Better Allied Transport Planes WW II

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Just an idea that has been bouncing around in my head for a while, what if instead of the DC3 being the principal transport aircraft, both the British and Americans had developed something better?

To this end I have come up with what I believe is a possible time line.

July 1936 Gibraltar.

Squadron leader X, returning to Britain after two years in Mesopotamia, aboard a P&O steamer is met at the gang plank by a messenger asking him to report to the garrison commanders office. Once there he is given a coded telegram from London ordering him to stay until relived in Gibraltar and monitor the opening rounds off the Spanish civil war. While not a trained intelligence officer, he was the only man available at the time, there being no RAF base in Gibraltar at this time.

While out in a navel motor launch along with his colleges from the navy and army, they we to observe the air lift by the condor legion of troops from morocco to the main land. Over the coming weeks he would engage in heated discussions with the army officer regarding the inability of the RAF to carry out anything on a similar scale.

X who had served in bomber/ transport squadrons in both India and Mesopotamia was well aware off the RAF’s failing in the regard. He had taken part in the airlift from Kabul and knew off the desperate measures that had needed to be taken to achieve this. He knew that the British lacked a decent transport air craft, the older Vickers Victoria and Valentia, were out of date, and the new Bristol Bombay wasn’t in truth a lot better.

One night as these three men once more came round to discussing this problem in a quiet corner of the mess, they were interrupted by a Major in the RASC. He told them that he was sick of hearing them talk about something they didn’t have a clue about and it would be nice if just once someone would talk to a transport officer about what was needed. X was not amused at this he was a pilot and had extensive experience in this field, what could some Pongo tell him. Exasperated by this he asked sarcastically what it was the RASC would want, to receive the reply drawn on a spare peace of paper.

What was drawn was an army AEC 10ton 6 wheel lorry with wings engines and a tail plane added on top. That said the Major is what is needed, a flying lorry, one that can take a decent load and has doors/tailgate to big enough to load cargo through. Stunned by what he saw, and the realization that maybe just maybe this chap may have a point, X invited him to join them. These two would over the next few nights thrash out together the needs of such an aircraft.

As luck would have it the Major an X, would be on the same ship going home, X’s relief had arrived on the rock and the Majors time was up and he was posted back to England. On the boat going home the two were sitting in the ships library with pencil and paper trying to work out just what was needed and playing with a few ideas, when they were approached by a civilian. Have in introduce himself and handed over his card, he was an engineer with Short brothers, he told them he had heard their discussion and could he be off help, he was returning to Britain after an inspection tour of facilities for the new Short S23 C flying boats. In fact wouldn’t this aircraft be the best bet for a new transport plane, it could carry a much heavier load than anything else that was around, faster and further than anything else too; he was trying to drum up sales.

Invited to sit and join them once more the discussion was started, the first thing emphasized was magnificent as his plane was a flying boat was not the answer, what was wanted was a land plane. With this the original drawing made by the major was dragged out and shown to him. Then as a joke X drew a picture of a flying boat with the six wheels of the army lorry stuck on the bottom of it.

The discussion now got more serious as the engineer asked why the features asked for were needed. The wheels were so it could operate off improvised airfields, the large side doors so soldiers could board with full kit and the large tail door so military loads could be carried. Asked what sort of military loads they were thinking about, the Major replied, small motor vehicles and field guns. How big a rear door and hoe big a space inside the aircraft were they talking about? Not less than 9ft by 9ft and a least 30 ft long, and don’t forget the floor had to be strong enough to take the loads in mind.

That night alone in his cabin the engineer got to work, sheets of drawing paper were soon covered in sketches, until finally he came up with what he thought off as an acceptable design. Based on the S23 C the boat hull was gone and a flat hull replaced it, there was one large door forward of the wing on the port side for boarding and covered by clamshell doors in the tail a large door there. Fitted with a fixed tricycle undercarriage, (much like that on the Blackburn Beverly in OTL) the new aircraft was a land plane.

After much heated debate in London, an order for fifty of these aircraft is placed with Short Brothers, and so is born the short Samson, the first of which is delivered in 1939.

