# What mix of aircraft what type would you have on a "raiding" CVL?



## Freebird (Feb 17, 2008)

There have been quite a few posts about "Bismarck" lately...

I've always thought that what the Germans really needed was a "CVL" to send with "Bismarck" on her {short} raiding career. They were working on the cruiser "Seydlitz", a converted "Hipper" class CA, which would have been ideal as it's 30+ knot speed could keep up with the group. The raiding group would not be expected to be within range of land based fighters, but may be attacked by long range bombers (Beaufighters, Hampdens etc.) or other carrier aircraft.

From what I thought there would be 3 type's of aircraft needed 

1.) single-seat fighter for CAP
like Me 109 or Seafire

2.) twin seat aircraft for torpedo dive attacks on shipping ( pursuers) 
Probably a converted JU 87

3.) twin seat fighter/bomber/recon aircraft 
The ideal here would be the "Firefly" but I don't know what the Germans
had that would work. Must be semi-capable as fighter {vs. bombers 
mainly} have long range


Alternatively if it was a British CVL, its mission would be to support naval operations in hunting down Axis surface raiders, and protecting cruiser groups in distant waters. The Royal Navy had the "Hawkins" class cruiser "Vindictive" that had been converted to an early type of CVL, but was dis-armed due to treaty. The CVL would need to have the same 3 types: fighter, TB/DB multi-role recon/FB.

Just imagine the difference a squadron of SeaHurri's would have made in the attack on the Repulse P. of W. {or the Dorsetshire for that matter!} 

*Assume that your CVL can carry 24 aircraft*, and will likely *not* have assistance from any other carriers, what #'s and what types of aircraft would you pick? The time frame is mid '41 - late '43

If you think that a light twin engine FB {up to about 15,000 lbs} could operate from your CVL, I would be interested to hear opinions on that too. {I was thinking perhaps the Me 110?}


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 17, 2008)

I made the first choice, I feel that a light carrier is more to escort the raiding fleet then a striking force. Well, that's my opinion, whats yours' Freebird, I'm interested in your feedback.


----------



## Panzerfaust (Feb 18, 2008)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I made the first choice, I feel that a light carrier is more to escort the raiding fleet then a striking force.




I totally quote you...


A Me 110 from a carrier?mmmh...could be a nice idea...but, could it take off from 
a carrier?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 18, 2008)

Scrap the 109, go with the 190. Better to have a radial over water anyway. Might even get around to folding the wings. 

More fighter bombers, the better. It's a raiding carrier, not a fleet carrier. Shoot and scoot, no hanging around to slug it out. For that, to my mind, Fighter Bombers are the way to go. 

IMHO.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Scrap the 109, go with the 190. Better to have a radial over water anyway. Might even get around to folding the wings.
> 
> * More fighter bombers, the better. It's a raiding carrier, not a fleet carrier.* Shoot and scoot, no hanging around to slug it out. For that, to my mind, Fighter Bombers are the way to go.
> 
> IMHO.



Agreed, I think that would be the most useful aircraft. The FW 190 would be a great aircraft, however although it is a fighter-bomber it's short range and single pilot would be a disadvantage. 

For 1943 I {British} I would probably have 6 Seafire's, 6 Barracuda TB/DB's and 12 Firefly's as FB/recon. The Firefly is a *superb* aircraft for this kind of operation, with 1,360 mile range, 320 mph speed, 4 x 20mm cannons 2,000 lbs of bombs, plus it has the second crewmember as observer/radar operator.

Consider the problem for the British in the South Atlantic caused in Nov/Dec 1940 by 1 *one* pocket battleship, Admiral Sheer, it sank 17 freighters of 117,000 tons. At the time there were 9 *nine* RN cruisers hunting for it, including 4 CA's 2 CM's 3 CL's, yet they were unable to locate it. While in the Pacific the US Japan often used seaplanes as scouts, it is not always possible due to heavy seas to launch recover them.

In 1941 the FAA would have to use SeaHurri's as CAP {and short range FB's}, with SeaSkua's as DB/TB's, and the {much derided} Fulmar as FB/recon. It only had 800 mile range and could carry 500 lbs bombs, but it was the best available. I wonder if a "Vengance" could be modified for this role? It would probably be superior to the Fulmar in any event.

As for German I'm at a loss for the FB/Recon plane, that's why I asked about the Me 110. *Any suggestions people?* It should be a FB with a range of at least 800 miles, and a second crew as observer/radar op. I dont think a single pilot can effectivly fly the plane, operate the search radar/RDF and spot 360' for ships in poor weather/visibility conditions.

If the US was to build a CVL in 1941 {similar to Independance class} it would be for the same purpose as the Royal Navy one. For example if the Japanese in early 1942 send a small CVL {eg. Zuiho} with 2 CA's 2 CL's as a raiding group to attack shipping cut the supply line to Australia in the Hawaii/Tahiti/Samoa route. The large US CV's are busy preparing for actions at Midway the central Pacific, so the USN send a CVL with a few cruisers to deal with the raiders. There are very few patrol aircraft available, so the CVL would have to scout for the group. 

*What kind of aircraft would the USN use?* Obviously Wildcats would be the fighter, but what about the FB? For TB's/DB's would they send Dauntlesses or Devastators? Or both?


----------



## MacArther (Feb 19, 2008)

Fighters would be the FM-2 series, or FM-1 depending on the time frame. Worse comes to worse, I'll even take F4F-3 models. Take the Dauntless as my bomber and recon platform, thereby doubling a strike force if necessary. Also, on more that one occassion the Dauntless proved adequate as an intern CAP plane, so that is a good point too. Finally, Avengers for ASW and torpedo work, which means I have 6 DBs, 6 TB, and 12 fighters. 12 fighters with some light bombs and plenty of ammo for the guns should be able to deal with lighter targets, and the dive bombers will handle the rest.



> 6 Barracuda TB/DB's


Er, weren't these planes replaced ASAP when the British got enough Avengers? I think it was because they were underpowered and had bad stall characteristics off the top of my head....but oh well, your choice.

