# FW 190A vs Hellcat and Corsair



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

Hi Gents,

I had a little discussion with my friends in a german navy Forum about german aircrafts on Carriers.
The LW had successful tests with the FW 190 as a torpedo bomber in 1942.
This could be very efficient because you have a torpedo bomber and a very good fighter at the same time when the aircraft drops the torpedo!

I think at sea or carrier fights it's more important to have good fighter at low altitudes because if you want to attack a carrier in ww2 you must go down at low altitudes.

The Fw 190A was optimized for low and medium altitudes, The aircraft had problems higher than 5500 - 6000 meters. Higher than 6000 meters I think it was no match for the Hellcat and the Corsair, they were superior to a FW 190A.

Now the question is if the FW 190A can match with a Hellcat and Corsair at low and medium altitudes as a fighter?


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

I have had similar thoughts re :Hellcat v FW190

especially F/B variants optimized for Mid/low altitude

carry on/over

might wanna include the FW 190 F/G


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

@ Jackson

very good idea.

But all (accept some Prototyps) FW 190 with the BMW 801 engine were optimized for low and medium altitudes because of the Bosch enginesystem


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

F4U-1A
Data from Aeroweb[59]

General characteristics
Crew: 1 pilot 
Length: 33 ft 4 in (10.1 m) 
Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m) 
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m) 
Wing area: 314 ft² (29.17 m²) 
Empty weight: 8,982 lb (4,073 kg) 
Loaded weight: 14,000 lb (6,300 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-2800-8 radial engine, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) 
Performance
Maximum speed: 417 mph (362 knots, 671 km/h) 
Range: 1,015 mi (882 nm, 1,634 km) 
Service ceiling: 36,900 ft (11,200 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,890 ft/min (14.7 m/s) 


F4U-4
Data from Aeroweb[60]

General characteristics
Crew: 1 pilot 
Length: 33 ft 8 in (10.2 m) 
Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m) 
Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) 
Empty weight: 9,205 lb (4,174 kg) 
Loaded weight: 14,669 lb (6,653 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-2800-18W radial engine, 2,100 hp (1,565 kW) 
Performance
Maximum speed: 446 mph (388 knots, 718 km/h) 
Range: 1,005 mi (873 nm, 1,618 km) 
Service ceiling: 41,500 ft (12,649 m) 
Rate of climb: 3,870 ft/min (19.7 m/s) 


wiki

General characteristics
Crew: One 
Length: 9.00 m (29 ft 0 in) 
Wingspan: 10.51 m (34 ft 5 in) 
Height: 3.95 m (12 ft 12 in) 
Wing area: 18,30 m² (196.99 ft²) 
Empty weight: 3,200 kg (7,060 lb) 
Loaded weight: 4,417 kg (9,735 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 4,900 kg (10,800 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× BMW 801D-2 radial engine, 1,272 kW (1,730 hp); 1,471 kW (2,000 hp) with boost 
Performance
Maximum speed: 656 km/h at 4,800 m, 685 km/h with boost, up to 750 km/h in a dive (408 mph at 15,750 ft, 428 mph with boost, 466 mph in a dive) 
Range: 800 km (500 miles) 
Service ceiling: 11,410 m (37,430 ft) 
Rate of climb: 13 m/s (2560 feet/min) 
Wing loading: 241 kg/m² (57 lb/ft²) 
Power/mass: 0.29 - 0.33 kW/kg (0.18 - 0.21 hp/lb)


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

For a reference we can choose this report!

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report

It shows the the FW 190A had some advantages at climbing and speeding but the the Hellcat and the Corsair were superior in maneuverability and turning.
I think the apraisals from the pilots about the FW 190A5 were a bit subjective.

What the heck I don't understand, everebody says the Spit was the best fighter in maneuverability and turning but the FW 190A had played "cat and mouse" with the Spit during 1942-1943 at low and medium altitudes. 

Is this Report near the truth or not? Or were the tactics from german pilots others than turn fights?


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

Hellcat

General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 33 ft 7 in (10.24 m) 
Wingspan: 42 ft 10 in (13.06 m) 
Height: 13 ft 1 in (3.99 m) 
Wing area: 334 ft² (31 m²) 
Airfoil: NACA 23015.6 mod root; NACA 23009 tip 
Empty weight: 9,238 lb (4,190 kg) 
Loaded weight: 12,598 lb (5,714 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 15,415 lb (6,990 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-2800-10W "Double Wasp" two-row radial engine with a two-speed two-stage supercharger, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) 
Propellers: 3-blade Hamilton Standard 
Propeller diameter: 13 ft 1 in (4.0 m) 
Fuel capacity: 250 US gal (946 L) internal; up to 3x 150 US gal (568 L) external drop tanks 
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0211 
Drag area: 7.05 ft² (0.65 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 5.5 
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (380 mph, 610 km/h) 
Stall speed: 73 knots (84 mph, 135 km/h) 
Combat radius: 820 nm (945 mi, 1,520 km) 
Ferry range: 1,330 nm (1,530 mi, 2,460 km) 
Service ceiling: 37,300 ft (11,370 m) 
Rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) 
Wing loading: 37.7 lb/ft² (184 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (260 W/kg) 
Time-to-altitude: 7.7 min to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.2 
Takeoff roll: 799 ft (244 m) 


wiki


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

I don't know, the Spit was pretty maneuverable..

I see the FW as a workhorse..

good as a utility bird

heavier bomb load, better at dive bombing, built out to attack bombers with lots of armament, good at ground attack, 


Until the MkV was replaced by the MkIX the Brits had a lot of worries

IMHO


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

The the Dora came along and the Brits came up with the Mk XIV


ping pong

IMHO 

not necessarily in that order re Mk XIV ? 

similar time frames, I guess


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

@ Jackson

no, this is a discussion about F6F, Corsair and FW 190A 
(not D9 or anything else)!

We have a Comparison Report between this "birds" from USA!

And now I'm a bit on the german side, everybody tells the Spit was the pure fighter (as well the MK V), but the FW 190A was far superior to the MK V at low and medium altitudes!

Now what's your opinion Jackson: Can the FW 190A match with the Hellcat and the Corsair?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2007)

Are we talking about a land based -190, or one that has been navalized?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 12, 2007)

Jackson said:


> The the Dora came along and the Brits came up with the Mk XIV
> 
> 
> ping pong
> ...




Spitfire XIV service entry: January 1944
First combat: March, 1944

FW-190D9 service entry: September 1944
First combat: October, 1944

The 190D9 got into service later than the Mk XIV, but made up for it with the rapidity to which the JGs converted to it.

The Mk XIV was introduced reasonably slowly, by the time the D9 began service, there were 8 operational Mk XIV squadrons (out of a total of 56 RAF Spitfire squadrons in the ETO). 