Short Samson Mk I, built by Short Brothers, as specified 50, in service 1939.

Mk II built Handley Page, new double slotted flaps to improve take offs and landings, Bristol Hercules engines giving better performance, two new side doors, opening inward for paratrooper dispatch, clamshell doors that had had to be removed to allow cargo drops, replaced by split tail ramp, in-service January 1941, 200.

Mk III again built by HP, fuselage length increased by 10ft, 5ft plug both before and aft the wing, more powerful Hercules engines fitted with a four bladed prop; tail ramp now hydraulic not cable operated, again 200 built, in service September 1942.

Mk IV built by Short Brothers, wing area increased by 10% fixed undercarriage replaced by retractable in sponsones, an idea coped from the Americans, fitted with the new Bristol Centaurs engine, whose development had been pushed for this aircraft, hold now 45ft long. This model is the first to be fitted with a radar altimeter making parachute drops far safer. Its more powerful engines and cleaner shape give it increased range and speed, over 1000 would eventually be built, entering service in mid 1943.

Boeing have been given access in 1940 to British designs, and allowed to examine one of the MK I’s in America; proceeded to carry out a similar conversion of their Boeing 314 flying boat. The major difference was the use off a retractable undercarriage from the start making use off its sponsones to achieve this.

Now given these aircraft, what would be the effect on the conduct of WW II and its outcome?
 
Interesting scenario but I am running a little short of time to post many comments so I will get back to you.

I can however see potential issues with reguards to payload, I simply doubt the early models of this sircraft will have the grunt to carry trucks, field guns etc. Then again the Germans did manage to develop an aircraft of this type so who knows?
 
I dunno. Could there really be a better transport aircraft than the DC3 in terms of cost/benefit relations, versatility, mass production and ease of handling and maintenance? She has a rep as just about the kindest and most long-suffering beast to fly.

There must be a reason why the Allies didn't bother to put engines on ther big British gliders. They could carry trucks, just about, IIRC. The German monster-plane was really just a glider with engines tacked on, and a hugely expensive desperate gamble. Guess you don't need that if you control the seas.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Cockroach, both the Shorts S23 C, and the Boeing 314 could lift a big weight load; they just didn’t have the doors for large size items. Both had long range, the Boeing was designed for Trans-Atlantic work, the Shorts for the Empire red routes, and with in-flight re-fueling was used across the Atlantic.

Carlton, yes the DC 3 was a wonderful aircraft, but at the end of the day it wasn’t that good a military transport, its doors were too small it couldn’t droop large objects; that’s why the British developed their large transport gliders, and at just on 3tons its load carrying wasn’t really enough for military use, 10tons would have been nearer the mark.

The British did produce motorized versions of their large gliders just that to the best of my knowledge never used them. The Bristol 170 was the ultimate result of this idea and first flew in December 1945; Blackburn’s Beverly was also a war time idea although it didn’t fly until 1949. the need was there, and all I am suggesting is that given a bit of luck, the ability to build these aircraft, and the will, how much change would it make to the war?
 
Interesting topic.

What is this German monster plane btw?

The problem with any British innovations in this regard will be the usual ones around money.
Not sure what could be done with the planes in the early stages of the war.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Hi Wozza, how are you, keeping well I hope. The large German aircraft is the Me 321/ 323, which was the largest transport aircraft built during WW II if you exclude Howard Hughes H4 Hercules, the “Spruce Goose” or the BV 238, both of which were flying boats.

As for the cash problem there was the cash about, the treasury in fact offered more than the services could use just prior to the war. The major problem was lack of facilities to make all that was needed, that is why I have HP making the Mk II & III, allowing Shorts time to acquire facilities for production of the Mk IV without disrupting ether Sunderland or Sterling production.

For those who believe such a conversion is not practical might I point out the following. Avro Manchester to Lancaster, add two extra engines and bigger wing, Lancaster to York new fuselage. Boeing B29 to Boeing Stratocruiser to Pregnant Guppy, I have also seen plans to convert the C 130 into a flying boat.

So given that these aircraft can be built in both UK and US, how will there introduction change events in WW II?
 
