Almost real what if (ARWIF) WWII Aircraft carrier high altitude intercepter

[nsmekanik]

As alluded to in another post here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235016858-question-about-190-ds-converted-from-190-a-fuselages/

 I thought I'd start a new thread as it is a new topic, ideally it is pure speculation for the fun of it which may result in a model or two.

 

The scenario is to mount a D-12 R14 on an extended length JU188(similar to the JU88H) and do some high altitude convoy hunting. Once a convoy has been spotted and the carrier located the D-12's (I think there would be several Mistels) would detach and dive down to sea level and make a run on it to hopefully sink it and leave the convoy defenseless agianst the ensuing onslaught. Ideally the D-12' would be fully fueled and also have wing mounted slipper tanks, to assist them in making land and using surprise and speed to attempt to avoid be attacked. The ti,me frame would be (for me anyway) late '44 and beyond, so potentially '46. 

 

So the question then is, what might be the aircraft used to respond, how would they be equipped, and what would be the most likely colors and markings there of, all relative to what was under development within that time frame. 

 

[brewerjerry]

Hi

   Mosquito XV adapted to the sea mosquito standards

  or more exotic as sea welkin ? 

      cheers

        jerry

[Jure Miljevic]

I will repeat my suggestion about Grumman Bearcat, nsmekanik. So, if convoy would have been escorted by US Navy, Bearcats would be in typical Atlantic scheme of Non-Specular Dark Gull Gray on upper and Insignia White on lower surfaces. In Royal Navy service Bearcats would be in Dark Ocean Gray and Dark Slate Gray over Sky (I think). Let us say that A-bomb had not been developed yet, so Japan is still fighting. In this case US Navy would be hard pressed for CVEs for operation Olympic and beyond during 1946 and could not spare many of them for neither Atlantic duty nor to lease them to RN. Also, renewed Luftwaffe activity would make deployment of MAC ships in air defence role more likely. Let us assume that Swordfishes would still fly off converted tankers (which had rudimentary hangars) and that Bearcats, less susceptible to elements, would embark on grain ship conversions without hangars. In normal circumstances length of MAC ship's flight deck would be quite sufficient, but two or three fighters parked on a stern and additional overload tank to extend her loiter time would make use of RATO gear on Bearcat necessary, especially in usually harsh northern Atlantic weather. Of course, this is also too good an opportunity not to replace title ROYAL NAVY with MERCHANT NAVY or not to use some of colourful badges, previously found on MAC Swordfishes.

In case of potent surface threat fleet carriers would have been deployed as indirect cover. Situation with the Royal Canadian Navy would not be much different from the real one, as 803 Sqn. Seafires F Mk.XV had been deployed on HMCS Warrior since 23th March 1946. Apart from early Griffon-engined Seafires RN would also use F Mk.XVII and F Mk.46 versions, along with Sea Furies F Mk.10. For North Atlantic colour scheme for these types would be the same as for Bearcats. However, given a degree of similarity between Fw 190 D and both Sea Furies and Bearcats one can always add yellow or white noses, stripes or some other form of quick recognition markings, used by one or by both sides. Cheers

Jure

[nsmekanik]

I agree with you Jure, how would that compare to the SeaFury though?

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi, nsmekanik

I am not quite certain if I got your point. I mentioned Seafires and Sea Furies as a part of broader alternative development of the war, although your were more specific in your scenario. As this is your ARWIF, we can forget about fleet carriers and indirect cover. It sounds too much like PQ.17 anyway. Also, I must correct myself about hangars on MAC ships, as they had been installed on grain MAC ships and not on converted tankers. Another detail worth mentioning is that later in the war there were usually two MAC ships attached to each convoy. So, in your alternative scenario Dora/Mistel pilots would have to deal with at least two, if not three, merchant aircraft carriers and their fighters. I hope it helps. Cheers

Jure

[nsmekanik]

The point is, for me anyway, weighing possibility against probability, counter measures against desperate measures if you will. In truth I am quit ignorant of the use of carriers and carrier borne aircraft in convoy protection, all I know is they existed. But what I do know is that an FW 190 makes a smaller target then an HE 111 or a JU 88, The Mistel program wasn't just a paper project and torpedo's were tested on Kurt Tanks  products.  No doubt Google and a bit of reading will get me up to date on the basics of carrier operations in convoys

 but then sometimes thinking aloud brings up interesting tidbits that just won't pop out any other way.