I'll get back to you on my choices for other nations, because I need to think them over a bit more.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 19, 2008)

MacArther said:


> Fighters would be the FM-2 series, or FM-1 depending on the time frame. Worse comes to worse, I'll even take F4F-3 models. Take the Dauntless as my bomber and recon platform, thereby doubling a strike force if necessary. Also, on more that one occassion the *Dauntless proved adequate as an intern CAP plane*, so that is a good point too. Finally, Avengers for ASW and torpedo work, which means I have 6 DBs, 6 TB, and 12 fighters. 12 fighters with some light bombs and plenty of ammo for the guns should be able to deal with lighter targets, and the dive bombers will handle the rest.



I think you are probably right about the US composition. They would probably need the 12 Wildcats as CAP because I think the Dauntless was weaker as a fighter compared to the Dauntless. On the + side the Avenger had a much greater range than the Albacore, Skua {or Ju 87} so that it would be more useful in Recon work.

I assume that in 1943 you would replace the Widcats with Hellcats and the Dauntless with Helldivers? 



MacArther said:


> *Er, weren't the Barracuda's replaced ASAP when the British got enough Avengers?* I think it was because they were underpowered and had bad stall characteristics off the top of my head....but oh well, your choice.



You must be thinking of the Fairey Albacore, not the Barracuda. The Barracuda was used on the British Carriers for support in the Med airstrikes on the Tirpitz among other things. It was also used in the Pacific in 1944-1945. In fact after 1,700 Mk. I Mk II's were built the FAA ordered another 1,000 in 1943, 852 of the Mk. III's 30 Mk.V's were built in 1944-1945, I would hardly think they would order 1,000 aircraft if they didn't approve of it. The advantage of the Barracuda is that it could be used either for torpedo or dive bombing. 



> I'll get back to you on my choices for other nations, because I need to think them over a bit more.



Yes that's going to be a tough question, I would think the Italians could also use the Ju 87, {assuming that they had a carrier!!  } but I can't think of what they would use for a FB/Recon aircraft.


----------



## DBII (Feb 19, 2008)

Looks like the 12 fighter option has taken a big lead over the 12 recon/fb option. If the carrier is being used as a commerce raider, I would rather have more recon/fb. If the carrier is escorting a pocket Battleship, I would go with the 12 fighters. I was reading about a Bf 109T designed for carrier operations last night. It would be interesting to take them on a cruise.

DBII


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 19, 2008)

Alright freebird, you have my attention!  I've been entertaining this idea for a while now, but I do need a few more parameters though. Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me: 

As I know nothing about CVL elevator platforms, I'd like to know if those things were large enough to raise/lower aircraft with wings that were not folded/or capable of folding. Are such vessels able to accomodate for beneath-deck stowage of fixed wing aircraft (let alone 24 of them). Also, when you give us the choice of aircraft, I'm assuming you mean we can take any aircraft we want (1943 or before), provided they be modified for carrier landing (arrestor hooks), or must we pick only carrier capable aircraft up to 1943?

One last question: As for the CVL, are we to pick one which already existed, or mus we "create" one from existing vessels of other types? 

Ok, I think thats all for now!


----------



## Freebird (Feb 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Alright freebird, you have my attention!  I've been entertaining this idea for a while now, but I do need a few more parameters though. Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me:
> 
> As I know nothing about CVL elevator platforms, I'd like to know if those things were large enough to raise/lower aircraft with wings that were not folded/or capable of folding. Are such vessels able to accomodate for beneath-deck stowage of fixed wing aircraft (let alone 24 of them). Also, when you give us the choice of aircraft, I'm assuming you mean we can take any aircraft we want (1943 or before), provided they be modified for carrier landing (arrestor hooks), or must we pick only carrier capable aircraft up to 1943?
> 
> ...



Oh Good we have someone to pick aircraft for a French CVL!    

*Assume that you can pick any aircraft up to about the size weight of an Avenger {54 ft wingspan 16,000 lbs}. *Any aircraft, not just specific carrier types, and assume that when modified they will include folding wings.

Also assume that most of the aircraft can be given folding wings, in any event room will be found for 24. If it was a CVL built by the French, they might convert the cruiser under construction "De Grasse" {it was also considered for conversion by the Germans after it's capture}. If for example the French had not been occupied in 1940, they might have considered a CVL to assist in securing the convoy routes to Martinique, Madegascar, Ivory Coast Indo China. 

The main mission for your CVL would be to assist 3 - 6 cruisers in hunting down Axis raiders, far from land based air power. Perhaps the biggest difference from an ASW escort carrier, is that the CVL will need to be able to keep up with the cruisers, and perform search/recon far out from the carrier. Compared to the slower ASW carrier would be searching for subs within 200 miles or so.

I'm assuming that you would want a naval version of the VG-33?  
The attack aircraft you pick should be able to make both dive torpedo attacks if possible.

For Fighter-bomber/Recon, I was wondering if the French could use a Po 630? Or perhaps the Latecoere 298 with a more powerful engine? The FB/Recon should have 2 crew, {2nd as Radar op/observer}, at least 750+ miles range. The CVL is a little longer than a CVE {620 ft vs. 500 ft} and has a speed of 35 mph {vs 22 for a CVE} so this should make it easier for more aircraft types to be able to take off. {but I'm not an aircraft expert, correct me if i'm wrong}


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> Oh Good we have someone to pick aircraft for a French CVL!



Yipee! I was probably going to try to keep it as realistically as possible, but now that the constraints to my imagination are free, I'll make it up as i go along! 

For starters, there no way I'm picking the Bearn, which was hopelessly slow and outdated. Rather, I'll go instead with a Joffre-class carrier (Joffre and Painleve -replacement carriers planned for the Bearn). Joffre was actually being built then cancelled after the 1940 Armistice, Painleve never got past the drawing board.

More info here:

Joffre class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




freebird said:


> I'm assuming that you would want a naval version of the VG-33?



Why not? I was actually thinking of that myself earlier, for strictly fighter roles. Since it was built using largely non-strategic materials, it would be easy to maintain, and modify for arrestor hook. I'll go ahead and buy 12 of those, than you very much.

As for attack/torpedo, I was thinking more along the lines of a Breguet 691 variant which could have modified for such purposes. I really don't like the idea of twin-engine aircraft on an aircraft carrier, but things like the Breguet 690 series, or the Potez 630 series seem to have been small enough they could work. Probably I'll take the 697, a more powerful and upgraded version of the Br. 691 aircraft. However, I'm not at all certain of it's dive capabilities, so I'm inclined for second choice for either a Stuka variant or the Dauntless.

