German Aircraft Carriers?

GZ: Prof Norman Davies, Europe at War, 2006, has completion of GZ, launched 1938, delayed, “Carrier B” discontinued 1940, and a further 2 not commenced, because Adml.Raeder and Goering fought – fattie wanting to control all aircraft.

He also deals with officer Somarov: “no evidence either way” that Stalin was 2 weeks off his invasion, but also writes that Guderian was held up for a month at Smolensk by a new Sov Army Group formed from 5 armies intended to attack Germany.

Yes typo, Pe.8/TB-7. Diesel. 18 attacked Berlin, August,1941 of 79 built to Oct.41. D.Donald’s Encyc. World A/c,Orbis,97.

I’d have thought the Fw190 would make a better carrier fighter than the Bf109, but I suppose it wasn’t around when Graf Zeppelin started building.

Germany discovered and managed to pre-empt by a fortnight Stalin’s Plan to move 8/7/41 over Rom mountains to deny Ploesti oil, then amphib. up Danube to take the Green, bicycling Reich. Those giant Tu.ANT/Pet. Pe.2 were put in hand for this when the Corporal became the Fuhrer, because Mein Kampf set it all out.

This is an unusual interpretation of accepted history to say the least. Although there is some very firm evidence for a planned Russian pre-emptive attack on Germany, I cannot believe from Stalin’s reported apparent attitude and the overall general lack of preparation that they would have been in any state to go in July ’41 at the time they were hit on 21/22 June. The story of Stalin’s dismissal of warnings from many sources of Barbarossa seems to be fairly well established – for whatever reasons he may have had.
Suvarov ( a pseudonym) was of course, a defector, so conventional wisdom should perhaps make one to be a little chary of his version of events, I would suggest.
Lastly, and I’m sure it’s a typo , the Pe-2 could hardly be considered a “giant “. If I’m right in presuming that you meant the Pe-8, then your argument simply doesn’t gel with the fact of increasing Soviet disinterest resulting in the cancellation of this type’s production in 1939; the project then staggering along with re-engining with diesels amongst other measures. At the time of Barbarossa only a couple of dozen Pe-8’s were in existence, a fact that I think you will agree is difficult to reconcile with your above statements.

I said Hungary for German bases v.USSR. That’s a long way from the Black Sea. Yes, but…Brit-centric historiography thinks our nearby Rhine was the key to control of water, so food, so trigger for European tribal survival wars. Didn’t seem so to the Slavs or to the Corporal from Linz. It’s the Danube, stupid! Adml Horthy was Hungary’s dictator; Rumania, too had a fascist Govt. Both invaded USSR as free Members of the Axis. Hitler’s Plan was to move with his Ally down the Danube to Black Sea and up to Baku so he could seize what he could no longer pay for. Spain would let trainfulls of assault Forces through to reduce Gib so that Kriegsmarine (and Italian Navy) could join thro’ Bosphorus, Turkey acquiescing, even joining – it was a German warship arriving there that had brought them in last time.

A fine piece of contrarian work is by a Sov. defector, V.Suvorov:Icebreaker – Who Started the 2nd. WW?,1990,H.Hamilton (silly £ on Amazon): Germany discovered and managed to pre-empt by a fortnight Stalin’s Plan to move 8/7/41 over Rom mountains to deny Ploesti oil, then amphib. up Danube to take the Green, bicycling Reich. Those giant Tu.ANT/Pet. Pe.2 were put in hand for this when the Corporal became the Fuhrer, because Mein Kampf set it all out. That’s why Sov Forces were not in front of Poland on 22 June, and is why Fritz had no winter woollies – he was to have moved East in 1942. Why only Suvorov that knows all this? Because, he says, appeasement was all about deflecting Hitler East, but Brits cannot admit this sound basis for Stalin’s need for a buffer zone. Baldwin started not only WW2, but the Cold War. Good, eh? No thread creep: the question is not Why no KM carriers? but why did he ever bother to start building GZ?

Not quite…Vincento de Mayo, the Argentine carrier,

Veinticinco de Mayo – 25th of May.

The navalised JU87 was designed with jettisonable landing gear in the event of having to ditch.

This magnificent model of the Graf Zepplin was on display in Carmel Indianna this summer. An example of what might have been!

