Arado Ar 196 vs Fairy Swordfish

[sid guttridge]

Hi Gdpt,

If itv was not to be a suicide mission, it was not simply a matter of launching, but of recovery as well. This presumably required the ship to come briefly to a virtual standtstill, making it even more vulnerable.

To be used in time, the Arado almost cetainly would have to have been on standing patrol, which was definitely not a practical proposition.

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

Troy, there's something about the Arados I didnt know until I was chasing up about the Graf Spee the other night. The issue came up as to why Langsdorf hadnt lauched his at any point before, during or after the Battle of the River Plate.....

Apparently on landing as sea, the "bow wave" splashed up by the Arado's floats threw enough cold water up over the radial engine to flash-cool - and thus CRACK - at least two, sometimes four cylinders on the engine! And thus the radial engine cylinders are regarded as consumables!!! The Graf Spee had run out of spares during her sojourn at large, its not impossible that the Bismarck's was still under repair, or they just didn't have enough spare cylinders at that point to get her airworthy.

[Troy Tempest]

Wow, Phylo, I didn't know that! I've never read anything about that, where did you come across that? As for the Bismarck launching her 196's, I thought she only launched one to try and ward off the Catalina, but upon further research, and I'm quoting now, "On 26.5.41, the battleship Bismarck launched it's Ar 196A-4's in an attempt to destroy or drive away the RAF Coastal Command Catalina flying-boat that was looking for the batteship as it raced for a home port. The A-4's did not succeed, and the 'Cat' called up Swordfish torpedo aircraft which, by crippling the Bismarck's steering gear, sealed it's fate. It was sunk on 28.5.41"

The author is using plurals, so at least two Arados were launched, according to him. It seems bizzare to me that if that was the case about cracking the cylinders, since deliveries were first commenced in June '39, you would think that in the two years till the Bismarck's sortie, they would have done something about that? The author of the book I quoted from goes into the Graf Spee deal with the following - "Captain Langsdorff should perhaps have launched his brand new seaplane, which could then have directed the fire of the ship's 11" guns as it steamed out of the range of the British cruisers. Instead, the German ship closed with the British vessels, and suffered crippling damage. As luck would have it, the very first salvo from the British ships struck the Graf Spee's catapult and destroyed its Ar 196A-1, the aircraft that might have reversed the outcome of the encounter."

It also seems weird that for a plane that was used as an air-sea rescue craft on countless occasions, the possibility that the plane would be crippled when it landed would surely negate the use of the aircraft as a seaplane! Also, re landing and having the capital ship having to come to a complete standstill, I have some photos of either the Scharnhorst or the Gneisenau recoving an 196 while still moving. The plane lands next to the ship, on a, for want of a better term, giant 'mat', suspended from a boom of some sorts. The 'mat' floats on top of the water, next to the ship, and the plane lands on top of this, and appears to be pulled along with the ship as the crane swings out and is attached, by the pilot by the look of things, or maybe the observer/gunner, and is lifted back onboard, and then the 'mat' is presumabley pulled onboard. The ship is definately moving, because I can see its wake in the photos. I appreciate you would need smooth surface water for this, but still, the plane appears to be able to be recovered under some conditions while the ship is still moving. These photos are from a great Schiffer 50 pager called Arado Ar 196 - Germany's multi-purpose seaplane by Hans-Peter Dabrwoski & Volker Koos. This book also doesn't mention anything about having to change cylinders either (not saying it didn't happen mate! ).

I tend to think the reason the 196 wasn't launched by Capt Langsdorff was the result of his temporary insanity that overcame him during his last action! Why on earth would you come into range of the three cruisers, when you could have stood off and smashed them with your 11" guns at will, and kept far enough away so that the enemy couldn't have landed one shot on you? He could have sunk all three cruisers, what a propaganda coup that would have been! Instead, a brand new capital ship is wasted, and in such an ignomious way as to burn for three days after being scuttled, while the whole world watches . Even if there was a superior English force waiting for him outside the harbour, why didn't he just call for a volunteer scratch crew and sail out and duke it out? Better to go down swinging than go out the way the poor old girl went. Admiral Graf von Spee must have been spinning in his grave!

