Mistels - Real and imagined

[KJ_Lesnick]

Philip,

That X-15A-3 riding on top of an XB-70 was sweeeeeet!


Weaver,

That was a pretty cool picture (The small bird on top of the Hawk)

[McGreig]

Anybody got anything they would like to post that they have done so I can add this category?  (but keep sending any other inspirations you find and I love the bird hitchiker)

These are the two that were on the joint What If/Soviet Aircraft table at Telford. However, they both date from the Pre-Whiffie Era - the Soviet He-162/Flying Bomb combination was finished in 2007 and the Fw-190/Ju-88G-10 was slightly earlier from just before I joined the Forum.

The markings on the He-162 are real world but the combination with the Arado bomb is a wiff. Similarly, the markings on the Ju-88G-10 are real world but the addition of the warhead and Fw-190 is a whiff.

[Weaver]

How about upping the ante and making a multi-target Mistel, i.e. a stack of three or more identical aircraft, with the top one being the manned director and the others being the "missiles"? 

[philp]

McGreig,
The great thing about the Whiffies is that we look at what gets nominated during the year (in the Sway thread), not necessarily what gets finished that year.  Heck, now that Radish finally figured out how to post pics, he can be in  the running even though some of his builds don't even exist anymore.

[sequoiaranger]

I can see a couple of uses:

1. Long-range recon using flying boats became too risky---the planes had to be large enough to house all the fuel they would need, but they were clumsy and could be picked off easily, especially with radar warning. So....we pic-a-back a Myrt or something onto the back of an Emily flying boat. The Emily gets within decent range and the Myrt (still with extra fuel in drop tanks) is let loose. The high speed of the Myrt can avoid almost every interceptor, get the photos, and beat it back (now a LOOOOOONG ways, though) to base to get the film developed. The Emily (fully manned) heads back to base, too, minus the Myrt.

2. Like the Germans, use old bombers and stuff them full of explosives. The "Val" atop the "Nell" noses over and points itself at an American carrier, then releases itself. The explosive-laden "Nell" power-dives into the carrier. If late in the war, the Val pilot is "invited" to ride it down anyway, for more "oomph" on impact.

[Sauragnmon]

#2 I find rather interesting, Craig, though I wouldn't consider a Val - they were always underpowered especially later in the wall, though a Susie would do the job rather well, astride a Betty or a Nell - Blooming Betty anybody?  Damn, now I need to get my hands on the stuff to do that, that's pretty wicked.

[GTX]

Something I did ages ago:



Regards,

Greg

[sequoiaranger]

>#2 I find rather interesting, Craig, though I wouldn't consider a Val - they were always underpowered especially later in the wall [war?--CB], though a Susie would do the job rather well, astride a Betty or a Nell - Blooming Betty anybody? <

First of all, Vals were definitely used as Kamikazes late in the war. And, it's only a "rider", so "underpowered" becomes irrelevant.

The Germans tried to match engines on their Mistels--Radial fighters with radial bombers, inlines with inlines. Though a good whif would be an inline-engined twin-engined bomber for the Japanese, a Judy was still "relevant" enough to try to bomb/Kamikaze on its own.

The Mistels used "tired" bombers that were not good enough to be used on their own. Thus the Nell and a Val thrown in as "expendable" aircraft (so was its pilot).

Food for thought.

PS--GTX--nice Meatball Mistel!

[Sauragnmon]

Well, consider that the D4Y3 and 4 had radial engines - they were switched over to radials in the later models.  My concept was as an alternative to the kamikaze, so the principle of escaping reprisal by the enemy aircraft is viable.  Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out.  So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.

If only somebody's let them in on the potential there, it might have done something, though likely not enough in all truth.  By that point, it was a total loss all together.

[rickshaw]

Well, consider that the D4Y3 and 4 had radial engines - they were switched over to radials in the later models.  My concept was as an alternative to the kamikaze, so the principle of escaping reprisal by the enemy aircraft is viable.  Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out.  So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.

If only somebody's let them in on the potential there, it might have done something, though likely not enough in all truth.  By that point, it was a total loss all together.

I rather think they did much better than that against the US carriers, putting several out of commission by destroying their wooden decks.  Where they failed to penetrate was primarily against the RN's fleet carriers with their armoured decks.

The worst part about the Kamikazes was that they were given insufficient training in ship recognition.  The result was that they often attacked the first warship they encountered, rather than saving themselves for the carriers and other capital ships.  There was a case of one US picket destroyer getting so fed up with being the first ship attacked by Kamikaze that they erected a large sign on the afterdeck which said, "Carriers that way!"  With a huge arrow, pointing towards the main task force!   This is why a disproportionate number of smaller ships ended up being attacked.

[Sauragnmon]

They did do more against the American CV's with the lack of armored flight decks, but still, they weren't exactly a spectacular, devastating weapon - ok, you send one carrier back for repairs, you've just given people some jobs, and tied up one out of... how many carriers?  They needed to focus a little more on a Russian style strategy - screw the Mission Kill, All or Nothing.  Mistels would have been a good step in the right direction, as they would have been much more towards the point of Hard Kill instead of Mission Kill.  Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside.  Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.

