Me-109W Pics
Rob Arndt
Tom Hayden
Tom
Rob Arndt
surfaced. Here's the full site:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/l46/L46-me109w.htm
Rob
Joachim Schmid
Quote from there: "Only _after_ completing this model and this page I
discovered that there had in fact has been a Me-109W _project_ during
the early 1940's."
In other words: All information on this page is fictitious, there was
never a floatplane version of the Me-109 actually built.
Maybe one should mention that the Germans already had the Ar-196
floatplane. Not a very good fighter (as all floatplanes), but a reliable
and well-armed aircraft.
Regards
Joachim
Rob Arndt
single central Arado 196 float to a Me-109F and designating it Me-109W
(Wasserflugzeug). The project was halted early on due to the poor
projected performance degradations and the relative success of the
highly versatile Ar-196 itself. Weserflug also worked with
Messerschmitt on another floatplane fighter but with the Weserflug
project designation. Most of their projects were for flying boats and
amphibians with the exception of the VTOL P.1003.
Rob
p.s. Sorry for the misreading of the page. Justo Miranda's Reichsdreams
Dossiers have an entry for this project and its design lay-out.
Rob Arndt
the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu (Mighty Wind/REX):
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/kawanishi_rex.jpg
It saw action for only two months around Borneo and made 29 confimed
kills + 7 probable for a loss of only 5 a/c.
Rob
Keith W
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125443849.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not quite see the Saunders Roe SRA/1 - this was a jet fighter
designed specifically for use against the Japanese in Burma,
Borneo etc. For a first generation jet performance was quite
good with a top speed of over 500 mph and an endurance of
over 2 hours. The aircraft was powered by two axial flow Beryll
turbojets buried in the hull and it was heavily armed with
4 - 20 mm cannon.
Of course by the time it was ready the Japanese were in full retreat
and carrier aircraft had shown themselves to be adequate
for the task so it proceeded with low priority and didnt fly until 1947.
Still a number of aircraft were produced and Captain Eric Brown spoke
rather well of its handling.
There was also a Convair hydroski aircraft as I recall.
Keith
Rob Arndt
fighter floatplane. You also forgot about the Aichi M-6A Seiran:
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/seiran-2.jpg
which was designed as the only submarine launched dedicated
float-bomber designed to be carried by the massive I-400 submarine:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/i400_01.jpg
for a bombing mission against the Panama Canal. Luckily, the raid was
called off.
I don't seem to recall Britain having a single fighter floatplane
except two attempts to mount floats on a Spitfire:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/FloatplaneMkIX.jpg
One was for them to fight the Luftwaffe in the Med- which failed as the
Germans occupied the islands intended and later a revised latter
version for use against Japan- reconverted back to landplanes.
Care to comment Keith?
Rob
Rob Arndt
confuse those). Anyway the "Squirts" had a nasty snaking tendency Keith
failed to mention and two crashed, sealing its postwar fate. One pilot
flipped upside down and barely escaped with his life- I guess they
hadn't factored in underwater escapes!
Rob
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Kingfisher?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
carried two MG for defense and two small bombs. It was NOT a fighter
floatplane- only the Japanese built those in WW2. It doesn't compare at
all with the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu nor Nakajima A6M2-N which were
dedicated floatplane fighters armed with two 7.7mmMG and two 20mm
cannons.
Rob
Keith W
> Yet the Sunderland didn't make it in WW2 and you had no dedicated
The Sunderland not only made it in WW2 it sank rather a lot of U-Boats
> fighter floatplane. You also forgot about the Aichi M-6A Seiran:
>
The claim about their being only one such aircraft
is yours not mine
> http://www.aerotechnics.ru/images/i/all/seiran-2.jpg
>
> which was designed as the only submarine launched dedicated
> float-bomber designed to be carried by the massive I-400 submarine:
>
> http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/i400_01.jpg
>
> for a bombing mission against the Panama Canal. Luckily, the raid was
> called off.
>
> I don't seem to recall Britain having a single fighter floatplane
> except two attempts to mount floats on a Spitfire:
>
Indeed - we built aircraft carriers instead.
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/FloatplaneMkIX.jpg
>
> One was for them to fight the Luftwaffe in the Med- which failed as the
> Germans occupied the islands intended and later a revised latter
> version for use against Japan- reconverted back to landplanes.
>
Actually by the time they were available the axis had lost the air
war in the Med. Three MkVB on floats arrived in Egypt in late 43
but by then of course the German and Italian forces in North Africa
had surrendered and the allies had invaded Italy.
> Care to comment Keith?
>
Just did
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Rob Arndt
Read post #9 about my mistaking the Saunderland for the SR.A-1.
Now WHAT a/c are you saying that I claimed was only one???
If you're talking about the Seiran there were 28 of them produced.
Rob
Curt
Actually the US made at least one attempt at converting a F4F Wildcat to the
'Wildcatfish'. In addition to performance degradations, by 1943 in simply
had no role to play, much like the floatplane Spitfires. I'm curious where
you got your kill/loss numbers.
Curt
From http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html
F4F-3S
A floatplane version of the F4F-3 was developed for use at forward island
bases in the Pacific, before the construction of airfields. It was inspired
by appearance of the A6M-2N 'Rufe', a modification of the Mitsubishi A6M
'Zeke' by Nakajima. BuNo 4083 was modified to become the F4F-3S
'Wildcatfish'. Twin floats, manufactured by Edo, were fitted. To restore the
stability, small auxiliary fins were added to the tailplane. Because this
was still insufficient, a ventral fin was added later.
