# What If...?



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Post what ifs of WW2 here


(continued from old topic, now in Archive forum)


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 19, 2005)

Germany had completed it's aircraft carrier (the name of which escapes me at the mo)?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

The Graf Zeppelin?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2005)

I think it was the Graf Spee (Spree?).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

the Graf Spee was completed and she was a pocket battleship i believe, the Graf Zepplin was the uncompleted carrier, but i don't think it'd make much difference, we'd have sent allot of power to meet her in the atlantic if she even made the break out.........


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 19, 2005)

Zeppelin's the one. Would've made things a bit more interesting though, even if it hadn't affected things in a big way.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

It certainly would have been interesting! Chances are though, the RN would have sunk her in fairly short order anyway.

On a slightly off-topic note (who, me? ), I've often wished it was available in the game IL2:FB for those "What if" scenarios.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

yeah we'd have made short work of it, we had experienced crews and far mor carriers with more planes on each, and dedicated torpedo bombers, the germans only had -109Ts and Ju-87s, the designation of which i can't remember.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Ju-87C's I believe...

A match up between 109T's and Seafires would have been good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

not very original though............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

No but it would have been an interesting match up...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

we would have absolutely trounced the Graf Zepplin though, if she ever left port..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

With what? Swordfish?  Hell even Stukas could take them out


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Beaufort and Beaufighter, do they mean anything to you?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Ah I forgot about them...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Coastal Command would have had every strike wing available over the Graf Zeppelin


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

ok so she tries to break out into the atlantic, she figures she's got her own air cover so they brave it an try to dash through the English channel, asuuming they're not hit by a mine or two, or three, we're almost cirtain to spot her, we know she's an important target an so send every beaufort and beaufighter we have out to get her, hell we could even send a spitfire escort, the spitfires and some beaufighters will tangle with the -109Ts and any other fighter opposition (no, the stukas would not be scrambled), in the meantime the beauforts are sticking a few torps into the sides of the Graf, if she lives through the repeated attacks and mines, we have a couple of battleships and a carrier waiting for her in the atlantic...............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Sounds a good enough plan for me, imagine MkXVIII Mossies putting holes in it with that 6 pounder


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

i was thinking about adding them to the mix but i wasn't sure when the Graf would have entered service...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

The problem was the aircraft, Goering wouldn't release them from his control (I think)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

also the Graf could carry a huge number of aircraft as she also carryied allot of heavier armourment, they tried to fit her with large-ish guns so it wouldn't need cruiser escort i think...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

The Graf in with Bismarck and Tirpitz escort...theres a though


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen aswell, ouch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

the bismark went down in '41, no chance, dunno about the others.........


----------



## ju-390 (Mar 4, 2005)

The Graf Zeppelin could carry 40 aircraft.


----------



## toffigd (Mar 5, 2005)

The Graf Zeppelin was put on water on 8 December 1938, in the same year Germans started building second carrier, a twin to Graf Z. - the Peter Strasser (don't know what happened with it later, probably never built more than 10% of it). Graf Zeppelin in 1940 was almost ready (90%)! The main problems were catapults and aerofinishers. The problem was solved, but decision was to stop building the ship. 
42 planes were to base at Graf Z. - 2 squadrons of Bf 109T and one of Fi 167 (later Ju 87C). The artillery was really heavy as for an aircraft carrier. 16x150mm (they were put into project by mistake - original project included only 8 guns, but someone have mistaken, putting 8 guns on one board, which automatically doubled its number), 12x105mm and noumerous 37mm 20mm.
In 1942 when workers came back on board of Graf Z., the Kriegsmarine decided to rebuilt a bulk of heavy cruiser Seydlitz in Konigsberg. It was supposed to be equipped with 18 planes. Never finished of course.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

british carriers would have made mince meat of her, we had dedicated torpedo bombers that were far more suited to carrier warfare than -87Cs, and i'm expecting CC was gonna say that the graf's armourment would help it, it really wouldn't, it took up space, was heavy, and british or even american battleships far out gunned it..........


----------



## toffigd (Mar 6, 2005)

ekhm, comparing aircraft carrier with battleships?


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

Sure we had dedicated torpedo bombers...but 109s would have slaughtered Swordfishes (or most other FAA 'fighters' of the era)! The only reason the Stringbag stayed in service for so long was because it operated in environments where fighter threat was low.

As for British BBs...they wouldnt have got close enough to open fire. While roaming the North Sea and Atlantic looking for this carrier, they would be under constant threat from u-boats, long-range aircraft and GZs own Stukas. Looking at the record of British BBs vs aircraft and subs in the early war (when GZ would most likely have entered service), we get: one BB torpedoed at anchor, three sunk by air attack. None of the attacking forces suffered significantly. I think we can see that the odds would be somewhat long of our ships making it to the engaement intact.