I'll get back on the recon plane, haven't decided yet.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Joffre was actually being built then cancelled after the 1940 Armistice,



Joffre certainly would have been a welcome addition for the French navy. However it would probably have been kept closer to France, in Med or North Atlantic. I'm assuming that they *also* built a smaller CVL to help control the Indian Ocean S. Atlantic



> As for attack/torpedo, I was thinking more along the lines of a Breguet 691 variant which could have modified for such purposes. I really don't like the idea of twin-engine aircraft on an aircraft carrier, but things like the Breguet 690 series, or the Potez 630 series seem to have been small enough they could work. Probably I'll take the 697, a more powerful and upgraded version of the Br. 691 aircraft. However, I'm not at all certain of it's dive capabilities, so I'm inclined for second choice for either a Stuka variant or the Dauntless.
> 
> I'll get back on the recon plane, haven't decided yet.



An interesting plane, it isn't in my aircraft book. 
It seems to have been fairly light, was it ever considered for use as a FB or NF? {like the Po 630 or Me 110}


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> Joffre certainly would have been a welcome addition for the French navy. However it would probably have been kept closer to France, in Med or North Atlantic. I'm assuming that they *also* built a smaller CVL to help control the Indian Ocean S. Atlantic



Apart from the small French posessions in the South Pacific or the Mediterranean, I see no reason why the French fleet (or any French fleet) to stray too far from France's colonial territories. Had the Joffre been completed, paired with the Richelieu or the Jean Bart, and maybe accompanied by the Strasbourg and Montaclam, and say various destroyers from le Malin class and/or Chacal class, France was so very close to having at least ONE very effective battlegroup! It was not to be.  Even after the fall of France, a powerful Free French fleet could have assembled and made base at either St. Pierre and Miquelon, or in Martinque, but then I'm swaying from the topic at hand.




freebird said:


> An interesting plane, it isn't in my aircraft book.
> It seems to have been fairly light, was it ever considered for use as a FB or NF? {like the Po 630 or Me 110}



Yes, after thinking about it a little, the Br. 690 series was too light and too small for torpedoes. It could pack a punch, but I don't see it carrying a torpedo, either internally or externally. Perhaps fitted rockets it could have been an effective anti-shipping aircraft. So, I'm switching their roles on my ship to recon/FB. 

As for the TB, I've chosen the Grumman TBF-1 Avenger (I came close to choosing the Fairy Barracud Mk. II). Not certain how well it performs as DB, but at this point, I think I will sacrifice that role in hopes that my Br. 691-7s will compensate.

So there it is, my fantasy CVL:

Joffre-class carrier
12 Arsenal VG-33 Fighters
6 Grumman TBF-1 Avenger TB
6 Br. 691-7 Recon/FB/Attack

...or better yet, 12 Arsenals, 8 Avengers, and 4 Br.691-7s.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Apart from the small French posessions in the South Pacific or the Mediterranean, I see no reason why the French fleet (or any French) fleet to stray too far from France's colonial territories. Had the Joffre been completed, paired with the Richelieu or the Jean Bart, and maybe accompanied by the Strasbourg and Montaclam, and say various destroyers from le Malin class and/or Chacal class, France was so very close to having at least ONE very effective battlegroup! It was not to be.



Indeed. And it knocked away the whole British plan for combined operations with France against the Italians, the RN was badly outnumbered there  {until "Taranto" of course}. I would expect that the main French Fleet + the British "Med" fleet would be keeping an eye on the Italian Fleet. I could imagine a tremendous battle as the 6 Italian BB's try to intercept the French British BB's CV's making a run from Algeria/Toulon to Beirut/Alexandria. That where I think the French British CV's would be employed, to provide air cover as the convoy passed through the Sicilian narrows. Thats why I think the operations in the S. Atlantic or Indian Ocean would most likely employ a CVL like "Hermes"

Don't forget that France had colonies in Madegascar, Indo-China that required shipping traffic via the Indian Ocean or Pacific, and if the Med became too difficult for cargo ships {due to Axis air attacks from Sicily} then the alternate route to Syria is via South Africa. 



> Yes, after thinking about it a little, the Br. 690 series was too light and too small for torpedoes. It could pack a punch, but I don't see it carrying a torpedo, either internally or externally. Perhaps fitted rockets it could have been an effective anti-shipping aircraft. *So, I'm switching their roles on my ship to recon/FB.*
> 
> So there it is, my fantasy CVL:
> 
> ...



Good choice. It seems that the Br. 697 would have been a quite capable aircraft, the jump in power to the Gnome-Rhone's 1,000 hp would boost performance quite a bit.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> Don't forget that France had colonies in Madegascar, Indo-China that required shipping traffic via the Indian Ocean or Pacific, and if the Med became too difficult for cargo ships {due to Axis air attacks from Sicily} then the alternate route to Syria is via South Africa.




Madagascar could have been a base for keeping the Indian Ocean in mind, but I don't think France valued it as much as the Med. for obvious reasons. It would have been highly dependent on fuel for aircraft and ships. 

As for Indochina, thats a different story given the natural resources in the region. Unfortunately, a French naval presence there would have been whittled away, taking vessels from there to the Med/Atlantic theatre. I don't think there was anything they could have done realistically or militarily to prevent Indochina from falling to the Japanese, Vichy or no Vichy.

An intermediate/repair base in the French posession of Pondicherry (India) could have been feasible as well. I think i would have placed greater value on having a naval base there rather than Madagascar.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 24, 2008)

DBII said:


> Looks like the 12 fighter option has taken a big lead over the 12 recon/fb option. If the carrier is being used as a commerce raider, I would rather have more recon/fb. If the carrier is escorting a pocket Battleship, I would go with the 12 fighters. I was reading about a Bf 109T designed for carrier operations last night. It would be interesting to take them on a cruise.
> 
> DBII



I think you are right DB, if there was a Recon/FB that was halfway decent it would work. In '43 I would take 12 Firefly's 6 Seafires. 

