# German aircraft carrier



## fly boy (Apr 16, 2008)

i have read on the web something about the germans having a carrier that held 109s and 87s is this true or just poo


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 16, 2008)

German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn Interesting The Only Nazi Aircraft Carrier

On August 16, 1947 she was towed out to sea and used for target practice by Soviet ships and aircraft. Aerial bombs were placed in her hangers, flight deck and smoke stack. Planes and ships then shot shells and dropped bombs on her to demonstrate how to sink a carrier, presumably American. After twenty-four hits the Graf Zeppelin stayed afloat and had to be finished off by torpedoes.

.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 16, 2008)

wow i can't belive that


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 16, 2008)

There are two other accounts of what may have been the fate of the _Graf Zeppelin_. 

One is that she struck a mine left over from WW II and sank; the other is that she foundered in a storm as she was being towed to Leningrad.

Wonder what really happened  

TO


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Apr 16, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> There are two other accounts of what may have been the fate of the _Graf Zeppelin_.
> 
> One is that she struck a mine left over from WW II and sank; the other is that she foundered in a storm as she was being towed to Leningrad.
> 
> ...


Who knows?...I hate this kind of WW2 mysteries...I wonder what the Germans could have done with it if she would have been finished and operational during the war?...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

Kinda sad, really; I hate to see anything get destroyed needlessly.

They had also begun development of carrier versions of the 109 the 87. The 109 was to be the "T" model (for "Trägerflugzeug", or carrier aircraft) but, in the event, only a few were completed with the required carrier equipment (tailhook, catapult fittings, folding wings, etc.); the rest were completed as land-based aircraft, and shipped to Norway for the duration of the War.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 16, 2008)

I think one carier would have been next to useless... it would been a bomb magnet like the Bizmark or Tirpitz.

Now if they had 3 or 4 in the Med, The Germans may have held on to North Africa. A lot more supplies would have got through to Rommel. Perhaps American Carriers would have been diverted from the pacific and the war in the Pacific would have been prolonged.

Alas, it means nothing. There was a finite amount of recourses and capability. It's not just about the carriers but all the airplanes, crews, salors and support vessels.

They did the right thing by not developing carriers. They could not have sustained proper deployment or recovered from losses.

One carrier sunk represents a lot of assets on the ocean floor!

.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Germans actually had a number of Carriers planned...all came to nothing. Firstly there was the Graf Zeppelin, then there was the conversion of the heavy Cruise Sedlitz to a Light Carrier. Then they had several schemes for merchant hull conversions, most famous of which was Europa. There were several other possibilities.

The germans found the technical aspects of carrier design very challenging, particularly the aircraft handling characteristics and catapults for the carrier. They grossly overpowered the Graf Zeppelin, and as designed she devoted far too much weight and effort to surface gunnery, and far too little to AA defence. 

For service on the Carrier the Germans pre-war formed "Tragergescwader" 186, comprising Gruppe I with Ju 87T, and Group II with Me109Ts (essentially Me 109Es). They had toyed with the idea of a torpedo bomber (the AR 195) but had abandoned this type pre-war. They were working up the AR 167 (which is a remarkable little aircraft incidentally, eventually being passed to the Rumanians).

By April the CV was about 85% complete. But the rapid victories in the west caused Hitler to reach the conclusion that "considering the probable developments in aircraft, CVs with planes with internal engines will not be usable anymore in this war". By May, all work on the carrier had stopped.

After watching the tireless employment of carriers by the brits, and the success of the Japanese, the german attitude gradually changed, and work re-commenced, in early 1942. But in a report coinciding with this revival, the German admiralty noted:

"A It will take at least until the summer of 1943 to complete the Hull, and the engines.

1. Delivery of Auxiliary engines which either are missing entirely, or removed and installed ashore elswhere
2. Installation of bulges to allow counterflooding in case the ship is damaged
3. Increasing fuel bunkerage, to improve the endurance by a minimum of 25%

B The total time necessary to complete the carrier is not so much dependant on completing the hull and engines but on completing, modifiying and pilot training for the use of the JU 87D and Me 109F types.

The kriegsmarine estimated that the carrier would not be ready for operations until the winter of 1943 at the earliest. 

The Italians also were working on carrier conversions as well (the Aquila and the Sparviero).

With proper a/c and personnel, and some operational experience , a CV with an axis battlefleet would have been invaluable . however, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that the Axis could have produced even a small carrier task force as such. moreover, the carrier would have been a high risk target. The British had previously demonstrated their night strike capability earlier in the war (Bismarck had been hit in the dead of night, as had the Italians at Taranto and Matapan...this is a capability of the british CAGs often overlooked. By 1944, the british had all buit abandoned night flying, because it restricted the output of trained aircrew far too much. My guess is that the Graf Zeppelin would have been lost very quickly, notwithstanding the very impressive performance of her planned airgroups, if she had been completed in say late 1940.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I think one carier would have been next to useless...
> 
> Now if they had 3 or 4 in the Med, The Germans may have held on to North Africa. A lot more supplies would have got through. Perhaps American Carriers would have been diverted from the pacific and the war in the Pacific would have been prolonged.
> 
> ...



You are quite correct, comiso; it really was a waste of resources for the Germans to even attempt to build an aircraft carrier, let alone actually complete one. IMO, the Germans should not even have attempted to build a High Seas Fleet; all of their capital ships (Admiral Graf Spee, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, etc.) had almost no effect on the ultimate outcome of the War. They should've instead diverted the resources "wasted" on the High Seas Fleet to the U-Boat arm, in particular the Type VIIC Type XXI's.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

_


SoD Stitch said:



You are quite correct, comiso; it really was a waste of resources for the Germans to even attempt to build an aircraft carrier, let alone actually complete one. IMO, the Germans should not even have attempted to build a High Seas Fleet; all of their capital ships (Admiral Graf Spee, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, etc.) had almost no effect on the ultimate outcome of the War. They should've instead diverted the resources "wasted" on the High Seas Fleet to the U-Boat arm, in particular the Type VIIC Type XXI's.

Click to expand...

_
Generally true, but there is a quid pro quo here. No effort pre-war (ie approximately 1935-39) is going to bring about a change in production priorities by the Brits as well. For a start they dont have to lay down the KGVs (something like 150000 tons there alone) the never completed 16" class that followed them (about 80000 tons), and some of the carriers at least. Thats an awful lot of escorts....roughly 200, just by the tonnages, and roughly 100 if you just look at the crews. So the brits start the war with something like an additional 100-200 escorts.

I havenet even mentioned the 60 or so cruisers that the brits laid down. they would still need some of these, but say half arent. theres another 60 or so escorts right away

Type XXI were not ready until 1945, although laid down in 1944. Did you mean Type IXs perhaps.....


----------



## ccheese (Apr 16, 2008)

Interesting..... More information here: 

Divers find Hitler's aircraft carrier - Times Online

Charles


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 16, 2008)

I have no problem with them developing a high seas fleet. The Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, Bismarck, Gneisenau, etc......were fantastic ships. My issue is they didn't develop anything to support them. The Tirpitz and Bismarck were sunk all alone. 