Still, there is another incident of similar outcome. Our biggest ship, the HMAS Sydney, a light cruiser, armed with 8 6" & 4 4" guns was sunk by the HSK Kormoran, a Kriegsmarine raider. To this day, there is no explanation why Captain Burnett approached to within 1,000 metres, and was not in a combat ready state. The German commander, Fregattenkapitan Detmers, whose ship was armed with 6 single 6" guns, had no choice but to open fire at such a close range, and pumped about 50 6" shells into the Sydney, a torpedo and severe 20mm flak damage before the Sydney eventually damaged the Kormoran before breaking away and steaming off into the distance. The Kormoran was badly damaged and the captain ordered it scuttled. The Germans heard loud explosions over the horizon, and the Sydney was never seen again, losing all 645 aboard, our worst naval disaster. The Kormoran lost 80 out of her crew of 397. The captain of the Sydney was inexperienced, I don't know if Captain Langdorff could use that excuse or not.

Troy
18.11 - tue, sydney

[phylo_roadking]

I don't remember the site I found it on now, I had three google searches going at once and can't remember which criteria brought it up! but it was a site accompnaying a TV documnetary series that first mentioned it, which was why I was going checking. Was about divers locating and finding the wreck - one of the first things they encountered was the skeleton of the seaplane. There was a film clip in the programme of an Arado landing in a high swell, and the wave it created did indeed nearly swamp the aircraft!
I assume in better conditions this wouldn't happen - fjords, estuaries, good weather in the English Channel etc., where the pilot has time to make a long slow "taxiing" approach, but in open ocean, where he wouldn't have much choice whether to go up or not, I can certainly see it happening! And did in that clip. And preferable to recover the aircraft with repairable damage on a long sea voyage like the Graf Spee's than order the pilot to bale and ditch it.
As an aside, the weather the Bismarck launched her aircraft in on that recorded occasion was abysmal - foggy and nearly 10/10ths cloud cover. The catalina only observed her VERY briefly through a narrow break in the clouds...which is probably what accounted for the Arado not finding her.
As a double aside - have you noticed how little detail there ever is about that Catalina sortie, or who spotted the Bismarck, arguably one of the major events of the war at sea 1939-45? The Catalina was flying out of Castle Archedale on Lough Erne in Northern Ireland - along the highly-questionable "air corridor" that Eamon DeValera allowed the british to use over neutral Irish airspace. For many years THIS was trumpeted as the reason details were always sketchy - so as not to play up the role of a neutral nation in the sinking of the Bismarck...but a few years ago I found out the real reason - the observer aboard the Catalina was an AMERICAN! In MAY 1941. And not serving with the RAF, but an American serviceman, part of the conversion training team at Castle Archdale training the RAF on type. Apparently it was VERY common practice for the American training staff to accompany the RAF crews on active sorties and play a full role in the crew's activities....but one that would have given Nazi Germany incredible propaganda material but was kept hushed up...and probably stopped altogether after this! LOL

[Troy Tempest]

Yet again phylo, I have learned something new from you! I wonder if the yank observer received a secret VC from Churchill?

Troy
18.43 - thu, sydney

[Paul Lakowski]

We always have to be doubtful of the impact of anecdotal information and scrutinize it closely. If wave swamped the engine of an Arado Ar-196 , the wave height has to be around 8ft. That engine is over 1/2 the height of the seaplane overall. This is listed as 14.7ft. The height to the engine is around 4.5m or over 8 feet. That suggests the seas were sea state 4/5, which is considered fairly rough seas for some ships/boats, let alone seaplane .

Looking at the relation ship between aircraft produced and 'front line' aircraft listed is a fairly good measure of a planes performance. The average seaplane available at the start of the war is listed at 205 and 135 @ end of 1942 , with 200 at the end of 1943. The production of seaplanes in those years was 230 ; 238 & 259 respectively suggesting that during war time their survival rates were about 57-77% per year .

Compared to other long range bombers [not dive bombers] aircraft the figures for 1942 @ 1943 are 1135 and 1580, while the production in those years was listed at 4337 & 4649. This gives a overall survival rate of 26-34% . During those years combat losses and accident losses were running about 50-50, so the survival rate of the bombers to accident alone should be around 63-67%.

The same figures for recon was 675 & 755 listed in the front line at the end of 1942 & 1943, while the production in those years was 1067 & 1117. This gives an survival rate of around 63-67%. Since recon generally avoid combat, we can assume this fairly accurately reflects the generalized accident rate...or at least comparable to seaplane ops.

So if we assume seaplane ops were generally he same as recon and mostly none combat , then the accidental loss rate is about the same. This suggests that seaplanes were about the same as bombers & recon planes in terms of accident rates.