Another four Mk XIV squadrons became operational before the end of the war, as well as some squadrons half converting to FR Mk XIVEs, which had bubble canopy, a 33 imp gal rear fuselage tank and a removable oblique camera in the rear fuselage. They were used in co-operation with Mustang II or Mustang IIIs, depending on the squadron, for tactical reconnisance, which essentially meant low level recon, ground straffing, jumping anything in the sky that hadn't seen you first and running away from anything that had.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

@syscom3

We are talking about a ("what if") navalized based on a carrier.

But I think there is no difference in performance from a land based.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

Yes, if he plays it smart..

You have to consider the workload and pilot fatigue factors..

It is an American test, so there is most likely some bias..

The FW roll rate was of course tops and the climb better.

That was a good read, thanks

The FW could carry some heavy armament.

The Hell at could handle battle damage just because it was a Grumman, ( think Tiger Tank)

I would have thought the Corsair would have shown a higher top speed.


----------



## dobravery (Jun 12, 2007)

Great match up.
I think a Boom and Zoom match would favor the FW 190 because its 20mm cannons would be more effective in the quick shots. The US planes would need a bit more time firing the 6x 50cals at the thoroughly armored FW.

The Hellcat (maybe F4U?) is more maneuverable. But just the same, the Hellcat may have a slight speed disadvantage.
I think the Hellcat matches up better due to dogfight ability. A P-47 is a better choice to try to Boom n Zoom the FW. The Corsair matches the FW more evenly, with the FW having the firepower advantage.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

@ Jackson

I think we have the same opinion......

Of course the pilot is the main factor in this game............ but I think the 
FW 190A had played well as a multirole carrier aircraft and would be a close match to the US carrier aircrafts!


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

We can all be glad that the Japanese didn't want the FW190A! 

Because with the FW 190A on japanese carrier there would be much more problems for the american pilots as with the Zero!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2007)

Lets not jump to conclusions about the FW being able to just be dropped in for crrier operations without some significant structural modifications. That alone could add several hundred pounds of weight to the airframe.

Also look at the wing. Could it handle low takeoff speeds with a usefull payload? And landing. Could it handle the low speed handling needed for carrier ops?


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

@ syscom3

Which significant structural modifications?

On the Graf Zeppelin Carrier were catapults for take offs!
The FW 190 had a very robust landing gear, and the aircraft was overall very robust.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

seafire

Supermarine Seafire

Finally, in September 1941 the Admiralty placed an order for 250 Spitfire Mk Va and Vb aircraft. They had, however, yet to decide on what modifications had to take place in order to make the aircraft suited to carrier operations. The land-based Spitfire V were then modified and renamed the Seafire II. The first Seafires were actually hooked Spitfires. The RAF loaned 110 Mk Va and Vb and three Mk II b's to the FAA for training purposes of which 59, including the II b's, had been fitted with arrester hooks. The modifications of the Spitfire did change the Seafire's characteristics somewhat. Approaches were difficult, visibility was limited at best, landing gear collapses were commonplace, and, the arrester hooks had a tendency to miss and bounce back into the fuselage frames which buckled the airframe. More were lost to breaking their landing gear in hard landings than to all enemy causes. As a low-level fleet defence interceptor, the Seafire was supreme, but it paid a price with its fragility.
Two of the ex-RAF Spitfire V aircraft were sent to the factory for full naval conversion. HMS Illustrious saw the first landing of Seafire on 10 February 1942. Eventually 163 ex-RAF aircraft were converted to the Seafire Mk Ib standard by the addition of arrester hooks, strengthened rear fuselages, slinging points, and Naval radios.


----------



## DonL (Jun 12, 2007)

That's no surprise for me.

In Germany we had a lot of discussions between FW 190A and ME 109 and the Me 109 is very close to the Spit( from aircraft to aircraft). The ME 109 had very big problems with the landing gear because it was very fragile. All Pilots which flew both planes said the same; the FW 190A was far far far superioir in stability than the ME 109 at the landing gear! In Russia were a lot of airfields with a very bad alley and you can bet; every pilot that must be landing on that bad alley with a ME 109 wished he had a FW 190A!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2007)

DonL said:


> @ syscom3
> 
> Which significant structural modifications?
> 
> ...



Carrier capable aircraft are a design all to themselves.

Just because a land based aircraft has a robust landing gear, doesnt necessarily make it carrier capable. Same with catapult launches. high stress on the landing gear. And your still asking your aircraft (loaded down with payload too) to be accelerating at a safe rate at only 100 mph or so.

Add in the tailhook, and its easy to add several hundred pounds of weight to make it carrier capable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2007)

DonL said:


> @ syscom3
> 
> Which significant structural modifications?
> 
> ...



As can be seen carrier aircraft were designed from he ground up, it's a lot more complicated than putting an arrestor hook on an aircraft and calling it good. Although the Fw 190 was a wonderful aircraft, I question how it would of held up in a navalized configuration. The radial engine on the "A" would of been one redeeming factor...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2007)

Looking at the weights of RAF land based fighter to naval fighter conversions:

The Seafire IB/II, which were straight conversions of Mk VB airframes, were only about 200-300 lbs heavier at normal loaded weight than their land-based counterparts.

The later Seafire Mk XV, which was a more thorough attempt to make a carrier borne fighter out of the Spitfire, was about 700lbs heavier than the late production Mk XIIs it was based on. The extra weight was accounted for but the addition of wing folding gear, landing gear reinforcement, addition of tropical cooling equipment for the Griffon IV, sting-type arresting gear and rear fuselage reinforcement. 

SeaHurricanes were between 250-400 lbs heavier than their equavilent Hurricane counterparts.

So, realistically, it seems that a navalised FW-190 is going to be somewhere between 200 and 700 lbs heavier than a land-based FW-190, depending on what modifications are deemed necessary.

On a loaded FW-190 airframe, weighing approximately 8700-9700 lbs, this isn't going to dramatically affect performance, although it may affect things like the aircraft's Center of Gravity and consequently its lateral stabilty and overall handling. 

For example, the early tests of the Seafire Mk XV displayed a tendency for the aircraft to skid and then pitch nose downward when yawed more than three degrees to either side in high speed dives (approaching 450 mph IAS), due to changes in the aircraft's balance.

The solution was to change the rudder trimmer gearing (it was a new type, and too sensitive) and add a rudder balance tab. The lateral stability of the type was also considered poor at low speeds, which is not the sort of thing you want on a carrier aircraft. The problem was solved between the combination of the aforementioned rudder changes and the addition of an enlarged horn balance (which alleviated the lateral instability, but could cause minor oscillations at low speeds in rough weather). 

While seemingly relatively minor, the weight and gear changes to a land based fighter could actually become a major headache for naval pilots if they weren't dealt with. Different operational requirements often require very different aircraft.

The only major question mark I would place on the ability of the FW-190 to operate effectively as a naval fighter would be its relatively high stalling speed (approximately 120 mph) and its tendency to drop a wing rather nastily when stalled. These two elements are serious drawbacks when comined with the travails of a carrier landing.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2007)

Dont forget that the -190's wing must be redesigned to allow for folding.


