Tank busters for the air forces?

[parsifal]

You have to ask the question whether helicopters can operate in airspace dominated by the enemy. historical experience would suggest not. The iraqis did not use helos during the UN invasion of Kuwait, or during desert storm. Neither did the NVA during vietnam. Where enemy activity is minimal, such as in the back blocks of Africa, both sides might use them.

On the other hand, it seems that at least theoretically both sides in the cold war at least expected to use helos in hostile air environments. The case in point are the preparations made by both the WP and the NATO forces during the Cold War. Both sides expected no better than air parity at the beginning, trending towards NATO air superiority D+30. Quite a few observers believed the WP would achieve air superiority for the first 7 days or so until the arrival of the two additional TFW from the US. Yet also both sides also expected to be able to use rotary wings at all times, though admittedly with far greater losses if the enemy held control of the air.

In the context of this hypothjertical, I would surmise it to be very difficult to maintain a significant rotary wing presence in the very hot environment of NW Europe. They might be able to maintain such presence on the eastern front in quiet sectors, where for long periods the VVS would absent.

When I was in the RAN we tried to simulate this in excercise. We found we could operate our helos on a very limited basis, ie within the umbrella formed by our air warfare destroyers.....perhaps its possible to something similar using ground based flak. But certainly, general observation is that operation of rotary wings in a hostile air environment would be very difficult. no question

 

[davebender]

All CAS aircraft require air superiority. That includes Fw-190fs loaded down with R4M rocket pods.

 

[tyrodtom]

The intermeshing rotors were nice if you needed to do a lot of hovering, or load lifting. But they had NO speed .
Even the HH-43, with 850 hp would only do 120 mph.

That's why you only see them used for 2 things, firefighing close to a base, or rescue, also close to a airbase.

I'm not sure on this next thing, but I think they needed forward movement to turn, they couldn't do a fast pedal turn from a hover, since they had no tail rotor.

 

[parsifal]

Yeah true Dave, but the question is one of suvivability. The Germans might get an occasional single aircraft over the target . They might get the limited advantage of a night airstrike. The question is.....is the air asset more survivable and more effective if it is rotary or fixed wing once you have lost air superiority. The FW 190F has the advantage of performance, but it might have to come some distance, and has to use an airfield that is vulnerable to damage and/or capture. With a helo, you could operate very close to the front, and dont need a lot of supporting infrastructure. on the other hand, you have a very low level of performance and a low level of carrying capacity. With 2-300 HP your concept vehicle might carry one rocket, which is just not enough firepower to set up the secondary blast zones that a full barrage of 8x5" rockets can

 

[davebender]

The German navy conducted extensive survivability tests with the Fi-282. Exercises where Me-109s attempted to get within firing range and put the gunsight on target. They also tethered an unmanned Fi-282 and shot at it with light flak to see how much damage the rotor blades could take. The Fi-282 got high marks in all these tests. So I've got to assume survivability was good.

 

[tyrodtom]

There's a heck of a lot more to a helicopter that's vital to flight than just the blades. The transmission has to be faultless, in any rorary wing ac. It can take NO damage. You armor it very well, or accept the casualties.

When you look at the combat unit using the Fi-282 for artillery spotting on the eastern front, they ran out of aircraft, they lost so many to aircraft and flak, they disbanded the unit.

 

[parsifal]

I did find this:

The following extract from the E-Stelle Travemunde's monthly report of June 1944 is also worthy of mention:

"A mock combat between the Fl 282 (Flettner company pilot Fuisting) and a Fw 190 (pilot Ltn. Eisenlohr of E.Kdo.25) took place at Schweidnitz on 22.06.1944, in order to investigate the chances of a fighter hitting a helicopter. At present the evaluation of the film and the pilot reports have not yet arrived. At heights above 100 meters the fighter was able to get the helicopter in its sights briefly. Near the ground, especially in difficult terrain, the fighter has little chance against a helicopter."

Vulnerability to gunfire was also investigated, whereby they proceeded on the assumption that the mathematical probability of a moving rotor blade being hit was much less than that of a fixed wing. Another consideration was that it should be extremely difficult to fire on and hit the slow-moving helicopter from a fast fighter. The latter could escape by making brief evasive movements, which the fighter could not follow. Furthermore, tests involving ground firing at the moving rotor blades were carried out, as the helicopter was felt to be more vulnerable to gunfire from the ground than from the air. An unmanned, tethered Kolibri was used; in spite of several hits in the rotor blades ground fire failed to bring down the helicopter..."