[rickshaw]

They did do more against the American CV's with the lack of armored flight decks, but still, they weren't exactly a spectacular, devastating weapon - ok, you send one carrier back for repairs, you've just given people some jobs, and tied up one out of... how many carriers?  They needed to focus a little more on a Russian style strategy - screw the Mission Kill, All or Nothing.  Mistels would have been a good step in the right direction, as they would have been much more towards the point of Hard Kill instead of Mission Kill.  Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside.  Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.

No, I think you'll find that the Mistels would have been just like the Ohkas carrying Bettys.  Slow, unwieldy, easy meat for the defending CAPs.   It would be even worse with using clapped out, old bombers with time expired engines and/or airframes.

[sequoiaranger]

>Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out.  So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.<

Au Contraire. The Kamikaze that hit the USS Enterprise, and produced that spectacle of the #1 elevator atop a 400-ft plume of smoke, had its engine bury itself several decks below the hangar deck. There was plenty of kinetic energy to penetrate the wooden flight decks of the American carriers and start hangar fires.  They also AIMED at the elevators, which could put the carrier out of action. Like the Bunker Hill, Franklin, Independence, and others, fires fueled by bombs and fuel-laden aircraft often made ships unusable.

>Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside.  Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.<

Ooh pul-leeze! You know that high-altitude bombing was TOTALLY USELESS against moving ships--doesn't matter how big the bang (unless we're talking nukes). The problem is GUIDANCE so the target can be actually hit. Even the Germans, with their wire-guided Fritz-X bombs, were successful only when aerial opposition (and AA) was nil, as in the case of the fleeing Italian fleet when the battleship Roma was dispatched.

>No, I think you'll find that the Mistels would have been just like the Ohkas carrying Bettys.  Slow, unwieldy, easy meat for the defending CAPs.   It would be even worse with using clapped out, old bombers with time expired engines and/or airframes.<

I would certainly agree, but that doesn't mean that the Japanese would not have tried it if they had them. I envision such Mistels being used against the radar picket destroyers (like the Ohkas eventually did)  to open up a "gap" in radar coverage to allow follow-on attack aircraft to slip through to get to the carriers.

Re: GUIDANCE: The Japanese had the right idea with the human-guided Ohkas, but they were not big enough, nor long-legged enough. The next thing to do is to have some long-range, oversized super-Ohkas that could be launched far from the fleet's air defense and pack a LARGE punch.

Of course I have envisioned such a whif along those lines--my "Doshaburi" (Cloudburst). Powered by a ramjet, it would look, in 1/72 scale, VERY MUCH like an upside-down 1/48 German V-1 (wink, wink) and have a glass nose with a prone pilot. The pilot's compartment is a simple add-on to the "Tallboy"-like warhead directly behind him. The ramjet is for cruising quickly to the fleet, but there are three rocket motors in the truncated rear (looking, again VERY MUCH like the rear end of a 1/48 Ohka--wink, wink) to assist in the final plunge. There is a big "X" painted on the glass for an aiming mark. A simple "joystick" can crudely maneuver the craft. The only instrumentation is a simple compass (to get the direction right), altimeter, and fuel gauge. There is a small loudspeaker in the craft through which the mother plane barks out the proper direction of the enemy fleet just before jettisoning. It's up to the pilot to point his craft toward the fleet and resolve to hit SOMETHING.

[rickshaw]

Ooh pul-leeze! You know that high-altitude bombing was TOTALLY USELESS against moving ships--doesn't matter how big the bang (unless we're talking nukes). The problem is GUIDANCE so the target can be actually hit. Even the Germans, with their wire-guided Fritz-X bombs, were successful only when aerial opposition (and AA) was nil, as in the case of the fleeing Italian fleet when the battleship Roma was dispatched.

I am sure that the Captain and Bridge-crew of HMS Gloucester will be so glad to know that it was impossible for the bomb that killed them to have hit their ship from high altitude by an Italian bomber on 8 July 1940.   

[sequoiaranger]

>I am sure that the Captain and Bridge-crew of HMS Gloucester will be so glad to know that it was impossible for the bomb that killed them to have hit their ship from high altitude by an Italian bomber on 8 July 1940.<

I deliberately did NOT use the word "impossible". I am aware of that hit. Was it moving or stationery? Was it taking evasive action or just plodding along on a set course? There have been a VERY FEW instances where stationery, or very-slowly moving ships were hit by high-altitude bombers.  My recollection fails me here if the ship was moving (assisting with rescue or other slow-motion work?) or taking evasive action. Though I have not been able to find specifics of this incident, Sir Andrew Cunningham  (A Sailor's Odyssey) states (talking about Calabria--July, 1940) that normally the Italian bombers arrive around 12,000 feet. I would agree that is "high altitude" for our purposes, and if it was moving at fleet speed, then you "score" a point. But....

In war, NOTHING is absolutely impossible. But, for the number of attempts, bombs released, etc., throughout the war, high-altitude bombing of MOVING ships at sea is the LEAST efficient means of damage. In July of 1940 the war at sea was "new" and many things were being tried out. Attempts at high-altitude bombing of moving ships at sea was recognized as next to futile pretty early on (didn't stop the bone-headed US Army Air Corps from trying it later with B-17's either, but similar results=nil). The results just didn't justify the peril to the aircrews and the expense of the mission.

Do you recall ANY other such successes for the entire war?