----------



## flojo (Jun 13, 2007)

Actually the Germans had planned to use the BF109T on the Graf Zeppelin and I could imagine that the landing gear of the BF109 made it much easier to incoporate folding wings. Denavalized BF109Ts were in service for a while and didn't perform that bad. First B17 shot down by the LW was claimed by a BF109T AFAIK.


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Looking at the weights of RAF land based fighter to naval fighter conversions:
> 
> The Seafire IB/II, which were straight conversions of Mk VB airframes, were only about 200-300 lbs heavier at normal loaded weight than their land-based counterparts.
> 
> ...



The other way to look at it is the additional weight is the same as going into a dogfight carrying a bombload. I think we all agree that I fighter carrying a bombload has a significantly reduced performance which I think deals with the point your trying to raise.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Lets not jump to conclusions about the FW being able to just be dropped in for crrier operations without some significant structural modifications. That alone could add several hundred pounds of weight to the airframe.
> 
> Also look at the wing. Could it handle low takeoff speeds with a usefull payload? And landing. Could it handle the low speed handling needed for carrier ops?



Wow I see you finally agree with what we were argueing about a while back! I applaud you syscom, you are learning!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wow I see you finally agree with what we were argueing about a while back! I applaud you syscom, you are learning!



B25 medium bombers always had a lot of extra strength built into them (and probably all allied and German bombers).

Single engined fighters dont have those margins.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

I dont want to get off topic but it would have been the same for a B-25...


----------



## Maharg (Jun 14, 2007)

Personally I dont think the undercarriage on the 190 would have been suitable for carrier landings. Its narrow track would have made pitching deck landings very interesting.


----------



## DonL (Jun 14, 2007)

Where did the FW 190 had a narrow track?

We are talking about a FW 190 not a ME 109!

Sorry but I can't see a narrow track on the FW 190!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

Maharg said:


> Personally I dont think the undercarriage on the 190 would have been suitable for carrier landings. Its narrow track would have made pitching deck landings very interesting.



Does that look like a narrow track on the Fw 190 below?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 14, 2007)

Someone got confused with the 109....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2007)

Well, if we are talking 'carrierized' Fw190A it has to have the structure to fold wings and take a carrier landings.. would think 600-1000 pounds of dead weight would make a carrier version of any Fw190A series less capable in turn and climb and acceleration- (no data to support speculation) and with added wing weight out to wing fold point even roll would be somewhat affected.

I would prefer to think the F4U-1 would battle a Fw190A (unaltered) at low to medium altitudes on equal/better terms as it was the equal of a 51B or D pretty much everywhere except >20K. 

Even if you take the D9 and add the weight for carrier ops, the F4U should be the equal at all altitudes until 30000 plus with a 13 (for those whose superchargers actually work)

Too bad we will never know what the world would be like if the USAAF bought the F4U starting in 1942 instead of the P-47.

Regards,


----------



## Negative Creep (Jun 14, 2007)

Seeing as the FFA used Hellcats during D-Day, did they ever meet in the air? The Wiki entry for the Hellcat states it was equal to the FW190 and Bf109, but provides no further info


----------



## renrich (Jun 14, 2007)

No way a navalised version of Fw could match either F4U or Hellcat!


----------



## Maharg (Jun 15, 2007)

LOL fellas, all I am saying is look at the geometry of the Fw190 undercarriage, great attachment point locations, but the oleos taper IN and that to me says instability. Look at a front view drawing not a photo. 
On the other hand look at the F6F, designed from the ground up to be a carrier fighter, the U/C is perpendicular to the oleo attachment points giving better stablility for deck landings.


----------



## DonL (Jun 15, 2007)

@ renrich

Is this an opinion, or do you have facts for you statement? 

You read the F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report?
The test was with a fighter bomber version of the FW 190A, which had more weight than a fighter version. I think because of the robust landingear from the FW 190A there would be 300-400 pounds extra weight for a navalized FW 190A and that is not very much for a FW 190A.

Oh and i can post exaggerated statements too!
For me a fully developed naval FW 190A can outperforme a Hellcat in any single way! The Hellcat would be nothing more than a served peace of meat for a navalized FW 190 A.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2007)

DonL said:


> @ renrich
> 
> Is this an opinion, or do you have facts for you statement?
> 
> ...



A fully navalized -190 would undoubtably be far more than 300-400 pounds heavier. Probably twice that weight.

Everything about it would need to be redesigned. Even mundane things like cockpit placement for pilot visibility might need to be changed. In the end, ths hypothetical -190 would have significant changes in performance.


----------



## T4.H (Jun 15, 2007)

One main question is:
How many aircrafts you can store on a carrier?
The FW190 has a wide track.
So you have only "short" parts of the wings, which you can fold.

The question is, can you store enough FW190 A on a carrier?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2007)

T4.H said:


> One main question is:
> How many aircrafts you can store on a carrier?
> The FW190 has a wide track.
> So you have only "short" parts of the wings, which you can fold.
> ...


It isn't a matter of if you could store an Fw190 on a carrier, it would be a matter of how many on what type of carrier. Elevator size would come into play if the aircraft did not have folding wings.


----------



## T4.H (Jun 15, 2007)

Of course, I'm talking about a folded wing version of the FW190!

If you have 2 carriers of the same size (perhaps 2 carriers of the same class) and one carrier can carry 40 Fighters(hellcat or corsair), the other one perhaps only 30-35 (FW190)...
and I think, there is not so much difference between a Corsair, Hellcat and a naval version of a FW190...

Which carrier has little bit better chances to survive?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Of course, I'm talking about a folded wing version of the FW190!
> 
> If you have 2 carriers of the same size (perhaps 2 carriers of the same class) and one carrier can carry 40 Fighters(hellcat or corsair), the other one perhaps only 30-35 (FW190)...
> and I think, there is not so much difference between a Corsair, Hellcat and a naval version of a FW190...
> ...



The one with the armored deck....


----------



## T4.H (Jun 15, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The one with the armored deck....





yes...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Of course, I'm talking about a folded wing version of the FW190!
> 
> If you have 2 carriers of the same size (perhaps 2 carriers of the same class) and one carrier can carry 40 Fighters(hellcat or corsair), the other one perhaps only 30-35 (FW190)...
> and I think, there is not so much difference between a Corsair, Hellcat and a naval version of a FW190...
> ...



Which ship had the superior compartmentation, which ship had the better AAA, which ship had the best CIC, which ship had the best crew to seemlessly integrate air ops with the ship.......


----------



## T4.H (Jun 15, 2007)

>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you have 2 carriers of the same size (perhaps 2 carriers of the same class)
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let say...
Two carriers of the Essex class? 
I originally meant 2 of the SAME carriers with "2 carriers of the same class"!
We are talking about the best aircraft, not about the best carrier!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2007)

T4.H said:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> If you have 2 carriers of the same size (perhaps 2 carriers of the same class)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> ...



Air ops are integral to a carrier. You have to look at all sorts of things to establish who would likely come out on top.

If your radar picks up your opponant at a long range and the CIC gets you the correct vectors, and your deck crew gets you airborne quickly....


