Heya guys, I did a search for previous topics about this but couldn’t find any, so here I go!
Bearing in mind that this question assumes that Goering wasn’t so damn possessive and actually allowed the Kriegsmarine a free hand in developing a sort of Fleet Air Arm:
If the Kreigsmarine had built Aircraft Carriers in the 1930’s for the Second World War, what aircraft would they have put on them?
I mean the Me-109 is the obvious choice, but i would have thought that the narrow track undercarriage would have made it very unpopular. Anyone have any details of proposed Carrier-borne interceptors or even bombers- if the Ju-88 could take off from a Carrier. Also, how would have this turned the Battle of the Atlantic in Germany’s favour? Say that the “Admiral Doenitz” (just for simplicities sake!) was on patrol near the Norweigan coast when the Lancaster Raid (apologies, I’ve forgotten the name!) to sink Tirpitz was launched? Or even within operating in the Atlantic on a hunter-role against the Merchant Navy convoys?
Apologies if this has been done, but I thought that it would be interesting to debate it here, among collegues I respect (flattery gets me everywhere!!).
BARNOWL
By: Bager1968 - 10th August 2006 at 03:12
Post #28 here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60098
has some nice photos of the navalised Ju-87 with wings folded.
Is that a cheesy grin or what? 😀
By: STORMBIRD262 - 8th August 2006 at 17:53
ere it tis barny mate!
Gotta crash knackered ” Gut Nacht ” all
By: STORMBIRD262 - 22nd October 2005 at 07:06
I liked the job they DID do on the Biz camo as well Moggy mate!
Did something get pulled why I was not ere!!!
I now have a LOT of little square’s with the red cross again!!!
Or did the Kraut’s crack the Sh*t’s with our thread or someing
By: Moggy C - 19th October 2005 at 23:44
Great cammo those German carriers had huh?
Moggy
By: Flood - 19th October 2005 at 22:02
A few more, found whilst searching for something else…
The Graf Zeppelin being launched.
Flood
By: Flood - 17th October 2005 at 20:00
:rolleyes:
Still looking for pictures of Axis carriers and the aircraft they would have carried.
Here is the Graf Zeppelin anchored near Stettin in May of 1943. Seems a waste in so many ways…
Flood
By: Mark12 - 17th October 2005 at 11:51
And yet another thread is draged into and consumed by the Spitfire juggernaut. :rolleyes:
Well ‘drage’ it back out again. 🙂
Mark
By: JDK - 17th October 2005 at 10:11
And yet another thread is draged into and consumed by the Spitfire juggernaut. :rolleyes:
By: Mark12 - 17th October 2005 at 09:30
Mk VIII- the ultimate Merlin powered Spitfire
Perhaps it is not generally realised that there is a very close engineering similarity between the Mk VIII and Mk XIV airframes. All the upgrading in strength to the fuselage, wing spars, spar fixings, short span ailerons, leading edge fuel etc are common and whilst externally the Mk VIII might look like a Mk IX with a retracting tail wheel it is far deeper than that.
Indeed I believe it was delays in this upgrade programme that necessitated introduction of a stopgap measure of a Mk V fitted with a two stage supercharged 60 series engine – the Mk IX, ahead of the Mk VIII, chronologically out of mark number sequence.
Mark
By: Flood - 17th October 2005 at 08:40
Indeed, but a quick search through Shackladys Spitfire The History fails to show any individual historys for the three prototypes, other than that NN660 had a MkXIV fuselage and that three of these had been ordered for use on the prototypes (originally MkVIII fuselages).
Got little to do with the Germans though!
Flood
By: dhfan - 17th October 2005 at 00:40
Reading the Spiteful page on that site, and without referring to any books I have here, it says the first prototype Spiteful, NN660, was a converted MK.XIV and NN664 was the first true Spiteful. No mention of if there were any others between, however.
Victor was originally proposed as the name for what became the Spitfire F.21, I don’t recall hearing it was proposed for the Spiteful as well. Looks like somebody really wanted to use it.
By: Flood - 16th October 2005 at 10:57
Er… based on the Supermarine Spiteful. Developed from Spitfire experience agreed but it’s stretching it to say it’s based on a Spit XIV.
Just going by what this site said. Probably based more on the Spitfire XIV than, say, a VIII (which they were originally going to use) since that was the fuselage that the prototype Spitefuls were apparently built around…
Flood
By: dhfan - 16th October 2005 at 08:00
Er… based on the Supermarine Spiteful. Developed from Spitfire experience agreed but it’s stretching it to say it’s based on a Spit XIV.
By: Barnowl - 15th October 2005 at 21:21
OOOOO! SEXY SPITFIRE-TYPE THING!!!