Since we like to play "what if" here. Imagine the battle when they went after the Bismarck if there were also a cruiser and 4 - 6 destroyers around it.

With no support, just like Comiso said, nothing but assets on the ocean floor.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 16, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Y They should've instead diverted the resources "wasted" on the High Seas Fleet to the U-Boat arm, in particular the Type VIIC Type XXI's.



Yup!

How many U-boats could have been built for the partially completed Graf Zepplin?

How many engineers could have had a more productive role in other areas?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Type XXI were not ready until 1945, although laid down in 1944. Did you mean Type IXs perhaps.....



Yeah, I know the Type XXI wasn't ready until early '45, but if the resources I mentioned above hadn't been "wasted" on the High Seas Fleet at the beginning of the War, the Type XXI's might've been operational a year earlier. 

As for the Type IX's, they had good range due to their increased bunkerage over the Type VII's, but they were slow to dive, and not nearly as maneuverable as the Type VII.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2008)

Theres an extensive thread in the archives about this.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 16, 2008)

ccheese said:


> Interesting..... More information here:
> 
> Divers find Hitler's aircraft carrier - Times Online
> 
> Charles



nice find


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

ccheese said:


> Interesting..... More information here:
> 
> Divers find Hitler's aircraft carrier - Times Online
> 
> Charles



Anybody heard any rumors about trying to raise it? It would probably be prohibitively expensive, but there are a lot of crazier ideas out there.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 16, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Anybody heard any rumors about trying to raise it? It would probably be prohibitively expensive, but there are a lot of crazier ideas out there.



I cant imagine that... at the most, they could cut off pieces of the superstructure. what a waste though, I'd rather see pieces of the Bismark.

.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

But again, there is a Quid pro Quo. If the germans dont expend resources on surface fleet, that means a propoetion of those resources also spent by the Allies are now released for ASW research. The allies were close to helicopters, dunking sonars, MAD detectors, homing torpedoes, and a whole gaggle of countermeasuresares
I have to differe, I dont see scrapping the surface fleet as being a positive move toward a maritime victory


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 17, 2008)

The main problem with the carrier was that Herman Goering did not want the naval aviation to be seperate from the Luftwaffe. The carrier got so behind track because of Goering's issues that it never was put into service. Their where also planes to use a version of the Fi-156 Storch for divebombing.
I heard it was scuttled by the German, then raised bu the Soviets and used for target practice.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 17, 2008)

As comiso said, one German aircraft carrier would have had no impact. They might as well have painted a large bullseye on the flight deck. Would not have lasted long.

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2008)

The AC capacity made this a medium carrier, if anything.

Leonard had a great analysis of it and showed in no uncertein terms that this carrier would have been doomed even before it left port.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> The main problem with the carrier was that Herman Goering did not want the naval aviation to be seperate from the Luftwaffe. The carrier got so behind track because of Goering's issues that it never was put into service. Their where also planes to use a version of the Fi-156 Storch for divebombing.
> I heard it was scuttled by the German, then raised bu the Soviets and used for target practice.



This was a problem , but it was not going to stop the introduction of the carrier, just slow down its introduction to service. The command structure of the air gropup, once on operations might have been an intersting issue.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Their where also planes to use a version of the Fi-156 Storch for divebombing.



That is absolutely not true.

There were 3 aircraft that were planned for the Carrier and none of them were versions of the Storch.

As a Torpedo bomber the *Fi 167* was planned. The only things it has in common with the Storch are that it is built by the same company and that it has great slow speed performance.

The other aircraft planned were the *Bf 109T* as a fighter and the *Ju 87 (cant remember the varient)* as a dive bomber.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As a Torpedo bomber the *Fi 167* was planned. The only things it has in common with the Storch are that it is built by the same company and that it has great slow speed performance.
> 
> The other aircraft planned were the *Bf 109T* as a fighter and the *Ju 87 (cant remember the varient)* as a dive bomber.



Sorry, I just always thought that the -167 was a version of the Storch. Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 18, 2008)

i think the 109 would have been a flop for carrier operations, with the narrow landing gear, and the carrier operating in the northsea, or atlantic, more 109 would have been swept off the deck from collapsed landing carriages then lost to the elimants...perhaps the 190 with wider stance and more stongly built. I am uncertain, and whether i viewed this on history channel, but the USN tested the undercarriages by hoisting planes about 8 feet +/- and dropping them so as to test, and check undercarriage construction. The main problem was Goering was in control of all aircraft, even ones lent, or used by naval use, i.e laying mines, weather reconnasance, u-boat duties, and although the graf spree might have benefited in the atlantic, so as to constantly watch and trail convoys, sending info to u-boat crews, she ended her life in Russia, used as a target ship[, but read somewhere numerous torpedo's didn't sink, and she was eventually sank afterwards near archangel

bf109 Emil


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 18, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> i think the 109 would have been a flop for carrier operations, with the narrow landing gear, and the carrier operating in the northsea, or atlantic, more 109 would have been swept off the deck from collapsed landing carriages then lost to the elimants...
> 
> bf109 Emil


the spit landed on carriers why not the 109


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 18, 2008)

the spit had the seafire, but found out that numerous carrier crashes or collapsed undercarriages, went to the corsair in the pacific instead, and i know of a canadian ace whom flew f6f hellcat. 

jUST the fact the 109 was a small plane, originally built to use jumo engines of 680h.p. and later fitted with the db601's making over a 1000. they where nimble, light, and compared to allied fighter small in comparison. 
perhaps this plane might have been functional..."The only serious competition to the Bf 109 was the Heinkel entry. Based on a scaled down Blitz, the He 112 proved to be similar but different. Positive aspects of the He 112 included the wide track and robustness of the landing gear, considerably better visibility from the cockpit, and a lower wing loading that led to easier landings and better maneuverability. By contrast, the Bf 109 was 30 km/h faster than the He 112 in level flight, and superior in climbing and diving. It was also cheaper.[14] Still, the He 112 was the favourite of the Luftwaffe leaders." from wikipedia

landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak..."Since the fighter was being designed primarily for high speed flight, a smaller wing would be optimised for high speed use.

The downside of such a trade-off is that low-speed flight would suffer, as the smaller wing would require more airflow to generate enough lift to stay flying." from wikipedia

reply as to why spit might suffer less carrier mishaps during landing..."this landing gear arrangement ensured a narrow track and hence made the aircraft unstable in terms of balance while on the ground. In an attempt to increase the wheel track the legs were splayed out; this created another problem in that loads imposed during take-off and landings were transferred at an angle up the legs. The small rudder of the 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough the pivot points often broke and the landing gear leg would be forced sideways into its bay. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow landing gear arrangement, but because there were no sideways loads imposed on the undercarriage legs the undercarriage didn't have the same tendency to collapse.[8]" from wikipedia

bf109 Emil


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 18, 2008)

The 109 has a wider undercarriage by 6" over a Spit


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The 109 has a wider undercarriage by 6" over a Spit



How would you know?!? It's not like you access to a 109 and a Spit!