----------



## renrich (Jun 15, 2007)

More than half the operations the Hellcats and Corsairs were involved with the FW could not even get into the fight. Not enough range.


----------



## DonL (Jun 15, 2007)

@ renrich

No FW 190 was ever involved in a fight with a Hellcat or Corsair!


----------



## Crumpp (Jun 16, 2007)

> LOL fellas, all I am saying is look at the geometry of the Fw190 undercarriage, great attachment point locations, but the oleos taper IN and that to me says instability.



That is why your not an engineer designing aircraft landing gear!

 


All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2007)

I believe that there were encounters between FAA Hellcats and FWs but I can't find my reference on that yet. As far as range is concerned, FW190D9-520 miles, F6F5-1300 miles. It was essential for an effective ship board fighter to have good range in WW2. Among other things, it does not do to be low on gas when searching for a moving airfield.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe that there were encounters between FAA Hellcats and FWs but I can't find my reference on that yet. As far as range is concerned, FW190D9-520 miles, F6F5-1300 miles. It was essential for an effective ship board fighter to have good range in WW2. Among other things, it does not do to be low on gas when searching for a moving airfield.



And its vitally important to know your CAP can be on station for some time while other deck activities are occuring.


----------



## Maharg (Jun 16, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> That is why your not an engineer designing aircraft landing gear!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough M8. But we are talking about carrier deck landings.
Anyway show me a successful carrier fighter with the same configuration and I'll shut up.


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2007)

Yes and aside from CAP duty, a good part of carrier duty the VFs had was escorting strike groups. No european single engined fighters were designed for use as escort fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2007)

I think it would be fair to say that a redesigned -190 would have added quite a bit of weight, which would have impaired some of its flight characteristics that had made it outstanding.

I'd say the F4U would have the advantage in most low and mid level situations, witht he F6F and -190 being pretty much equal in the same regime.

The -190 would have the advantage in most high altitude elements.


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2007)

FW190A8, most numerous FW [email protected] ft, service ceiling-33800 ft. [email protected], service ceiling 37000 ft. Doesn't look as if FW would be superior at high altitude.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 17, 2007)

Think he's talkin about the Dora not Anton...


----------



## DonL (Jun 17, 2007)

@ syscom

thank you for being fair!

Noting else I want to discuss, that a navalized FW 190*A *could match with a Hellcat and a F4U-*1*.

I think the FW 190A was inferior in range but was superior as a multirole plane on a carrier, because you can take it as a torpedo bomber (the LW had test the FW 190A as a torpedo bomber 1942) and a fighter!

And the FW 190*A* had problems above 6000-6500meters high altitudes fights, but I think the altitudes on a carrier fight aren't at that high altitudes!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2007)

DonL said:


> @ syscom
> 
> thank you for being fair!
> 
> ...



I seriously doubt that a navalized -190 had the capability to take off from a carrier with a torpedo. In fact, I dont think a single manned fighter carrying a torpedo evenf rom shore would be of much use in an attack on the high sea's. You would need a radio operator to help with navigation and attack coordination.

I think youre also underestimating the impact of a short endurance time for a carrier fighter. An unescorted strike could be catastrophic, as well as carrier deck ops constantly interupted by the need to bring down your CAP, refuel and get them back up.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2007)

And the Bearcat had short legs...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> And the Bearcat had short legs...



It was designed for a whole different mission. It wasn't intended for offensive roles, only for point defense of the fleet.

The USN had that luxury because of having so many carriers available, a mix of Bearcats, Tigercats, Hellcats and Corsairs could be maintained (if the war had lasted a few months longer).


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2007)

Agreed sys...


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 18, 2007)

> (the LW had test the FW 190A as a torpedo bomber 1942)



So what, the USN did the same with the F6F.

Just because one has a successful experiment does not equate to operational realities.

Rich


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 18, 2007)

> I believe that there were encounters between FAA Hellcats and FWs but I can't find my reference on that yet.



The only fighter-to-fighter FAA F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the German losses were claimed as 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Jun 18, 2007)

Thank you, Rich, for your post I thought that I knew that I had read of a Hellcat-FW encounter somewhere. In spite of all the technical stuff online and in books about this fighter and that fighter, I believe that all the premier fighters were adequate at least in a one v one or in furball against one another except for one incontravertible fact! The fighter had to have the range to be there! Given the ability to be in the fight, it was probably the pilot's skill as to who would survive, that and maybe Lady Luck.


----------



## SlickDriver (Jun 19, 2007)

The Mustang, Corsair and Hellcat all carried 6 .50 Cals. The Mustang certainly could and did manage to deal with the Fw.190 and I am sure that the Corsair and Hellcat would do at least as well.


----------



## renrich (Jun 19, 2007)

Agree!


----------



## DonL (Jun 19, 2007)

Sorry Guys,

but that a Mustang could match with a FW 190A very well was at high altitudes!

A F4U*4* could also match with a FW 190A very well, because the F4U4 was equal to a Mustang at high altitudes!

But I don't think that a F4U1D and a Hellcat was equal to a Mustang! They would have much more problems with a FW 190A than the two other aircrafts!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

Maharg said:


> Personally I dont think the undercarriage on the 190 would have been suitable for carrier landings. Its narrow track would have made pitching deck landings very interesting.



"Narrow track"? The -190 had a wider track than the 109, but it was very stalky. 

The landing gear on the -190 would have definitely needed to be redesigned to be stronger, which probably would've necessitated a thicker wing. 

A better candidate for a carrier-based aircraft would probably have been an Me-110/410 derivitive with folding wings, if for no other reason than the fact that you would have two engines rather than one (all US Navy fighters, save one, have had two engines since 1960); better over-water safety.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> "Narrow track"? The -190 had a wider track than the 109, but it was very stalky.
> 
> The landing gear on the -190 would have definitely needed to be redesigned to be stronger, which probably would've necessitated a thicker wing.
> 
> A better candidate for a carrier-based aircraft would probably have been an Me-110/410 derivitive with folding wings, if for no other reason than the fact that you would have two engines rather than one (all US Navy fighters, save one, have had two engines since 1960); better over-water safety.



The hypothetical -110 naval fighter would have been chewed up by even a Wildcat, let alone a Hellcat or Corsair.

Better for the Germans to redesign the -190 for carrier operations, or design a naval fighter from scratch.


----------



## Maharg (Jun 20, 2007)

In the 30's the Germans did start construction on an Aircraft Carrier the Graf Zeppelin, it was never completed. It was to have a complement of 50 aircraft - 10 Messerschmitt Bf109 fighters, 20 Junkers Ju87 dive bombers and 20 Fieseler Fi167 torpedo bombers. German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin

German Carrier-Based Aircraft This is very interesting.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 20, 2007)

Awww gee, do I have to drag out my standard trashing of the Graf Zeppelin concept?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2007)

There is a thread dedicated to the Graf Zeppelin....