If it was in '41, I would probably go with 10 Fulmar as Recon/FB, 8 Seafires or SeaHurri's 6 Sea skua FB/TB. That way there would be enough protection if you were attacked by a dozen fighters escorting some bombers {for example} yet still have enough Recon to be effective.


----------



## renrich (Mar 5, 2008)

If I knew then what I would have known at the end of the war, all AC on board would be one type. The F4U could fulfill all the missions(except torpedo attack and it could have been adapted for that) admirably. The Navy found out it was almost as accurate as a dive bomber as the SBD. It had plenty of range for recon or strike fighter and it could of course carry out the CAP role. Having only one type on board simplifies spare parts, maintenance, etc. Sort of like today when the majority of AC on an American carrier are one type(FA18 Hornets and Super Hornets)


----------



## DBII (Mar 5, 2008)

That is a great plan. 

dbII


----------



## Freebird (Apr 19, 2008)

renrich said:


> If I knew then what I would have known at the end of the war, all AC on board would be one type. The F4U could fulfill all the missions(except torpedo attack and it could have been adapted for that) admirably. The Navy found out it was almost as accurate as a dive bomber as the SBD. It had plenty of range for recon or strike fighter and it could of course carry out the CAP role. Having only one type on board simplifies spare parts, maintenance, etc. Sort of like today when the majority of AC on an American carrier are one type(FA18 Hornets and Super Hornets)



The problem Ren is that with the limited search technology in the 40's, a single pilots ability to do recon was very limited. The naval war in the pacific was very "hit miss", because they couldn't find each other most of the time. For example the faulty recon at Coral Midway Singapore and so many other places. The Japanese were surprised by the appearance of "Force Z" because the day before the japanese recon flight had mistook two tankers for P. of W. Repulse. The escorts for the US TB's at Midway got lost separated, they couldn't find the Japanese carriers even though they already knew roughly where they were. The British had 9 CA's/CL's in the South Atlantic {with recon floatplanes patrol aircraft} in the fall of '40 looking for "Scheer" but were unable to find her, she slipped back to Germany.

The second crewman as a radar operater spotter was needed as the pilot couldn't do it all, with the rudimentary avionics of WWII. 

Remember that the primary duty of the CVL with the Raider/Hunter group in distant oceans would be recon, much different than the attack/defence duties of the airgroup in a CV battle group


----------



## MacArther (Apr 22, 2008)

> I assume that in 1943 you would replace the Widcats with Hellcats and the Dauntless with Helldivers?


Actually, no. Because the Wildcats were smaller and had a shorter take-off and landing length, they were continually used to the end of the war by escort and light carriers. Also, with the advent of the FM-2 model, the Wildcat becomes formidable in its own right, with the ability to carry two 250 lb bombs or rockets. As for the Helldiver, it may have been faster, and had a higher bomb carrying capacity, but from what I've read it was not really well liked. Part of the reason may have been that the Helldiver was a larger aircraft than the Dauntless, and thus was slower to respond to commands, but even with this in mind it was still sluggish on the controls (according to my sources). Also, I think I remember hearing that the Dauntless could *still* take more punishment than a Helldiver and bring the pilot home.

All that being said, for other nations I would do as follows

British
Fighter: Sea Hurricane (it could carry bombs, something that the Seafire could only do in the much later marks)
Bomber/Recon: Swordfish (able to take loads of punishment, and could function as a torpedo or dive bomber, as well as recon)

German
Fighter: He 100 (good mix of firepower, speed, manuevering, and good sized landing gear unlike the Bf-109)
Recon/Torpedo: Ju-88, baring that a Fw-187 (it can be a fighter, a fighter bomber, or a torpedo plane depending on the fitting!)
Bomber: That one Henkiel biplane that was used until there weren't any left.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2008)

24 Fw 190's, any and all of which can be quickly converted to fly any task. All single-seaters. Different armament/ equipment packs available for different tasks. This means you only have to have one type of engine, one type of airframe, and simply have spare parts redundancy and total mission flexability. If US, then they would all be F6F or maybe F4U if it was safe for that type to fly off such a small carrier. British-- I'd rework the landing gear for Seafire to fold inward, and use those exclusively. Japanese didn't have the type of naval fighter bomber I'm talking about, although the N1K series might have been awesome adapted to carriers in 1944! Russian-- La-5 or La-7 derivative. Italian: Re 2002, but need more power. French: Bloch 155 derivative with larger wing.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 22, 2008)

Oreo said:


> 24 Fw 190's, any and all of which can be quickly converted to fly any task. All single-seaters. Different armament/ equipment packs available for different tasks. This means you only have to have one type of engine, one type of airframe, and simply have spare parts redundancy and total mission flexability. If US, then they would all be F6F or maybe F4U if it was safe for that type to fly off such a small carrier. British-- I'd rework the landing gear for Seafire to fold inward, and use those exclusively. Japanese didn't have the type of naval fighter bomber I'm talking about, although the N1K series might have been awesome adapted to carriers in 1944! Russian-- La-5 or La-7 derivative. Italian: Re 2002, but need more power. French: Bloch 155 derivative with larger wing.



I don't think the FW-190 or the F4U could carry torpedos could they?

Some have mentioned this idea of single seaters, but I think there is a significant problem with Search/Recon. Remember that the "Raiding" CVL would need to hunt over 1,000's of miles to find the targets, and single seater recon was rather poor in WWII. Consider the problems at Midway at Coral Sea with single-seat fighters either not finding or mis-identifing ships, and this was in a situation where *they already knew the enemy fleet was in the area*. In 1941/1942 the pilot could not effectivly operate the primitive airborne radar IIRC


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2008)