----------



## Denniss (Apr 18, 2008)

The undercarriage of the Bf 109 was narrow but not fragile. the Bf 109T had an increased wingspan at least for better deck operations (take-off and landing on the flight deck).

Ju87C was the naval derivate of the Ju 87B. There were even plans for a naval derivate of the the Ju 87D called Ju 87T.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> How would you know?!? It's not like you access to a 109 and a Spit!



Yes, I was joking! pb really does have access to a 109 and a spit!

.


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 18, 2008)

.Perhaps if willy messerschmitt had drawn up a specific design or carrier used aircraft, as above mentions the spitfire, but i think the seafire was the carrier version of the spitfire."The Supermarine Seafire was a naval version of the Supermarine Spitfire specially adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. The name Seafire was arrived at by collapsing the longer name Sea Spitfire." quote wikipedia...Compared with other naval fighters, the Seafire II was able to outperform the A6M5 (Zero) at low altitudes when the two types were tested against each other in World War II. Contemporary Allied carrier aircraft, such as the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair, however, were considerably more robust and powerful. Late-war Seafire marks equipped with the Griffon engines enjoyed a considerable increase of performance compared to their Merlin-engined predecessors.

The first use of Seafires in sustained carrier operations was Operation Torch. Seafires saw most service in the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the Kamikaze attacks during the Iwo Jima landings and beyond." from wikipedia

bf109 Emil


----------



## Haztoys (Apr 18, 2008)

Denniss said:


> The undercarriage of the Bf 109 was narrow but not fragile..



From what I understand and have come across in pics of 109's ...Is the reason the Bf 109 undercarriage is so narrow is Willy Messerschmitt wanted the landing gear on the body of the plane ..And NOT on the wings.. And that's what he did..I'm sure you all have come across pic's of 109's with the wings off ...And they are still standing on the gear.. "I" would say it would make a stronger plane..."I" would think it would be EZer to work on the wings and the wings do not have to be that strong to hold up the plane...

But................

In life one problem fixed ...Leads to a new problem...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 18, 2008)

Hi Emil,

>the spit had the seafire, but found out that numerous carrier crashes or collapsed undercarriages, went to the corsair in the pacific instead, and i know of a canadian ace whom flew f6f hellcat. 

Hm, Mike Crosley ("They gave me a Seafire", "Up in Harm's Way") flew Seafires - in the Pacific, too. I don't think collapsing undercarriages were much of a problem, but he gives a good account of the Seafire's landing difficulties. They were caused by an array of reasons, one important one being the gradual stall that was a beneficial feature in most situations, but a disadvantage in carrier landings where you want to quite flying at a precisely defined moment. Another important reason was the tail heaviness of the Seafire, brought about by the tail hook and additional equipment in the rear fuselage. It mean that the type came in for a landing with the tail providing lift instead of downforce, and when you chopped the throttle, the tail lost the extra lift from the propeller slipstream and dropped, causing the main wing to increase its angle of attack and make the Seafire float over the arrestor wires and, if you were unlucky, over the barrier as well.

The Seafires of Crosley's squadron had a good combat record during their deployment in the Pacific, but they lost quite a few aircraft to accidents brought about by the peculiarities of the type. Crosley apparently thought that the Americans had a much better approach to carrier aviation, including the way the US aircraft were designed to land under power with large, drag-producing split flaps allowing them to come it slowly and drop onto the deck positively as soon as the throttle was chopped.

>landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak...

Actually, the Me 109T benefitted from a number of design changes over the Me 109E it was based on, and probably would have been much safer to land on a carrier than a Seafire. First, the wing was slightly larger than that of the Emil, it had well-defined stall characteristics (both the Emil-style wing and the Friedrich-style wing as well as experimental modifications of the basic wings were tested, and the rectangular wing was found to be best), and the Me 109T was equipped with spoilers that could be used to adjust the glide path easily and without the big trim changes jockeying the throttle or deploying large landing flaps could introduce. (The technology clearly speaks of the German sailplane expertise  I believe spoilers were used with many later carrier-capable types as well, so this approach obviously had some merits ...

>from wikipedia

Hm, on top of the usual boiler plate warnings against Wikipedia content, I'd like to add one that warns against taking negative statements on Luftwaffe aircraft too seriously. There is a definite trend towards pessimism in these articles ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

I dont know if this helps, but the Germans were using a small island in the baltic to train "Deck Landings" and "take offs". As far as i am aware there were no serious problems with the equipment. That is not to say there wouldnt be. The narrow undercarriage is a definite problem, but it is generally overstated, as are the admittedly high attrition rates of the Seafire.

There would have been some problems in the deck handling arrangements of the carrier, as well as a few other problems. As a rough sort of comparison, she would have been about as good as the Furious or Bearn, in terms of her ability to turn around the airgroup, ie, about the same as a first generation allied carrier. I believe, but am not certain, that she also suffered from a rather small set of lifts, and a small deck handling area. Compared to Ark Royal, or Illustrious, or even Ranger, she would have been outclassed, with the Allies enjoying a consideraqble turn around rate advantage. This means that unless she eliminated the threat with her first strike, she would take a long time to "reload" so to speak

However the greatest threat to the Carrier, in my opinion, is the fact that the Brits would have endeavoured to attack her using their night capable swordfish, such as they had done against the Bismarck.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is absolutely not true.
> 
> 
> 
> The other aircraft planned were the *Bf 109T* as a fighter and the *Ju 87 (cant remember the varient)* as a dive bomber.



There were also versions of the Me 109f and Ju87D being worked on for the 1942 version of the carrier. given that its likely commissioning date (according to OKM records) the Germans would almost certainly have needed to convert some version of the g ass well

I have often wondered why they never considered the FW 190 as a conversion. That would have been interesting


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2008)

The Fw 190 would still have made a better carrier plane. Better range, excelent low-medium altitude performance, wide track landing gear, radial enging, good multi-role capabilities, high lift wing with good low speed stall characteristics. (actually the same airfoil as the F4U)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 18, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> From what I understand and have come across in pics of 109's ...Is the reason the Bf 109 undercarriage is so narrow is Willy Messerschmitt wanted the landing gear on the body of the plane ..And NOT on the wings.. And that's what he did..I'm sure you all have come across pic's of 109's with the wings off ...And they are still standing on the gear.. "I" would say it would make a stronger plane..."I" would think it would be EZer to work on the wings and the wings do not have to be that strong to hold up the plane...
> 
> But................
> 
> In life one problem fixed ...Leads to a new problem...



