FED. If you read up on the HP Hermes, it was supposed to enter service before the Hastings. It did not do so because the prototype crashed and also because of the urgent demands of the Berlin Airlift (though admittedly it flew with a tailwheel as did the second prototype. The nosewheel production version flew in 1948). The "old wives" who told me about the Hastings tailwheel configuration were clear that it was at the Army's insistence. I take your point about the headroom clearance between the main gear structures being the same in tail or nose wheel configs. The problem wasn't the load in situ but the getting of it there.
From the picture you can see that the load has been prep'd for airdrop, including compressible platforms rigged beneath the wheels for cushioning impact loads. It thus had to be presented to the aircraft on a low loader, which was backed into position from the front where there was greatly increased clearance. The Army would be aware from WWII experience that loading tail draggers (bombers, as well as transport external loads) was greatly facilitated by this increase in headroom. Speed of preparation and loading is an important part of airborne operations, especially in the mass formations then envisaged (and possible!). There was of course the enormous stockpile of components surplus from wartime production. Many of those in the Hastings were originally for the Halifax (the main wheels being the most obvious external items). Exploiting this was plain economic common sense. That it coincided with the main customer's wishes merely made it a no brainer.
BTW, once airborne the HP Hastings could outhaul and out range the DC4, and served RAF MRT requirements long after its rival left similar USAF service.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 25th May 2017 at 10:41.
Reason: Words