WW2 mag has an article bout Hanna Reitch. It mentions she flew even the giant 321 glider. Biggest warplane in the world at the time. It also mention that these were used in Africa & Russia. The cargo capacity was 48.500 pounds. So it would appear that the idea of transporting MK 4 tanks to Africa by air was completely within the realms of reality. Glider used no fuel, so cost effectiveness might be reasonable as well. So much for all the negative posts I got a few monthe back on this subject.

Gliders use no fuel but whatever towed it would have...

I have a cargo load capaciy of 44,092lbs for the glider ME321. My main reason against its ability to carry a mkIv would be the width of its cargo area.

Now if only I could remember how many pounds to the ton...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Warplanes of the Luftwaffe book mentions the 321 could carry MK 4 tanks.

Rocket boost was often needed to get it off the ground.

I always thought the rocket boost idea was stopped after the accident on take-off during trials that killed the glider pilots, the 180 soldiers in the glider and the towing aircraft crews?

Only one of the boosters ignited and sent the glider swerving out of control into the tows...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I seem to recall along time ago seeing a picture of three Me-110s being used to tow one Me-321 into the air. That must have been an interesting experience for the aircraft crews.
Do you know what was the standard tow aircraft for getting the beast into the air ?

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

They first used Ju-90s but they were too underpowered so they came up with the twin fuselage HE111z conversion. The 'Troika' system, 3 ME110s was trialed but found to be 'an etremely complex and dangerous operation' that resulted in several accidents. However it was still used in the East with the troika system as little alternative existed.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Thanks Red!! Can you think of a more demeaning thing for a fighter pilot to do than have to tow an ugly glider in the air with two other fighter pilots. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

# 110's eh? scary vision. The 323, Viking,& 321 gave the Luftwaffe, & German army for that matter the ability to do pinpoint supply loads of large amounts that no other country in ww2 enjoyed.

Yes they could deliver huge loads only if they got there in one piece, which did not happen too much when they tried to supply Africa. I am not up as much as I would like to be on eastern air action but towing a huge cargo glider at approx. 140kts. would be an easy target for amost anybody without alot of escort fighters.
The annerversery of the Palm Sunday Massacure is coming up soon where B-25s and P-40s shot down huge numbers of German transports trying to deliver fuel to Africa. I do know on the eastern front they were so desperate for transports they used the He-177 as a transport instead of a bomber. It failed as a transport also from what I read.
If you were in the German airforce during WWII and got assigned to crew a Me-321 I don't think you would be as fond of them as you are now..... YOu would be too busy being dead.

But you are correct in that no one else in the world could deliver those loads.
I wish I could find a web site that had the loss rate for the Me-321, I am sure it would be very grim reading.

I know you like the aircraft Chrome and I don't mean to be so down on the plane but again if you were assigned to crew it you would have a different view.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Here is a web site with some good pictures if you have not seen it before.
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo...m/me-323-i.htm

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

I'm sure you're right. It probably was shot to shit. East front different than Africa. Summer months it might have done ok. I find it interesting reading, but would not have any interest in piloting it. As for Africa, I wonder if flying at night with a dawn landing would have been more successful. I'm sure they thought of that. Someone needs to write a book here on this topic. Giants & missions thereof.

I think the big gliders are a scary concept.Several of the Hamilcars at Arnhem suffered some ghastly accidents on landing - in near perfect conditions. They could only really be utilised if there was really no prospect of the Luftwaffe being anywhere in the vicinity.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Never say die

Just a couple of points. First of all, gliders are very cheap to operate as they use no fuel to fly, BUT first you have to get them on the air, and then you have to take them to close (a few miles only) to where they are supposed to land, and this requires using a tow plane or tow plane combination, as mentioned. So there goes your fuel efectiveness down the drain.

Also, a tank is a tremendously concentrated load, say your 24 tons on a 6m length. This is a terribly concentrated load on a very short span, and a very serious design problem. This is what I suppose killed those Hamilcars on the landing. Sure they could take the load aloft, but when landing you want an evenly spread load that will not overstress the structure, instead of a big lump of steel concentrated on a single point.