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2007)

In my handy dandy, 1942 original "Janes" the Graf Zeppelin is shown to be complete whereas her sister Peter Strasser was believed to be incomplete. GZ was 19250 tons, about same size as Yorktown, 32 kts, 16-5.9s(what for) 10-4.1s(not enough), 22-37mm, 40ac.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2007)

renrich said:


> In my handy dandy, 1942 original "Janes" the Graf Zeppelin is shown to be complete whereas her sister Peter Strasser was believed to be incomplete. GZ was 19250 tons, about same size as Yorktown, 32 kts, 16-5.9s(what for) 10-4.1s(not enough), 22-37mm, 40ac.



As many aircraft as the Independence class light carriers.


----------



## otftch (Jun 20, 2007)

Structure asides.I think it would have fared well against the Hellcat but the Corsair would have eaten it up.
Ed


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 20, 2007)

renrich said:


> In my handy dandy, 1942 original "Janes" the Graf Zeppelin is shown to be complete whereas her sister Peter Strasser was believed to be incomplete. GZ was 19250 tons, about same size as Yorktown, 32 kts, 16-5.9s(what for) 10-4.1s(not enough), 22-37mm, 40ac.





Funny, my handy-dandy original 1942 Janes also pointedly notes 40 aircraft as the complement (less than half of the Yorktown class). It also does not appear to actually claim the GZ is complete. It says, if I may quote: 
“Sides appear to be armoured for two-thirds of length amidships, and to a lesser extent as far as bow, which is of bulbous form. Will have island superstructure on starboard side. One of these aircraft carriers was photographed from the air fitting out alongside a quay in the Naval Dockyard at Kiel, in July, 1940, whence she is believed to have proceeded to Gdynia. P. Strasser does not appear to have been completed.”

I read “Will have island superstructure on starboard side” and “fitting out” to mean incomplete. Nowhere does my Janes say that GZ is complete.

Oh and all those 5.9’s? Look at the hull casemates pictured in the Janes. Eight of them are single mount, single purpose, casemates . . . ideal for banging away at approaching RN destroyers.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2007)

Well, I inferred that GZ was complete because they said PS was not, wrong inferrence? although fitting out would not take long to complete and the photograph taken from the air in 1940 was taken at Kiel where she then proceeded to Gydnia. Would not that mean that she had finished fitting out? Her 5.9s remind me of the 8 inchers on Lex and Sara. My favorite uncle's first ship was Sara in the 30s. Anyway, if the GZ had to bang away at DDs with the 5.9s she is in deep dodo, more 4.1s would seem to make more sense. My handy dandy "Janes" original is getting so old, I am afraid to open it. I have been poring over it for more than 30 years and it is fascinating. I have a handy dandy not original "Janes" 1945 and it appears you are right, Rich, the war losses section says that GZ (incomplete) was found in wrecked and waterlogged condition at Stettin, April, 1945. Also PS seemed never to have reached launching stage. Is it possible that equipment may have been scavenged off of GZ? Just goes to show you about intelligence information. WMDs anyone?


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 21, 2007)

Great minds . . . I've a "not original" 1945, too, which I looked at, but decided not to mention since it was an outcome of which we already knew. I know what you mean about the shape of the 1942. Mine's in pretty bad shape from first my brothers, then my, poring over it through the years. My mother gave it to my father for his January 1943 birthday. 

Rich


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2007)

The GZ reached about 90% completion but in some ways was an outdated design. To equip a carrier with 16 x 5.9 is a massive waste of weight and crew.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> The GZ reached about 90% completion but in some ways was an outdated design. To equip a carrier with 16 x 5.9 is a massive waste of weight and crew.



Yeah, almost looks like the old CV-1 "Langley" with an island; the flight deck looks like it was added on to an existing design . . .


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 22, 2007)

im not sure if the two/three ever met in the skies (if im wrong correct me). but it really depends on the individuals opinion


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2007)

I was involved in building a small limited service hotel in Crested Butte which was a perfect rectangle 55 feet high, 65 feet wide and 220 ft long. If I am not mistaken those were the flight deck dimensions of CV1. I used to stand on the roof of that building and visualise having to land on that deck. Scary!


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2007)

My 42 "Janes" was bought for me by a cousin who was a book dealer in DC. I paid 45 dollars for it. It had been the property of a Commander Victor Logan who was in the Medical Corps of the Navy. I bought the book in about the late 60s, early 70s. The frontispiece, as you know is a picture of HMS Exeter and is the best photo I have ever seen of her. I also have a not original 1914 "Janes". Lordy, I love looking at those old ships back when they had lots of guns, not missile launchers and one puny auto 5 incher. I get a lump in my throat every time I look at the picture of the Exeter and read the caption. In a recent book about the USS Houston, one of the Houston survivors said that on either Exeter or Perth, when they were steaming out of Surabaya harbor en route to the Battle of the Java Sea, the ship's band was playing "A Hunting We Will Go" That gives me goose bumps. My favorite uncle after serving on Saratoga, served on Augusta, flagship of the Asiatic Fleet. He was then detailed to the Houston, that was scheduled to replace Augusta. Another petty officer who was a friend wanted to have a chance to serve in the Asiatic Fleet and my uncle swapped with him and went to the old "Swayback Maru" CA25 in his place and his friend did not come back. Timing is everything.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 26, 2007)

My only other "Janes" is a repro 1905, however I've stuffed in it some photos my Grandfather (an Army Lieutenant stationed in the Philippines) had of some of the surviving Russian ships, from their 1905 misadventure, that were interned in Manila.

Rich


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2007)

I wouldn´t go so far and downgrade Graf Zeppelin as an outdated design. It had two of a carriers key abilites: beeing fast and long legged.

Her design speed of the 1940 stage was 35 Kts. That brings us to the question, what did they wanted with such an extreme speed? It could, as a matter of fact, outrun any RN US BB, cruiser and DD in the open Atlantic. Against a 30 mp/h wind factor, the Fieselers could start without take off run (35 Kts are slightly over 40 mp/h), strange. Her 16 x 5.91"/55 QF are close to twice the firepower of contemporary light cruisers. Altough beeing critisized for casematte mounted, they have been mounted far above the waterline to ensure they remained dry. How this would work in the Atlantic, I don´t know.
Perhaps thread scenarios played a role in the decision to arm protect her like a large cruiser. Germany had little use for a carrier in the Atlantic (bad weather, which was preferred by the raiders but isn´t good for a carrier). 
Her range was comparable to the Twins Tirpitz, around 8000nm @ 19 Kts, which means she could maneuvre quite independently as the other raiders.

She was a bit larger than the officially approved limit. In her last 1943 stage GZ had 33.550 ts max. / 27.650 ts design diplacement, some blisters for more stability ( displacement) and thus a reduced speed to "only" 33.8 Kts design.
Her aircraft complement was 43 planes max (rather small) and the hangar controlls, catapults and aircraft operational systems seemed to be very sophisticated - or just overengeneered.

Flip a coin and see...


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 26, 2007)

The theoretical performance of the GZ still all boils down to carrier doctrine. This is something for which the British, Japanese, and Americans naval aviators sweated and bled for in the 1920’s and 30’s. The Germans had no such experiences and, thus, no doctrine. The GZ was just a fluke case of the Germans saying to themselves “Gee, everyone else important has aircraft carriers . . . we better build one, too.” 