The F4F-3S was first flown 28 February 1943. The weight and drag of the
floats reduced the maximum speed to 241mph. As the performance of the basic
F4F-3 was already below that of the A6M, the F4F-3S was clearly of limited
usefulness. Anyway, the construction of the airfields at forward bases by
the 'Seabees' was surprisingly quick. Only one was converted.
Keith W
Your claim was
> Only the Japanese developed a specified/dedicated floatplane fighter-
> the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu (Mighty Wind/REX):
Its clear that other dedicated seaplane fighters were developed.
The Convair Sea Dart and SARO squirt fit the bill nicely.
tw
"Keith W" <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125488...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125483688.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Keith,
> >
> > Read post #9 about my mistaking the Saunderland for the SR.A-1.
> > Now WHAT a/c are you saying that I claimed was only one???
> >
> > If you're talking about the Seiran there were 28 of them produced.
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
> Your claim was
>
> > Only the Japanese developed a specified/dedicated floatplane fighter-
> > the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu (Mighty Wind/REX):
>
> Its clear that other dedicated seaplane fighters were developed.
> The Convair Sea Dart and SARO squirt fit the bill nicely.
Though to give credit where credit is due, Young Doctor Strangelove DID
mention floatplanes rather than flying boats. I'd say both SARO and Seadart
were the latter rather than the former.
Alistair Gunn
> Yet the Sunderland didn't make it in WW2 and you had no dedicated
> fighter floatplane. You also forgot about the Aichi M-6A Seiran:
There was the Spitfire figher floatplane project, we got as far as flying
prototypes - which would appear to be further than the Bf109W got.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Rob Arndt
Actually Japan also had the floatplane fighter Nakajima A6M2-N as well.
And you are an idiot for bringing up two POSTWAR designs that don't fit
this thread at all. The Sea Dart flew in 1953 (and was a failure just
like the SR/A-1).
The only reason the SR/A-1 was conceived in WW2 was that you Brits
couldn't build great carriers like the US and lacked bases for your
a/c. I guess selling the Habakkuk "ice carriers" to the US just didn't
pan out for you.
Rob Arndt
Indeed, the floatplane Spitfire was the fastest and most lethal of the
limited fighter floatplanes, mainly built by Japan; however, it is not
known what happened with the Weserflug/Messerschmitt 109W project.
Weserflug (as you probably don't know) built the Me Bf 163 which was a
rival to the Fiesler Storch. When rejected that RLM number was
re-issued to the Me 163 Komet. Weserflug was busy building both
fighters and bombers for the Luftwaffe but had special projects of its
own like the We-271 amphibian, P.1003 VTOL a/c, and huge flying boats.
Weserflug had several experimental a/c programs at the end of the war
and it is not known if a Me 109 was mated to a float or floats by
Weserflug anymore than if the Fw-190TL flew or not. There's just not
much information on what Weserflug had completed at the end. But at
least the Me-109W was a real project. The modifications, however, would
have been performed by Weserflug as it is listed under their project
number.
Rob
Peter Twydell
Arndt <teut...@aol.com> writes
also the Blackburn Roc experiment. An object lesson in how to take a
pretty awful-looking a/c (the Skua), make it less pretty(!) by adding a
turret, then overcoming what little useful thrust was left by adding
additional draggery
http://tinyurl.com/anrhd.
There was also a CR.42 project:
http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca498_box.jpg
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Rob Arndt
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot048.jpg
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot051.jpg
Had it been introduced the Japanese would have had "Catfish" for
dinner!
Rob
p.s. Interesting odd aircraft tho'- thanks for the info.
Tom
> Keith,
>
> Actually Japan also had the floatplane fighter Nakajima A6M2-N as well.
> And you are an idiot for bringing up two POSTWAR designs that don't fit
> this thread at all. The Sea Dart flew in 1953 (and was a failure just
> like the SR/A-1).
You'd have done better to point out the floatplane v flyingboat argument.
You've blown it now.
> The only reason the SR/A-1 was conceived in WW2 was that you Brits
> couldn't build great carriers like the US
Actually, as far as the pacific war was concerned our carriers were rather
better suited as kamikazes tended to bounce off those armoured decks.
Granted e.g. Indefatigable couldn\t carry as many aircraft as an Essex class
fir a similar-ish displacement but I don't see wht good the size of your
airgroup dioes you if you have no deck to launch it from.
> and lacked bases for your
> a/c. I guess selling the Habakkuk "ice carriers" to the US just didn't
> pan out for you.
>
Well seeing as that never made it past teh stage of any of yuor Hun
wonder-weapons it's not really an issue. Naturally, Americans being a clever
lot who know a good idea when they see one, they did adopt the angled deck,
the steam catapult (cue V1 bleating...) and the mirror landing sight...
Rob Arndt
WW1 and WW2 than from ALL combined British military inventions :)
Rob
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Like that means anything.
In any event it was a fair trade. The allies paid for all the German
technology during WW2. As far as I am concerned they Germans were given
plenty of bombs as payment. Heck, the Allies were kind enough to air
deliver them.
Keith W
> Keith,
>
> Actually Japan also had the floatplane fighter Nakajima A6M2-N as well.
> And you are an idiot for bringing up two POSTWAR designs that don't fit
> this thread at all.
You didnt specify a time frame.
> The Sea Dart flew in 1953 (and was a failure just
> like the SR/A-1).
Just like all other seaplane fighters
> The only reason the SR/A-1 was conceived in WW2 was that you Brits
> couldn't build great carriers like the US
Trouble is we did. The Illustrious Class Carriers and the follow on
Indomitables more than earned their keep and the light fleets
were the staple of many navies into the 80's.
