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

[Oreo]

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

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Oreo

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

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.

Originally Posted by Lucky13

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]

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

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by freebird

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]

Originally Posted by delcyros

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.

best regards,

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]

Originally Posted by delcyros

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.

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by freebird

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]

Originally Posted by Oreo

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]

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!