Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
As with many human weapons, I think by that era carriers had started supplanting battleships as dominance/threat displays.
Italian Carrier Aircraft
- Thread starter Darthtabby
- Start date
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As with many human weapons, I think by that era carriers had started supplanting battleships as dominance/threat displays.
Shortround6
Major General
Which is more work, A 23,500 ton carrier or a bunch of drop tanks?
Fitting 200-300 liters worth of drop tanks to Italian land based fighters doesn't seem like that big a deal, either with two small tanks or one larger one.
Malta is just under 70 miles from the closest point in Sicily. It is about 170 miles from the straits of Messina.
The Battle of Mattapan was 27-29 March 1941 which is too early for a plausible Italian carrier and after June 1st 1941 and the fall of Crete the need for an Italian carrier greatly diminishes as Axis air fields are now hundreds of miles closer to Alexandria.
Fitting 200-300 liters worth of drop tanks to Italian land based fighters doesn't seem like that big a deal, either with two small tanks or one larger one.
Malta is just under 70 miles from the closest point in Sicily. It is about 170 miles from the straits of Messina.
The Battle of Mattapan was 27-29 March 1941 which is too early for a plausible Italian carrier and after June 1st 1941 and the fall of Crete the need for an Italian carrier greatly diminishes as Axis air fields are now hundreds of miles closer to Alexandria.
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
Exactly. So why build a carrier? Let's face it, drop-tanks aren't as attention-gathering as capital ships, never mind that they're easier to build and more useful. But posturing has its place.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Carriers were the next step in Naval power evolution just as Battleships were.
One of the main obstacles to a carrier's adoption, was the refusal of Battleship Admirals to accept the fact that carriers had a place in their navies.
In the decade before WWII, aircraft carriers were looked upon as novelties by most of the world's navies.
It seems that the British, Americans and Japanese were able to see value in a carrier as force projection but it wasn't until WWII started in earnest, that their value was realized. Most specifically in the Pacific, which was by and large, a naval-centric war where the carrier would prove itself as a key asset.
Plus carriers were expensive - in a 1930's economy, do you devote a large chunk of military budget to build a novelty or do you build a battleship, heavy cruiser or a bunch of destroyers?
One of the main obstacles to a carrier's adoption, was the refusal of Battleship Admirals to accept the fact that carriers had a place in their navies.
In the decade before WWII, aircraft carriers were looked upon as novelties by most of the world's navies.
It seems that the British, Americans and Japanese were able to see value in a carrier as force projection but it wasn't until WWII started in earnest, that their value was realized. Most specifically in the Pacific, which was by and large, a naval-centric war where the carrier would prove itself as a key asset.
Plus carriers were expensive - in a 1930's economy, do you devote a large chunk of military budget to build a novelty or do you build a battleship, heavy cruiser or a bunch of destroyers?
keithwwalker
Airman
- 34
- Jan 27, 2014
Well this is a 'what-if' thread. What if Axis took El Alamein, Egypt, Suez? N. Africa didn't fall to the Allies? Italy wouldn't have capitulated, and suddenly its 1944 & Pax Romana in the Mediterranean.
Then Italy could think about getting out of the Mediterranean fishbowl & into the Indian Ocean where a carrier would be sorely needed.
Italy basically took the P-35 airframe & developed the Re2000, which had a naval development in the works. The Italians would of copied the turbo system if the spying rings weren't shutdown by 1940-1. They needed that tech to get their motors to 1500hp
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
Another question is where the oil to sail Aquila would come from.
Shortround6
Major General
The "tech" in turbos was the materials the turbine blades were made of.
You need to be able to make priscision blades of high temperature alloys by the thousands if not tens of thousands or the whole plan falls apart. The Italian industrial capacity to make turbos in quantity is highly suspect.
You need to be able to make priscision blades of high temperature alloys by the thousands if not tens of thousands or the whole plan falls apart. The Italian industrial capacity to make turbos in quantity is highly suspect.
keithwwalker
Airman
- 34
- Jan 27, 2014
Basra Iraq, but that was another bridge too far for the axis. They had til 1941 to bottle up the Med.
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
They had to capture and harness Basra first, which the 1941 British victory in Syria quashed. No oil was headed northwest after that. Never mind having to sail past forces based in Alexandria or Malta.
don4331
Airman 1st Class
Every designer in late 30s is struggling to meet the ever more demanding requirements, having to add structure to support the extra weight of drop tanks/ordinance was last thing they would have wanted to include. If requirements were changed to require additional range - add increased internal storage ala Spitfire with wing root and rear fuselage overload tank or P-47N with increased wing tanks - both of which are far more efficient both outbound and inbound than adding drop tanks.