> and lacked bases for your a/c.
Apart from places like Malta which decimated Rommel's
shipping and the bases the RAF used to destroy Germany's
industrial cities you mean.
> I guess selling the Habakkuk "ice carriers" to the US just didn't
> pan out for you.
>
Indeed we managed to build a shit load of fleet and escort carriers
instead.
Compare and contrast with the German carrier program.
Keith
Keith W
> The US got a hell of a lot more technology from the German arsenals of
> WW1 and WW2 than from ALL combined British military inventions :)
>
> Rob
>
Lets see in terms of weapons used during the WW2
From Britain they got the tank, the jet engine, the cavity magnetron,
the Merlin engine (although the US were better at making it), a
good percentage of the scientists on the Manhattan project and the
aircraft carrier (a WW1 developmemt of the RN)
From Germany they got most of the rest of the scientists
on the Manhattan project although I dont think the
Nazi regime really anticipated that they would hand the
lead in nuclear weapons to the USA when they expelled
those 'jewish' scientists.
ROTFLMAO
Keith
tw
> The US got a hell of a lot more technology from the German arsenals of
> WW1 and WW2 than from ALL combined British military inventions :)
Prove it. Bet you can't.
>
> Rob
>
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
asked to
provide proof: ignore it, personally abuse you for asking, start a German
superiority/Allies "raped Germany" rant, "everyone knows" or provide a
cite that
doesn't say what he says it does. Based on recent experience he will
either ignore
you, attack me or bring up NASA, swept wings, jet engines or U-boats.
tw
"Keith W" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df5b60$o2q$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125517153.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The only reason the SR/A-1 was conceived in WW2 was that you Brits
> > couldn't build great carriers like the US
>
> Trouble is we did. The Illustrious Class Carriers and the follow on
> Indomitables more than earned their keep and the light fleets
> were the staple of many navies into the 80's.
Ah, I had completely forgotten about how many Navies were equipped with the
Colossus and Majestics post war!
Canada, France, Brazil, Argentina, India, Australia and Holland spring
readily to mind (although in some cases, e.g. France/Argentina and
Holland/Argentina we're talking about the same ship) I can only think of a
couple of US carriers operated by other countries -the Spanish "Dedalo" a
WWII CVS and didn't the French operate one too?
Rob Arndt
any faith in the surface fleet at all having stated on several
occasions that the surface fleet should be scrapped. It is sad that the
only real shining moments for the Kreigsmarine was the sinking of HMS
Hood, the Channel Dash, and rescuing over 2 million civilian and
military personnel from East Prussia in 1945- a spectacular
demonstration compared to the Dunkirk rescue.
Instead, Doenitz needed just 300 continuous U-Boats out in the Atlantic
to choke off Britain and keep the convoys under attack. Winston
Churchill is on record as saying that the German U-Boats were the
greatest threat to Britain throughout the war.
But there were never more than 100 U-Boats available at any one time
and what is more disturbing is that Doenitz kept a large number in the
South Atlantic from 1943 forwards instead of in the North Atantic where
the main fight was. He did this to transport vital materials and
personnel to Base 211. The raiders early on were also in these waters
and set up meterological stations and bouys from Antartic waters in a
line up to Argentina. The Germans had bases in Argentina, Tierra del
Fuego, and Antarctica. In his 1943 speech to U-Boat men Doenitz stated
that he had created "IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD a PARADISE for
U-Boats, safe from Allied a/c". If not Base 211, WHERE was he talking
about and WHERE are the 54 missing U-Boats (this number does not
include Hitlers U-112 TypeXIb "Schwarz Ritter" which is listed as
uncompleted and yet sunk off Cape Cod (discovered in the 1990s) nor the
many Type XXVI "mystery" U-Boats recorded by the Argentine Navy and AF
postwar in Argentine waters).
BTW, the Allies employed the captured Type XXIs as testbeds and much of
its technology was integrated in their postwar designs. I only wish the
two that were out cruising defied orders and would have sunk their
British targets who were unaware of their presence directly beneath
them. The Type XXIs had a V-Belt silent drive and wire-guided torpedos.
Rob
Guy Alcala
Two: Lafayette (ex-Langley) and Bois Belleau (no points for guessing its former
US name;-) ) All three were Independence-class CVLs; Dedalo was the former USS
Cabot.
Guy
Kyle Boatright
Stuff based in fact snipped...
> But there were never more than 100 U-Boats available at any one time
> and what is more disturbing is that Doenitz kept a large number in the
> South Atlantic from 1943 forwards instead of in the North Atantic where
> the main fight was. He did this to transport vital materials and
> personnel to Base 211. The raiders early on were also in these waters
> and set up meterological stations and bouys from Antartic waters in a
> line up to Argentina. The Germans had bases in Argentina, Tierra del
> Fuego, and Antarctica. In his 1943 speech to U-Boat men Doenitz stated
> that he had created "IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD a PARADISE for
> U-Boats, safe from Allied a/c". If not Base 211, WHERE was he talking
> about and WHERE are the 54 missing U-Boats
Your imagination?
> (this number does not
> include Hitlers U-112 TypeXIb "Schwarz Ritter" which is listed as
> uncompleted and yet sunk off Cape Cod (discovered in the 1990s) nor the
> many Type XXVI "mystery" U-Boats recorded by the Argentine Navy and AF
> postwar in Argentine waters).
> BTW, the Allies employed the captured Type XXIs as testbeds and much of
> its technology was integrated in their postwar designs. I only wish the
> two that were out cruising defied orders and would have sunk their
> British targets who were unaware of their presence directly beneath
> them. The Type XXIs had a V-Belt silent drive and wire-guided torpedos.
