Battle of helicopters.

MattII said:
But are slower than comparatively engined aircraft.
And vastly more maneuverable...
MattII said:
Only on some things, RP-3s were less accurate when fired from slower platforms than faster ones.
How accurate are they from a platform that's virtually stationary?
MattII said:
Artillery. You may have heard of the stuff.
LZs, not bases: places to land & refuel from, &/or arm from, & abandon.
MattII said:
Takes a lot of armour to stop a 37mm explosive round.
I don't see 37mm being common in frontline infantry outfits, do you?
MattII said:
Now try it with stuff like Möbelwagens
Perhaps not so safe against them, agreed.
MattII said:
Parachutes were around by the time.
:rolleyes: Do you really think I'm an idiot?:rolleyes:

Try using one from 50 feet at 90 knots.:eek: You're safer in the aircraft.
MattII said:
So comparatively long arrival times for any sort of combat roll, Though probably good enough for critical-case medevac if you can get a half-way safe landing zone organised.
That's speed offhand, so over 100mph may've been more credible than I think. And, as already said, temporary LZs close to the front.
Simon said:
it possible to advance Frank Whittle's work by four to five years?
IDK about 4-5. With a start date 1939 & no visible need, it was 1942 before German jets flew. With visible need & '37 start, why not turbine R-4s in '40?
 
The First German jet flew in 1939, before the war.

A helicopter in hover without artificial stability controls is not stationary within a fluid atmosphere. It's relative.
 
BTW does autogyro counts? Soviets used couple of theirs Kamov A-7 during battle of Smolensk. Weapons 2 MG and 4x100 kg bombs or 6x RS-82 rockets. But mostly used for observation and liaison duties. ;)
 
And vastly more maneuverable...
Sure, but their speed would be low enough to make the effect limited.

How accurate are they from a platform that's virtually stationary?
Pretty damn poor according to the tests (when they were fired from tanks).

LZs, not bases: places to land & refuel from, &/or arm from, & abandon.
And I was talking about flying between near-front-line LZs and bases.

I don't see 37mm being common in frontline infantry outfits, do you?
In 1944 I don't see many unsupported infantry outfits.

Try using one from 50 feet at 90 knots.:eek: You're safer in the aircraft.
50 feet? I really really hope you're sure of that, because I was expect closer to 150-200 feet and 50-60 knots.

That's speed offhand, so over 100mph may've been more credible than I think.
The H-5 could make 106 mph tops, the H-13 could make 105. More than 100 mph, fine, but only just.
 
MattII said:
Sure, but their speed would be low enough to make the effect limited.
Fair point.
MattII said:
Pretty damn poor according to the tests (when they were fired from tanks).
Also not the only available option. Especially not for Germany.
MattII said:
And I was talking about flying between near-front-line LZs and bases.
So why are they so far from the front?:confused:
MattII said:
In 1944 I don't see many unsupported infantry outfits.
The whole war isn't Europe 1944. Like the Eastern Front in 1941.
MattII said:
50 feet? I really really hope you're sure of that, because I was expect closer to 150-200 feet and 50-60 knots.
Treetop height at times, yes, if not always. Even 200 ft & 60 knots is mighty marginal for the 'chute opening.
MattII said:
The H-5 could make 106 mph tops, the H-13 could make 105. More than 100 mph, fine, but only just.
Neither had more than 260hp. I'm talking about one with as much power as the Huey, with a fueslage more closely resembling the Fl-282 or 207. Top speed over 125 shouldn't be impossible with that. (And the XH-39 was capable of 136kt (156mph) on 400hp.)
 
If Juan De Ciervera hadn't been killed I could see practical helicopters in British service by the middle of the war. They would be just the thing for moving people in and out of Northern France without the Germans knowing. No risk of wheels sinking into muddy ground. The Ciervera company produced some good designs with plenty of potential immediately after the war. Ciervera himself had been there I see no reason these designs couldn't have been produced earlier.
 
If Juan De Ciervera hadn't been killed I could see practical helicopters in British service by the middle of the war. They would be just the thing for moving people in and out of Northern France without the Germans knowing. No risk of wheels sinking into muddy ground. The Ciervera company produced some good designs with plenty of potential immediately after the war. Ciervera himself had been there I see no reason these designs couldn't have been produced earlier.