As a footnote, check out the the record of the RN's surface-to-surface gunnery against the Bismarck. If it took that many major units that long to sink one crippled BB, I hate to think how long they would have taken to finish a carrier group. They'd have been sunk before they were halfway done.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Well, I think Seafires and Sea Hurricanes would have stood up well to 109s and Stukas, enough aircraft around and the U-boats wouldn't get a chance. This gives the Battleships and Cruisers enough time to get in close and finish off the GZ.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

Bear in mind that GZ should have gone into service in 1940-41. That means no Seafires, Sea Hurricanes only on CAM ships, and standard FAA equpment of Fulmar, Skua and Albacore. Oh, and no long range ASW aircraft except Ansons, cos all of the Whitleys and Wimpeys were still with Bomber Command. I still think a German carrier could have been decisve in the Atlantic theatre.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

We were starting to get Catalinas, Whitleys and Wellingtons in 41 so they were able to ake out the U-Boats, if they attacked at night we also had Leigh Light equipped aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

sorry in my previos post i should have mentioned that we'd also send carriers after her, it was aimed more at CC...........

and the swordfish stood up very well to fighters, she was very manouverable and crawled along much slower than the -109's stall speed..........

and you're forgetting that there was a chance she wouldn't even make it into the atlantic as we could atack her with land based aircraft when she's breaking out.......


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

I was including carriers in any force that might go after the GZ...and I dont think Skuas and Fulmars would have stood much chance against 109s. I also stand by my point of the Stringbag being vulnerable. If an intercept could be made at sufficient distance, the 109s would get to the Swordfish before they got low and slow to drop thier torps. And then there would have been a slaughter...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 6, 2005)

Remember though that although the state of the FAA's aircraft was somewhat dismal at the time, the RN had still been doing carrier ops for quite some time. The Germans were brand new to it. The design of the GZ shows that (someone already went over the heavy guns, and such.). I still think the Royal Navy, maybe with RAF help even, would have put an end to her fairly early on.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

ok well what do you say about the fact she might not even make in into the atlantic??


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

The Brits would have had to knock her out quick, before she could attack any merchant shipping


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 6, 2005)

That is a possibility...but then the RAF and RN failed to stop the Channel Dash, so whats to say they could have prevented the GZ breaking out? And while she is in harbour, she has the benefit of well-organised fighter and flak defences to cover her against heavy bombers. Stiopping her getting out would be a difficult proposition


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sorry in my previos post i should have mentioned that we'd also send carriers after her, it was aimed more at CC...........
> 
> 
> > Why? Im not even part of this discussion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

yes but many german ships were lost trying to break out into the atlantic, there's no reason we couldn't hit the GZ............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

The GZ never would have made it out of the channel. First of all the British aircraft in the area would have far out numbered the Luftwaffe and she would not have had sufficient carrier support from BB's, Cruisers, and Destroyers.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Still looks impressive though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes that it does. She would have been a beautiful ship.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2005)

she would have looked even nicer to the crews of the attacking british ships with a couple of torps in her side........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Too true


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 8, 2005)

Well, the Russians used her for target practice after the war. A rather sad fate, I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

whilst it would have been interesting to see her but i don't think it's sad she was used as target practice...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

I actually do, it would have been neat to turn her into a museum or something.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

well each to their own.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Very true.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

Im with DerAdler and NS here.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 9, 2005)

She would have made a grand museum. After all, she was Germany's only ever aircraft carrier.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

There was the Peter Strasser aswell but I don't think that even got commisioned


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 9, 2005)

As far as I know, the hull of the Peter Strasser was only about 60 percent completed before she was scrapped. They already had one white elephant on their hands, with the Graf Zeppelin.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 9, 2005)

Some neat Graf Zeppelin model shots:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

Yeah the Peter Strasser was never even close to being finished. Atleast the GZ resembled an aircraft carrier. She deffinatly would have been a beautiful ship and would have been neat to see today.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 10, 2005)

Great model NS, any idea what scale it's in?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

Did you build it, or is that a museum or something?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

i'm sorry if i'm incorrect (what, me??) but i doubt NS made them..........

and wooden decks, hehe..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 10, 2005)

Lanc's lack of faith in my model building skills is not misplaced (this time), I'm afraid.

The model is 1:100 scale. Here's the link.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/german_models/grafzeppelinliedtke.html
Btw, the small circular platform near the bow was meant to contain a gun mount.