The Skua was not a dive bomber, it was a dive bomber and fighter – which sounds risible, except it managed quite well in the anti-bomber role in Norway; it was of course, completely outclassed facing land-based fighters, never part of the original expectation.

See our forthcoming Skua& Roc book at the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the plug James!

FAA suffered from overburdened specs – had to get every role into broadly two types, in 1934 torpedo-spotter-recon and dive bomber-fighter. Norway however showed that high performance fighters were needed. Hurricanes and Spitfires hurriedly converted, Wildcats etc. bought and no room for dive bombing any more. TSR therefore became TBR and even more overburdened. Fighters could no longer carry AS bombs so TBR had to do anti sub as well. Throw the availability of radar into the mix and result was Barracuda, a collision between as many different types as possible.

Fulmar was a stop gap and insurance against failure of Roc. A veteran said to me recently ‘the FAA got the aircraft the RAF didn’t want’ – Fulmar is case in point. Warmed over Fairey Battle submitted for a requirement as a light bomber, which it loses to the Hawker Henley. Spec then cancelled. So not only did the RAF not want the aircraft, they didn’t even want the requirement! And this failed light bomber gets pressed into service as the FAA’s chief fighter! And shoots down more aircraft than any other FAA type (not saying an awful lot).

Plus ca change… Now we have GR7s doing everything.

As ever, a concise and incisive comment by AK.

A couple of riders to that, although I agree entirely with Ken’s assessment.

So, torpedo-spotter recce Swordfish, dive-bomber Skua, escort Roc, air defence Fulmar: all anti-marine. UK did not start strike Firebrand, Firefly, Barracuda till later, and messed up delivery. FAA fought largely on Lend/Lease CVEs, Grummans, Corsairs.

The Skua was not a dive bomber, it was a dive bomber and fighter – which sounds risible, except it managed quite well in the anti-bomber role in Norway; it was of course, completely outclassed facing land-based fighters, never part of the original expectation.

See our forthcoming Skua& Roc book at the bottom of the page.

The RN FAA suffered from a number of problems – weight as you will: RAF Control in the 30s, so second bites always, bad management by the Admiralty, and fighting a different war to the one expected; overstretched quickly and globally. The Far Eastern ‘Singapore’ strategy of the 30s presumed there would not be a war in Europe and the Far East. Without lend lease, the FAA would have faced some insurmountable problems; however its issues were not helped by such a remarkably and consistently awful set of offerings by Britains aircraft manufacturers for naval use – Albacore (why?) Barracuda (one of the worst) Fulmar (flawed navigation assumptions) and ‘too lates’ like the Firebrand. The Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane and Seafire were all extemporare efforts of varying utility; the Salerno landigs demonstrated the Seafire’s attrition rate would outstrip enemy combat losses easily, leaving the fleet unprotected.

The Strike Carrier was invented by Japan and USN in default of land bases. CVAs are built by States which also have surplus aero capacity after dealing with landplane volume, and who have no bases close to their interests. So: none for USSR, contiguous land mass; or Italy, as Tripoli was in landplane range; a few for France, illogically.

France’s carriers I read as a late colonial hangover, and like Britain, a desire to project power to protect the merchant marine and colonial possessions – but not to face a carrier vs carrier war. While it’s less justifiable for France to have 30s carriers, the logic is a small version of Britain’s. More odd in a sense (ignoring economic utility) is Holland not having a carrier or two for mercantile and Far Eastern protection. Notably, on the loss of the Dutch East Indies Holland did get into carriers (like Canada and Australia) but couldn’t afford to keep them in the end. In the 30s no-one expected the world’s best marine power to ‘suddenly’ (due to willful ignorance on our part) pop up.

Strong, heavy deckcraft historically had payload/range inferior to landplanes: F-35 Lightning II is intended to change that.

Erm, isn’t that regurgitating manufacturer’s PR? Maritime strike aircraft have been able to deliver iron, smart and nuclear weaponry at an equal payload for equivalent weight landplanes since, roughly, the 60s. On the other hand, even the massive US super-carriers don’t carry B-52s or B-2s; and landplanes remain able to be larger than carrier borne machines, today.

For discussion!

Why No Kriegsmarine Carriers? What Are Carriers For?