It ain't the drive mechanism that makes noise on an electric sub. It's the
propellor... If you want to interject something about snorkels, that's fine,
but in daytime combat operations, subs don't stay at snorkel depth.
> Rob
>
Keith W
> But there were never more than 100 U-Boats available at any one time
> and what is more disturbing is that Doenitz kept a large number in the
> South Atlantic from 1943 forwards instead of in the North Atantic where
> the main fight was. He did this to transport vital materials and
> personnel to Base 211.
No he did this because that was
1) The route used to move troops from the UK to the middle
east and far east
2) That was the route used to supply the eighth army in Africa
3) A large percentage of British foodstuffs came through
the South Atlantic from Argentina, South Africa etc
4) It was the route used to ship oil from Persia and Iran
to the UK
5) Most ships still sailed independently
6) After May 1943 survival times for U-boats in the North
Atlantic were distressingly short
> The raiders early on were also in these waters
> and set up meterological stations and bouys from Antartic waters in a
> line up to Argentina.
Indeed and their business was hunting British merchantmen
Thats why the Panzerschiffe Graf Spee was down there
in 1939 for example
> The Germans had bases in Argentina, Tierra del
> Fuego, and Antarctica. In his 1943 speech to U-Boat men Doenitz stated
> that he had created "IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD a PARADISE for
> U-Boats, safe from Allied a/c". If not Base 211, WHERE was he talking
> about and WHERE are the 54 missing U-Boats (this number does not
> include Hitlers U-112 TypeXIb "Schwarz Ritter" which is listed as
> uncompleted and yet sunk off Cape Cod (discovered in the 1990s)
They are also somewhere on the ocean floor. Thats what missing
in wartime means for a submarine. There are large numbers of
'missing' British and US Submarines too, I dont think they went
to a secret base in Bermuda.
> nor the
> many Type XXVI "mystery" U-Boats recorded by the Argentine Navy and AF
> postwar in Argentine waters).
> BTW, the Allies employed the captured Type XXIs as testbeds and much of
> its technology was integrated in their postwar designs. I only wish the
> two that were out cruising defied orders and would have sunk their
> British targets who were unaware of their presence directly beneath
> them. The Type XXIs had a V-Belt silent drive and wire-guided torpedos.
>
> Rob
>
Had they done so their captains would have been executed for piracy
as the war was over when the incident was alleged to have happened.
Its typical that you wish others had committed war crimes.
Keith
human...@hanmail.net
> floatplane. Not a very good fighter (as all floatplanes), but a reliable
> and well-armed aircraft.
Wouldn't it be possible to use Ar-196s carried onboard German capital
ships as sort of interceptors to shake off shadowing Catalina or
Swordfish? Just like the British intention back in the 1970s and 1980s
to use their Sea Harriers against Russian Tu-95RT Bear D recon planes.
Guy Alcala
In fact the Germans both planned to and tried to use them forthat purpose.
Tirpitz launched an AR-196 in 1942 when she was about to be attacked by
Victorious' Albacores. No kills claimed (I don't remember if they'd ever made
any attacks) and the a/c recovered in Norway, but then none of the Albacores
scored any torp hits either.
Bismarck probably would have liked to do so when Ark's Swordfish attacked, but
the weather was so bad launching an a/c would have been difficult, and
recovery impossible. Later, after she'd been crippled she tried to launch one
with the War Diary and film that had been taken during the battle with
POW/Hood, with the intention of the a/c flying to France, but it was
discovered that the catapult had been damaged by shellfire from PoW.
Guy
Per Nordenberg
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:43180DB1...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
I believe Bismarck's AR-196 would also have carried a last farewell from
many of
the ship's crew to their relatives in Germany.
Regards,
Per Nordenberg
--
Jag använder gratisversionen av SPAMfighter
708 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis på www.spamfighter.com idag!
Gernot Hassenpflug
Russian planes in the Baltic in 1944/45 and some victories. The
rear-gunner got a good workout :-) Apparently no slouch, that Ar-196B.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan
W. D. Allen Sr.
bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
end
<human...@hanmail.net> wrote in message
news:1125647027....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Chaplin
news:seidncdUGqr...@adelphia.com...
> The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German
Folkwolf
> bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
>
> What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
If they could, they set out for a aerodrome, otherwise they ditched
alongside, AIUI.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Andre Lieven
"W. D. Allen Sr." (ball...@adelphia.net) writes:
> The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German
> Folkwolf bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
Focke Wulf.
> What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
<splash> Unless a landing field was within the fuel radius of the
fighter. Also, some Fulmar fighters were used in that manner, as well.
Proper escort carriers made the CAM ships redundant.
> end
>
> <human...@hanmail.net> wrote in message
> news:1125647027....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Maybe one should mention that the Germans already had the Ar-196
>>> floatplane. Not a very good fighter (as all floatplanes), but a reliable
>>> and well-armed aircraft.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to use Ar-196s carried onboard German capital
>> ships as sort of interceptors to shake off shadowing Catalina or
>> Swordfish? Just like the British intention back in the 1970s and 1980s
>> to use their Sea Harriers against Russian Tu-95RT Bear D recon planes.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Peter Twydell
<ball...@adelphia.net> writes
>The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German Folkwolf
>bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
>
>What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
>
pilot parachuted into the sea as close as he could to the convoy ,
hoping to be picked up before drowning or dying of exposure. The
aircraft crashed into the sea in the expected manner.