And lanc, wood planking on flight decks was far from unusual at the time. Virtually all of the Japanese and early American carriers had them.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 10, 2005)

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. 

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. 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 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). 

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. While actual combat led 
to the out and out abandonment of some cherished carrier operations doctrinal theories (the 
concept of deferred departure comes to mind), development and adoption of new doctrines 
(compare the USF-74 of 1941 to USF-74 of 1943 and 1944) went along rather quickly, at 
least in the USN, 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 if 
being responsible for the Fleet doctrine re-writes. 

Germany had no plan that I’m aware of for underway replenishment of flight stores or 
aircraft. They had no sufficient inventory of replacement aircraft. They 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 while 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 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. 
This is a no-brainer and in short order . . . score Allies 1 Axis 0.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know much about WWII in Europe, not something in which 
I’ve ever had a heck of a lot of interest, but I do know carrier operations in WWII and what 
worked and what didn’t and why.

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 that 
message.) 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 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 advise 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 GZ 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 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 what about the GZ air group? Some 40 airplanes comprised of, roughly, 10 109s, 13 
87s, and 20 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? 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? This during a period when fighters on 
USN fleet carriers were going from 18 to 28 to 36 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 
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 may have dreamed of the GZ 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


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 10, 2005)

I agree. She wouldn't have been in service for very long before she was sunk.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 10, 2005)

Wow, Rich! You have certainly presented a good case that brought about many points that I would not have thought of. Excellent points!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 10, 2005)

This is a bit off-topic, but check out this floating Bismarck model!
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/german_models/bismarckdorschner.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

I agree with completely that the GZ would not have lasted very long. The whole Royal Navy would have pounced on her. And as you pointed out she did not have very good air defence armament and neither did she have good air defence from her Bf-109T. I am not sure what would have happened with the Bf-109T against a Hellcat but I dont really think the Wildcat would have been much of a match for a 109. To me it is just kind of outclassed. You are very correct though in your assumtion that it was not very well thought through and was just a dream. I still think she would have been a beautiful ship though even if she would have ended up on the ocean floor like the equally beautiful Bismark.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 12, 2005)

I agree with one simple exception: If the germans would have made the GZ operational it would probably have seen a long service or even wars end. Why? They wouldn´t have send the GZ into the Atlantic. That´s it. Hitler postponed heavy surface naval operations after the loss of the Bismarck in the Atlantic. No GZ in the Atlantic. Maybe in some norwegian fjords, if even. And it would have pretty air cover there. The SKL did practiced the fleet in beeing concept, binding lots of allied warships with the very few units they had. Nothing else. A single operation with GZ only would have been devastating for the germans. But operations alongside with Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Hipper and Lutzow in range of Luftwaffe air cover against Murmansk convois would have been possible.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

That lot together could have destroyed any convoy coming their way


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I agree with one simple exception: If the germans would have made the GZ operational it would probably have seen a long service or even wars end. Why? They wouldn´t have send the GZ into the Atlantic. That´s it. Hitler postponed heavy surface naval operations after the loss of the Bismarck in the Atlantic. No GZ in the Atlantic. Maybe in some norwegian fjords, if even. And it would have pretty air cover there. The SKL did practiced the fleet in beeing concept, binding lots of allied warships with the very few units they had. Nothing else. A single operation with GZ only would have been devastating for the germans. But operations alongside with Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Hipper and Lutzow in range of Luftwaffe air cover against Murmansk convois would have been possible.



Okay I get what you are saying, but they would have to get there first. The GZ would have had to go into the channel to get there and I dont think it would have made into the fjords of Norway. The Brits would have thrown everything they had to keep her from getting there. I dont care how much air support it would have had, the Royal Navy was too powerful to keep it from destroying the GZ.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

and they thought the Tirpitz was safe as she had air cover, we sure as hell proved them wrong, although they did scramble Fw-190s to intercept the lancs when they attacked, they we just sent to the wrong place


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

My point exactly I dont think the GZ would have had much of a chance.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2005)

Would have GZ a chance? Every weapon had a chance in this war. Remember the obsolete swordfish crippling the Bismarck and sending some italien warships down? GZ doesn´t need to pass the channel. Just from the Baltic Sea via Kattegatt and Skagkerak into the North Sea and heading north (under air cover from norwegian bases). As Scharnhorst did, or Hipper, or Tirpitz or Lutzow... (and even the breakout of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen through the channel wasn´t prevented by the coastal guard thanks to air cover from french bases..) There is pretty much probability that GZ could reach it´s norwegian base. And GZ could take some heavy hits and still beeing afloat. (...it proved to be hard for the russians to sink the ship (beeing target ship) at Swinemunde after the war...) The Lancs did sank the Tirpitz in 1944. At a time when there was no need for surface operations. (at that time the russians didn´t needed convois that much) It underlines also my point: Tirpitz was a power in beeing! That´s why it had to be sunken. It succesfully binded many carriers and battleships (as well as other Forces) to the ETO. GZ would have been also a weapon of beeing. Therefore it wouldn´t have seen much combat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

