rob <teuton...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 8, 3:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"





<ke...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Rob" <teuton...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b7f3030f-5a55-4441-90a5-6a5780948579@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well, being that the Me-323 was made largely of tubular steel, wood,
and fabric covering being 33 ft tall and 92 ft in length, of course it
might be easy to miss some bullet holes- the amount of damage is not
given...
BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the Me-323, the He-111Z, nor
Bv-222 and 238.

Quite true, what they had instead were 3,000 C-46's , 10,000
C-47's, 12,000 Waco CG-4A's and 340 Hamilcar
gliders. The Hamilcar could and did airlift light tanks, artillery
and anti-tank guns just like the Gigant. Typical loads were a
Tetrarch light tank and two universal carriers at around 8,000 kg
not much different to the typical load of an Me-323

http://ww2db.com/photo.php?source=all&color=all&list=search&foreignty...

There was a proposal for a powered version but it was
never developed. The Allies didnt need specially developed
glider tugs, they used existing 4 engined heavy bombers like
the Halifax

They were incredible monster aircraft and the 323 performed well on
the EF, but of course you clowns will just focus on the Med incidents
with the Spits- typical Allied viewpoint which ignores all the tonnage
and troops carried during its career and the fact it could carry
tanks, AFVs, and heavy PAKs.

Trouble is that tonnage is dwarfed by allied airlift cpacity
and the Hamicar also carried tanks, AFV's and the
17 Pounder AT gun.

Also, I would rather trust aviation specialists Tony Wood and Bill
Gunston vs you, Geoffry, and Dan who are aviation NOBODIES with
opinions no one cares about. Anyone who knows Wood's and Gunston's
credentials knows they do not make shit up and if anyone would try
with a 17.7 ton bomb- why not with a German bomber ???

1) Me-323 wasnt a bomber
2) It couldnt get airborne with that load
3) It had no bomb bays
4) It couldnt carry the bomb underslung
5) The clamshell doors were flimsy and manually operated

So apart from the fact the aircraft could not fly with that
weight or drop it there is no reason to doubt at all.

Keith

The- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The US did not enter the war until 1941 and was never continuously
continentally bombed and dwarfed the German industry- that is WHY they
could produce tens of thousands of transports easily. A no-brainer
Keith.

Britain entered the war in 1939 and was continuously bombed by
everything from fighters to V2's. It still produced more military aircraft
than Germany.


Please spare me ojn the Hamilcar- it has no real comparison to the
Me-323 or the other monster German a/c like the Bv-222/238.

Apart from having similar load carrying characteristics and being
available in larger numbers that is

Your light tanks and light guns are not the same as the heavy German
AFVs and heavy PAKs and also 120 troops carried.

Trouble is the Me-323 couldnt carry heavy German AFV's and the
17 pounder was every bit as effective as the German 88, especially when
firing APDS.

You talk of tonnage for the total of Allied transport and yet do not give
any for the Me-323 which is what I am talking about, so that's apples &
oranges.

Well its easy to work heaven knows - lets do it

200 Gigants carrying 8 tons a time - 1600 tons

10,000 C-47's carrying 3 tons - 30,000 tons

If you wanna talk total cargo liftage the Allies easily win like
in everything else by numerical superiority- you know, what
won the war for them.

Something that didnt happen by accident Rob.

But Germany is just the size of one medium US stateand its industry
and some other facilities in the occupied nations produced a hell of a
lot of equipment underr the circumstances- and the types were
generally more advanced than the Allies.

Then perhaps Germany shouldnt have declared war on the USA huh


Germans produced asssault weapons, hundreds of differetn types of AFVs,

And there you have the problem Rob. The USA concentrated on producing
Sherman's and more Shermans and even more Shermans. Quantity
has a quality all of its own.

the German Panthers and
Tiger heavy tanks, German Type XX1 and XXIII subs, heavy artillery and
massive railway artillery, thousands of missiles, jet fighters, and
cutting edge technologies of the 1940s under total bombardment. No
comparison Keith.

In fact of course the USA produced more M-26 Pershings than German
produced Tiger II's. The super heavy artillery and railway guns were a
ludicrous waste of resources as were the V-2 missiles having little or
no tactical value when it came to defending the Reich.

When you are being assaulted by 100 divisions of the Red Army screaming
towards you at 30 km/hour a railway gun that can fire one 30" shell every
hour or so is just a waste of bloody riflemen.

At any time in 1944 Germany had very few heavy tanks available for action.
Wehrmacht records show that typically 62 percent of Panzer IVs,
59 percent of Tiger IIs and 48 percent of Panthers were available on
average.
The rest had broken down !

BTW on 26 March 1945 a Pershing engaged four Tigers and two Pz. Kpfw. IVs
knocking out two of the Tigers and one of the Mk IV's. The survivors
retreated

And what I asked at the end of the last post was if a story would be
fabricated, why not try to fabricate with a German bomber. I did not
say they claimed the Me-323 was a bomber but it makes sense to use
what you have to carry that load.

And what target that the Aircraft could reach would justify such a load ?

Germany was on the retreat on all fronts, the desperate need was to
find a way to stop the armies converging on the Reich. What they needed
was a cheap effective mass produced tank destroyer like the earlier Marder

What they go was a handful of Uber tanks that spent most of the war
waiting for repairs or the fuel bowser. How to lose a War 101.

And it could have since that
particular a/c was modified and probably heavily. You have no clue how
they dropped that bomb and also the clamshell doors did not have to be
open for the bomb to be released.

Oh really , were they planning to beam it down Star Trek style ?

We just need a pic to solve this and to SEE the modifications to KNOW
how it was released- yet it was

But there are no pics or records. Occam's razor suggests this is because
it never happened.

released nonetheless. BTW, how would a bomb bay level drop affect the
tail unit? Seriously?

There was no bomb bay - Seriously !

Look at the bloody pictures of the plane.the load floor was an integral part
of the structure and the landing wheels were attached to it.

It most certainly would have in a nose down
position under the strain of pulling back up... but that's just my
opinion- like YOURS in your last reply ;)

Opinions are like a**sholes, everybody has one.

Keith


.