Deciding your navy needs a CV (both KM and RM) after loosing BB/CAs is closing the corral gate after the horse has bolted.
Properly planning a CV is a 6-10 year process - 2-3 years to build/rebuild the ship and planes for it and train crew; 2-3 years to work up the crew to know what they are doing, 2-3 years to rebuild/refit the ship/planes based on lessons learned/technology advances. RM pro
The converse is if navy doesn't have its own planes and the planes with the fleet, they won't be in the right place at the right time.
I'm a sucker for hybrid ships and wonder if a "fighter carrier" as proposed for Bolzano and/or Tone/Mogami/Chitose (with her ability to launch 4 planes simultaneously) didn't offer some opportunities. Only installing 2 catapults and keeping as build speed below 20kn avoids Naval treaty violations initially.
Using fighters like Nakajima A6M2-N Rufe/Grumman F4F Wildcatfish/Supermarine Spitfire float plane or TSR like Fairey Swordfish. Operation as float planes allows recovery; operation as "wheeled" aircraft either having removed/jettisoned floats or having percentage of planes without floats, when in conjunction with CV/where range allows to return to land base or as last ditch defense (we'll send SS/MPA to recover pilots who are forced to ditch).
RA doesn't need to be able to build turbochargers in the 1,000s, they're not building the USAAF strategic bombing armada, several hundred would do the trick. But naval planes don't need turbochargers as they don't need to operate at 25k'. RA needs 100 octane fuel - GM was selling the process to anyone willing to pay - Germans had license to produce in '37! Then the supercharger design and engine strength/cooling to make use of that fuel - mechanical supercharge in '30s/40s is much cheaper/easier.
Note: P&W also provided Messerschmidt with R-1830 to trial installation in Bf.109 (V21) - apparently Twin Wasp wasn't on military secrets list.
Corrected - V15 was the prototype for the carrier Bf.109; V21 is the prototype for radial.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Actually the reverse is true. If you have to add structure to support the weight of internal tanks then the whole plane gets bigger. If you hang drop tanks on the outside and allow the plane to drop them before entering combat (no need to build a strong enough airplane to maneuver at 6 "G"s with the bigger fuel tanks) you can keep the smaller/lighter airframe and better performance.
Launching four at a time sounds good, how long until you can launch the next four?
recovering float planes is somewhat more difficult than a carrier landing wheeled planes. A lot depends on sea state. And having to either stop or slow way down (well under 10 kts) if their are enemy subs about is not a good idea.
Please re-read the sentence, I never said thousands of turbo chargers, I said thousands of BLADES,
see:
s
"D" are the turbine blades, You need over a hundred per turbo.
Since they were selling DC-2s and DC-3s to airlines allover the world trying to keep the engine on a "secrets" list wasn't very practical.
Keeping a particular supercharger set up on the secrets list might have been practical.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The R-1830 was used across the world in civil and military aircraft before the war.
Military-wise, it was used by the Argentines, Australians, Finns, French, Soviets and Swedes.
It was no secret and when Messerschmitt purchased the Pratt & Whitney in 1938, trade with the U.S. was still possible.
Keep in mind that the first engine used in the Bf109 prototype, was a Rolls Royce Kestral.
The two radial engined Bf109s were V21 and the Bf109X.
Bf109V21 (WkNmr 1770) was a test to see if it could be an export model without using the new DB601.
Bf109X was a Bf109F (WkNmr 5608) with an Fw190 engine and cowling mated to the front.
don4331
Airman 1st Class
For Spitfire adding 2 - 12¾ Imp gal tanks in wing root and 2 - 33 Imp gal tanks in fuselage behind pilot didn't increase the size of the aircraft at all, and the weight increase for the tanks versus the pylons to carry 2 - 62 Imp gal "Mustang" style drop tanks is insignificant - the extra weight for internal tanks is balanced by the fact that the plane needs to carry an additional 31½ Imp gal for same range as the plane with pylons/drop tanks is that much less efficient aerodynamically. Yes. the Spitfire is unstable until the aft tank is burned, so must be continuously corrected flight, but that is the price of efficiently increasing range.
For the P-47, yes, a clean P-47M in 10km/h faster than the equivalent P-47N, but the situation reverses for a P-47M with pylons (post droptank drop). The plane with the smaller wing needs to carry substantially more fuel to have the same range.
Note: For all planes, they are supposed to have burned the fuel from the "auxiliary" tanks before they enter combat, so no addition strength is required.