Though it appears elsewhere in another thread, and really has nothing to do with FW 190s vs F6Fs and F4Us, I am really getting tempted to drag out my standard trashing of the GZ as an operating platform. 

Bottom line is that as an effective war-fighting weapon, the GZ was just a lot of wishful thinking. 

Rich


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2007)

R Leonard said:


> The theoretical performance of the GZ still all boils down to carrier doctrine. This is something for which the British, Japanese, and Americans naval aviators sweated and bled for in the 1920’s and 30’s. The Germans had no such experiences and, thus, no doctrine. The GZ was just a fluke case of the Germans saying to themselves “Gee, everyone else important has aircraft carriers . . . we better build one, too.”
> 
> Though it appears elsewhere in another thread, and really has nothing to do with FW 190s vs F6Fs and F4Us, I am really getting tempted to drag out my standard trashing of the GZ as an operating platform.
> 
> ...



Rich, I remember that thrashing you made, and hope you can find it and resurrect it.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2007)

> Bottom line is that as an effective war-fighting weapon, the GZ was just a lot of wishful thinking.



My position is that Graf Zeppelin was nothing special as a carrier but it is wrong to underestimate the ship. The Luftwaffe and navy both drew experience from Akagi in 1935-1939.

You should factor in what could be done AGAINST Graf Zeppelin (a reasonable timeframe for sortiing is in late 1941) or worse, against Tirpitz Zeppelin.
The only fast BB´s the RN has in late 1941 are Renown KGV. Together they are able to take on Tirpitz (altough this must be considered risky as denmark street showed) but Tirpitz is covered by Graf Zeppelin as well. Both ships are faster than either KGV Renown and Graf Zeppelin is much faster than any single ship the RN (or for that matter, the USN) can send to intercept her. I suspect a breakout into the North Atlantic by late 1941 is kind of an worst case scenario for the RN. More worrisome, even a slow Fi-167 is a much more potent "raider" and "scout" than a BB or CA. A CA projects firepower effectively to 25000 yards, a BB projects firepower effectively to maybe 30.000 yards (debatable, I doubt anything past 26000 yards) but a Fieseler to around 300.000 yards. A merchant beeing detected and (if alone) attacked is an easy prey. A convoi maybe tracked until Tirpitz projects it firepower on it. Unlike Jervis Bay, dispersing the merchants inspite of Tirpitz makes them an easier target for the carrier (for this part the dive torpedo bomber). A hit like those received by Bismarck are less probable due to improved AAA FC of Tirpitz, the more AAA of GZ (10x 4.1"/65 DP, later 12 x 4.1"/65) and the fightercover (even if the 9-12 Bf-109 are few indeed, the RN didn´t send larger airattacks in, as well). 

best regards,
delc


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2007)

The GZ suffered from being neither a true aircraft carrier, nor an armoured cruiser.

The KM would have done better to remove most of the guns and armour and stowed more aircraft in its place.

In the end, even a slow moving torpedo bomber like the Devestator or Swordfish would have sent her to the bottom.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2007)

I've read some of the post here with great interest - although I will never underestimate the ability of airmen from Germany during WW2, to say that there was a chance of Germany operating a carrier in any considerable capacity during WW2 is just not realistic. As Rich pointed out not only was the doctrine missing but we could dwell on pilot and just as important "flight deck training." The UK, US and Japan honed in the skills of carrier operation years before the first metal chip was even cut on the GZ. Not only "would" Germany "have" been 20 years behind in actual pilot training, but the whole flight deck ops learning curve "would of" had to been developed in a very short time span. I'm not saying they "would of" been able to some what pull it off, but I guarantee that not only there "would of" been a lot of aircraft in the drink but I think you "would of" seen dozens of operations personnel injured and killed just achieving a "learning curve" and I don't care how much assistance the Japanese "would of" given Germany. Aircraft carrier operations was something learned over a period of time based on experience and much trial and error and that experience not only included pilots but maintainers and flight deck personnel as well. To say Germany "could of" operated a carrier, they "would of" had to start planning and training the day after Hinderburg was buried...

I won't go into the lack of even remotely adequate carrier aircraft, and I'm not talking operating Storch or Fi 167 squadrons either....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the first flight of the F6F Hellcat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 26, 2007)

Part I

Okay, here’s the problems with the Graff Zeppelin concept.

At the root of the problem is the plain fact that the Kriegsmarine had no naval doctrine that included carriers. Great Britain, Japan, and the US, the major players in the aircraft carrier business, had been operating pure aircraft carriers since the 1920’s in case of the later two and, without looking it up, about 1918 for Great Britain. By "pure carrier" I mean carriers whose airplanes are wheeled, are recovered aboard ship by some sort of arrestor arrangement (however primitive in the early years), and could also be operated from land bases. Further, the aircraft in use (again except for the very early models) were specifically designed for carrier operations. The navies of these three nations worked out the problems and challenges of carrier operations in the 20’s and 30’s and became, each in their own way, the best in the business. The feeble attempts of the Germans (and the Italians) to, first of all, develop aircraft carriers, much less carrier aircraft, were, frankly, laughable in retrospect. 

Graf Zeppelin was, in theory, anyway, to have incorporated the best features of IJN, USN and RN carriers (circa 1936, remember), but managed to end up a glopping together of some of the worst carrier ideas that had already been discarded by those services. 

All you have to do is look at the main guns and their placement aboard Graf Zeppelin and it’s obvious that the Kreigsmarine considered surface vessels as the major threat to their carrier. Imagine, eight 5.9 inch guns in hull mounted barbettes. Probably great for banging away at some British destroyers as they come boiling over the horizon, but since that was a bit unlikely, here was wasted ordnance (read: weight penalty) for no apparent gain. Even pre-war, the RN, IJN, and USN could have told them that that was a waste of time and effort; that the real threat to the ship was in the air. The other eight 5.9 inch guns were to be mounted in twin turrets, fore and aft of the island, not unlike the US Essex class type. There was a problem though. Unlike the dual-purpose 5 inchers on the Essex types (and they were, in the reality of their usage, single purpose AA guns) the Graf Zeppelins 5.9’s were not optimized for antiaircraft defense and would have been essentially worthless for that purpose. The USN went down that road with Lexington class and their 8” turrets. By the mid 1930’s it was recognized that those guns were so much dead weight. Note that as soon after the Japanese attacked Pearl the 8-inchers were removed and replaced on Saratoga with 5-inch dual purpose and on Lexington with temporary 1.1 in AAA mounts (Lexington was scheduled to receive 5-inch mounts, but she was sunk at Coral Sea before that could happen). 

