Jump to content


Photo

Flugzeugträger A


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#1 John_Ford

John_Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Tanks

Posted 12 March 2018 - 1457 PM

   KM Graf Zeppelin laid down in 1936.  33,500 Tons,  8000 miles at 19 KN Range,  Mixture of 42 Aircraft,  Me 109, JU 87 and Fi 167 Torpedo bombers.  

 

   Considering they had no institutional knowledge except for Seaplanes,  No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition,  and were starting about 10-15 years after everybody else.  Why did they bother? Attached File  220px-Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg   7.88KB   1 downloads


  • 0

#2 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 12 March 2018 - 1546 PM

For the same reason they laid down 2 Bismarcks and 5 Admiral Hipper class cruisers, to become part of the club of oceangoing navies, even though the strategic situation of Germany was hopeless at sea. If Britain wasn't in the war, it was a force the French needed to take into account.


  • 0

#3 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 12 March 2018 - 1737 PM

At the time, it suited the UK to execute the bilateral naval agreement with Germany, itself a violation of Versailles. It was the view of the RN that a balanced German fleet, vice a submarine/commerce raider fleet, would be the least threatening to itself and the empire.

 

The early Kriegsmarine plan was simply to build to the new 35% limits as quickly as possible. Carriers were simply a category for which they were authorized.  The designs were all for operating in North Sea conditions. There was no strategy in the books, except for the  c.1920 plan written by Adm Wegener to seize Norwegian bases to outflank the Atlantic approaches. The Baltic also became, by default, a German sea. The later Plan Z, approved in 1939, was stillborn because of the premise of no war before 1944.


  • 0

#4 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 14 March 2018 - 0655 AM

 

   Considering they had no institutional knowledge except for Seaplanes,  No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition,  and were starting about 10-15 years after everybody else.  Why did they bother? attachicon.gif220px-Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg

 

Presisely because of that. They felt they had to catch up and got started. We also need to keep in mind that a war with the UK or any war as early as 1939 was not the plan. 


  • 0

#5 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 18 March 2018 - 0453 AM

 Considering they had no institutional knowledge except for Seaplanes,  No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition,  and were starting about 10-15 years after everybody else.  Why did they bother? attachicon.gif220px-Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg

 

No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition? All the kriegsmarine zeppelins of WW1, they did name the carrier after Graf Zeppelin...... Why do you need 10-15 years? Its one thing in peacetime to build up competence, but in wartime (or we espect war soon and money is not the problem)


  • 0

#6 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 18 March 2018 - 0505 AM

They had loads of experience with seaplanes (fighters, bombers, recce) during ww1 and almost built a carrier; https://en.wikipedia...arrier_I_(1915)


  • 0

#7 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,594 posts

Posted 18 March 2018 - 0936 AM

They had loads of experience with seaplanes (fighters, bombers, recce) during ww1 and almost built a carrier; https://en.wikipedia...arrier_I_(1915)

Interesting, never heard of that one.


  • 0

#8 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 18 March 2018 - 1034 AM

 

No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition? All the kriegsmarine zeppelins of WW1, they did name the carrier after Graf Zeppelin...... Why do you need 10-15 years? Its one thing in peacetime to build up competence, but in wartime (or we espect war soon and money is not the problem)

 

 

Those fifteen years are really very important.  A German carrier commissioning in 1940 or a bit later would be far less efficient, both in layout and in operation, than any Allied or Japanese carrier.  Indeed, it's likely to be sunk or confined to port wit the rest of the German surface fleet well before they can begin to get their act together.  On the other hand, if Germany was to be a major naval power, they'd need carriers.  If they weren't ready for the coming war with Britain, they should be ready for the war after.


  • 0

#9 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1259 PM

 

 Considering they had no institutional knowledge except for Seaplanes,  No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition,  and were starting about 10-15 years after everybody else.  Why did they bother? attachicon.gif220px-Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg

 

No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition? All the kriegsmarine zeppelins of WW1, they did name the carrier after Graf Zeppelin...... Why do you need 10-15 years? Its one thing in peacetime to build up competence, but in wartime (or we espect war soon and money is not the problem)

 

So, where does one find knowledgeable personnel to determine the tactics, techniques, procedures and training necessary to do even the basics of operating a carrier and its air group at sea?