Yes, Willy's theory was that he wanted the stresses of the landing gear from landing to be transferred to the fuselage instead of the wings, hence the attachment points for the landing gear were in the fuselage, not the wings; this also made for a lighter wing structure, but at a price. Takeoffs and, in particular, landings were tricky at best, even for an experienced pilot; see the recent thread on the restored Bf 109 that crashed on landing. From eyewitness reports, the reason the aircraft crashed was at least partly due to the narrow track of the undercarriage. Many an inexperienced German pilot "pranged" their a/c on it's first landing, or did a ground loop. Good theory, bad execution, I say.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

[*QUOTE=kool kitty89;346041]The Fw 190 would still have made a better carrier plane. Better range, excelent low-medium altitude performance, wide track landing gear, radial enging, good multi-role capabilities, high lift wing with good low speed stall characteristics. (actually the same airfoil as the F4U)[/QUOTE]*

Agreed, an almost impossible question to answer, if two pilots of equal quality face off, one in an FW 190, and the other in the Corsair, who has the inherent advantage???


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 19, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> There are two other accounts of what may have been the fate of the _Graf Zeppelin_.
> 
> One is that she struck a mine left over from WW II and sank; the other is that she foundered in a storm as she was being towed to Leningrad.
> 
> ...



She was definately sunk during the target practice - I have a very detailed account of how the exercise was executed, unfortunately, in russian only. I'm to lazy to translate it by myself, so try with an automatic translator  :


"Ликвидацию АВ «Graf Zeppelin» (*) предполагалось провести с максимальным военно-научным и практическим эффектом. Для этой цели приказом Главнокомандующего ВМС адмирала И.С. Юмашева №0029 от 17 мая 1947 г. была создана специальная комиссия под председательством вице-адмирала Ю.Ф. Ралля, в задачу которой входило потопление АВ с проведением испытаний воздействия на него авиационных бомб, артснарядов и торпед в так называемом «статическом» (подрыв заранее размещенных боеприпасов) и «динамическом» (фактические стрельбы и бомбометание) вариантах (разработка и подготовка программы испытаний также поручалась этой комиссии; кроме АВ, участь «подопытных кроликов» ожидала «карманный линкор» «Lutzow» и 13 ПЛ). Предполагалось, что на АВ сначала будут подорваны заранее заложенные авиабомбы и артснаряды различных калибров, затем он будет подвергнут бомбометанию с самолетов, расстрелу из орудий главного калибра крейсеров и, наконец, завершат дело «лихие» торпедные атаки надводных кораблей. Планировался также и подрыв мин на различных глубинах и удалениях. В промежутках между вариантами указанного сценария группы военных ученых должны были производить замеры, расчеты и проверки элементов корабля с минимальными действиями по восстановлению его живучести (например, запуск насосов для откачки воды)."

[...]

После первой серии взрывов была проведена авиационная бомбардировка АВ самолетами. Для выполнения этой задачи выделялись 39 экипажей 12-го Гвардейского авиаполка 8-й минно-торпедной авиадивизии и 25 самолетов Пе-2 — все имевшиеся исправные самолеты полка. Экипажи более современных самолетов Ту-2 не назначались, так как в течение 1946 и 1947 гг. они имели незначительную тренировку (понятное дело: война закончилась, можно и слегка «расслабиться». Однако как это все же напоминает июнь 1941 г.! — прим. авт.). К моменту выполнения задания во всех ВВС 4-го ВМФ вместо потребного количества в 156 авиабомб П-50 имелось только сто. Поэтому с учетом выполнения условий бомбометания и наличия боезапаса в ударе по АВ смогли принять участие только 24 экипажа Пе-2. Две девятки самолетов бомбили по сигналу ведущего в звене, а часть Пе-2 атаковали цель индивидуально. Удары обеспечивали два самолета типа «Каталина», один из которых, находясь над целью, наводил на нее ударную группу, а второй работал в поисковоспасательном варианте. Кроме того — неслыханная на войне роскошь! — управление ударными группами осуществлялось еще и с «Волынца», а на палубе «жертвы» был нарисован белый крест 20 на 20 м с шириной полос пять м.

Первая атакующая группа нанесла удар с высоты 2070 м и сбросила 28 авиабомб, вторая — примерно с той же высоты, сбросив 36, и третья (индивидуальное бомбометание) «разгрузилась» 24 бомбами. Три самолета вынуждены были сбросить бомбы в море аварийно. Результат бомбометания по почти неподвижному, беззащитному и совсем не маленькому кораблю оказался «впечатляющим»: из ста бомб в цель попали только шесть (!), причем обнаружить в палубе удалось лишь пять попаданий. Летчики же настаивали на одиннадцати, считая, что часть бомб попала в уже разрушенные предыдущими подрывами места. Так или иначе, но бомбардировка АВ с точки зрения живучести ничего не дала: бомбы П-50 оказались слишком маломощными и не наносили существенных повреждений, кроме вмятин в палубе глубиной 5-10 см. Правда, одна из бомб сделала пробоину в буле ПрБ диаметром около 1 м. Для боевой подготовки «сталинских соколов» атаки «Цеппелина» слишком полигонными и, видимо, мало поучительными: противовоздушной обороны, понятно, не осуществлялось, самолет наведения беспрепятственно «разгуливал» над целью, высота бомбометания соответствовала зоне плотного зенитного огня. Летчики (судя по воинским званиям — молодежь, не нюхавшая пороху) жаловались на плохую видимость разрывов и падений бомб. Смеем заключить, что данное «мероприятие» можно назвать боевой подготовкой лишь с известной долей воображения.

[...]


Taken from the military historical magazine "Typhoon", 3/1997


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2008)

Hi Stitch,

>Takeoffs and, in particular, landings were tricky at best, even for an experienced pilot; see the recent thread on the restored Bf 109 that crashed on landing. 

I have to say that I tried to track down the Me 109's reportedly bad take-off and landing characteristics in contemporary accident statistics, and much to my surprise, I couldn't find anything to support the notion that it was unusally problematic.

What I did was to categorize all of JG 26 losses (covering the entire war) that lead to injuries or deaths of pilots, which are available in a list that gives the cause, and filter out landing and take-off-related accidents. I correlated that list with a list of the aircraft types flown by the units of the listed pilots at the time of the accident, and found that the Fw 190-equipped units had just as many accidents as the Me 109-equipped units.

I also had a look at the quartermaster records and compared the percentage of the aircraft that were lost to the percentage that were returned to the industry for repair and rebuild (for all Me 109 and Fw 190 since early 1942, when the records began), and the Me 109 and the Fw 190 figures for "returned for repair/rebuild" were within one percent of each other.

So it doesn't look like the take-off and landing disadvantages of the Me 109 had enough of an impact to increase the number of pilot injuries compared to that of the Fw 190, or the number of aircraft damaged so seriously that they couldn't be fixed at the operational units themselves.

So from a look at the atcual numbers, I tend to consider the reported take-off and landing issues of the Me 109 as a minor problem that had no measurable impact on its operational record.