Well by 1944 the problems were solved. Fw 190's could carry Torpedos, and with the same easy modifications, F4U's could have also. About the Fw 190, look up fw 190F-8 / U14. The Fw 190G-1 was capable of carrying an 1800 KG (3,968 lb.) bomb into combat, using them to attack bridges with. That kind of load-out would not be possible on a carrier, but the 2,200 lb. loadout could be achieved, and so could the torpedo. Anyway, I am of the opinion that aerial torpedoes were highly overated and more trouble than they were worth-- much better to use dive bombing and skip-bombing tactics, especially in coordinated multi-level attacks. The torp planes were slow, vulnerable and not necessary. I know they accomplished a lot, but if they were replaced with dive bombers / skip bombers, they might have done more. There is just no replacement for sticking that enemy battleship in your face and dropping a bomb square on its deck or squarely below the waterline. High speed approaches for skip bombing should have been learned, approaching the warship at 250-300 miles per hour, spraying it with gunfire as you went, and delivering that bomb at extremely high speed in a skip attack, or doing as many dauntlesses and Val's did, diving down from on high to penetrate the decking with a thousand pounder. OK, I guess the Vals usually carried smaller bombs. The torp bombers had to come in very slow to drop their fish at exactly the right speed to obtain proper results, and then the enemy warship was capable of maneuvering to evade the torpedoes, and many times they never even went off when they hit the ship. I think the Fw 190 could have been modified into a veritable One-man-band, with top speed around 380 (like F6F) and capable of many different conversions for dive bombing, level bombing, rocket attack, torpedoes, bomber interception, fighter interception, night fighters, anti-shipping patrol with asv radar, photo recon, and anti submarine duties.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 22, 2008)

Interesting Oreo, by 1944 you may well be right. However I was thinking mainly of 1940 - 1942, when the danger of the raiders was the greatest.

There is one thing to think about though - *no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs *IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers} The Price of Wales, Yamato, Scharhorst, Warspite, Repulse, Nagato, Musashi, and many others were repeatedly bombed, but it was only the torpedoes that could sink them. Consider Nagato - at Leyte 24/25 October hit by 4 bombs, on the 26th hit by 4 more, then in July '45 attacked repeatedly by Helldivers and suffered 3 more hits - yet survived the war.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2008)

freebird said:


> There is one thing to think about though - *no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs *IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers} The Price of Wales, Yamato, Scharhorst, Warspite, Repulse, Nagato, Musashi, and many others were repeatedly bombed, but it was only the torpedoes that could sink them. Consider Nagato - at Leyte 24/25 October hit by 4 bombs, on the 26th hit by 4 more, then in July '45 attacked repeatedly by Helldivers and suffered 3 more hits - yet survived the war.



Good point, FB. I think that mostly means they weren't using big enough bombs.

I also think if Germany, for instance, had managed to build, say, a dozen of these small escort carriers with 24 planes each, even if they had to build them on hastily reworked cargo ships, and even if they used Bf 109T's in 1941 or 42, the best thing they could have done would have been to use 100% fighters, and use them only for air defense, and use them to keep the ocean patrol types of the RAF, and their carrier planes, under control so the U-boats and surface fleet could have done their jobs unmolested. Then a naval barrier could have been made between Greenland and France, and the U-boats and surface raiders could have killed all the ships, while the Bf 109T's knocked out the Catalinas, Sunderlands, CAM fighters, Swordfish, and Martlets. The capital ships could do the air recon with their Ar 196's, and the Fw 200's could have coordinated from France in the search for convoys. I think it would have been an unbeatable team, at the time.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 24, 2008)

For the german perspective:

critical limitations:
A) landing deck on a CVL likely no longer than ca. 150m usable.
--->No Fw-190, No Bf-109, No Stuka.
B) CVL hangar spaces limited in height (ca. 4.2-4.5m each)
--->No Fi-TB

Options left:
Ar-195 (multi purpose recon / bomber / torpedo bomber)
-yes, it´s a biplane but effective compact

Advances:
Diesel propulsion
---->long range capability, high cruise speed, highest degree of readiness (initial acceleration)


My raiding CVL would be kind of a slightly enlarged K-class cruiser with bulges (for more stability) and slightly longer to accomodate hangar spaces for 24 + 3 Ar-195. Max displacement is about 11.500t. I would leave the two 5.91'"/60 triple turrets aft, slightly replaced from the centerline to give better firing arcs forward (K-class cruiser layout). Those guns are good short range hitters, they have a decent total range for this gunsize and are basically rapid firing mounts (the improed turret design from NÜRNBERG). Good for lone merchants and very handy when disangeging any escorts / hunters.
Propulsion would consist of three shafted Diesel machinery (engines same like Graf Spee but three instead of two shafts, resulting in ca. 81.000 SHP design output), endurance ca. 19.000 nm @ 20 kts like Scheer. Max. Speed would be a little below that of the K-class cruisers, at around 31 to 32 Kts, most likely 31.5. If it can hit 30 Kts after one month at sea, it´s fine.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1934

Displacement:
9.430 t light; 9.740 t standard; 11.030 t normal; 12.061 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(644,83 ft / 628,94 ft) x 60,20 ft x (18,54 / 19,87 ft)
(196,54 m / 191,70 m) x 18,35 m x (5,65 / 6,06 m)

Armament:
6 - 5,91" / 150 mm 60,0 cal guns - 110,23lbs / 50,00kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
10 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm 76,0 cal guns - 23,57lbs / 10,69kg shells, 250 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
2 raised mounts
1 x Twin mount on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount
16 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 115,0 cal guns - 0,29lbs / 0,13kg shells, 500 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 902 lbs / 409 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max)	Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main:	1,97" / 50 mm	410,11 ft / 125,00 m	16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Ends:	Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

- Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
Main:	3,15" / 80 mm	1,57" / 40 mm 2,36" / 60 mm
2nd:	0,79" / 20 mm	0,39" / 10 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 1,18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3,15" / 80 mm, Aft 1,18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors, 
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 81.000 shp / 60.426 Kw = 31,79 kts
Range 15.500nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.322 tons

Complement:
537 - 699

Cost:
£3,744 million / $14,976 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 271 tons, 2,5%
- Guns: 271 tons, 2,5%
Armour: 1.215 tons, 11,0%
- Belts: 543 tons, 4,9%
- Armament: 106 tons, 1,0%
- Armour Deck: 520 tons, 4,7%
- Conning Towers: 46 tons, 0,4%
Machinery: 2.330 tons, 21,1%
Hull, fittings equipment: 4.414 tons, 40,0%
Fuel, ammunition stores: 1.600 tons, 14,5%
Miscellaneous weights: 1.200 tons, 10,9%
- Hull below water: 200 tons
- Hull above water: 200 tons
- On freeboard deck: 400 tons
- Above deck: 400 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20.938 lbs / 9.497 Kg = 203,3 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 2,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 2,9 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 14,8 seconds
Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,31
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,83

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,550 / 0,561
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,78 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle:	10,00%, 27,46 ft / 8,37 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forward deck:	60,00%, 31,17 ft / 9,50 m, 31,17 ft / 9,50 m
- Aft deck:	15,00%, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
- Quarter deck:	15,00%, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
- Average freeboard: 25,51 ft / 7,77 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82,1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 267,8%
Waterplane Area: 27.077 Square feet or 2.515 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 136%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 94 lbs/sq ft or 459 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,91
- Longitudinal: 2,25
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather


----------



## Freebird (Jul 24, 2008)

delcyros said:


> For the german perspective:
> 
> critical limitations:
> A) landing deck on a CVL likely no longer than ca. 150m usable.
> ...