Carlton, yes the DC 3 was a wonderful aircraft, but at the end of the day it wasn’t that good a military transport, its doors were too small it couldn’t droop large objects; that’s why the British developed their large transport gliders, and at just on 3tons its load carrying wasn’t really enough for military use, 10tons would have been nearer the mark.

The Sherman wasn't a great tank and what it lacked in capabilities it made up for in numbers, which is the same for the DC-3 (aka Dakota).
 

Redbeard

Banned
IMHO major airborne operations proved to be a dead end in WWII and transport planes being better outside ASB territory would not change that. You might even worry that a greater temptation to conduct airborne operations will lead to greater losses.

In terms of general logistics I doubt if the few extra tons that could be carried in improved transportplanes would really make a difference. Perhaps in situations were a cut off force needed to be kept alive, but that was more what the Germans were subject to.

Anyway I doubt if possible improvements will have effect before the US production monster starts seriously working. 100 transport planes each carryong a few tons extra is really insignificant in most scenarios, but with 2000 we might start to look for something funny. I still fear it will lead to just larger allied losses though.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
IMHO major airborne operations proved to be a dead end in WWII and transport planes being better outside ASB territory would not change that. You might even worry that a greater temptation to conduct airborne operations will lead to greater losses.

I'd think in particular about Market-Garden and to a lesser extent the Sicily drops, but that latter one was more caused by an inaccurate drop and friendly fire than anything else.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
David I am not trying to rubbish the DC 3, it was a very good transport aircraft, just not a very good military transport aircraft. And while like the Sherman it was built in numbers, this is not the best off comparisons. If we take the figures I proposed as read then 3 Sampson’s, able to carry 10ton can lift the same load as 10 DC 3’s. The DC 3 if I remember right could carry 3tons.

Now if we kook at this we end up with the following.

Sampson 3. DC 3, 10.

Pilots 6 20
Navigators 3 10
Flt/engineers 3 10
Wireless operators, 3 10
Loadmasters 6 10

Totals 24 60

Engines 12 20

By these figures building the Sampson was a better option; it would use less resources, and by being purpose built was going to be better at the job.

Redbeard, its not just a few extra tons, as you can see, build half as many four engines transports as two engine, note using just the same number of engines. And you end up with over a 200% improvement in load caring capacity. Think of the effect that would have had on the 1945 Burma campaign. At one point the British were forced to cut rations by half, and this had an effect on the conduct of the campaign, as the troops were not as fit as they could have been.

Rather than just look at airborne opps, I am more interested in the whole picture, and what effect these aircraft would have. And it is to this end that I am seeking members opinions.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Have you checked what kind of airstrip etc. is need. A plane as big as the Sampson is likley to require a muliplication of the infrastructure investment.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
IMHO major airborne operations proved to be a dead end in WWII and transport planes being better outside ASB territory would not change that. You might even worry that a greater temptation to conduct airborne operations will lead to greater losses.
There is also the problem of planning large drops. That can not be easily done if the situation is constantly changing as it was. In fact after Normandy no less than eighteen operations were cancelled after ground forces overran the drop zones.

With a situation like that it does not matter how good or bad your transport aircraft are.

There is also the fact that airborne troops in that era were essentially defensive, ie they were dropped on/near an objective which they tried to hold until the ground forces turn up and relieved them. For that anti-tank guns are more use than tanks and the Hamilcar gliders of the British could carry 17pdrs. The gun was no heavier than a light tank and good enough to knock out any German tank.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Redbeard, in the words of the song, “it ant necessarily so.” I did my glider pilot training on a grass air strip, RAF Swanton Morley, a very long time ago. And prior to the station being deactivated to a training base they had regularly had Bristol Beverly’s landing there. Provided the right undercarriage is selected, landing and takeoffs from ether grass or improvised runways is not a problem.

RR.
 
Redbeard, in the words of the song, “it ant necessarily so.” I did my glider pilot training on a grass air strip, RAF Swanton Morley, a very long time ago. And prior to the station being deactivated to a training base they had regularly had Bristol Beverly’s landing there. Provided the right undercarriage is selected, landing and takeoffs from ether grass or improvised runways is not a problem.