Try Googling for CAM ships. This was the name given to the 35 Catapult
Armed Merchantmen fitted with the rocket-powered catapults.
>end
>
><human...@hanmail.net> wrote in message
>news:1125647027....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Maybe one should mention that the Germans already had the Ar-196
>>> floatplane. Not a very good fighter (as all floatplanes), but a reliable
>>> and well-armed aircraft.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to use Ar-196s carried onboard German capital
>> ships as sort of interceptors to shake off shadowing Catalina or
>> Swordfish? Just like the British intention back in the 1970s and 1980s
>> to use their Sea Harriers against Russian Tu-95RT Bear D recon planes.
>>
>
>
--
Graeme Wall
"W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German Folkwolf
> bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
>
> What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
>
Ditched.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Gernot Hassenpflug
W> The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter
W> German Folkwolf bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW
W> II.
Focke Wulf :-)
Guy Alcala
> In message <seidncdUGqr...@adelphia.com>
> "W. D. Allen Sr." <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German Folkwolf
> > bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
> >
> > What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
> >
>
> Ditched.
IIRR the recommended procedure for the Hurricane over the sea was to bail out,
not ditch. Per Eric Brown, "Unfortunately, when it was ditched in the sea the
consequences were lethal." IIRR most of the inline-engined fighters tended to
keep going right on down, sometimes first flipping on their backs just for
variety.
Guy
KDR
mike
>
> Per Eric Brown, "Unfortunately, when it was ditched in the sea the
> consequences were lethal." IIRR most of the inline-engined fighters
> tended to keep going right on down, sometimes first flipping on their
> backs just for variety.
Had any though of just using a big barrier net, hauled up for the craft
to be 'netted' in?
Each Fighter was a write-off if out of range of a land base, and I'd
rather chance a barrier net than ditching any day in the N. Atlantic.
You might survive being diced in the net, that sounds better than
the 2 minutes you are suppost to last in near freezing saltwater.
at least you have the chance to be dry, with hopes the Red Shirts
have plenty of foam ready to hose out any fires on hitting the net
**
mike
**
Krztalizer
report that they never recovered any survivors from that type. Mossies
broke up but occasionally they gave up a soul here and there.
v/r Gordon
Gernot Hassenpflug
KDR> Any info about the types of Russian planes shot down by
KDR> Ar-196?
single engine fighters, but I don't have the book with me...
Andrew Robert Breen
The Beau had the additional problems that for its day it was an
enormously heavy machine (and was thus extremely good at sinking
once ditched) and its exit hatch was underneath (not helpful
underwater). I well remember my father's comments about his time
doing ASR in the channel: "no-one got out of a (ditched) Beau"
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
human...@hanmail.net
This Danish site says two Ar-196s were catapulted and they actually
attacked shadowing Albacores.
"Two shadowing aircraft were engaged in an indeterminate scrap with the
Arados but a third Albacore was attacked and the navigator wounded by
cannon fire although the Albacore made a successful return to
Victorious."
Krztalizer
some point, I'd like to attribute his comments in our book on
Mosquitoes (which naturally will include bits comparing them with the
magnificent Beaufighters).
v/r Gordon
Andrew Robert Breen
At the time he was doing ASR (out of Newhaven - HMS Agressive) the
was Sub. Lt. Derric Armstrong Breen, 1st Lt. of RML 516 (commanded
by Lt. Tony Bone, who was killed in the Adriatic in 1944, IIRC).
He ended his naval career as a Lt. Commander RNVR.
His own view of the channel is on-line at:
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/outside/book/chapter12.html
It doesn't include his comments on the prospects of survival of any
one in ditching Beau, but they were "no one ever got out of a Beau"
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)
Dave Kearton
news:dfetke$b1oe$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
| In article <1125808372.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
| Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
| >Same was true of the Beau, even with their largish radials. ASR vets
| >report that they never recovered any survivors from that type. Mossies
| >broke up but occasionally they gave up a soul here and there.
|
| The Beau had the additional problems that for its day it was an
| enormously heavy machine (and was thus extremely good at sinking
| once ditched) and its exit hatch was underneath (not helpful
| underwater). I well remember my father's comments about his time
| doing ASR in the channel: "no-one got out of a (ditched) Beau"
|
|
| --
| Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales,
Aberystwyth
|
I'm concerned that you guys might be unintentionally perpetuating an
"unditchable" myth.
Both the pilot and the observer have egress through the top panels and I've
posted video of a successful beaufighter ditching on a.b.m.a in the past.
2 minutes on Google has also come up with these examples, including one
lucky pilot who survived two ditchings in one career...
http://users.cyberone.com.au/clardo/js_mitchell_dfc.html
"Flight Lieutenant Mitchell has completed a large number of operational
sorties against enemy lines of communications in Burma. He has effectively
attacked road and rail transport and shipping. In September 1944, when
returning from a mission, one engine caught fire and, after many
unsuccessful attempts to extinguish it, his aircraft was forced down on to
the sea. Flight Lieutenant Mitchell made the descent with such skill and
airmanship that both he and his navigator were able to keep afloat in their
dinghy until rescued. Flight Lieutenant Mitchell has displayed courage and
initiative throughout his tour."
http://home.no.net/kjellsor/jossingfjord.html
RD463 managed a succesful ditching, but were lost without trace.