    The Spitfires  were doing a decent job from what I can tell, The Bearcat I believe was to be the next generation Carrier fighter, Mosquito's on carriers is not fantasy, and the Meteor was found to be unsuitable for carrier operations in 1948 when it was finally tested. I'm still interested in comparing the SeaFury to the Bearcat Just because.

 

And Thanks Jure, I really do appreciate the input.

[Julien]

Gents,

 

Please keep this topic on thread. If you dont like or want to go along with the topics original poster you are under no obligation to take part in the discussion.

 

Julien

[Giorgio N]

It's an interesting question but I think that there's one thing to clarify first: you ask for a high altitude interceptor that could have been based on allied carriers from late 1944 to say 1946, however the target is not really something flying that high. The Ju-188 variant may have been designed for high altitudes but the 190D was not pressurised and as such their pilots would have struggled at those altitudes... The maximum ceiling of the FW.190D family was well within what late mark Spitfires and similar aircrafts would achieve, meaning that the solution to the problem could have been easily found among types that did enter production.

Thinking of the British response first, none of the FAA British built types was that great at high altitude but had a similar threat developed then it's likely that the Seafire would have got a two-stage Griffon engined earlier. A navalised Mk.XIV would have likely been able to deal with a 190D without many problems. Of course with what-ifs, even almost real ones, it's hard to tell how quick such a solution could have been implemented but just for the fun you could think of a pressurised Seafire, a navalised XIV with a XIX pressurisation system. It would not have been the best naval fighter ever but would have done the job.

It may well have happened that the threat of high altitude fighter would have made the development of other types faster, in that case the FAA would have flown Sea Furies and Seafire 45/46/47 before the end of 1945. The Fury in particular was maybe the ultimate piston engined naval fighter, it had no problem in dealing with anything the Luftwaffe could field, including early jets.

Camouflage and markings may have been a bit boring: there was a high altitude scheme in use in the RAF, consisting of medium sea grey uppersurfaces with PRU blue undersurfaces. This had really been almost completely abandoned by 1945 and fighters just used whatever scheme was considered proper for their theatre or operations. With this kind of developments in mind, even a high altitude naval interceptor would have likely carried the standard wartime FAA scheme.

If we want to try and invent a new scheme, then this would sure have darker undersurfaces, for example using the PRU blue of the proper high flying fighter scheme. Upper surfaces could have been lighter than the standard one but maybe not as light as medium sea grey. A disruptive camo scheme may have been retained and in this case a potential solution could have been the use of light slate grey and dark sea grey, resulting in a lighter variant of the standard scheme. If you find the dark sea grey too dark, then this could be replaced with medium sea grey... resulting in a scheme that the RAF actually used postwar on short range tactical fighters and jet bombers !

 

 

[tank152]

10 hours ago, Julien said:

Gents,

 

Please keep this topic on thread. If you dont like or want to go along with the topics original poster you are under no obligation to take part in the discussion.

 

Julien

Point taken, apologies to nsmekanik.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, nsmekanik

I understand your point now. I remember reading Eric Brown's article about Bearcat in which he made a brief comparison between Grumman type and Sea Fury. He rated both as ultimate piston-engined fighters. He stated, that Bearcat had higher climb rate but noted that Sea Fury is a more stable gun platform and also preferred latter's cockpit arrangement, which included some blind flying instruments, absent from the former. I have this article somewhere, but unfortunately I have not been able to find it.

I do not think Sea Furies could be deployed on CVEs, let alone MAC ships. I do not have numbers handy, but I think her MTOW was some 2000-2500 lb. higher than Bearcat's and she certainly had considerably higher minimal landing speed. So, in your scenario Sea Furies would be confined to fleet carriers only. Cheers

Jure

[Simon]

What about one of these:

 

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AZM7561

 

Simon

[nsmekanik]

On 2/27/2017 at 2:19 AM, tank152 said:

Point taken, apologies to nsmekanik.

No worries

[nsmekanik]

Thanks Guys, all is much appreciated and when work is not interfering with my life I'll be able to respond in a better way