RR.


Fine and true, but alot of the debate is completely in 20/20 hindsight. One has got to figure out why the Government and the Air Force/Air Corps will invest in transport planes radically different than civilian models in the economic environment of the 1930s.
 
Just a couple thoughts... With Better Planes (Possibly more? actually the concepts depend on that...) But two events could be very much changed in 1944 with this...

Operation Overlord: Another Division Dropped, the 1st British Airborne which jumps on Caen, 9 miles from the Coast it would allow for an Escape Route From Normandy and their is no month of slow hedgerow fighting

Operation Market Garden: Drop Two More Divisions, yes it would take more time but... Add the British 6th Airborne and the US 17th into Arhnem? I think the Bridge could be taken. Or prehaps they can be dropped on the sides of the road and thus keep the offencive open from Flanking Attacks...
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
David, you are right to question why the reason why ether the British or Americans would invest in such aircraft. I had hoped that my short TL explained why, but maybe I didn’t make myself clear. The British do it as a result of seeing the German air lift in Spain, and realizing that despite their own experiences they couldn’t match this capability.

Given that the Bristol Bombay was already on order, a bomber/transport, it is not too great a leap to have the Sampson conversion ordered in 37/38. Note I did keep the first order to just 50 aircraft, and in line with historic actualities, mass production doesn’t get of the ground until 43. The Americans seeing what is happening and envious of ability of the British aircraft, produce their first conversions in 41, and again start to receive large numbers in 43.

One thing to consider is whether the allies will develop gliders in this TL, and if they do to what extent. Without the need to bring in heavy equipment by glider, you can now parachute it in, and given that you can move large numbers of troops into temporary airstrips with ease, is there any need for gliders?
 
Assuming the production of the Sampson as a given--

A Sampson can carry a complete 80 man company with all its gear. And unload it it under a minute.

Early development, of that very low level out the back, were a Chute pulls the load out of the plane while flying ten feet up. this will have a Impact both in the Burma Campaign, and then again in the French/Vietnam War.
 
The idea of a large transport aircraft is a all well and fine in todays world, however looking at the period of the 1940s, its not all that practical. First off... In a combat situation when doing airdrops, the aircraft are slow, flying in a straight line and very vulerable. Having your men spread out over more aircraft reduces the risk of losing many of the them to the aircraft being shot down. During Normandy, which is when the larger transports most likely would have been the most useful, there were no airfields for them to land at in order to unload tanks or trucks. They could have dropped on to fields like the gliders, but most likely would never have gotten back off the ground. Conventional thinking at the time was to bring the heavy equipment in by sea. The Allies knew this and planned accordingly. By the time the allied troops could have secured airfields large enough for these large transports to land at, we'd already been bringing in tanks and trucks in to our makeshift ports. After Normandy, I really can't see where a large transport would have had any real effect. However.... In the Pacific threatre, A large transport could have been very useful. I don't think that it would have shortened the war or the course of events, however it could have made life in the island hopping campains easier. That is as simple a large cargo transport and not as a front line combat aircraft. Flying in large cargo loads from the rear areas to the island bases could have been a blessing, especially if the larger transports also came with an increased range. Prior to the start of the war, about the only plane capable of flying nonstop to Hawaii from the US mainland was an unarmed B17. Having the capability of rushing in heavier and larger loads, nonstop to the remote corners of the Pacific as well is south east asia and India would have been a Godsend in some cases. But again, I don't see that there would have been enough of a difference to affect the course of the war. One scary thought would be if the US and British had in fact built a large transport. These planes could have eventually been called on to fly missions into the Soviet Union to take in cargo and goods. The Soviets did in fact seize 2 or 3 American B29s that were forced to land inside the Soviet Union and eventually copied them and massproduced them as their own bombers. There is no reason the think that they wouldn't have found a way to do the same with a large, heavy lifting, long ranged Allied transport aircraft. So we are left with the question.... if it had been built, would the Soviets have gotten it and how would they have used that aircraft and the technology behind it during the early days of the Cold War?
 
Last edited:
Top