I'd still like to conduct a deeper analysis of this topic, though - so any ideas of how we could cross-check the historical accident rate would be highly welcome! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

Hi Ho Hun

I would be very interested to see the results of your analysis. I always thought that the undercarriage problem wa minor, but your post suggests that it was no problem. Do you think that is valid, when so many anecdotal appraisals say otherwise?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> She was definately sunk during the target practice - I have a very detailed account of how the exercise was executed, unfortunately, in russian only. I'm to lazy to translate it by myself, so try with an automatic translator  :
> 
> 
> "Ликвидацию АВ «Graf Zeppelin» (*) предполагалось провести с максимальным военно-научным и практическим эффектом. Для этой цели приказом Главнокомандующего ВМС адмирала И.С. Юмашева №0029 от 17 мая 1947 г. была создана специальная комиссия под председательством вице-адмирала Ю.Ф. Ралля, в задачу которой входило потопление АВ с проведением испытаний воздействия на него авиационных бомб, артснарядов и торпед в так называемом «статическом» (подрыв заранее размещенных боеприпасов) и «динамическом» (фактические стрельбы и бомбометание) вариантах (разработка и подготовка программы испытаний также поручалась этой комиссии; кроме АВ, участь «подопытных кроликов» ожидала «карманный линкор» «Lutzow» и 13 ПЛ). Предполагалось, что на АВ сначала будут подорваны заранее заложенные авиабомбы и артснаряды различных калибров, затем он будет подвергнут бомбометанию с самолетов, расстрелу из орудий главного калибра крейсеров и, наконец, завершат дело «лихие» торпедные атаки надводных кораблей. Планировался также и подрыв мин на различных глубинах и удалениях. В промежутках между вариантами указанного сценария группы военных ученых должны были производить замеры, расчеты и проверки элементов корабля с минимальными действиями по восстановлению его живучести (например, запуск насосов для откачки воды)."
> ...



Here is a very rough translation (I can barely understand the translation!):

_"it was intended to conduct with the maximum military science and practical effect. For this purpose by the order of the be commander-in-chiefing of Navy Admiral OF .. [Yumasheva] of №0029 dated May 17, 1947. was created special commission under the chairmanship of the Vice Admiral OF [YU].[F]. [Rallya], into task of which entered the sinking [AV] with conducting of the tests of the action on it of aerial bombs, artillery shells and torpedoes in the so-called “static” (undermining of the previously placed ammunition) and “the dynamic” (actual shootings and bombing) versions (development and preparation of test program also charged this commission; besides [AV], the lot “experimental rabbits” expected “pocket battleship” “Lutzow” even 13 [PL]). 

It was assumed that on [AV] will be first blown up the previously placed aircraft bombs and the artillery shells of different calibers, then it it will be subjected to bombing from the aircraft, to shooting from the instruments of the main battery of cruisers and will finally complete the matter “dashing” torpedo attacks of surface ships. Was planned also the undermining of mines at different depths and removals. In the spaces between the versions of the scenario indicated the groups of military scientists had to carry out measurements, calculations and testing of the elements of ship with the minimum actions according to the restoration of its vitality (for example, the starting of pumps for the of pumps for the pumpage)."

Everything I have ever read about the GZ though states pretty much the same thing. She was scuttled by the Germans in 1945 but the Soviets raised her in 1946 and were going to tow her back to Russia in 1947.

In August 1947 the Russians used it for munitions tests to study the best way to sink a carrier. 24 bombs and shells were dropped on her and she did not sink and was eventually finished off by torpedos.

The last known pic of the GZ was taken on April 7, 1947 and her decks and hull were filled with crates and equipment that the Soviets had taken from the Germans to bring back to Russia for study as well as factory equipment.

Here is the pic:_


----------



## Micdrow (Apr 19, 2008)

For those that are interested there is a book called Sea Eagles, The Messerschmitt Bf-109T by Francis L Marshall. Covers history of the Bf-109T. Why they where built and what units used them when the carrier was not finished.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2008)

Micdrow said:


> For those that are interested there is a book called Sea Eagles, The Messerschmitt Bf-109T by Francis L Marshall. Covers history of the Bf-109T. Why they where built and what units used them when the carrier was not finished.



Great book! I own it and recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2008)

Hi Parsifal,

>I would be very interested to see the results of your analysis. 

I have started a new thread here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/me-109-vs-fw-190-take-off-landing-accidents-12879.html

Hope you'll find it interesting 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 24 bombs and shells were dropped on her and she did not sink and was eventually finished off by torpedos.



I have no doubt that she was built very well but if she had a hanger deck stuffed with AV GAS, munitions and had hot boilers she would have sank a lot quicker.

I wonder if the water tight compartments were left open or if they were closed for an accurate simulation? Any ship the size of an aircraft carrier empty, with compartments sealed would be difficult to sink. You're just punching holes in the steel!

You know that some of that factory equipment plundered from the carrier has to survive! There's probably a machine shop in Odessa making cigarette lighters parts right now with the machinery!

it would make a great project to hunt down some of the parts.


.


----------



## Freebird (Apr 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Germans actually had a number of Carriers planned...all came to nothing. Firstly there was the Graf Zeppelin, then there was the conversion of the heavy Cruise Sedlitz to a Light Carrier. Then they had several schemes for merchant hull conversions, most famous of which was Europa. There were several other possibilities.
> 
> *With proper a/c and personnel, and some operational experience , a CV with an axis battlefleet would have been invaluable *. however, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that the Axis could have produced even a small carrier task force as such. moreover, the carrier would have been a high risk target. The British had previously demonstrated their night strike capability earlier in the war (Bismarck had been hit in the dead of night, as had the Italians at Taranto and Matapan...this is a capability of the british CAGs often overlooked. By 1944, the british had all buit abandoned night flying, because it restricted the output of trained aircrew far too much. My guess is that the Graf Zeppelin would have been lost very quickly, notwithstanding the very impressive performance of her planned airgroups, if she had been completed in say late 1940.



Great posts Parsifal! Yes I would agree with you, perhaps the best plan would have been the "Sedlitz" cruiser project. Not to make a carrier Battle group, but as an escort for the "raiders". 

Check out the earlier thread about CVL's

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/po...at-type-would-you-have-raiding-cvl-11967.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I have no doubt that she was built very well but if she had a hanger deck stuffed with AV GAS, munitions and had hot boilers she would have sank a lot quicker.
> 
> I wonder if the water tight compartments were left open or if they were closed for an accurate simulation? Any ship the size of an aircraft carrier empty, with compartments sealed would be difficult to sink. You're just punching holes in the steel!
> 
> ...



No arguements there. I was just stating how she was sunk.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No arguements there. I was just stating how she was sunk.



In post #2 I stated the same thing. I was just pointing out that the ship was empty before somebody uses the difficult sinking as an another example of uber german supremacy....