Another major failing in the Graf Zeppelin design was in an incomprehensibly low avgas storage capacity. The smallest and oldest carrier in the IJN, Hosho, had a capacity of 98,000 gallons and carried but 22 planes. Essex class carrier contemporaries of Graf Zeppelin had up to 240,000 gallons avgas capacity and, in practice, were replenished every three to four days during combat operations. And Graf Zeppelin . . . carried a paltry 65,000 gallons. How do you suppose they were planning on replenishing their avgas supply, not to mention their bunker fuel? Yes, yes, I know, the Germans had successfully experimented with underway replenishment, but I’d suggest they never experimented on the scale necessary to maintain carrier operations and especially in the face of some very aggressive enemy carriers looking to put that scalp on their lodge pole. Ideally, one likes to pull off to some out of the way corner of the ocean for such evolutions . . . once Graf Zeppelin hits the Atlantic, there would be no out of the way corners. 

Further, how many pilots, crew, and aircraft was Germany prepared to sacrifice to bring their carrier into operational being? Carrier aviation, though somewhat safer today, and "safer" is an extremely subjective term, in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s was an extremely dangerous profession. Where were the Germans planning on training their folks to operate their hybrid craft off carriers? In the Baltic? How nice for them, nice enclosed seas with, compared to the reaches of the North Atlantic, nice calm waters. What’s going to happen when a pilot who has trained in calm waters is suddenly faced with crappy North Atlantic weather with the horizon a short 5 miles away and a flight deck that rises and falls 25 to 30 feet as he attempts to land. Did the Kreigsmarine have a plan for training LSOs to deal with this problem as they coaxed the pilots aboard? Were there flight deck officers who knew by feel just when to launch a plane so that it doesn’t just “thuup” into a wave? News flash, the folks doing these jobs in the USN, RN, and IJN had had a lot of practice at this and even they made mistakes. And what of the poor pilots? Do you suppose their training included flying their craft to their extremes of range; fighting an action; making their way back to where they think their carrier is going to be; if they’re lucky, finding it; and then trying to land in the dark on a pitching deck with their engine running on fumes? 

The development of carrier aviation in the "big three" over the years pushed operational limits such as these. Leaders in carrier operations knew that conditions would never be perfect and would probably be the worst imaginable. USN fleet exercises in the 1920s and 30’s often had admirals such as Reeves and King wondering if they’d ever see their planes again as they were sent off on long missions to attack the make-believe "enemy." Even so, non-combat aircraft losses combined with combat operational losses, i.e., aircraft lost through accident not related to combat damage, but on combat missions, were high. 

For example, in the USN, for the entire war, in the course of some 388,000 plus flights (of which 147,000 plus were combat action sorties) there were 4,863 losses of carrier-based aircraft. 1,877 were directly related to in combat losses, either in combat with enemy aircraft or to enemy AAA; 1,001 were combat operational losses; and 1,985 were non- combat related. 61.4% of losses did not result from holes being poked in aircraft or pilots. What do you suppose the rates would be for a single operating aircraft carrier whose entire crew and air group has maybe six months experience in carrier operations? What do you suppose their losses would be like in just achieving that six months of operational training? And for that matter, once in action, how do you suppose this aircraft carrier is supposed to make up it’s losses when, to be effective and strike the enemy it must operated outside the range of any land-base re-supply or support? 

Making the comparison a little more manageable, looking again at the USN experience, in calendar year 1942, for all carriers in action, in some 6775 flights, including 2559 action sorties there were 155 combat losses, 63 combat related operational losses, and 66 non- combat flight losses. 

Statistically, one can take the numbers of carriers in action per month during the period and come up with a composite carrier’s operating numbers: Flights: 2755; action sorties 1043; combat losses: 61; combat operational losses: 26; non-combat related losses: 28; for a total of 115 aircraft lost in a 12 month period. For 1942, that means a US carrier, had it been in action for all 12 months, be it Lexington class, Yorktown class, Ranger or Wasp could have experienced aircraft losses in excess of an entire air group. The USN had the means and flexibility to make up such losses with new planes and pilots. How do you suppose a single German aircraft carrier could continue to operate with those kind of losses? What would be their plan for such replenishment? Where would the additional trained carrier pilots come from? Was the German navy aware that the majority of aircraft losses would be from flight deck crack-ups, launch failures, and pilots simply getting lost and never seen again? Somehow, I just don’t think so.

The Germans had no tactical doctrine for carrier operations, whereas the RN, IJN, and USN had had twenty years to develop, refine, and hone the same. Actual combat led to the out and out abandonment of some cherished carrier operations doctrinal theories (the concept of deferred departure comes to mind). In the USN, development and adoption of new doctrines (compare the USF-74 of 1941 to USF-74 of 1943 and 1944) went along rather quickly, largely pushed by squadron commanders and pilots who had seen what had worked and what hadn’t and were in a position to do something about it by virtue of being responsible for the Fleet doctrine re-writes. [Most of that work was done at ComFAirWest with the officers in charge of training also in charge of the re-writes. I have an original USF-74 fighter section from 1941, the actual rough drafts and notes, including original drawings and sketches, of the 1943-1944 re-writes and a final draft . . . there is a big difference between 1941 and 1944.] The Japanese reacted much slower in changing their doctrine, tactics, and air group composition. The pace of the Japanese change was largely due to organizational inertia and an unwillingness to acknowledge that change was necessary.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 26, 2007)

Germany had no plan that I’m aware of for underway replenishment of flight stores (ordnance, avgas, etc) or aircraft. And there appears to be little thought as to how many vessels could be committed to any underway replenishment and how were they to make their rendezvous with the Graf Zeppelin task group? Who was going to protect them? How were they to get past a now energized RN or combined RN USN search and destroy operation? And just how were they intending to get replacement aircraft aboard Graf Zeppelin? In any case, they apparently had no sufficient inventory of replacement aircraft. Anyone want to guess how many escort carriers, on average, were devoted to aircraft replenishment in the Pacific, say, in the summer of 1945? Never mind, I’ll tell you . . . twenty five (want a list?). So, that’s somewhat more than one and a half CVEs dedicated to aircraft and pilot replenishment for each CV or CVL operating off the coast of Japan. The Germans were apparently not really aware, or at least refused to recognize, of all the pitfalls in developing a carrier arm. This especially obvious in their building/conversion programs; they simply didn’t plan for enough carriers, nor screening vessels. One or two carriers, committed piecemeal, won’t do it. They’d be attacked and sunk, either together or in detail. 

Much of the sort of thinking about how successful a Kreigsmarine carrier would be IMO goes along with the “what-if” scenarios where the guys who never did XYZ suddenly have perfect knowledge and are able to pull off XYZ event whilst the other side is securely tied to their historic ABC position. 

Doesn’t work that way. If Graf Zeppelin had ever ventured out into the Atlantic it would have lasted less time than Bismarck. An untried, unrealistically trained, understrengthed, and hybrid aircraft equipped air group, with no operational doctrine, flying off an equally untried aircraft carrier, and undoubtedly insufficiently screened (look at Kriegsmarine destroyer losses), facing two, three, or even four RN carriers with air groups having all the advantages the Germans would not. If they don’t come out until 1942 maybe even a couple of USN carriers would get into the act as well. Remember all the US Essex class CV’s were built on the east coast and did their pre-commissioning and shake down cruises in the Atlantic. They would have the same advantages as the RN (exception being that USN air groups might tend to have a higher percentage of nuggets, but their leadership in squadrons were generally combat experienced or naval aviators with 8 to 10 years experience behind them. And even the old USS Ranger, all by itself, was more than a match for Graf Zeppelin and had the experience pool to do the job. This is a no-brainer and in short order . . . score Allies 1 Axis 0.