1930s’ Naval Conferences set Fleets’ compositions. To deter Britain while deleting Bolshevism Germany put her ration into tradebusters; Baltic and Black Sea flanks would be covered by bombardment platforms – monitors, from the Reich and Hungary. No place for carriers – what for? RN split its tonnage ration broadly equally between KGV battleships and Invincibles because carriers were trade/supply protectors – fleet scatterers and ASW platforms. So, torpedo-spotter recce Swordfish, dive-bomber Skua, escort Roc, air defence Fulmar: all anti-marine. UK did not start strike Firebrand, Firefly, Barracuda till later, and messed up delivery. FAA fought largely on Lend/Lease CVEs, Grummans, Corsairs.

The Strike Carrier was invented by Japan and USN in default of land bases. CVAs are built by States which also have surplus aero capacity after dealing with landplane volume, and who have no bases close to their interests. So: none for USSR, contiguous land mass; or Italy, as Tripoli was in landplane range; a few for France, illogically. So: 1935 Japan had no bases en route to SE Asian resources, so power must be marine projected. Against coasts or the Imperial Fleet USAAC could do more with Heavies than USN with Devastators, but Lexington &tc. were funded well, B-17/18 feebly, as US wished to disguise colonisation of Philippines, Guam.

Mao’s China did not need marine access to material supply, so its Navy was to protect its own coasts. Now its takeover of an incomplete Sov. carrier is to roam onto African oil. Logic of RN CVFs is that UK has no bases close to her interests…and presumes we may still need to project power on coasts. Strong, heavy deckcraft historically had payload/range inferior to landplanes: F-35 Lightning II is intended to change that.

Here is a link to the discovery of the graf zeppelin.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2287104,00.html

curlyboy

Hi,

They actually did build one called the Graf Zeppelin, although she was never either fully fitted out or commisioned.

She would have carried and air wing of Bf109T (which had an enlarged wing and these aircraft were eventually used in Norway) and JU87 aircraft (I think from memorry the varient was again ‘T’.)

There is an account of the developement of this version of Stuka in Stuka at War published by Ian Allen along with a picture of the afore mentioned carrier.

Hope this helps.

Steve.

In Norway a Me 109T was used against four British Fortresses from 90 Squadron and shoot down a Fortress AN 525 south east of Kristiansand.

blimey!! I’d like to see photos of that!

I don’t know if anyone saw it in the papers but the wreck of the Graf Zeppelin has been found upright off the coast of Poland in 130M of water.
There seems to be some dispute as to how she actually sank according to the article.

scary if she had been around in ’39 or ’40 but still reckon if she had stuck her nose out after that you could have been doing a sea water dive somewhere off the Norwegian coast!!! 🙂

PS why are ships, aircraft and cars always female???

A ship is called a she because there’s always a great deal of bustle around her…because there’s usually a gang of men around…because she has waist and stays…because she takes a lot of paint to keep her looking good…because it’s not the initial expense that breaks you, it’s the upkeep…because she is all decked out…because it takes a good man to handle her right…because she shows her topside, hides her bottom and, when coming into port, always heads for the buoys. 😀

Ali

Hurrifan……. think boots and dangly bits before you reply. 😀 😀 😀 😀

There was also a torpedo bomber designed by Feisler the Fi 167, it hyad incredible low speed performance and was stageringly ugly.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/aviation/carrierbased/fi167/index.html

PS why are ships, aircraft and cars always female???

they’re just plain sexy baby…

She was planned to do 35 knots with a range of 8000 miles at 19 knots. Supplies for 7 to 8 weeks with a crew of 1720 + 317 aircraft technical personnel.

Ali

scary if she had been around in ’39 or ’40 but still reckon if she had stuck her nose out after that you could have been doing a sea water dive somewhere off the Norwegian coast!!! 🙂

PS why are ships, aircraft and cars always female???

Have come across a few blog sites where doubts have been expressed as to the i.d of this wreak definately being the Graf Zeppelin but i havent been able to find out anything more recently than the initial discovery report.

Has anyone heard anything ?

In addition i wonder if anyone has thoughts on whether the Graf could have been a success? she was i understand going to be pretty fast with a large air complement and poss considerable range.

What would have been her most effective use or role?and could she have survived ?

She was planned to do 35 knots with a range of 8000 miles at 19 knots. Supplies for 7 to 8 weeks with a crew of 1720 + 317 aircraft technical personnel.

Ali