Source “The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe” [pp301] and “ The Historical Encyclopedia of World War II” [pp43].

[phylo_roadking]

Paul, hardly anecdotal when there's FILM of an Arado landing in that high swell...?

[Paul Lakowski]

Paul, hardly anecdotal when there's FILM of an Arado landing in that high swell...?

How many samples ,one landing in sea state 3-4 ???? What else is it other than anechdotial information. Now if you could show records over years from scores and scores of Arado you might have a point.

What passes for 'facts' around here is really disturbing at times.

[Srgt Rock]

I would like to make a couple of responces to issues raised by several responders.

First, as far as the AR196 being used in CAP role, Tirpitz used all six of her 196's in an attempt to repell the attack by British Albacore's in March 42. They were not successful but did break up the attack waves.

Do not blame Linderman for failure to use the AR196s. Lutjens wrote in his orders for the sortie that HE would decided when ANY of the embarked 196's could be used. PE had a 196 ready to launch on the morning to the 24th before the Germans sighted Hood and POW.

I feel that the damage that disabled the catipult on Bismarck came not from the hits POW got on Bismarck but from the torpedo that hit from the Victorious Swordfish. A man was killed by being thrown into the A/C crane.

My last point would concern how the Germans would have used an 196 to defend against expected air attack. First of all, two 196s could have been ready to launch because Bismarck had two catipult tracks. Second, these planes would be at what the USN calls "ready 5" status. (That means the plane is ready to launch in 5 minutes or less) To be at "ready 5" a plane only have to have its engine warmed up by running it for say 5 minutes out of every 30. Bismarck would not have had to launch her planes into a crosswind because he could have turned so that the wind was blowing across the ship.

As far as being a suicide mission to launch the 196, after completing their mission, the air crew could have baled out of the 196 in front of Bismarck where they would have a fighting chance to be recovered.

[Tiornu]

In what way did Tirpitz's aircraft break up an attack? The limited information I have indicates a sortie to drive away the British reconnaissance plane and no action against the Albacores, all of which made their attacks in formation as planned.
What indication is there that the catapult was disabled by torpedo damage? The accounts I've read attribute the malfunction to splinter damage to the compressed air line, not shock effects.
I believe the dual-catapult system necessitated erecting a 16m extension over each side of the ship. How practical was this in heavy weather? Only one track could face into the wind at a time. Crosswinds are almost inevitable unless the ship matches the speed and direction of the wind.
How were men in the water to be recovered by a battleship at cruising speed?

[Troy Tempest]

How were men in the water to be recovered by a battleship at cruising speed?

Hi Tiornu, I was thinking when I posted this thread that the Ar 196s could still stay airborne until their combat with the Swordfish was over. Presumably there would be some time after the Swordfish were either shot down or driven off before they would or could return, and the Bismarck could stop and pick them up. I'm not sure how long it takes to recover two floatplanes, but would it take longer than half an hour? Or maybe less? I don't think the Bismarck would have to be stationary for very long, would she?

Troy

[Tiornu]

"Very long" is a relative term. Battleships don't just stop in mid-ocean unless they want to become bathyscaphes.

[Paul Lakowski]

It normally takes 1/4 hour to completely upload a seaplane in which the ship is usually stationary or drifting. This maybe stretched to 1/2 hour in rough seas, but it can be done.

Can any one show how many instances BB/BC/CA stop to upload seaplanes and how many of those times resulted in disaster for the BB/BC/CA?

[Srgt Rock]

The information I have read just stated Tripitz's 196s attacked the attacking albacores without success.

I have never heard of any extensions required for the launching of float planes in the Bismarck class ships.

The cause of the ruptured airline to the catapult has only been guessed at. The case for the shell splinter comes from the shell that hit one of Bismarck's boats. I feel the torpedo impact in the area of the catapult is much more likely the cause but it is just my personal opinion.

Bismarck would have slowed down but not needed to have stopped to recover any of the air crewmen that successfully baled out.

[Srgt Rock]

The information I have read just stated Tripitz's 196s attacked the attacking albacores without success.

I have never heard of any extensions required for the launching of float planes in the Bismarck class ships.

The cause of the ruptured airline to the catapult has only been guessed at. The case for the shell splinter comes from the shell that hit one of Bismarck's boats. I feel the torpedo impact in the area of the catapult is much more likely the cause but it is just my personal opinion.

Bismarck would have slowed down but not needed to have stopped to recover any of the air crewmen that successfully baled out.