*DROOLS*
By: Flood - 15th October 2005 at 20:37
Did any of the Navalized Spit’s ever get a Hurra, 190 type gear spread!
Meet the Supermarine Seafang, based on the Spitfire Mk XIV with a new laminar flow folding wing with inward retracting landing gear, as subsequently used on the Supermarine Attacker…
Never entered service, though; only 11 built.
Flood
By: Ed Toner - 15th October 2005 at 20:32
Thanks for all this, particularly the Italian Carriers. I had no prior knowledge of these.
I did a cruise on the old USS WASP CVA 18 in 1956, flew F2H-3 BANSHEE’s off her as a LTjg, great experience.
On the trip back, with all aircraft preserved in perocatone, I approached Capt. NEEDHAM and asked to be given OOD Underway watches in order to keep my Third Mate’s ticket alive for another 2 years, as I was getting out, back to the Reserves. He obliged, and I stood deck watches for 2 weeks. I loved it! I was the Junior OOD among Ships Company.
God be with the days!
By: STORMBIRD262 - 15th October 2005 at 20:06
Great stuff again Flood, and great link’s too geoff!!!
By: STORMBIRD262 - 15th October 2005 at 19:58
Most interesting stuf!!!!
Great stuff Grendel mate!!! 😉 .
Not so bad after all on the 109T, But me the 155 set up!!.
Nice point about the hook on the Navalized Spit, yes seen many a bent prop, but also lot’s of smashed gear too!!
Wrong plane for the job hey! :rolleyes: , so like the Brit’s
BUT as the whole world has found out over the last so many hundred’s of year’s.
The ” POM’S “, actually do like smashing their head’s in to brick wall’s 😮 ,
Non stop, Bang… Bang… Bang…, and when asked why they do this, the replie is, ” It feel’s good when I stop ” :p .
Not many race’s on the planet 😮 ,
Can match that kind of dogged, stubbon, digging in the toe’s when tottaly out numbered as usual, back against the wall and cornered mad dog in the sun thing they have going for them :p .
And then the Pom’s pull off some really dirty move, out of the bag, and the other side say’s :rolleyes: ,
THAT’S NOT FAIR, I WANT ME MUM, YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW THE RULE’S OF GENTLEMAN’S WARFARE,
where’s me bucket a spade……,
I’m going back to Frog land! you pommie Bast*rd’s don’t ever play nice war game’s with us friendly neighbour’s 🙁 🙁 .
Somewhere on the Planet, or at Home they did this to many a people 😀 .
Never die type of warrior people, the Empire went west with WW2.
But the Knight’s coal’s still burn brightly, and they left their mark on every corner of the globe.
I live in just one of them OLD OZZIE 😀 ,
God bless Capin ook and their little limey Christian soul’s crew(yer right), not to mention those oh some wonderfull type’s who settled here first off :p .
Sort of NOT at their own free will of course,
Doe’s 7 year’s for being Poor, Catholic, and Irish ring any bell’s, it got you a 6 month in a leaky boat, but FREE trip down to oh so sunny Oz 🙂 .
Did any of the Navalized Spit’s ever get a Hurra, 190 type gear spread :confused: .
Would have helped a LOT!
Must Crash now, melting again, Life’s a B*tch than you Die, ” Gut Nacht ” all far and wide. 😮
By: Flood - 15th October 2005 at 19:19
Shouldn’t forget the Italian carriers Aquila and Sparviero either…
Aquila was converted from the liner Roma:
Sparievo was being converted from the liner Augustus but only got as far as having its suprstructure removed…
The Aquila was designed to carry 51 Reggiane Re.2001 fighters: 10 on the flight deck, 26 in the hangar, and 15 hanging from the hangar ceiling – the Italians not having any folding wing aircraft.
Info on the Italian carriers (proposed, under contruction and those actually constructed) here
Flood
By: Grendel - 15th October 2005 at 14:35
I mean the Me-109 is the obvious choice, but i would have thought that the narrow track undercarriage would have made it very unpopular.
Take notice that the Spitfire’s gear was even narrower than 109s, and yet it was put into a carrier role. With the enlarged wings and strenghtened gear the 109T would have been a much safer plane for carrier operations.
In their tests the Germans did several hundreds of catapult launches and carrier landings to carrier sized fields with catapult trappings, with little problems. One interesting design detail is the hook positioning, which was better in the 109T than in Seafire. Seafire’s hook caused many nosings and broken props in CV landings, while 109T did not suffer of similar problem.
In real operations the range of 109T would have been quite insufficient, though, and I don’t know whether they had fuel drop tanks in the T model, or if the catapult lauches were done with tanks.
Sign In
October 14, 2005 at 4:45 pm