 

Times up!


  • 0

#10 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1321 PM

 

 

No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition? All the kriegsmarine zeppelins of WW1, they did name the carrier after Graf Zeppelin...... Why do you need 10-15 years? Its one thing in peacetime to build up competence, but in wartime (or we espect war soon and money is not the problem)

 

 

Those fifteen years are really very important.  A German carrier commissioning in 1940 or a bit later would be far less efficient, both in layout and in operation, than any Allied or Japanese carrier.  Indeed, it's likely to be sunk or confined to port wit the rest of the German surface fleet well before they can begin to get their act together.  On the other hand, if Germany was to be a major naval power, they'd need carriers.  If they weren't ready for the coming war with Britain, they should be ready for the war after.

 

 

Well judging by how hard we found it to catch the German surface raiders there are problems with that theory. The problem wasnt sinking them so much, the problem was finding them. I mean look how hard it was to get a handle on where Bismark was. Actually putting the torp in her rudder was the easy bit in comparison.

 

Now imagine those Swordfish are going up against carrier borne ME109s and they are going to get murdered. The martlet, good though it was, would likely not be its equal.It would only be superior in numbers.

 

I think a German carrier probably wouldnt last much beyond 1941/42, but imagine how much mayhem it would have caused the convoy system in the north atlantic in the interim.


  • 0

#11 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1332 PM

True enough but on the other hand the British would have taken better care of their carriers had a German one been close to completion in 39. No loss of Glorious and Courageous. And they might have added an aviation component to their AMC, which could have lead to seeing CVE much sooner.
  • 0

#12 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1650 PM

I'm not saying it would be completely useless, but it certainly would be very much less effective than RN carriers. It might not be able to launch fighters to intercept Swordfish at that time, for instance, or having done so be unable to get fighters in the air again in time for a follow up strike by the FAA.
  • 0

#13 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1654 PM

Put a German carrier in the Atlantic in 1940, and the RN would concentrate their carriers there to sink it. This will affect the war in the Med until GZ is taken care of.
  • 0

#14 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 20 March 2018 - 1822 PM

I would not like to land a Me 109 on a carrier....


  • 0

#15 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1214 PM

Considering they had no institutional knowledge except for Seaplanes,  No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition,  and were starting about 10-15 years after everybody else.  Why did they bother? attachicon.gif220px-Graf-Zeppelin-1.jpg

 
No Naval Aviation Doctrine or Tradition? All the kriegsmarine zeppelins of WW1, they did name the carrier after Graf Zeppelin...... Why do you need 10-15 years? Its one thing in peacetime to build up competence, but in wartime (or we espect war soon and money is not the problem)
So, where does one find knowledgeable personnel to determine the tactics, techniques, procedures and training necessary to do even the basics of operating a carrier and its air group at sea?
 
Times up!
Japan?
  • 0

#16 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1220 PM

I would not like to land a Me 109 on a carrier....

 

No, its a fair point. I mean even the Seafire was a handful in that regard.

 

HE112 might have been a better option.


  • 0

#17 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,763 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1222 PM

Germany and Japan didn't become allies until 1940.  They weren't close friends until they stopped training Chinese troops in 1937..


Edited by R011, 21 March 2018 - 1223 PM.

  • 0

#18 John_Ford

John_Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Tanks

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1414 PM

 

I would not like to land a Me 109 on a carrier....

 

No, its a fair point. I mean even the Seafire was a handful in that regard.

 

HE112 might have been a better option.

   FW 190 when it was introduced.  But Heinkel 100-112 because of landing gear stance, certainly better then ME 109.


  • 0

#19 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1420 PM

They may not be tough enough to take carrier landings.


  • 0

#20 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 21 March 2018 - 1427 PM

They may not be tough enough to take carrier landings.


Herschel 123 with an altitude rated engine? Should be good enough to deal with a Stringbag.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users