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

Plans for a shipped-based air force started soon after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. The first plans were limited to supplying the existing battleships and cruisers with reconnaissance seaplanes. On March 12th 1934 the first requirements the future aircraft carrier was given. Within a year the design study had been completed. The model used was the British Courageous class of carriers. On June 18th 1935 the signing of the British-German naval agreement set the future strength of the German Navy at 35% of the tonnage of the British fleet applied to all classes of ships. This opened the way for building the first German aircraft carrier. Based on British tonnage of the time, 38,500 tons, this allowed for two ships of 19,250 tons. Officials were sent to England to attend the Navy Week where HMS Furious was opened for visitors but little was learned. More successful was a German Commission allowed to visit the carrier Akagi in Japan where they were given 100 copies of the blueprints of the air deck facilities. However, the Japanese neglected to tell them that the carrier was about to be completely rebuilt and the plans were obsolete. 

At the end of 1935, when the design of the carrier was mostly completed, it received the consent of the commander of the navy. On 16th November 1935 the order to build the ‘A’ carrier was given to the Deutsche Werke Kiel AG. At that time most of its resources were engaged in building other warships and its slipways were occupied by ships under construction. Therefore construction was delayed until 28th December 1936 when it was possible to lay the keel on Slipway 1, twenty days after Battleship ‘E’ – the Gneisenau – had been launched from the same slipway. The slipway construction stage took two years. The ship was launched by Countess Hella von Brandenstein-Zeppelin, daughter of Count Zeppelin, on 8th December 1938 in the presence of Adolf Hitler. Work progressed during 1939 and by August it was estimated that the first tests could be carried out in June 1940 and the ship ready for service by the end of that year. When war broke out the Graf Zeppelin was 85%-90% completed. The engines and boilers were in place, the auxiliary machinery prepared though not yet installed and the 15cm guns were in place as well but lacked armoured shields. 

The order for carrier ‘B’ was placed on 16th November 1936 with the Friedrich Krupp-Germania shipyard. The laying of the keel could not have taken place until the second half of 1938, after the heavy cruiser ‘J’ had been launched, because only one slipway (VIII) could accommodate the carrier. The date, 30th September 1936, given in some sources is invalid and probably a misprint. 30th September 1938 seems the most likely date. The construction of the ‘B’ carrier was intentionally slow because of the possibility of using experience gained from trials of the Graf Zeppelin in the ‘B’ construction. The planned launching was 1st July 1940 which did not take place as the order was cancelled on 19th September 1939. The ship had been finished up to the armoured deck. On 28th February 1940 Admiral Raeder ordered the dismantling of the hull. The ‘B’ carrier was never given a name. Peter Strasser is ascribed to the carrier by some sources but is entirely speculative and it is questionable that Hitler would have approved it even if it were on the list of proposed names. 

After the start of the war, works on the Graf Zeppelin continued as planned for a while, but soon delays were caused by the extensive U-Boat building programme. [Carriers were always last in construction priority. Until 19th September 1939 the priority was: battleships, submarines, destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers.] In October 1939 Hitler allowed only the building of small ships and the continuing construction of five large ships, the Graf Zeppelin among them. It was the German conquest of Denmark and Norway that had an adverse affect on the ship’s fate. Defence of the long the Norwegian coast required many small ships and their construction became the priority. During a conference with Hitler on the 29th April 1940, Admiral Raeder proposed stopping all work on the carrier. Even if the ship was commissioned as planned at the end of that year, equipping her with guns would take another ten months, if not longer, and the installation of the fire control system several more months. (The original fire control system had been sold to the Soviet Union. In the end the AA and 15cm guns were removed and sent to Norway to be incorporated in the coastal defence system.) During a conference in July, Hitler referred to aircraft carriers saying that Germany must have “a cruiser with a flight deck”. Ludicrous as it was to start a new project when the existing carrier was almost complete, it was Hitler’s remarks that stopped all work on the Graf Zeppelin on the 12th July 1940 and the Design Bureau to prepare a design of an ‘M’ cruiser that could carry 14 aircraft. On the same day the Graf Zeppelin left Kiel for Gdynia (called Gotenhafen by the Germans). The ship remained there almost a year until Hitler’s decision to attack the Soviet Union on 22nd June 1941. Because of the treat of Soviet air raids the Supreme Command of the Navy ordered Group North to tow the ship further west by 19th June. The carrier left at noon 19th June and reached Stettin on afternoon of 21st June. There she was moored at Hakenterasse, remaining until German forces had penetrated far enough to lift the threat of air attacks. On 10th November 1941 she left Stettin to arrive a week later back at Gdynia. She was then used as a floating warehouse for hardwood under the name Zugvogel.

By the end of 1941, the crippling of the Italian fleet in Taranto, the Home Fleet’s interception of the Bismark and especially the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had proved that ship-based aircraft were a fully developed and dangerous weapon. The Seekreigsleitung pressed for completion and putting into service of the Graf Zeppelin as soon as possible. The final discussion took place on 16th April 1942 at Hitler’s Wolfschanze headquarters. The results were as follows:

1.	Works on the hull and engines were to be completed by summer 1943.
2.	The only available aircraft types, adapted Me 109 and Ju 87, required upgrading of the air facilities, especially installation of stronger catapults. Design, production and testing of these would take not less than two years so it was decided to modernize and adapt the existing catapults which would take six months. This gave the earliest possible time to complete the carrier as the winter of 1943/44. From the point of view of the Luftwaffe constructing a new carrier-based aircraft was impossible before 1946. 
3.	The Luftwaffe would provide the Kriegsmarine ten fighters and twenty-two bombers to be used in the reconnaissance role. Designing a torpedo-bomber was opposed by Hitler who thought such aircraft were not useful.

On May 13th 1942 the decision was made to resume the construction of the Graf Zeppelin. Along with changes to the air facilities there were other alterations considered necessary as early as 1938/39 because of the developments in naval technology. The superstructure was obsolete. The existing mast had to be replaced with a heavier one fitted with a fighter command post and radars. The bridge and fire control centre covered with fragment-proof armour. A higher funnel shield was necessary to protect the fighter command post from smoke. The alterations resulted in a significant increase in weight that needed to ne neutralised to keep the ship stable. Bulges were added to keep the ship upright. The secondary role was to protect the ship’s interior from torpedoes. Parts of the bulges served as oil tanks. These additions improved the manoeuvrability and range of the ship. AA protection was also upgraded. The planned air component was composed of 28 Ju 87s and 12 Bf 109s.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

Continued.

