ASW helicopters in WW2?

[Gunnarnz]

Spurred by a comment in another thread.

Basically, I'm wondering how practical it would be for one of the combatants in WW2 to start flying helicopters (or equivalent, eg: autogyros) from frigates to help with ASW operations.
Landing doesn't necessarily need a full-sized helipad, although it would help - dropping a cable from the helicopter would let it be winched down, and refueling in-flight is theoretically possible in the same way using hoses hauled up and attached by a crewmember.

What platforms are most suitable for this? How useful might they be? Who's most likely to try the idea out? What are the biggest advantages of the idea? The biggest problems it would encounter? Would they have any appreciable impact? Could we see a class of FFHs before the war's end?

[anon_user]

The USCGC Cobb, commissioned in 1943, was the first helicopter carrier, and was designed for ASW and SAR work.
Problems encountered: Cobb was an old, slow ship, with high maintenance costs; Allied helicopters of the period (Sikorsky R-4s and R-6s) were not well-suited to the job, being unable to carry significant loads (so they could only really serve as spotters, rather than carrying torpedoes and depth-charges of their own).

Apparently, the Royal Navy also experimented with using Sikorsky R-4s aboard ships.

[Pesterfield]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro#World_War_II

Later, the Japanese Army commissioned two small aircraft carriers intended for coastal antisubmarine (ASW) duties. The spotter's position on the Ka-1 was modified in order to carry one small depth charge. Ka-1 ASW autogyros operated from shore bases as well as the two small carriers. They appear to have been responsible for at least one submarine sinking.

At least one other references the ships lacked hangars, so they could launch but couldn't really recover.

Also one ended up being sunk by a submarine.

[CanKiwi]

Flettner Fl282 and Kreigsmarine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IYDzxT96lM

Go to around 2.00 in this one and you will see some Kreigsmarine trials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64fgG2CnHn0

[sharlin]

The aircraft were probably too fragile to be used and would suffer from weather, not only trying to fly in the atlantic but also running the risk of being bashed around in what ever hanger they make. Also putting aircraft on a small ship means you've got to make it bigger or start sacrificing weapons, or do both. Modern destroyers are so much larger than WW2 ones and can easily hold the fuel, equipment and crew needed to man and fly the copter but I doubt you could easily fit a helo and its equipment on a WW2 sized FF or DD.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by sharlin

The aircraft were probably too fragile to be used and would suffer from weather, not only trying to fly in the atlantic but also running the risk of being bashed around in what ever hanger they make. Also putting aircraft on a small ship means you've got to make it bigger or start sacrificing weapons, or do both. Modern destroyers are so much larger than WW2 ones and can easily hold the fuel, equipment and crew needed to man and fly the copter but I doubt you could easily fit a helo and its equipment on a WW2 sized FF or DD.

I was wondering about that. Most WW2 FF or DD had weapons mounted in the stern, if they were removed would that give enough weight/space for a helo to land on? The Leander class were basically WW2 designs, and they could fit a helicopter and hanger once they'd been refitted.

[sharlin]

Possible but you'd have to sacrifice a lot to get a helo onboard. Probably too much for a navy to willingly embrace.

[Cockroach]

There's three problems:
1. Early helos had low payload capacity... you'd be hard pressed to carry more than one or two depth chargers or a handful of rockets.
2. WW2 U-Boats typically carried several 20-40mm class AA guns.
3. Guided weapons and sensors are primative, heavy and bulky... all in all hard to fit in an early 'copter.

Combine 1 and 3... you'll find it difficult to find a submerged sub and you'll get one chance to try for a direct hit before you have to rearm.

Combine 1 and 2... find a sub on the surface and if you get close enough to effectively deploy rockets or bombs and you'll likely get shot down.

1. is to some extent fixable if you can get high power engines diverted from fighter and bomber production (e.g. the 1950s H-34 used an engine already in production by WW2).

[Fellatio Nelson]

Far too expensive for the limited results.

Shipboard sensors were primitive and short-ranged and submerged submarine speed and torpedo range did not requite remote destruction.

Helicopters were really needed from the late 1950s, to counter high-speed nuclear submarines, which could outrun warships especially in poor weather, leaving the warship very vulnerable; and with the advent of nuclear-tipped guided torpedoes and submarine-launched anti-ship missiles, which could be launched outside the effective range of shipboard armament.

[AdA]

The WW2 equivalent to the shipborne heli was the shipborne floatplane. The japanese Oyoda class would have made an ideal escort ship in british hands, having six aircraft (for atlantic duties, let's say two fighters to shoot down LW Condors and four ASW aircraft) and a strong AA outfit and the heavy guns to keep surface raiders (of the ligh AMC variety of course) away. The excelent low speed handling of WW2 era flying boats made them capable of most of the missions helis do nowdays. They couldn't hover, but they could circle slowly if required, and gave greater operational flexibility. Later in the war the large numbers of escort carriers and their aircraft would have made helis redundant.

[sharlin]

It's rather odd that the RN never really went big for floatplanes.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by sharlin

It's rather odd that the RN never really went big for floatplanes.

I can assure you it isnt at all odd if you have ever been in the North Atlantic in winter...

[sharlin]

Aye good point!

[PhilKearny]

Originally Posted by sharlin

It's rather odd that the RN never really went big for floatplanes.

The float plane did not fit in with RN doctrine. While initially the floatplane launched from a battleship or cruiser was regarded as both a means of spotting and a means of intercepting enemy aircraft, this view was dropped in 1920s. There a probably a number of reasons for this. First, carrier aircraft may have been assumed to take this role. The RAF probably also did not see the need. The general fiscal crunch the RN faced in the interwar years made procuring more expensive prohibitive. During WW II the RN rarely shipped floatplanes compared to US cruisers and BBs. This was due in part to space and weight limitations, as well as the RN's concerns about the very real dangers posed by av gas.

Tactical differences also were part of the reason the USN maintained floatplanes. The USN in WW II did not use floatplanes in ship v. ship engagements as spotter but found floatplanes useful for spotting fire in shore bombardment, particularly in the Pacific. They were used in sundry other tasks. I think Friedman's book Naval Firepower discusses this difference in doctrine. Anyway, some book I was recently reading made this point.

The IJN doctrine based its spotting forces on floatplanes launched from cruisers for the strike force. US doctrine relied scout-bombers, such as the Dauntless. This turned out to be not particularly successful. A good essay on this is Midway: Sheer Luck or Better Doctrine?, which demonstrates the US naval doctrine, including the use of the scout-bomber, was a major reason for this victory.

[docfl]

Didn't the USN use blimps for anti-submarine work? I remember reading somewhere that no convoy with blimps providing cover, suffered no losses? The K class blimps could hover and circle the target like a chopper, but could carry MAD gear and up to 4 depth charges. They were also armed with .50 cal machine guns. Interesting pdf file on the K class
docfl

[Moglwi]

I am sure I saw somewhere that the some U-Boats used towed unpowered Gyrocopters to incress spoting range? or am I imaginig it

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Moglwi

I am sure I saw somewhere that the some U-Boats used towed unpowered Gyrocopters to incress spoting range? or am I imaginig it

No, you're not imagining it. I've seen that somewhere as well, but it wasn't very successful. The autogyro's took too long to launch and stow, thus keeping the U-boats tied to the surface more than was sensible, and they also showed up on radar IIRC which was an obvious problem.

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by sharlin

It's rather odd that the RN never really went big for floatplanes.

They did carry Flying boats though.

How did the Walrus go landing on the north atlantic?