 

[parsifal]

The type is also noted for its great manouverability and stability. Perhaps i am easily deceived, but i kinda like the concept....I could envisage a 2 man crew powered by a 600-1000 hp engine carrying a minigun and and one or two R4M PB II rockets. Mind you it would have taken a massive mindshift conceptually to get this sort of thing going in 1942-3. The germans did authorise the production of 1000 unarmed Fi 282s in 1944, but the allies flattened the factory a few days after the contract was signed, and that ended that...

 

[Shortround6]

Kaman K-240 / HTK-1 / TH-43E helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
View attachment 200383

The next step in Flettner, err, Kaman helicopter development. Interestingly enough the K-240 had a 240hp engine. Just like the proposed Fi-285.

Did you really look at the performance of this thing?

Top speed 81mph.

Max rate of climb at combat weight 1300fpm
Max rate of climb at designed gross weight 1050fpm


combat weight (pilot+1 passenger and 20 U.S. gallons fuel) 2750lbs
Normal loaded weight ((pilot+1 passenger and 40 U.S. gallons fuel)2870lbs
Max loaded weight ( pilot + 3 stretcher cases and 15 U.S. gallons of fuel) 3100lbs.

The Lycoming O-435 engine may have been a bit lighter than a German 240hp engine from WW II also.

Data from a 1954-55 edition of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft. Please note the rather large difference in weights from the website figures.

 

[Erich]

don't forget the Me 262A-1a's of JG 7 with Pzblitz altered 8.8cm with panzerschrek heads against Soviet armor and MT.

 

[parsifal]

Erich that absolutely represent the other end of the spectrum to what we have been discussing, and offers a very interesting contrast. The me 262 was a heavily armed, very high performance aircraft with a high degree of survivability in hostile airspace.

But how survivable. How did its loss rates compare with say the FW 190F. With the exception of the standard Mk 108, the disposable stores carried by the two aircraft or planned for the two aircraft seems similar. I have no idea which of the two aircraft was the better delivery platform, though i have heard the Fighter bomber versions of the 262 did cause a few headaches for the soviets....pinpricks admittedly, but at least they were getting through.

And comparing the 262 to the FW 190 is one thing.....how would it compare to Daves idea of a rotary winged GA aircraft. The problem that I have with using the 262 as a GA aircraft is that every airframe used for ground attack (or indeed any fighter adaptation in 1945 by the LW), is that strategically they could not afford that luxury. One less airframe used for air superiority, is an unnacceptable cost for the LW. and the 262, whatever its abilities as a GA aircraft, was above all an air superiority machine. One of the attractions about Daves suggestion is that it would not have had a great impact on fighter production....using a different factory, with engines more simply produced. operationally these helos would not have required fighter cover in an immediate sense, or airfields, or large amounts of tail. They very much represented an expendable resource...sure, not a war winning instrument of an all conquering air force, rather a quiet localised resource for immediate on-hand CAS at the disposal of the local commander....something able to hide, duck up for a short period, take the shot, and then get out of dodge as fast as it can. You dont win wars like that, but you can make life unpleasant for your enemies....

 

[davebender]

Unless RLM decides to produce the Jumo 004A engine Me-262s will enter service too late to matter.

Fw-190f plus FF rockets is an easy and safe choice. Both can be available in large numbers during 1943. Early enough to make an impact on the Russian front, which is where Germany lost the war.

 

[davebender]

look at the combat unit using the Fi-282 for artillery spotting on the eastern front, they ran out of aircraft, they lost so many to aircraft and flak, they disbanded the unit.

The Heer artillery spotting section had three Fi-282 helicopters. So I think your statement about losing many aircraft is a bit of a stretch.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Heer artillery spotting section had three Fi-282 helicopters. So I think your statement about losing many aircraft is a bit of a stretch.

I think basing the survivability of a aircraft on only 2 tests, and there were only 1 fighter verses helicopter test, and only 1 theathered firing test, I think going by only those 2 test, is a stretch.