Why could they not operate Ju 87, Me109?

The CVL converted from a CA {~630' - 640' OA} is about the same size as the HMS "Unicorn" {640' OA} which operated SeaHurri, SeaFire Barracuda, and Firefly.

Would your Ju-87's not be able to operate if launche by Catapult?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2008)

Scratches head


----------



## Timppa (Jul 27, 2008)

freebird said:


> There is one thing to think about though - *no capital ship was ever sunk by bombs *IIRC, {other than Aircraft carriers}



AFAIK, Billy Mitchell's famous demonstration of air power, the sinking of USS Ostfriesland in 1921 was done entirely by bombs.

From memory I can recall the following ships sunk by bombs alone:
- USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, 1941
- Japanese battleship Ise (not sure about Haruna), 1945
- Tirpitz ( took 3 "Tallboys" though), 1944
- German battleship Schleswig-Holstein, 1945
- Russian battleship Marat (by Rudel himself), 1941


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Timppa said:


> AFAIK, Billy Mitchell's famous demonstration of air power, the sinking of USS Ostfriesland in 1921 was done entirely by bombs.
> 
> From memory I can recall the following ships sunk by bombs alone:
> - USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, 1941
> ...



Thank you for the correction, Timppa welcome to the forum!

Pardon me, I should have qualified that with *"Modern Capital ship, at sea"*

You are correct, except that I would note Marat Arizona were immobile, providing a stationary target.

Tirpitz was only vulnerable because it had previously been torpedoed by Barracuda's, and was also stationary when hit by a *12,000 pound* tallboy!!!

Schleswig-Holstien was a 35 year old "pre-dreadnought".

I will have to check on ISE, but that might be the only "Dreadnought Battleship" that was sunk by bombs while at sea. 

The point I was trying to make was that it was very difficult for bombers or carrier DB's to sink a modern BB/BC while at sea, as many survived after multiple bomb hits, but a couple of torpedoes were often fatal.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

What about those two British capital ships (maybe Repulse, Prince of Wales) sunk by Japanese level bombers?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> What about those two British capital ships (maybe Repulse, Prince of Wales) sunk by Japanese level bombers?




6 hits/near misses on the ships from 500 1000 lb bombs, *no significant structural damage*. {Fires started, sailors killed, but no debilitating damage} It was only torpedoes that did any serious damage to the ships.

PoW was unfortunate, the first torpedo attack hit the prop rudder, and was disabled. Later finished off by more torpedoes.

Repulse was not seriously damaged by 3 bombing attacks, and also managed to evade 2 torpedo runs by "combing". The third time the Japanese had to launch torpedoes from 3 different directions, and was hit by 2 or 3, sinking quickly.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

I'd keep the aircraft mixed as they did on the Independence Class of CVL's...24 fighters (would be F4U's)
9 torpedo/bomber planes (would be Avenger's)


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

Come to think about it fellas....how vulnerable would a raiding carrier be, without her protective screen of other ships? How and where would we operate, how and where would we refitt with new aircraft when needed, would we operate during day or night (or early and late hours), if doing most of our damage during "night time", where do we hide during the day, a carrier is not a small ship and we're bound to be hunted for....


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I'd keep the aircraft mixed as they did on the Independence Class of CVL's...24 fighters (would be F4U's)
> 9 torpedo/bomber planes (would be Avenger's)



I had the capacity as 24 aircraft total, so presumably you would take 16 - 18 fighters and 6 - 8 TB's.



Lucky13 said:


> Come to think about it fellas....how vulnerable would a raiding carrier be, without her protective screen of other ships? How and where would we operate, how and where would we refitt with new aircraft when needed, would we operate during day or night (or early and late hours), if doing most of our damage during "night time", where do we hide during the day, a carrier is not a small ship and we're bound to be hunted for....



Good questions!  I think I answered some already but here goes. The purpose of the CVL is to accompany a Raider/Hunter cruiser squadron in more distant Oceans, like the South Atlantic, South Pacific or Indian Ocean, where the RN or IJN cannot send a full-size carrier. The RN CVL "Hunter" squadron would be part of a group, probably 2 CA's, 2 - 4 CL's and a couple of large DD's. The IJN or KM "Raider" squadron would have a CVL, perhaps 1 - 2 CA's or CL's and perhaps a pocket battleship or Battlecruiser. The RN group would never be operate within range of enemy shore-based airpower or carrier battlegroups. The KM or IJN group would perhaps be within range of British outlying bases, {such as Ascencion, Capetown, Fiji, Ceylon, Mauritus}, but these bases would not have more than about a squadron of aircraft that could attack. The main air threat would be the opposing CVL.

The primary mission for the airgroup of both sides would be scouting, as the RN has to find the Axis raider group, and the Axis wants to find shipping targets in the vast oceans, as well as keeping an eye out for the RN or USN. 

I had in mind mainly 1941 1942 as the period, but you can also put your choices for l1943 -1944 as well if you want. I would think that almost all operations would take place in the day, it would be very difficult to operate at night. 

New aircraft for the RN could be sent to the nearest overseas base. IJN ships would probably have to return to Truk, Tarawa or Singapore. KM goups would have the most trouble, perhaps a freighter could carry some crated replacements? Or else they would have to return to Germany.


The main problem as I see it with those who want to take only fighters TB is that the single seat fighter is weaker at recon, cannot take a radar set and has a short range {before 1943}. Thats why I think that it would make more sense to have 6 - 12 FB/Recon aircraft instead of all fighters. {Firefly would be the best aircraft IMO, but in 1941 - 1942 only the "Fulmar" is available.