I think folks tend to give the German’s far too much credit or benefit of the doubt. In this case, I’m sorry, but for all their technology, know-how, and all their supposed skill, it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. Here is a ship type they have never before operated. Here’s a ship that is already a less than optimal design, carrying an insufficiently sized air group. Here are planes that are, perhaps somewhat hastily, modified from land-based types to operate in a carrier-based environment. Here is a command structure where the Kreigsmarine commands the ship and the planes are commanded and flown by the Luftwaffe. (The RN experience of the FAA being part and parcel of the RAF for so many years was ample evidence that that particular arrangement is a logistical disaster looking for a place to happen. Looks like the Germans didn’t get the memo.) And here’s an operating environment that is totally alien to anything done before by the Luftwaffe. Do you really think the good Reich’s Air Marshal Fatty is going to send his best and brightest? I suspect he already saw the writing on the wall and did as little as possible to encourage the project.

To expect either the Kreigsmarine or the Luftwaffe to absorb the lessons of a generation of institutional knowledge in carrier operations as acquired, the hard way, by the RN, USN and IJN, to, in a blinding flash of insight, foresee all the potential problems, I think, is asking a bit too much, even for the Germans. Not that the RN or USN were likely to provide them any short cuts. And do you really think they’d really, I mean, really, listen to the advice from the Japanese . . . remember this is Nazi Germany here.

And folks can talk until you’re blue in the face about how good the Me 109Ts, Fi 167s and the Ju 87Cs were, but, I’m sorry, the 87’s and the 167s would be hopelessly outclassed and the 109s would be in for the fight of their lives. By the time Graf Zeppelin could have put to sea it would probably be late 1942. RN carriers were already carrying F4Fs. The Seafires were coming on line, but suffered throughout the war with severe structural problems resultant from the repeated bruising of carrier landings (see Brown, The Forgotten Fleet). Gee, do you suppose the Me 109T might suffer the same problem? Not to mention it’s overall unsat ergonomics in terms of carrier operations. Its one thing for the German’s to structurally reinforce a design and test it a couple of times; repeated violent exposures are another matter all together. Just how many landings do you think these hybrid aircraft would be able to withstand? Sure would be embarrassing to have them start pulling apart when operating under at-sea combat conditions and not from their nice safe test site landing field. And don’t even talk about using FW 190’s because that was never part of the plan . . . just another silly “what if” dragged out to try to make the concept work. And, yes, I know that the Germans successfully strapped a torpedo to an FW 190 and dropped same. Well, golly gee whiz that’s really cool, but then again, so did the USN do the same with an F6F. Just think what a great target an FW 190 or an F6F hauling a torpedo would make. In both cases it does not mean the experiment was a good idea, it merely proved it could be done. The USN proved it could land and launch PBJ’s (that a B-25 for you land oriented types) from a carrier; that did not mean it was a good idea. Does that feat mean the Germans should have considered operating the Ju 88 from the Graf Zeppelin?


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 26, 2007)

And what about this Graf Zeppelin air group? Some 40 airplanes comprised of, roughly, ten 109s, thirteen 87s, and twenty 167s. The performance statistics for the 109s, on paper, weren’t too bad, but the 87s and the 167s look like a top end of somewhat more than 175 knots … sitting ducks for FM-2s. And only 10 (!!) fighters … oh, please! Let’s see, that’s 5 to protect the ship and 5 to escort strikes … oh, boy, that will work real good won’t it? How are they planning cycling up a fresh CAP? Just where are any freshly fueled fighters going to come from? I can tell you, anybody in World War II who thought they could adequately defend a carrier with only five fighters or adequately escort a strike with five fighters was dreaming or desperate. The USN and the RN put more fighters that that on their CVEs! And the first time you lose one of these 109Ts, be it a combat or not-combat loss, you’ve cut your fighter strength by 10%; that’s what we call ‘decimate’. Lose another and you’re down 20%, the traditional cut off for unit capability. How long do you think that could go on? And all this great thinking on air group composition during a period when fighting squadrons on USN fleet carriers were going from 18 to 28 to 36 aircraft as a regular complement.

And what about pilot training? Sure, fighter pilots can fly fighters and dive bomber pilots can dive bomb, and torpedo plane pilots can drop torpedoes or even glide bomb, but how do they get where they need to go and, more importantly how do they get back? I strongly suspect, largely because they never had to, the Germans never thought that one through, either. Navigation over water was, in those days, pretty much a matter of a plotting board, a compass, a clock, and knowledge of how fast the plane is flying. The FAA, for a long time, held that even fighters had to be two-seaters so that that one fellow could handle the navigation while the other fellow drove the plane. In USN practice, individual pilots did their own navigation; of course, some were better than others. And what was to be the German doctrine? Were individual pilots responsible for their own navigation? Were the fighter pilots to use one of the 87C or 167 pilots as a guide? What if he gets shot down? What was to be their scout doctrine? How many of the, oh, so few, 167s would be delegated for scouting as opposed to strikes? And how were they to find their point option (the place where the carrier is supposed to be when a mission is over)? Had they worked all that out? What if the carrier wasn’t where they thought it would be? Did they have a standardized search pattern? Did they have a homing signal system? There’s no railroad tracks or roads to follow. There’s no “just head east until you see land” method … there’d be no land, just miles and miles of an empty ocean.

Finally, in the real world, in their only encounter with Luftwaffe fighters, FM pilots (FM’s being a slightly souped up F4F) from HMS Searcher’s 882 squadron were credited with 4 land based Me 109s to one loss (26 March 1945). The FMs were dealing with German fighters that were attacking strike planes they were escorting … i.e, they were on the receiving end of an attack, a decided disadvantage in the fighter world, yet, they seemed to do alright anyway.

Lambs to the slaughter. The Germans, and folks not exactly attuned to carrier operations, may have dreamed of the Graf Zeppelin doing well as a convoy killer, but the reality would have been that as soon as she had set to sea, the RN carriers would be all over her. If she comes out any time in 1942 or later, then it would be the RN and the USN finishing her off in short order.

Regards,

Rich


NB: a great chance to review and revise the original . . . thanks!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Great Post!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2007)

Ditto!


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 27, 2007)

Excellent stuff Rich!


----------



## grumman-cats (Jun 27, 2007)

That was a great short novel that you wrote there. I would have to agree with you on most cases.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

I will say this again. I have requested this from you all but you seem to ignore me, which I do not like.

If you wish to trash the GZ and discuss it, do so by all means but not in this thread. There is a dedicated GZ thread.

Please dont have me ask you again.


----------