The fact that the customer, re-writes the requirement again to take advantage of the larger wing to add even larger drop tanks/heavier ordinance, so as designer, one has to make the wing root tanks self sealing (heavier), assume the wing root tanks will still be full when combat is engaged (stronger structure required = heaver) and max takeoff weight requires upgrading airframe (larger tires, stronger landing gear, etc) is NOT the same argument.
I acknowledge goal posts are going to get moved and designer should be talking to the engine manufacturer about a more powerful engine.
If the numbers I have are correct - IJN could reload the catapult for next plane in 2 minutes, so 4 cats are pretty much matching the plane every 30 seconds on a axial deck CV. This assumes you had the planes mounted on the required trapeze ahead of time. Graf Zeppelin only had trapeze for 16 planes, but the compressed air tanks only held enough air for that many launchesm so 17th plane would be very delayed but as we are only talking 12-16 planes, no real difference. For a fighter carrier like Bolzano not that big of an issue; for a fleet CV like GZ whole different kettle of fish.
Recovering of a float plane is significantly more difficult than a CV airplane, and float plane give up even more performance than the carrier plane does to a land plane. I was thinking more along lines of what IJN was thinking with conversion of Hyuga/Ise - where for the planes aboard the BB hybrid in the case of floatplanes for reconnaissance; recovery should be in a relatively safe location - allowing for reduced speed. And the attack planes were to be recovered aboard existing CVs/nearby land bases (there was assumption that between combat losses and deck park, that the additional planes could be accommodated). Allied equivalent might be CAM ships.
Bolzano is poor replacement for a proper carrier, but keeping a BB from being damaged, several CAs from getting sunk would be worth the trade off. And it is a lot easier to design a plane/train a pilot if they don't need to land on a CV.
GE builds turbochargers with hundreds of individual blades because that's how they built steam turbines. And other than temperature, there isn't a lot difference between superheated steam and engine exhaust, so no surprise they developed material to handle the heat, and built turbochargers that way. And we will note that the Italians had the industry to build turbine blades in the thousands for their power plants (ships, electrical generators, etc). So, if they had the materials, the industry was there. Heck, Russians with industry a lot further behind build a number of turbos. But that isn't the only way to manufacture a turbo - see Heinkel HeS 3 with single radial inflow turbine.
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
Convert from merchant hulls, skip the armour and cats and use lightly modified air force aircraft and carriers can be made a lot cheaper than battleships or heavy cruisers. Italy would have been well served by a trio of Chitose-class aircraft carriers.
Shortround6
Major General
Well served how?
Where were they going to go?
After Crete the Axis had the middle of the Med well covered with land based air and no real need to try to attack either Gibraltar or Alexandria.
And the number of aircraft you could stuff on 3 converted merchant hulls wouldn't have prevailed against those targets anyway.
The Chitose-class is a poor example for the Italians as they were military ships designed to get around the treaty. They had high speed and were designed to carry aircraft from the beginning (sea plane tenders) and had been designed from the start to be easily converted. Finding 28-20kt merchant ships was not easy.
Where were they going to go?
After Crete the Axis had the middle of the Med well covered with land based air and no real need to try to attack either Gibraltar or Alexandria.
And the number of aircraft you could stuff on 3 converted merchant hulls wouldn't have prevailed against those targets anyway.
The Chitose-class is a poor example for the Italians as they were military ships designed to get around the treaty. They had high speed and were designed to carry aircraft from the beginning (sea plane tenders) and had been designed from the start to be easily converted. Finding 28-20kt merchant ships was not easy.
don4331
Airman 1st Class
I was thinking building pair/trio of sea plane tenders exactly like Chitose-class is exactly what Italy and/or Germany needed.
a. It gets around the same naval treaty that Japan is working against. Yes, RM had room for a CV under the treaty but why waste your limited CV tonnage on a prototype. And you want at least a couple ships so you can be trying different things. Still learning on one while the other is being revised. The diesels only powered version of Chitose could be converted to banana boat if worse comes to be - transport of bananas required 20kn ships to deliver product before it spoiled. Including the design details to upgrade the power plant to include turbines at later date for the near 30kn you want for CVL.
b. It pries a core group of pilots away from the RA.
c. 48-72 float/sea planes (based on 24 on Chitose) would be sufficient to attract airframe manufacturer attention.
