Query re:a/c aboard COMMANDANT TESTE
TMOliver
26 a/c in 2 squadrons, HS-1 w/Loire Neuport-130 seaplanes
and HS-1 w/Latecoere-298 floatplanes. Shortly after the
beginning of the war, CT was relegated to aircraft ferry
duties, apparently disembarking her AG. the L-298 was one
of the world's better a/c of type, operated as an attack
bomber w/conv. undercarriage, and was employed for dive
bombing against Wehrmacht forces. Structurally strong and
maneuverable, continued production/development might have
resulted in a decent carrier based GP a/c.
--
TMOliver AKA El Pelon Sinverguenza
"I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather,
Not screaming in terror like his passengers..."
James T. McGraw
source mention how many of each type aircraft were in which squadron?
Really do need the details on this one.
Thanks again,
James McGraw
TMOliver
>
> Thank you for the response, at the risk of sounding ungrateful, did your
> source mention how many of each type aircraft were in which squadron?
> Really do need the details on this one.
>
another pub and then a compliment from a far later French CV
and found the numbers 12/13, not unlike USN Fixed wing
shipboard squadrons.
Were I, and old (ancient) CV type, guessing, 'twould be 12
assembled, 1 spare, as the deployment load...
To look at her photos, CT had a big hangar bay (and 3 cats),
but looks to be a ship designed for colonia employment, not
against fleet units.
TMOliver
>
(CT dialogue continues, snipped)
While nothing I have specifies that CT was designed for
colonial service, the makeup of the French Fleet with its
numerous "Colonial" sloops/avisos/gunboats depending on your
navy's choice of terminology, suggests that marine aviation
units could be expected to be employed far afield, perhaps
against disgruntled indigenes or furriners reaching out
among far flung domains Francais.
Subtracting credence from that potential employment is a
note on fuel aboard, mixed, 290 tons oil/720 tons coal,
howvere no avgas storage amount is noted, so the "oil" fuel
could be an error. In any case, she seems short-legged for
overseas employment.
The comes the kicker....12 100mm AA, 8 37mm, 12 13.2mm
Hotchkiss, an enormous AA armament for the time, indicatiing
that she seems meant for fleet ops, not harbor bound
seaplane tendering, borne out by her canvas
"ramp/whatyamaycallit" aft for recovering a/c underway.
Were I an Italian or German NAVINTEL type in the early 30s,
I'ld be forced to surmise that she was built to be employed
in the Med (where 20/21 knots is not a great handicap, back
when submerged subs operated at 2-5) for force recon and
maritime and coastal attack, likely aimed at the Italians
with no CVs and limited marine air assets. I suspect at the
time of her definition and design, 1923-27, the projected
parameters for recon and attack a/c did not exceed 100kts
+/- operating speeds, 300nm max combat radius for recon
w/200 nm for VB and VT until 1945 or so (even in 1940,
Sunderlands could barely reach out 600nm, with the US and
the Japanese seeming to have accomplished more in long range
flying boats.
I've seen no figures on the French birds, but suspect a cat
launch provides a cheap and easy way to add fuel/take off
load/range to a sea or float plane. Water takeoffs charge a
big penalty.
Opinion only, cuz my best source, _ French warships of
WWII_, Couhat, Ian Allen, '71, SBN711001537, provides
minimal a/c info.
James T. McGraw
Fighting Ships of World War II" the deck plan shows 4 cats! I agree that she
is not usable in a general fleet action, especially with a speed of 20 knots.
What my question goes to, is could she and others like her participate in a
battle by projecting air assaults from a remote area? Many navies at the time
utilized sea plane tenders for various missions. Maintenance of deployed
aircraft to the fleet capital ships, reconnaissence, search and rescue, and
other rather mundane tasking. Could they in a pinch, have their air assets
pressed into service to render air assault against any enemy fleet.
Furthermore; what form would the attack take provided it was in their training
to do so! Would they strike the same as a carrier based projection of air
power, or would it be peicemeal due to lack of formal training in squadron
attack formations?
These are the questions that have answers to be pursued!
(without these answers, ships would sink, planes would fall from the sky, and
the subway's of the world would run on schedule!)
Warm Regards,
James McGraw
TMOliver wrote:
B F Lake
>Subtracting credence from that potential employment is a
note on fuel aboard, mixed, 290 tons oil/720 tons coal,
howvere no avgas storage amount is noted, so the "oil" fuel
could be an error. In any case, she seems short-legged for
overseas employment.<
reserve from which aircraft supplies can be drawn by cruisers which carry
planes.
CT had 4 mixed firing boilers, hense the coal and oil bunkers. Her radius
of action is given as 6000 miles at 10kts, the same as given for BEARN,
which was all oil fuelled.
On aviation fuel, BEARN remarks say "Stores include 3530 cu ft of petrol
under inert gas and 530 cu ft of oil." B had a special hot water service
for filling sea plane radiators and a way to fuel seaplanes It doesn't say
if the B actually carried seaplanes herself. Perhaps CT's aviation fuel
was similarly listed under "stores"
The 4 Japanese TITOSE class seaplane carriers -mid 30's- could be inspired
by the CT? to do the same work?
As to launching a strike from CT with available seaplanes, presumably CT
would have the weapon load in stores for B's use? The aircrews were
probably the same bunch just swapping around or cross-decking, so training
would not be an issue. Loading up the planes with bombs when perched on a
cat would be different from attaching them from a carrier's deck off a
cart. Don't know if that would be a problem for a CT launch?
A strike from CT however achieved might have been needed! It says B's
central hanger carried 5 torpedo, 5 recce, and 7 fighter planes, part of
the 36 planes carried, and that owing to limited flight deck space, only
1/4 of planes carried can be employed simultaneously. Course you have to
start somewhere. Later French carriers were small too but their planes had
Exocets.
Hope this helps,
Barry
James T. McGraw
Thanks for the info! The supposition that she was to act in consort with the
Bearn seems somewhat odd when you consider that Bearn was in the Carib while CT was in
the Med. One of those "we planned to do it this way but it didn't happen that way"
deals. Interesting to note that someone suggested that she was to support cruiser
aircraft operations. My suspicion is that she was doing exactly that when she was at
Oran during the British raid. Strasbourg had 4 aircraft, Dunkerque had 4 aircraft, 9
aircraft are carried on the rolls of the seaplane base. The rolls of the base by the
way are for a/c belonging to HS-1 and HS-2. Assume that Dunkerque and Strasbourg a/c
belong to HS-1, and that the remaining balance of 9 are down a/c due to maintenance,
loss, or other causes the complement of 26 aircraft are accounted for. Very
interesting.........
Sincerely,
James McGraw