The affects of helicopters in World War II

Meshakhad

Meshakhad

As others have said, the technology would still be too limited for any serious attack helicopters to be viable.

Casualties could have been lower thanks to medivac choppers delivering wounded to the doctors faster. This would probably have more of an impact in rugged terrain (so more of the Pacific Front) and helping the Allies, given the Axis' perpetual fuel shortages.

One use might be as tools for aiding or suppressing partisans. For the Axis, helicopters would have been useful on patrols, particularly in rugged areas. It might have made it worse for the Yugoslav partisans in particular, since I believe they used the terrain to their advantage. For the Allies, it would have enabled closer cooperation with partisans in France and Norway.

Both sides would no doubt have used them for ASW. This would particularly benefit the Allies, but I don't see it having a major impact.

Helicopters would have made excellent tools for the Marines fighting in the Pacific and the British in Burma. With that as an option, I'm wondering if we might not have seen a stronger Allied push into Indonesia, maybe even Indochina. This wouldn't affect the outcome of the war, but it would have some interesting post-war consequences. In particular, I could see the US deciding that it made strategic sense to work with the Vietnamese partisans under Ho Chih Minh, making it effectively impossible for France to reassert control. This could completely butterfly the Vietnam War.
 

Deleted member 1487

Athelstane said:
Yeah, limited ASW and medical evac seem to be the likely uses here.
Click to expand...
Don't forget artillery spotting. That's a hugely important, if forgotten, role for light aircraft.

It would be decent for limited range special operations insertions and exfiltration too, also for pilot rescue.

Meshakhad said:
As others have said, the technology would still be too limited for any serious attack helicopters to be viable.
Click to expand...
In the modern sense sure, you're not getting a Hind in 1944. However with MGs and perhaps even rockets (even light artillery spotting aircraft were able to successfully used jerry-rigged Bazookas) you could easily get a light attack aircraft, though one vulnerable to ground fire. As a light ambush aircraft firing on tanks it might work just fine until SPAAGs show up in numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NOMISYRRUC

To reinforce what others have written about ASW and SAR the Royal Navy ordered 52 Sikorsky R-4, 500 Sikorsky R-5 and 150 Sikorsky R-6 helicopters before the war ended.

IIRC the R-5s were to be employed in ASW and carry depth charges. However, the war ended before any could be delivered and the entire order was cancelled.

The British did receive all 52 R-4s which they called the Hoverfly Mk I and 26 of the R-6s, which they called the Hoverfly Mk II. However, IIRC most of them remained in their packing cases because their limited capabilities mean they were only good for training and trials which showed what helicopters capable of lifting heavier payloads might be capable of.
 
Catsmate

Catsmate

Without gas turbines, very limited.
With gas turbines, still limited. How the turbines would have been useful elsewhere too..
 

Jellico

Engines are going to stop you for just about every role. Can you lift a wounded soldier? Can you carry the navigational gear to get back to your ASW cruiser? Do you have enough range for recon? You need turbines to make helicopters practical.
 

Deleted member 1487

Jellico said:
Engines are going to stop you for just about every role. Can you lift a wounded soldier? Can you carry the navigational gear to get back to your ASW cruiser? Do you have enough range for recon? You need turbines to make helicopters practical.
Click to expand...
Not really, there were plenty of practical helicopters before turbines. Turbines offered more power, but they were significantly less fuel efficient, especially early on.
en.wikipedia.org

Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The above used radial engines and had a 450 miles range (Vietnam era Corbas were only good for about 360 miles, the UH-1 only 310 miles). The only think comparable in range was the Chinook.
 

Peg Leg Pom

He was based in Britain, financed in Britain and his company was in Britain. Anything he developed would have been in British service.
 

riggerrob

Helicopters have a huge advantage in mountains.
Even if they only move artillery observers forward, they are great for leaping over rough terrain.
The USMC would have loved a few helicopters to move naval gunnery officers inland from beaches.
 

andys

Peg Leg Pom said:
He was based in Britain, financed in Britain and his company was in Britain. Anything he developed would have been in British service.
Click to expand...
Yes, autogyros would be more likely than helicopters. Whilst not a VTOL craft, STOL should be achievable. Although with the wind over the deck of an aircraft carrier VTOL or near-VTOL might work.

Perhaps an assault craft based on the Hotspur glider could be viable
en.wikipedia.org

General Aircraft Hotspur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I wonder how many you could fit onto an escort carrier to make it into an LPH (or LP"AG").
 
Last edited:

Peg Leg Pom

In 1936 the Cierva company accepted a contract from the RN that ultimately resulted in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne Perhaps if Cierva hadn't been killed it would have been available earlier.