RN used HMS Eagle as glorified seaplane tender at China station for most of the 30s. IJN Sea plane tenders Mizuho and Nisshin were used as high speed transports as well, so even if RM doesn't decide to convert to CVL, there are lots of other important functions for them.
a. It gets around the same naval treaty that Japan is working against. Yes, RM had room for a CV under the treaty but why waste your limited CV tonnage on a prototype. And you want at least a couple ships so you can be trying different things. Still learning on one while the other is being revised. The diesels only powered version of Chitose could be converted to banana boat if worse comes to be - transport of bananas required 20kn ships to deliver product before it spoiled. Including the design details to upgrade the power plant to include turbines at later date for the near 30kn you want for CVL.
b. It pries a core group of pilots away from the RA.
c. 48-72 float/sea planes (based on 24 on Chitose) would be sufficient to attract airframe manufacturer attention.
RN used HMS Eagle as glorified seaplane tender at China station for most of the 30s. IJN Sea plane tenders Mizuho and Nisshin were used as high speed transports as well, so even if RM doesn't decide to convert to CVL, there are lots of other important functions for them.
- Thread starter
- #137
Darthtabby
Airman
- 59
- May 22, 2021
One of the questions I've been wanting to explore in this thread is what aircraft Italy might have used/adapted for carriers had they begun their carrier program earlier, perhaps sometime in the mid 1930s (or perhaps earlier to allow for an experimental vessel). Italy was authorized 60,000 tons for carriers under the Washington Treaty. Granted building them would probably entail sacrificing something else (though on the plus side armor steel might be less of a production bottleneck for a carrier then for some other types of ship).
The author of the Naval War College Review article Replacing Battleships with Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific in World War II argues that the way the USN fought in WWII -while innovative- was less of a break with pre-war thinking then is commonly believed. Also in spite of the article's title he argues that it wasn't as simple as replacing battleships with carriers, and that the innovation was about combining assets.
Granted this is something of a tangent since the RM didn't have the sort of resources the USN had at its disposal.
It's been a while since I read up on Graf Zeppelin, was she not capable of launching planes without the catapults? IIRC the catapults on allied carriers were useful for launching heavily laden aircraft but were not necessary for all launches.
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
My understanding is that many if not most USN launches were unaided; cat ops slowed down clearing the deck. I'm pretty sure that heavy TBF/TBMs used cats, as did SB2Cs.
I can't speak to Brit ops.
Shortround6
Major General
The Italians run into an engine problem (most countries did), The land based Fiat CR 42 biplane and the G. 50 mono plane used an 840hp 14 cylinder radial.
The MC. 200 used the same engine. These two monoplanes used small wings/airframes and like most Italian aircraft, light armament to secure good performance.
180-196 sq ft wings don't leave much room for growth for a carrier fighter (Buffalo was 208 sq ft)
The Fiat engine also never got much better.
The R. 2000 used a 1000hp engine but the R. 2000 doesn't fly until 1938, The Italian navy only takes an interest in it as a catapult fighter in 1940.
It used a larger heavier engine.
The Italian designers were a pretty skilled bunch and could have come up with something given a decent set of requirements and enough time.
But trying to adapt existing land planes might be bit much.
Breda Ba 65 first flew in 1935 and the later ones got a 1000hp engine but in order to get to 1000hp in the late 30s the Italians needed a 1600lb, nearly 2800 cu in 18 cylinder engine.
With only a 253 sq ft wing(slightly smaller than an F4F) there wasn't a lot of room for growth.
don4331
Airman 1st Class
Graf Zeppelin was certainly capable of launching planes without the catapults, but:
German airplanes were not known for their outstanding brakes - which means they can't build up full power before starting their take off run, and many (I'm looking at Ju.87, Me.110 here) are notorious for their slow acceleration. Which means you need lots of carrier deck/wind over deck to launch.
Additionally, German planes tend to be short legged, which would be compounded if you lighten them by reducing fuel so they accelerate faster. On the flip side, using the trapeze carriage catapult allows take offs above maximum takeoff weight on land - much like the FiSK.199 could take off with far heavier load than normal Me.109.
Lastly, Kriegsmarine figured, at least part of the time, their CV would be caught in compromised situation with respect to wind (see HMS Glorious) and would need to launch without turning into wind.
USN & RN CVEs used their catapults regularly when operating Avengers in North Atlantic. Combination of wind and sea state made it safer.
Italy (and KM) attempting to start with Fleet CVs was going to cost an incredible amount for limited results. They needed to start with a ship like HMS Argus/IJN Hosho/USS Langley. Something quick to convert in later 20s/early 30s. And learn from operating that ship what they wanted/needed in a CV - the ship, the planes and the personnel. Ship could also destroyer tender as was planned for HMS Argus or similar.
For planes, you probably start with a Fiat CR.20, moving up to CR.30 and 32 as they become available as your fighter. It would be interest to see what Italians produced as TSR plane - they really didn't have much historically for a single engine plane with ~1 tonne military load (crew, guns & ordinance).
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