The reasons to take Fulmar/Firefly:

1.) Larger aircraft can carry airborne search radar, with second crewman to operate it, single-seat fighters could not

2.) Longer range than single seat fighters. {until the long range F4U's etc}

3.) FB/Recon can still be used as a fighter for defence, not fast enough to take on a Zero or Me 109, but could attack slower enemy TB's while the fighters deal with the enemy fighters.

4.) The main point though I think is that visual Recon was notoriously bad in early WWII, the second crewmember can be much more effective as an observer.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

Thanks FB....! Much obliged...


----------



## delcyros (Jul 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> Why could they not operate Ju 87, Me109?
> 
> The CVL converted from a CA {~630' - 640' OA} is about the same size as the HMS "Unicorn" {640' OA} which operated SeaHurri, SeaFire Barracuda, and Firefly.
> 
> Would your Ju-87's not be able to operate if launche by Catapult?



Both, the Ju-87 and the Me-109 could be operated only in case major modifications would be done to the planes. The Me-109T carrier fighter received not only structural improvements and an arrestor hook but the entire wing had to be redesigned. A new wing filet (inner section) was added to increase the wing area in order to keep landing speeds in within torlerances for >240m usable deck landing area (CVA GRAF ZEPPELIN) and under 135 Km/h.
The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this, which would add to landing problems. HMS UNICORN suffered from comparable problems operating Seafires off Sicily but had actually 40m more landing deck length than my CVL. Nevertheless, it was to short to operate them safely. That was in calm sea under best conditions, not in the stormy North Atlantic.
Launching is one part of the problem and catapults helped (altough not on a Ju-87 with bombload) but the more serious problems are landing accidents.
Finally, the Ju-87 is bigger, has a lower range, less payload and higher stall speeds= no significant advantage over the Ar-195 other than speed.

It wouldn´t be wise to operate fighters or bombers on a CVL, not designed to have exceptional foregiving low speed handling.

For the KM, I wouldn´t compose any task forces at all. It does make tactically and strategically more senses to send one CVL and two other raiders independently on lone missions in the South Atlantic, the western approaches, the mid atlantic narrows or the indic ocean instead.
Supporting this line, it does not make sense to include any fighters at all. The main purpose of the CVL is to sink merchants, not to provide CAP. The Ar-195 is perfectly capable to fullfill all roles from recon over bombing to torpedo attacks. On top of this, the Ar-195 has a radial engine, very foregiving landing charackteristics, an unrestricted view and an stall speed of only 90 Km/h. The Ar-195 airwing cannot be ignored in the Atlantic and if this leads to more interceptors on RN hunting CV´s, fine. It would relief pressure from the other raiders in the ocean.


best regards,


----------



## Freebird (Jul 29, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Both, the Ju-87 and the Me-109 could be operated only in case major modifications would be done to the planes. The Me-109T carrier fighter received not only structural improvements and an arrestor hook but the entire wing had to be redesigned. A new wing filet (inner section) was added to increase the wing area in order to keep landing speeds in within torlerances for >240m usable deck landing area (CVA GRAF ZEPPELIN) and under 135 Km/h.
> The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this, which would add to landing problems. HMS UNICORN suffered from comparable problems operating Seafires off Sicily but had actually 40m more landing deck length than my CVL. Nevertheless, it was to short to operate them safely. That was in calm sea under best conditions, not in the stormy North Atlantic.
> Launching is one part of the problem and catapults helped (altough not on a Ju-87 with bombload) but the more serious problems are landing accidents.
> Finally, the Ju-87 is bigger, has a lower range, less payload and higher stall speeds= no significant advantage over the Ar-195 other than speed.
> ...



How about the "Independance" class, 620' ft, 32 knts, operated both Hellcats Avengers? I know the short, {500'} slow CVE's had problems operating combat aircraft, but what was the record of the CVL's?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 29, 2008)

delcyros said:


> The landing deck of my CVL is 90m short of this,
> 
> It wouldn´t be wise to operate fighters or bombers on a CVL, not designed to have exceptional foregiving low speed handling.
> 
> ...



In my opinion the only thing the Germans lacked in the Atlantic war (assuming they broke all their raiders out successfully) was air superiority. I would much rather have developed whatever size of carrier neccessary in order to provide air cover for the raiders and/or U-boat concentrations. The U-boats alone could have sunk all the shipping in the Atlantic if they weren't constantly having to run from Sunderlands, Liberators, Whitleys, Avengers, you name it. I admit, once more destroyers and other escorts became available, there would have been times when some rocket-armed a/c capable of swooping in and disabling some escorts would have been helpful, but fighters could have done this easily, and much more safely than the ungainly t/b's. Therefore, I would have ensured that my Fw 190T's were compatible with whatever size of carrier was necessary, and used them to clear the skies so the U-boats could function. Naval strike and reconnaissance would be secondary uses. However, if you insist that a two-seater was needed for rec, then I would have had about 1/4 of my Fw 190T complement be stretched 2-seaters, which still would have had 95% parts interchangeability with the single-seaters, and could have also been used against bombers when no single-engined enemy fighters were around. These stretched A/C probably would be better suited to carrying a torpedo, in case that ever became neccessary, too. The carrier would be concentrated around a single type, carying only one type of engine, propeller, landing gear, wings, tail assembly, etc. for repairs. There would not be much confusion around different types, because everyone would know all the routines for the Fw 190T. Put a few of those out in the mid Atlantic, and the US might have been forced to take some pressure off the Japanese!

Then, the biggest other thing Germany might have done to win the Atlantic war would have been, early, like 1941, declare on Portugal and capture the Azores. I think that could have been done with 100 U-boats carrying troops to invade, (like ten men each, or whatever) as the Azores were very lightly defended early on. Assuming the plans were not decoded by the Allies, complete surprise could have been obtained. having that for an air/sub base would have drastically increased the odds for the Axis. I know someone is going to say the logistics of said invasion are impractical-- well, I don't know, but I believe if they wanted it bad enough, it could have been overcome.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 31, 2008)

*1942*
1: CVL "Independence" class carrier....
1: CL "Booklyn" class light cruiser....
1: CA "Northampton" class heavy cruiser....
4: DD "Fletcher" class destroyers....
2: SS "Gato" class submarines....
1: BB "Colorado" class battleship for occasional heavy hitting....