I'm note sure if helicopters would have been ready in time, but I think practicable autogyro designs could have been available, and might possibly have been used in the roles you are describing.
 
So why are they so far from the front?:confused:
The LZs are right on the front, but helicopters with a top speed of 100mph will take 15 minutes to make 25 miles (IMO about the minimum safe distance to stick hospitals and other delicate and vulnerable facilites).

The whole war isn't Europe 1944. Like the Eastern Front in 1941.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be want to sitting in a helicopter if someone opened up with a DshK.

Neither had more than 260hp. I'm talking about one with as much power as the Huey, with a fueslage more closely resembling the Fl-282 or 207. Top speed over 125 shouldn't be impossible with that. (And the XH-39 was capable of 136kt (156mph) on 400hp.)
Meanwhile, the HH-47, with 860 hp could make a hop speed of 120. As for the XH-39, it had a pitiful load capacity, which was why it lost out to the Huey, a helicopter 15 mph slower despite having a comparative more powerful engine.
 
Last edited:
MattII said:
The LZs are right on the front,

25 miles
:confused: 25mi is not "right at the front". MASHes were as close as 3mi. Why wouldn't a bare LZ, used once for fuelling & arming, be at least that close?:confused::rolleyes:
MattII said:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be want to sitting in a helicopter if someone opened up with a DshK.
I'm not getting paid for it...
MattII said:
Meanwhile, the HH-47, with 860 hp
Which was twin-engine tandem-rotor, scarcely comparable to the R-4 or Fl-282.:rolleyes:
MattII said:
As for the XH-39, it had a pitiful load capacity, which was why it lost out to the Huey, a helicopter 15 mph slower despite its more than twice as powerful engine.
Which is a product of design decisions: it wasn't designed for attack.:rolleyes: The AH-1, with equal power, was capable of 190 kt, compared to 117 kt for the Huey...
 
:confused: 25mi is not "right at the front". MASHes were as close as 3mi. Why wouldn't a bare LZ, used once for fuelling & arming, be at least that close?:confused::rolleyes:
You're not getting it are you? The LZs (which will be right at the front line) will not include hospitals, they'll include, at best the facilities to patch you up so you'll survive the journey to hospital, which will be 25 miles or more behind the front lines to be out of artillery range.

Which was twin-engine tandem-rotor, scarcely comparable to the R-4 or Fl-282.:rolleyes:
Sorry, typo, I meant the Kaman HH-43.

Which is a product of design decisions: it wasn't designed for attack.:rolleyes: The AH-1, with equal power, was capable of 190 kt, compared to 117 kt for the Huey...
Both the XH-39 and XH-40 (which later became the UH-1) were designed to fill the army's new utility role. the XH-39 lost out, due to having a useful load of only about 60% of its empty weight, compared to about 73/82% (gross/max take-off weight) for the UH-1.
 
MattII said:
You're not getting it are you? The LZs (which will be right at the front line) will not include hospitals, they'll include, at best the facilities to patch you up so you'll survive the journey to hospital, which will be 25 miles or more behind the front lines to be out of artillery range.
We're obviously talking about 2 different things, here. I didn't mean the evac birds. I meant the attackers. With bases for maintenance at 25mi, but fuel/ammo LZs dead close.
MattII said:
Both the XH-39 and XH-40 (which later became the UH-1) were designed to fill the army's new utility role.
Yes, I can read: "UH-1", after all.:rolleyes:
MattII said:
Sorry, typo, I meant the Kaman HH-43.
And, yet again, a ute, not an attacker...

The idea, as I understood the OP, was to develop an *AH-1 (or, rather, *AR-1).
 
We're obviously talking about 2 different things, here. I didn't mean the evac birds. I meant the attackers. With bases for maintenance at 25mi, but fuel/ammo LZs dead close.
So what, you some inaccurate as sod missiles, and a couple of machine guns, mounted on a platform that's going to be a slow target compared to what the gunners are used to. Those things aren't going to have a high life-expectancy.

And, yet again, a ute, not an attacker...
Closer to the technology you want than something that didn't even test-fly until the 50s.

The idea, as I understood the OP, was to develop an *AH-1 (or, rather, *AR-1).
The OP mentioned nothing about the roles the helicopters would fill, just that more advanced helicopters would exist than the OTL models of the time.
 
Top