There were 3 Fi-282's and 3 Fa-223, in the unit, that test in a actual combat enviroment use didn't go quite as well as the test you showcased.

 

[davebender]

Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany was experimenting with air dropped cluster munitions from 1939 onward. Why not fund development of DPICM artillery shells? It's a natural progression. You are packing bomblets into an artillery shell rather then a bomb casing.

With DPICM artillery shells the Fi-156 with artillery forward observer is the only aerial tank buster required.

 

[parsifal]

Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany was experimenting with air dropped cluster munitions from 1939 onward. Why not fund development of DPICM artillery shells? It's a natural progression. You are packing bomblets into an artillery shell rather then a bomb casing.

With DPICM artillery shells the Fi-156 with artillery forward observer is the only aerial tank buster required.

German artillery displayed remarkable flexibility and capability on the eastern front, that i will grant you. It was the German artillery that kept the heer together in its darkest hours.

However i doubt that German artillery, equipped with even the best ordinance is going to be effective enough, or more to the point concentrated enough to make much difference.

Typically Soviet offensives were concentrated fast moving affairs, but unlike german offensives were not constricted to a few sections of the front. The soviets usually opted for a "concentrated" "broad front" approach, using their numbers to great effect. there was usually a breakthrough echelon to exloit breakthroughs. The tanks would punch a hole in multiple places and on a broad scale. infantry would pour through and engage the Germans in close assault...all the while the Soviet artilery was pinning the German reserves so that they could not be moved. German artillery would respond, often over open sights but was not dense enough to make a difference. the first things the Soviet mobile forces would do was go after the German artillery, to either force it to disengage or be overrun. Soviet offensives carried on regardless of casualties....once started there was no stopping. They tended to be short ranged, short lived, very sharp and very fast moving affairs.

Against that sort of fast moving mobile attack, inirect fire was always hard pressed to do much. if the german forward defences could slow the Soviets, then maybe an indirect fire AT barrage might do something, but I doubt it.

The best and obvious counter to these Soviet tactics was obviously a selective withdrawl of 30-50 Km just before the offensive, but a mixture of MT shortages and High command obstinance nearly always prevented that from occurring in the latter part of the war

 

[parsifal]

Fw-190f plus FF rockets is an easy and safe choice. Both can be available in large numbers during 1943. Early enough to make an impact on the Russian front, which is where Germany lost the war.

No they cannot. The r4m rockets were not ready until well after Normandy, and only after the Germans had observed for themselves the effectiveness of allied rockets used in massed attacks. the germans had made several attampts at development of rockets before that with only qualified success.

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans also had to prioritize, Rockets are cheap to make and can deliver a large warhead for very little launcher weight but they were/are relatively inaccurate and use a awful lot of propellant do deliver that payload. This is one reason the Germans stopped/cut back on the development of recoil-less guns. Aircraft launched anti-tank or general air to surface rockets need something besides blackpowder for propellant.
Helicopter launched rockets some times need more powerful rocket motors than fixed wing rockets.

Artillery sub-munitions tend to work a whole lot better from large shells, 15-21 cms than they do from 7.5-10.5cm shells. interior volume tends to go up with the cube of the caliber. NATO went in for sub-munitions in a large way but they also tended to be phasing the 105mm howitzers out when they did it.

 

[davebender]

I agree. If the Heer design artillery sub munitions I recommend starting with the 17 cm Kanone 18 which entered production during 1941. Large shell with a range of 29km. A centrally located battery could deliver shells over an entire army area.

Anyone here knowledgable on the construction of DPICM projectiles? Could Krupp manufacture 17cm DPICM projectiles during WWII?

 

[davebender]

Looks like WWII Germany already had an effective 10.5cm artillery cargo shell. If it can carry and expel propaganda leaflets then it can carry and expel sub munitions designed for that purpose.

Propaganda leaflets of World War 2: Spreading propaganda leaflets by artillery shell

Not as cool as a CAS aircraft but I think we've found the solution Germany needs for defeating Allied tank hordes. Fi-256 artillery spotting aircraft and 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzers were already standard issue for German army divisions. The Heer just needs to design bomblets for the existing Weiß-Rot-Geschoß cargo shell and have Krupp put the new DPICM shell into mass production.