http://www.tauntonschool.co.uk/alumni/obituaries/files/BRAHAM.html
(Mosquito ditching)
The following is just one example of how dangerous these daylight lone
Ranger ops were and how determined he was to destroy the enemy. On the 12th
May 1944, operating over Denmark with F/Lt 'Sticks' Gregory as his
Navigator, he chased and attacked a FW 190 which flew very low to the ground
in an attempt to escape. Braham flew so low that the tips of his propellers
were bent on hitting a mound. He was attacked by an Me 109 which severely
damaged his Mosquito but despite this he pressed on with attack and
destroyed the FW 190. He was then hit by flak but with great skill he
managed to fly the damaged Mosquito across the North Sea to within 70 miles
of Cromer when he had to ditch. He and Gregory survived and got into the
dinghy and were rescued by a minesweeper which transferred them on to a
motor torpedo boat which, in turn put them on an RAF Rescue Launch.
http://www.worldwar2exraf.co.uk/Aircrewnoticeboard71.html
Tom Docherty is currently working on a book about RAF Air Sea Rescue during
WWII and would like to contact any members of the following crew who were
rescues by RAF Air Sea Rescue or anyone who may have known the following
crew or have any knowledge about the incidents.
Crew of HSL 2706 which ditched in the sea on 23 Mar 1944
1155743 AC1 Anderson
1178275 LAC Smallwood
Beaufighter 455 Sqn out of RAF Langham which ditched on 29th June 1944
F/O Colleary
Mosquito from 515 Sqn which ditched on 28th Aug 1944
F/Lt H M Huggins
The 37 survivors of Glider ditching on 9 Sep 44
Beaufighter which ditched on 3rd Mar 1945
P/O Larkman
Mustang from 65 Sqn out of RAF Peterhead which ditched on 3 May 1945
F/O Lucas
Do you know any of the above crew members? Or perhaps you know more about
the incident. If so then Tom would like to hear from you and can be
contacted at the email address below
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/commonwealth_riley.htm
The crew of the shot down Beaufighter (Rogers and Woolven) was fortunate to
survive the ditching. When their aircraft hit the sea, the observer was able
to scramble clear but it rapidly sank, taking the pilot down with it. Unable
to open the escape hatch, Rogers resigned himself to his fate until pressure
burst open the hatch and he was shot to the surface in an air bubble! At the
same time, an almost empty fuel tank was ripped from the wing as the
aircraft broke up and surfaced nearby allowing Woolven, who was a poor
swimmer, to use it as a raft while Rogers pushed him ashore - in a swim that
lasted ten hours!
http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-item?item=490&user=189131119-5870aaa
(This Beaufighter pilot survived TWO ditchings)
This is another small-press memoir that brings us a dimension of war that is
not widely known. The author, a Vancouver native, flew overseas in a Hudson
bomber in 1941 and then, after further training in England, was posted to
the Middle East, where he flew as a navigator on Beaufort and Beaufighter
torpedo bombers over the Mediterranean (the title refers to the nickname
given to the Beaufighter). He spent a year operating from Malta and, after
conversion to Beaufighters, survived two forced landings. The first, in the
sea, resulted in a five-day ordeal before he and his pilot washed ashore on
the island of Elba, from which they escaped to Corsica. This was followed by
instructional duties on Cyprus, which lasted only until a pilot friend
convinced him that it was better to be killed on operations than be killed
by a student pilot. Heide and his pilot were posted to an operational
squadron on Tobruk, and then went through a second ditching. On this
occasion, they managed to reach land, but it was neutral Turkey and they
were interned (albeit in quite pleasant conditions) for a short period of
time before returning to the squadron. The war in the desert wound up in
late 1944, and Heide was back in Canada, newly demobilized and with a DFC
and a British wife, by the spring of 1945. A keen observer, Heide spins a
good tale; Whispering Death is an informative and entertaining book with
lots of good anecdotes and local colour.
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/sorties.html
September 12 1944.
Armed patrol by twenty four Beaufighters and thirteen Mosquito's Once again,
due to inclement weather this sortie was also abandoned with one Beaufighter
having to ditch, the crew being picked up later by a fishing vessel.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Ian MacLure
news:seidncdUGqr...@adelphia.com:
> The British launched Hurricanes from cargo ships to counter German
> Folkwolf bombers attacking Murmansk convoys during WW II.
>
> What happened to those Hurricanes when their fuel was exhausted?
They ditched in the ocean ( god help them ).
Were the aircrew for these missions volunteers?
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Graeme Wall
"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Guy Alcala wrote:
> >
> > Per Eric Brown, "Unfortunately, when it was ditched in the sea the
> > consequences were lethal." IIRR most of the inline-engined fighters
> > tended to keep going right on down, sometimes first flipping on their
> > backs just for variety.
>
> Had any though of just using a big barrier net, hauled up for the craft
> to be 'netted' in?
>
> Each Fighter was a write-off if out of range of a land base, and I'd
> rather chance a barrier net than ditching any day in the N. Atlantic.
No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a merchant ship
ahead of all the masts and derricks. The loss of the fighter was acceptable
if it saved one or more ships being sunk, in the cold analysis the pilot was
also expendablr in those circumstances.
>
> You might survive being diced in the net, that sounds better than
> the 2 minutes you are suppost to last in near freezing saltwater.
> at least you have the chance to be dry, with hopes the Red Shirts
> have plenty of foam ready to hose out any fires on hitting the net
>
We are talking a merchantman with minimal facilities, not a warship with
trained fire-fighting teams.
Andrew Robert Breen
Dave Kearton <dkearton.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸<º))))@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:dfetke$b1oe$1...@central.aber.ac.uk...
>| In article <1125808372.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>| Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
>| >Same was true of the Beau, even with their largish radials. ASR vets
>| >report that they never recovered any survivors from that type. Mossies
>| >broke up but occasionally they gave up a soul here and there.