1585773001811.png
 
BlackDragon98

BlackDragon98

Banned
Flak would rip choppers to shreds.
Flakvierlings would be especially effective.
Fliegerfaust might be introduced earlier to counter choppers.
 

Hammerbolt

Overland, any wwii heli would be too small & vulnerable in a pure transport role. Tbh I'd think we could have any helis big enough to carry so much as a squad over meaning full ranges; the technology simply didn't exist. What could make significant diference in rear area uses are machines like the Bell Model 47 and the Sikorsky R-4. With rushed development, the R-4 might have served in ASW by late 42, early 43, carrying light depth charges and patroling. Either would be priceless for medevac and overwater rescue, as well as carrier guard plane, and they could have also done artillery spoting; the ability to land/take off anywhere would win them over for such light roles. This would inevitably funel more cash to develop them, and I'd bet we would get, by Korea, helis big enough to carry full squads and more, over large(ish) ranges.
 

Riain

Banned
NoMommsen said:
Well, the LW tested the Flettner 265 for endurance against weapons damage. 2 experience fighter pilots gave up after during quarter an hour not having scored one hit.
Its follow on the more known Flettner 282 Kolibri fared quite the same fate against a Fw 190.

Though against fire from the ground ... some versions on the Kolibri got some armor for the pilots seat ... buit better to ask for records of the US in Korea and Vietnam about damage by fire from below.
Click to expand...

That's fine for helicopters alerted to the fighter, but if a fighter can shoot down another fighter then a helicopter bounced from above is mincemeat.

As for ground fire, early piston engine helicopters weren't powerful enough to carry a lot of armour. I'm sure they could carry a bit, but in WW2 Armies could push forward AA guns far too heavy for a 40s helicopter to withstand. I think it would be standard for army units to have 20mm guns to quite a low level, maybe even battalion.

That's not to say that helicopters in ww2 won't be useful, they moat certainly would be which is why they were developed. But I doubt that they'd be doing cool stuff like tank hunts, air cavalry assaults and other stuff in close contact with the enemy.
 

Father Maryland

The original plan for the Skorzeny raid to rescue Mussolini involved extraction for Mussolini and Skorzeny by a helicopter. The helicopter experienced engine problems on it's way and that portion of the plan had to be redone. In the end a FI 156 Storch managed to land and extract both. Part of the reason why the allies put Mussolini where they did was because the position was on the top of a pointy mountain with very steep rocky hills. The allies thought the terrain made any sort of air landing or extraction impossible by plane or glider. That's why the Nazi's decided to go with a helicopter.

If the helicopter doesn't have to abort the mission this will give a massive boost to early helicopter development. Such a pivotal role in such a massively public raid will garner a lot of public attention. The Nazi's PR efforts will crow about their new super weapon and the allies will feel compelled to pour funding into their own development as a result. You might see Helicopters somewhere around early Vietnam war tech by the time of the Korean war.

In OTL in Korea helicopters were heavily used but largely small single engine craft used for Medevac. Instead we might see larger and more capable machines capable of carrying small units of infantry or even as armed helicopter gunships.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Meshakhad said:
As others have said, the technology would still be too limited for any serious attack helicopters to be viable.
Click to expand...

As of 2017, "serious attack helicopters" still aren't viable.

VTOL is hard. It takes a lot of energy, which means big and complicated engines. These engines can and should go into aircraft.

It also means you can't carry a lot of payload, armor or fuel.

Recon helicopters are kind of useful - but a small light artillery spotting aircraft is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
 

Deleted member 1487

Peg Leg Pom said:
In 1936 the Cierva company accepted a contract from the RN that ultimately resulted in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne Perhaps if Cierva hadn't been killed it would have been available earlier.

1585783342641.png
Click to expand...
Looks familiar...
www.bellflight.com

Bell 360 - Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA)

Always ready. The future fight requires increased range, speed, agility and lethality. It requires seamless coordination between Army aviation and the maneuver force. It requires persistence, fearlessness, and must own the information domain. The Bell 360 Invictus delivers the U.S. Army’s...
www.bellflight.com www.bellflight.com
1585783330013.png


Ian_W said:
Recon helicopters are kind of useful - but a small light artillery spotting aircraft is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Click to expand...
Not sure about smaller or lighter, but cheaper is probably right. Thing is they are probably less survivable all things considered since they don't have VTOL abilities or near the same maneuverability. Helicopters can pop up, spot, and drop to hide a lot more easily than even say a Storch or L-4 Cub or L-5 Sentinel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top