Imagine a truck with a load of bricks. They are more or less distributed along the carrybox length. Now if you stack all the brick pallets on top of each other making a column, your load master will think it a bad idea as he won't like ending up with a bent chassis.

So, I'm ready to believe they could carry the equivalent load, but a load that could be spread along the length of the load floor, say a number of troops. As for a big lump of steel, to repeat my expression above, I will still be waiting for a confirmed source that this did happen (where, when, name of book, photos, etc).

__________________
Bah!

Well, things could have been worse. The Germans might have gone with this albatross:

The Mammut

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

From the website suggested by TA : "During loading tests a light tank crashed through the floor and it had to be strengthened,"

See what I mean?

__________________
Bah!

Neener neener. So a tank crashed through the floor. Great. they then reinforced the floor. That only proves that they were working on tranporting tanks in it.

Well the book again is titled Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. It only said that it could be done. Nowhere did I emphatically state that it had been done. I said I "read" about it being done. WW2 magazine stated that the 321 was used in North Africa.You asked for a source, I gave one. Rommels last stand.

If it fascinates you, then you should seek out your own sources.

Za Rodinu,
here is a site with photos of a powered Me 321 (the Me 323) carrying a large arty piece and another of an armored car:

http://www.waffenhq.de/flugzeuge/me323-bilder.html

This page is in German (which i unfortunately don't read) and details the 321:

http://www.waffenhq.de/flugzeuge/me321.html

__________________
"That's FUBIJAR."
(Fu--ed Up, But I'm Just a Reservist... )

Thank you for the URLs. You might use Babelfish for the translation.

The 15cm howitzer and tow photos seem to me rather formal... and by the background they suggest quite a settled air base, with a Me321 (no engines) inside a hangar. What are these, tests? On the other hand, the armoured car pic does look like a living action picture, completely informal.

Also you have to bear in mind that the bigger the load the smaller the fuel capacity, so range decreases. Also, this is a damned expensive way to travel, in terms of resource consumption. A much more effective way to move stuff is by surface (rail or boat) So, to move an armoured car or an artillery piece there are better options.

Besides what I said above, an artillery piece by itself does nothing. You need a lot more to operate a battery, so you'd need quite a number of flights to move a battery, not to mention its battalion, and forgetting about the regiment. To me this photo is PK work.

__________________
Bah!

The second site listed the following as example loads:

1. 130 voll bewaffnete und aufmunitionierte Soldaten mit Handfeuerwaffen,
(130 men with small arms)

2. eine 8,8 cm Kanone mit schwerem Halbkettenfahrzeug „Famo“, Munition und Bedienungspersonal,
(An 88mm Flak gun with its half-track tow vehicle, ammunition and crew)

3. ein Panzerkampfwagen II, III oder IV, Munition und Bedienungspersonal,
(One Pz II, III or IV with ammunition and crew)

4. ein Sturmgeschütz, Munition und Bedienungspersonal.
(One Stg III with ammo and crew)

At least according to the weight loading schedules I've seen the 232 likely could have taken an early model Pz IV as a load. It would no doubt have been a scary ride. But, loading was actually fairly easy to correctly accomplish. The 232 'sat back' with its front wheels off the ground when empty. When proper loading was obtained it rocked forward and sat squarely and equally on all landing wheels.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

All right, but may I wonder how many flights under such extreme load would a flimsy conmverted glider like this would be able to make before showing obvious signs of stress?

One thing is taking aboard those 130 soldiers, which would be a well distributed load, another thing would be a point load like a tank.

How many landings would this plane be able to make? And how long would the flight be? I would like it if Erich could take a peek at this thread.

__________________
Bah!

Just watched recently a German War Files document "the Green devils" with some mention on the Gigant glider- the primary requirement would be that it could carry two Mk 38 (t) tanks 9 tons eachs at least.

__________________

One has to have a sadistical streak to resurrect a thread like this

__________________
Bah!

And be a bit of a troublemaker to add this picture .


Nice bit of propaganda showing the thing in flight here:
YouTube - Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant

Cheers,
Adam.