>|
>| The Beau had the additional problems that for its day it was an
>| enormously heavy machine (and was thus extremely good at sinking
>| once ditched) and its exit hatch was underneath (not helpful
>| underwater). I well remember my father's comments about his time
>| doing ASR in the channel: "no-one got out of a (ditched) Beau"
>I'm concerned that you guys might be unintentionally perpetuating an
>"unditchable" myth.
Could be - but what I'm trying to do is repeat the view of (one
set of) ASR people in the channel..
>Both the pilot and the observer have egress through the top panels and I've
>posted video of a successful beaufighter ditching on a.b.m.a in the past.
(interesting stuff about survival in Beau ditchings snipped to save space)
It's not unlikely that the possibly-skewed view of Beau-crew survival
chances present in channel ASR was due to (1) losses of Beaus on
take-off when loss of an engine with a heavy aeroplane probably meant
a crash at too high a speed to escape from (crew stunned/injured in
impact?) or (2) ditching of damaged aircraft (again, injured crew?)
after low-level sweeps over France (Rhubarbs, decribed by my father
as suicide for the crews and murder by air force command..).
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Dave Kearton
| In article <F2LSe.1$dv4...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
|| Could be - but what I'm trying to do is repeat the view of (one
| set of) ASR people in the channel..
|
| It's not unlikely that the possibly-skewed view of Beau-crew survival
| chances present in channel ASR was due to (1) losses of Beaus on
| take-off when loss of an engine with a heavy aeroplane probably meant
| a crash at too high a speed to escape from (crew stunned/injured in
| impact?) or (2) ditching of damaged aircraft (again, injured crew?)
| after low-level sweeps over France (Rhubarbs, decribed by my father
| as suicide for the crews and murder by air force command..).
|
| --
| Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales,
| Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
| money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Entirely possible Mr B. I know only a little more than 3/5ths of 5/8ths
on the subject and your theory is the best one yet that fits the limited
data that we have. The video that I have (somewhere) was of a
well ventillated Beau on its way back from a fjord attack in Njorway and
would have been unusually light for that stage in the sortie.
It appears that Beau ditchings were possible, the examples that I saw were
obviously the successes. I'm sure there exists documentation on the
unsuccessful attempts and the relationship betwixt the two.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Keith W
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸<º))))@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
message news:W9WSe.182$dv4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
>
>
> It appears that Beau ditchings were possible, the examples that I saw
> were
> obviously the successes. I'm sure there exists documentation on the
> unsuccessful attempts and the relationship betwixt the two.
>
There's an account of a ditching at
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/vafrefugees/vafmsgboard.mv?parm_func=showmsg+parm_msgnum=1006246
Time seems to have been of the essence , the aircraft sank within 8
seconds and the pilot escaped under water !
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Andrew Robert Breen
Keith W <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Dave Kearton" <dkearton.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸<º))))@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>message news:W9WSe.182$dv4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>>
>
>>
>>
>> It appears that Beau ditchings were possible, the examples that I saw
>> were
>> obviously the successes. I'm sure there exists documentation on the
>> unsuccessful attempts and the relationship betwixt the two.
>>
>
>There's an account of a ditching at
>http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/vafrefugees/vafmsgboard.mv?parm_func=showmsg+parm_msgnum=1006246
>
>Time seems to have been of the essence , the aircraft sank within 8
>seconds and the pilot escaped under water !
/ouch/, with emphasis.
In this case the ditching was close to the base and on return from mission,
for presumably the brute was as light as a Beau ever got. And still it
sank in 8s. Gulp.
It'd be interesting (well, you know what I mean) to see whether there was
a relationship between crews surviving Beaufighter ditchings and whether
the loss was on outwards or return from mission.
mike
> No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a merchant ship
> ahead of all the masts and derricks.
Should be able to stretch up a net using one of the heavy lift booms
to the Mast.
Or scale up the rig they used to 'land' L4 Cubs
http://www.geocities.com/airbornemuseum/sld026.htm
skip down to the text on Brodie, using a sorta skyhook, and he thought
it could be scaled to 7000 pound aircraft
> We are talking a merchantman with minimal facilities, not a warship with
> trained fire-fighting teams.
Point.
Regular Sailors manning the hoses then.
**
mike
**
Keith W
"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125928640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a merchant
>> ship
>> ahead of all the masts and derricks.
>
> Should be able to stretch up a net using one of the heavy lift booms
> to the Mast.
>
And you cant see a problem with flying into a net attached to
a mast on a moving ship at sea ?
Andrew Robert Breen
Keith W <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1125928640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>> No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a merchant
>>> ship
>>> ahead of all the masts and derricks.
>>
>> Should be able to stretch up a net using one of the heavy lift booms
>> to the Mast.
>>
I can see all kinds of potential for things going very badly wrong
here. Wrong to the degree of risking the ship and its cargo.
>And you cant see a problem with flying into a net attached to
>a mast on a moving ship at sea ?
Fighters used on CAMships were life-expired airframes, for the
most part (the Hurricanes used were elderly Mk.1s, often with
only token updates). These airframes would have been heading
for the junk pile otherwise (and there were more than enough
elderly, life-expired Hurricanes) so saving the aeroplane
wasn't an issue. The RN had also learned the lessons about
trying to recover landplanes on lightly adapted ships many
years before, which is why they'd gone to the bother of
inventing the aircraft carrier.
The one component of the CAM plane worth salving was, of
course, the pilot. Picking him up was one of the jobs of the
convoy rescue ship (out at the tail end of the convoy,
just inside the AA escort in Q position) or any currently-
unoccupied escort that he could parachute down near.
