Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This seems to be a case of " If the Jones have one then we need one too " envy rather than a realistic assessment of needs/capabilities.
Which is more work, A 23,500 ton carrier or a bunch of drop tanks?
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.What use is copying an American airframe is you don't have the engine/turbocharger? And I didn't know those Seversky/Republic aircraft were naval airframes.
And what good is a plane which 1st flies in '44 for a CV in '39?
Basra Iraq, but that was another bridge too far for the axis. They had til 1941 to bottle up the Med.Another question is where the oil to sail Aquila would come from.
Basra Iraq, but that was another bridge too far for the axis. They had til 1941 to bottle up the Med.
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.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.
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.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.
Launching four at a time sounds good, how long until you can launch the next four?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.
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.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).
Please re-read the sentence, I never said thousands of turbo chargers, I said thousands of BLADES,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.
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.Note: P&W also provided Messerschmidt with R-1830 to trial installation in Bf.109 (V15) - apparently Twin Wasp wasn't on military secrets list.
Note: P&W also provided Messerschmidt with R-1830 to trial installation in Bf.109 (V15) - apparently Twin Wasp wasn't on military secrets list.
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.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,
You need over a hundred turbine blades 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.
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.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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Graf Zeppelin was certainly capable of launching planes without the catapults, but: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).
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.