The Supreme Command of the Navy expected that work would be completed by April 1943 with the first sea test performed in August. However, the last twelve months of construction were to be carried out at the cost of cancelling VVIIC U-boats at Deutsche Werk AG Kiel. As well as the Graf Zeppelin, five other ships were to be converted to aircraft carriers. Due to the shortage of workers and lack of material, especially steel, Hitler decided to cancel the conversion of existing warships and put the workers and material into building the aircraft carriers Graf Zeppelin, Seydlitz and Potsdam. Meanwhile, due to increasing air threat, the operation to move the Graf Zeppelin to Kiel was delayed. She finally left Gdynia on 30th November 1942. On 3rd December the convoy reached Kieler Forde andf the Graf Zepplin anchored to the Heikendorf roadstead. On 5th December she was put into the Deutsche Werk floating dock where work on the bulges started immediately. At the same time work on the engines room was started to make the two inner shafts and their propulsion system operational allowing the ship to make a top speed of 25 to 26 knots. The objective was to finish the carrier in the autumn of 1943. On 30th January 1943 Hitler ordered all capital ships to be put out of service and cancel the construction of those not yet completed. Grand Admiral Raeder described it as “the cheapest sea victory England ever won” and was the direct reason for him being relieved from duty. On 2nd February 1943 the construction of the Graf Zeppelin, on which the bulges were still being installed, was stopped for good. On April 15th Deutsche Werk shipyard were ordered to prepare the ship to be moved to Gdynia. After these preparations the carrier was towed out on 20th April, its destination now Stetitin. There she was anchored on one of the forks of the Odra River and camouflaged to look like a small island. The initial plan of moving the ship to Pillau was abandoned because of a lack of adequate anchor ground. The end of the carrier came soon after the Red Army enterrd the territory of the Reich. First all the kingston valves were opened and the ship settled on the bottom. Then a ten-man squad prepared the ship for blowing up with depth charges. On the 25th April 1945 at 6pm the order was given. Thick smoke issued from the funnel, proof that the charges had gone off as planned.

In April 1945, Soviet troops found the carrier’s artillery had been dismantled, the installation of fire control equipment had not been finished and the electrical installations partially installed as well as the flight equipment. There was a complete engine room and the power station was fully operational. Among the explosives, ten depth charges had been set of in the engine room. Water had penetrated through small blow-holes, cracks an leakages and the ship settled on the bottom in water seven meters deep. Seepage was so slow the water in the engine room was lower than that outside the hull. By 17th August 1945 the ship had been examined by teams of the 77th Emergency Rescue Unit. The carrier lay on the bottom with only half a degree of list to starboard. On the starboard were 36 holes up 1.0 X 1.0 meters made by shells and fragments. All the turbines, boilers and power plants had been blown up damaging the nearby watertight bulkheads. One .8 x .3 meter hole had been blown in the underwater part of the ship along with a .3 meter crack. The propellers had been dismantled and placed on the flight deck to minimize electrochemical corrosion of the hull. The aircraft elevators had been blown up as well. The ship was raised by simply sealing the underwater hole and crack and pumping out the water. Ten longitudinal and twelve transverse bulkheads had to be sealed to give the ship the necessary buoyancy. Cracks above the waterline and portholes were sealed with wielded metal sheets. Due to extensive damage and time pressures damage to ship’s deck were not mended. After the repairs were completed the ship was towed to Świnoujście, the former Kriegsmarine base known as Swinemunde. On 19th August the hulk was included in the Soviet Navy as a spoil of war. At the Potsdam Conference (17th July until 2nd August) the first agreement was reached on how to dispose of captured German surface vessels. On 23rd January 1946 an Anglo-American-Soviet committee was formed to deal with these matters. All combat and auxiliary vessels were divided into three categories A,B or C. The Graf Zeppelin was given to the Soviets by lot and came under category C – ships sunk, damaged or unfinished that required over six months of repairs using the resources of German shipyards. It was the recommendation of the committee that category C ships should be scuttled in deep water or dismantled by a given date. Admiral Kuzniecov requested to repair the Graf Zeppelin for use as an experimental platform for the construction of Soviet aircraft carriers. Initially he was given approval for the Baltic shipyard in Leningrad to carry out the necessary repairs; however the authorities chose the simpler option of complying with the terms of the allied agreement. On March 17th 1947 a resolution was passed that all category C vessels were to be destroyed in 1947. The command of the Soviet Navy had managed to convince the government to run durability tests on the vessels. 

From 2nd February 1947 the Graf Zeppelin was classified as experimental platform PB-101. The destruction was to be carried out in a manner that allowed the collection of experimental data and experiences. A special committee head by Vice-Admiral Rall was formed and ordered to sink the carrier while testing its resistance to aerial bombs, artillery shells, and torpedoes in teo variants, static and dynamic. Static meaning that the munitions would be placed in the ship and detonated and dynamic that they would be delivered by silulated attacks. The detonation of mines at various depths and distances from the ship was also considered. Between the tests teams of scientists would be sent aboard to assess the effects of the explosions. They were allowed to conduct minor repairs too stop the ship from sinking too soon. 

At 2.45 pm on 14th August 1947 PB-101, as she was now known was pulled out onto the out roadstead of Świnoujście from where she was escorted by various vessels to the fivemile square designated as the test area. Due to draining of three starboard rooms in the bulges she had a 3 degree list to port. When she arrived o the evening 15/16th August if was found that she could not be anchored. One of the main anchor chain links failed and the light kedge anchor could not prevent the ship from drifting. This was to affect the final outcome of the testing. 

The first tests were carried out on the morning of 16th August. First a FAB-1000 bomb was exploded in the funnel along with three FAB-100 bombs and two 180 mm shells set under the flight deck. For the second test a FAB-1000 bomb was detonated on the flight deck. For the third a FAB-250 was set off on the flight deck and two 180 mm shells on the upper hangar deck. For the forth a FAB-500 over the flight deck set on a 2.7 meter high tripod, a FAB-250 on the upper hangar deck, another on the flight deck and a FAB-100 on the C deck. The fifth and last of the series, a FAB-500 and FAB-100 detonated on the flight deck with part of the bombs set deep in holes cut in the deck to simulate penetration. 

The funnel was ripped open down to the flight deck but the island was not damaged, with the shockwave failing to deform the smoke ducts. No increase in pressure in the boilers was reported and on the armoured gratings an intact spiders web was found. Of the three FAB-100 bombs detonated on the flight deck the most damaging was the one not set in the deck. The shockwaves of those set in deck were directed down into the hangar. The 180 mm shells caused various damage, the most effective being mixed armour piercing high explosive.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

continued.

After the first series of tests an air raid was carried out on the ship by 39 aircraft from the 12th Guards Mine Torpedo Division and 25 Pe-2 dive bombers. On the day of the test there were only 100 P-50 exercise bombs available in the entire 4th Fleet instead of the 156 required. Therefore only 24 Pe-2 crews could perform the bombardment. Two nine plane flights droped their payloads on the their leader’s signal, the rest individually. A white 20 x 20 meter cross had be painted on the flight deck with arms 5 meters wide. The first group dropped 28 bombs from a height of 2070 meters, the second 36 from about the same height and the third attack carried out individually another 24 bombs. Three aircraft were forced to emergency dump their ordnance. The affects of the attack on what was a ‘sitting duck’ were farcical. Of the 100 bombs dropped only six hit the target, and there were only five marks on the flight deck. (Soviet pilots claimed there were eleven hits, some of the bombs having struck already damaged areas.) The test failed to give any useful information. The P-50 bombs were too small causing 5-10 cm dents in the flight deck and blew a hole about one meter in diameter in the starboard bulge. The pilots complained about poor visibility. 