In the cold nasty arithmatic of the convoys a merchant ship
fully loaded with stores was of more value than one pilot (the
pilot training scheme was up and running very well by then)
so the risk of severe landing accidents with a jury-rigged
catch net wasn't worth running. Besides, the time taken to
develop and test such a system would almost certainly
have been longer than the time taken to bring the first
escort carriers into service.
Graeme Wall
"mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That'll be one hose pumping seawater not foam, assuming the chief has fixed
the pump after that incident in Halifax.
Dave Kearton
At the risk of flogging this sub-thread to death, this incident is curious
in extremis.
Given that the details are less less than minima to make any conclusions,
it raises the following questions.
Surely the pilot had enough fuel and power available to climb to a safe
bailout altitude, given that he could make two attempts at a runway landing.
If the Beau had a reputation among ASR as 'unfloatable', and 100% fatal in
ditching attempts, this reputation would also be known among Beau crews.
This pilot, who must have balls like grapefruit, chose to ditch offshore in
order not to break something on the airfield. Accepted that his fuel
situation and maybe failing daylight wouldn't allow a divert to an alternate
airfield. It still appeared that a ditching at sea was
preferable to bailing out or a wheels-up in farmland.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Gernot Hassenpflug
Keith> "mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Keith> news:1125928640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a
>>> merchant ship ahead of all the masts and derricks.
>> Should be able to stretch up a net using one of the heavy lift
>> booms to the Mast.
Keith> And you cant see a problem with flying into a net attached
Keith> to a mast on a moving ship at sea ?
Poor bastards! Still, the alternative will keep them concentrated :-)
Clearly, nothing was seen terribly wrong with shooting fighters
one-way off the bows of a merchant ship in the middle of the North
Atlantic and telling the pilot to parachute into the icy ocean, or
ditch.... how much further do we need to go from "right" before it's
"wrong, eh? :-)
Keith W
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:87ek82q...@nospam.com...
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith W <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Keith> "mike" <mara...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Keith> news:1125928640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Graeme Wall wrote:
> >>> No where to put one, the catapult was fixed to the bows of a
> >>> merchant ship ahead of all the masts and derricks.
> >> Should be able to stretch up a net using one of the heavy lift
> >> booms to the Mast.
>
> Keith> And you cant see a problem with flying into a net attached
> Keith> to a mast on a moving ship at sea ?
>
> Poor bastards! Still, the alternative will keep them concentrated :-)
> Clearly, nothing was seen terribly wrong with shooting fighters
> one-way off the bows of a merchant ship in the middle of the North
> Atlantic and telling the pilot to parachute into the icy ocean, or
> ditch....
A lot was seen as wrong but the alternative was losing a
lot of ships to bombing and even more to U-boats
summoned by the recon aircraft.
> how much further do we need to go from "right" before it's
> "wrong, eh? :-)
While not being ready to volunteer for either I'd far
sooner parachute out near a destroyer than try and land
in a net suspended from the mast and derricks of a merchie
Peter Skelton
ISTR that the pilots were volunteers, presumably they thought it
was OK.
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
RAF pilots were most certainly volunteers - the unit providing
RAF pilots for CAM ships (the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit) was
a volunteer unit.
http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/aces/spurdle.htm
states:
"He then volunteered for the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit, formed to provide
Hurricane aircraft and pilots for service on catapult-armed merchantmen in
order to combat long-range Focke Wulf Condors harassing Allied convoys in
the Atlantic"
Not so sure about the FAA pilots - the original CAM-ship committment
(following on from the Fulmars on _Springbank_) was 804 squadron. Their
squadron history
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/804.html
makes no mention of any special status during this period.
Vince
I dont have my sources, but I seem to recall that any mission that
"required" you to use a parachute was a volunteer mission.
I also seem to recall that the mission loss rate of pilots was about
15-20 percent, but not all were fatalities.
one online source states
"In the two years that they were in service, only eight catapult
launchings were made, and six enemy aircraft shot down with the loss of
one RAF pilot. Twelve CAM ships were sunk through enemy action."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship
This would roughly agree with my memory
Vince
KDR
Operations Room or CIC in German capital ships after 1942?
KDR
- Lookouts with binoculars on a CAM ship scan the sky and alert the
skipper if something is detected.
or
- Radar-equipped warships take care of detection and tracking, CAM
ships merely launch the fighter on order?
Peter Stickney
> Were there any air search radar and an organization similar to
> Operations Room or CIC in German capital ships after 1942?
Not Air Search radars as such. They did have radar for surface and AA
spotting. No full RPC for the turrets - it was all matched-pointer
stuff.
They also didn't go with a CIC or similar - the German surface Navy
was in many ways still operating from a WW I mindset.
Y'know - there's another interesting question - Graf Zeppelin was
based on the German's Light Cruisers. The German CLs were singularly
unsuccessful. Because they couldn't stand the North Sea or the
Atlantic, they ended up being restricted to the Baltic Sea. It's not
unreasonable to expect that with the same basic hull, built in the
same yards, that the Graf would have had similar problems.
--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.
hlg
"KDR" <human...@hanmail.net> wrote in message
news:1126069812.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If my reading of books by such as McIntyre and Broome is correct, then
aircraft were catapulted only on direct order from the Senior Officer of the
Escort. On some occasions, where BV 138 flying boats got too close and too
persistent, the Hurricanes would be warmed up on the catapults. The sight of
a Hurricane's prop turning was rather like a baring of teeth; "Back off, or
..."
Thomas Schoene
The CAM ships carried air-search radar (scarce at that point; another reason
not to risk them) and small fighter-direction parties.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872