----------



## delcyros (Jul 31, 2008)

freebird said:


> How about the "Independance" class, 620' ft, 32 knts, operated both Hellcats Avengers? I know the short, {500'} slow CVE's had problems operating combat aircraft, but what was the record of the CVL's?



The CVL´s operated Hellcat Avengers. But two things should be reconsidered for a comparison:
A) The 620 ft. landing deck of an Independence CVL is about 100-120ft. longer than the proposed landing deck of Ingenohl-class CVL´s.
B) Both, Hellcat Avengers have stellar low speed handling and a very low stall speed with flaps fully down and low degree of. Neither the Ju-87 nor the Bf-109 could compete here. If You have ever wondered why the Hellcat has not such a superior high speed enevelope than it´s because there was a notable tradeoff in favour of low speed handling, which can be traced through design history and aerodynamic choices.

best regards,


----------



## delcyros (Jul 31, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Therefore, I would have ensured that my Fw 190T's were compatible with whatever size of carrier was necessary, and used them to clear the skies so the U-boats could function. The carrier would be concentrated around a single type, carying only one type of engine, propeller, landing gear, wings, tail assembly, etc. for repairs. There would not be much confusion around different types, because everyone would know all the routines for the Fw 190T.



I fully recognize the attractiveness of this idea but I am afraid that this would have been the most impractical solution of all.
At first, the Fw-190 was just appearing in the frontline services by mid 1941 in her early A-versions with the bugs not beeing worked out until mid 1942 with the introduction of the A-4 subvariant. This were general fighter variants and by no means specialized naval variants, whiches development time requirements are not taken into account so far.
Second, the BMW-801 radial engines of the Fw-190A required replacement after a nominal 20 hours flighttime until late in 1942, which would require about four spare engines per plane to be shipped by the CVL extra to account for very low level air operations, enduring CAP-missions are not sustainable in these conditions.
Thirdly, a navalized Fw-190, albeit possible, would require major modification of fuselage wing, an entirely new airframe as a result.
A)The cockpit needs to be placed more towards the frontal area in order to improve visibility to the fwd. arcs (esspeccially the sub horizon arcs, which are decisive for landing ops) and eventually higher.
B)The rear fuselage needs reinforcements to take the arrestor hook with structu ral reserves.
C) The low speed handling charckteristics of the Fw-190A are abysmal poor. The plane is generally treated for improved high speed handling but low slow, the Fw-190 shows severe weaknesses: The stall does develope rapidily from the mid of the wing outwards with little associated earlier stick warnings. That are bad news in the landing deck capabilities. It would need some kind of outer wing slats to compensate for this.
D) The Fw-190A as designed has a low wingarea conception (the V-5 prototype was tried with large and small wings and eventually the small wing was choosen for all serial Fw-190´s due to increased agility and better high speed performances). The resulting netto effects showed a comparably high landing speed and in combination with the constraints summerized under C), the advisable approach speed was 150 Km/h, a good tad bit faster than the navalized Bf-109, which wouldn´t be usable on the CVL. 
E) development times for a navalized Fw-190A would take three years lowest (if started early in 1940) and you couldn´t expect serial production planes to roll of from the assembly lines any sooner than mid 1943. By this time it´s already (much) to late to send CVL´s out into the Atlantic.


Best regards,


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

Well, I wouldn't make use of such small carriers. They're worthless. Use bigger ones. If you can't carry fighters, you can't bother carrying anything. You asked our opinion, after all. From all the research I've done, I believe the U-boats were doing absolutely fine at commerce raiding, offensively. The only thing they needed was air defense (and, to a lesser degree, defense from surface escorts). It was the patrol bombers that kept the U-boats down when they needed to be up, and sank huge numbers of them. The war in the Atlantic could have belonged to the Germans if they had just had air cover. It very nearly did anyway, until late in 1943. So for your little itty bitty carriers, if they couldn't carry fighters, I would have used them as freighters and gotten bigger ships to carry fighters.

Now, you may be right in most of the things yous said about the Fw 190, especially that it could not have been ready at least until 1943, but if the 109T could have held the fort until 43, the Fw 190 could have taken over after that. I believe the 190 would have been a much better carrier fighter than the 109 due to its more predictable handling and especially the wide-spaced gear (which would have to be beefed up, I know). My definite changes I would make would be to insert about an aditional two feet of wingspan, a one-foot section outboard of each landing gear leg, and that one-foot section in each wing would include the wing folding mechanism, as well as additional fuel tankage. The gear would be beefed up. I would see whether eliminating the cowl guns would improve forward visibility. If not, then maybe leave them. I would make sure the tail surfaces were large enough for good low-speed control, and make sure the flaps were up to the job. The whole airframe would have to be strengthened. Add your arrestor hook, catapult attachment points, and if possible include an autopilot and adequate d/f loop. I think I would base it off Fw 190G series ideas rather than A, but with A's engine boost options. Max speed: 380 mph at 19,000 ft. Ceiling: 34,000 ft. ROC, clean, 2800 f/m. range on internal: 850 mi. External stores: 2,200 lbs max. Standard armament: 2x MG 131 in wings, outside prop arc, 2x MG 151/20 in wing roots. Alternate armament, any combination MG 131's or MG 151/20's, or including 4x MG 131 in outer wings. External waffentroppen can be used for even more f/p when neccessary-- bringing down those PB4Y-2's can be a chore sometimes. Hard point available for jetisonable external tailwheel for torpedo-carrying take-off clearance. Detachable rocket rails-- rockets may be great to use against surface escorts. Main gears stressed to act as dive brakes, as on F4U. 

Think it's a bad carrier machine? maybe, but could it have been any less suited than the Seafire????? It would be the equal of an F6F, better than the F4F, and most Seafires, except late production, and would have been bested only by the F4U in the open ocean until 1945 when Griffon Seafires, F8F's, and maybe Sea Furies might have come on the scene. By that time, Dipl Ing Kurt Tank might have been able to come up with a totally new design, using a Jumo, that would be even more seaworthy, and rival the F8F and Sea Fury. I only said maybe! By the way, landing one of those Seafires on a carrier deck would be a worst nightmare!


----------