Another series of static explosions followed. After the forth series the entire island was wiped out and the upper hanger seriously damaged. The effect of the fifth series was the most spectacular. A FAB-550 bomb on the flight deck blew a three meter hole and a FAB-100 bomb in the hanger demolished all the light walls and destroyed the equipment. That concluded the static tests and preparations for the testing of underwater munitions where begun. On 17th August the weather bean to worsen and the carrier started to drift towards the shoals. There was the possibility that the ship would drift into waters too shallow to sink her. Rall decided to abandon the testing and finish off the carrier with torpedoes. The pallned bombardment by cruisers had been cancelled because of an accident in one of the main turrets of the Molotov. The usage of the 180mm artillery was banned in the entire Soviet Navy for the year 1947. Three torpedo boats and the destroyers Slavny, Srogy, and Stroiny were summoned. The torpedo boats arrived first. The first run by TK-248 was unsuccessful, the torpedo passing under the carrier’s keel. After 15 minutes a torpedo fired by TK-503 hit the starboard side near frame 130. The explosion destroyed the bulge but the armoured belt remained unscathed. After an hour the destroyers arrived and the Slavny hit again the starboard side near frame 180 where there was no bulge. The carrier began to list to the twice damaged starboard. After 15 minutes the list reached 25 degrees, and the ship started to trim to bow. After another eight minutes the Graf Zeppelin with a 90 degree list 25 degree trim to bow slipped below the surface. The date was 18th August 1947. 

The results of the tests were kept secret and the allies only informed that she had been sunk. The gap between the summer of 1945 when she ws raised and March 1947 when her fate was decided remains a mystery. The German Admiral Ruge claimed in a book that the carrier capsized while being towed from Stettin to a Russian port due to the stowage of steel sheets on the flight deck According to gossip circulating in the Baltic Fleet published by Marek Twardowski in a magazine article, in 1946 the ship was towed to a Leningrad shipyard to be prepared for service. The authorities found this a welcome occasion for the transport of heay loot which was placed on the flight deck because the damaged elevators prevented the stowage in the hangers. Placing a heavy weight on the flight deck made the ship unstable and she capsized in the shallow fairway. Most of the goods from the flight deck fell in the water, whilst those stored below caused serious damage to the bulkheads and braces. Raising the ship was not difficult but she was no longer suitable for reconstruction and had to be sunk to cover the accident. This supports the account of Ruge but most probably untrue.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

The ‘B’ carrier under construction. Never officially named but often called by some Peter Strasser.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

1.The launching ceremony of the Graf Zeppelin. 2.The Graf Zeppelin begins to move down the slipway.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

Summer 1941 Gdynia. Being used as a warehouse for hardwood.


----------



## antoni (Apr 21, 2008)

Graf Zeppelin Stettin probably middle of 1946. Still lying on the bottom. On the deck are the four propellers, removed to stop electrochemical corrosion of the hull. The poles are supports for camouflage netting.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 21, 2008)

great info, thanks for the photos


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2008)

Yes thanks for the photos. I have not seen these particular ones before.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2008)

Good info


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 21, 2008)

Very interesting photos. I've never seen them either.

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 21, 2008)

I dont feel so bad with the unfinished projects i have around the house now...

"Graf Zepplin" should be a euphemism for an unfinished job or lack of follow through.

_"No Honey, we are not going to install a hot tub. we have too many Graf Zepplins around here. The Gazebo is half finished and Green House is still is missing it's glass panes."_
.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 21, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I dont feel so bad with the unfinished projects i have around the house now...
> 
> "Graf Zepplin" should be a euphemism for unfinished job or lack of follow through.
> 
> ...



LOL

Good one, comiso! I've got a few "Graf Zeppelins" myself (psssst, don't bring that up around my wife!).


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

Im gonna rename my house, Graf Zeppelin


----------



## Haztoys (Apr 21, 2008)

Heres what my info says I have on the Ju 87 for the aircraft-carrier..

It was a Ju 87C ...It was a B model with modified with catapult gear ,an arrester hook, jettisonable undercarriage for emergency ditching and manually operated rearward folding wings ...Wing span say cut to 43 feet 3 inch..Made in 1939 ...Played with till 42 with flotation catapult and armaments trials they made 186 of the planes ...

And then they picked up the idea again with a Ju 87E that was a navalized D model..With torpedos in mind to ad to the mix.. Never got past a few test planes ... And tested at Travemunde and at the rocket-ressearch facility at Peenemunde-West along side Ju 87C...It was to be the Ju 87 E-1 of 115 on order when stopped in 43 do to cancelled Graf Zeppelin


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2008)

Some images of the aircraft that might have flown (from Wings Pallette)


----------



## fly boy (Apr 22, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I think one carier would have been next to useless... it would been a bomb magnet like the Bizmark or Tirpitz.
> 
> Now if they had 3 or 4 in the Med, The Germans may have held on to North Africa. A lot more supplies would have got through to Rommel. Perhaps American Carriers would have been diverted from the pacific and the war in the Pacific would have been prolonged.
> 
> ...



i agree on the bomb magnet part and the carrier part to


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Just more evidance about how screwed up the chain of command was under Hitler, and how poor planning doomed Germany. In a way, it makes me feel sorry for the common foot soldier having to serve under all this. Egos of superiors getting in the way of common sense decisions. I mean if something as big as a aircraft carrier and the planes to outfit it basically got shut down to serve one mans ego, can you imagine how the far simpler, mundane decisions got handled?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 23, 2008)

The unit to be used on the carrier - Trägergruppe 186 - had a confused existence.

Check this site for the types of airplanes used and bases.

Trgergruppe 186


----------



## antoni (Apr 23, 2008)

2. Reconnaissance photograph, Feb 1942, Stettin. The carrier moored at Hakenterasse.

1.Reconnaissance photograph late Spring 1943, shortly after the carrier had arrived at Stettin. As British Intelligence had learned that work on the carrier had ceased she was not made a target.


----------



## antoni (Apr 23, 2008)

The Graf Zeppelin's last relocation. Leaving Kiel 21st April 1943.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 23, 2008)

awesome... woulda made a nice target for some Lancs

where did u find those?


----------



## antoni (Apr 23, 2008)

1947 anchored on the Oder after being raised. Still festooned with camouflage netting supports. The crane on the starboard side has been temporarily fitted to aid repairs. 

These photographs show stories that the carrier was towed a Russian port 1946 where she capsized and was raised again to be nonsense.


----------



## antoni (Apr 23, 2008)

One of the last known photographs of the Graf Zeppelin, 26th July 1947 Swinemunde.


----------



## Henk (Apr 24, 2008)

I think she would have been lovely if she was every completed. It is a shame she was sunk it would have been great to have a look at how the Germans thought and what they tried to implement on their own aircraft carrier.


----------