I see what you are saying but I really dont think she would have lasted.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2005)

Could be. We will never know. (...I actually try not to say that GZ was a superior carrier design, in my eyes it is inferior to many other designs...) Best possibility to put GZ out of action would have been in the Baltic (like Lutzow in ´45) with tallboys.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

I think a carrier strike by Swordfishes could have done it. The GZ had terrible air defences.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

or even from beaus on her break out.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

The only thing that I am saying about it is that I think the brits would have put anything they could put in the air to stop her. Maybe not her Battleships since there would have been air cover, but with eneogh aircraft they could have gotten the GZ.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 14, 2005)

Swordfishs? 8) Cool. But in serious, you remember the failure of the swordfish attack against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau when they tried to breakout from France via Channel? They had to deal with air cover, none survived. No torpedo hits. Even if they would succeed in a torp attack (for that task I like the Beau´s more...), GZ had an excellent underwater protection, like most of the german heavy surface units (Bismarck survived 6 torpedo and uncounted shell hits, Scharnhorst was sunken by no less than 11 torp hits), a good compartimentation and an excellent torpedo bulkhead. I doubt that a few hits could sink her. (The russians did fired some 20 torps and dropped uncounted bombs on her, some were duds, but it stayed afloat after 7 torp hits and a 1000 Kg bomb hit at the funnel, without crew to prevent further damage...) British attempts to destroy the Tirpitz in Norway with conventional weapons did not succeed, so why should that be different in the case of GZ?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 14, 2005)

She'd be a tough nut to crack then, but if she were deployed to the North Atlantic run to take out the convoys, the Brits (with _maybe_ one or two Canadian destroyers, as escort  ) would have made another priority of her. The Americans might have even gotten in on it.
Tough? Perhaps. Unsinkable? Of course not.

This is assuming she were deployed in this way. I thought you brought up a good point earlier about the Murmansk run. If Graf Zeppelin had been sent to the Barents Sea she _may_ have survived longer.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 14, 2005)

Thanks. I stay with that statement. GZ in North Atlantic? No way. She wouldn´t have lasted, agreed. In the Barent Sea? More probable. As more "historical"-thanks to the fact that all surface operations were postponed in the Atlantic after the loss of Bismarck. And Murmansk convois would have been a good prey if KM units were free to attack them. But even if not, as a weapon of beeing, GZ would have been worthy there. I didn´t say that GZ should go in the Atlantic. (just an analogy: swordfishs failing to attack Gneisenau thanks to french air cover = swordfishs failing to attack GZ thanks to norwegian air cover (GZ in the Fjords, like Tirpitz or maybe in the Barentsea in range to air cover)) And of course GZ is not unsinkable, take any tallboy and a Lanc...-


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Alright I will consede there, in the Barent Sea she had a good chance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

but chances are hitler would have held her back anyway because he didn't want to loose her......................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Yeap probably, I can actually see that have happened.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

i mean after the loss of the Bismark i don't think hitlet would have wanted to take a risk with an aircraft carrier, this of the effect on the people's morale??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Also the effect it would have had on him.


----------



## trackend (Mar 15, 2005)

Thats a great post Rich
I believe that any threat presented by a surface raider be it carrier or battleship it would have been dealt with in the appropriate manner the famous channel dash succeeded because of surprise and the only available attack that could be mounted at short notice was the stringbags against an obviously overwhelming superior force but as with Operation Sea lion should the need have arisen the navy was prepared to use large numbers of its fleet to prevent invasion or serious surface raiders
I agree with you Rich if the GZ had shown its nose or been discovered it would have been goodbye within days .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

I too agree.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

GZ at op-sealion? It wouldn´t have been ready in time. Production was delayed with the loss of the Bismarck and later postponed (with a short exception in 1943). My point is that GZ ,under normal circumstances, wouldn´t have seen much use. It would have been putted into a "safe" norwegian Fjord and therefore it could last. It would have been very risky to attack her. (...but I don´t doubt that the Brits would try...) But I don´t see why it should have been sunken soon, lets say, in late 42? Why? Imagine a reliable scenario, I´m open to change my mind...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

why would she have gone down so quick?? because she was underarmed and she'd have half the royal navy chasing her...........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

What about a squadron of Lanc's with 12000lb Tall boy bombs!!!

Remember how the tirpitz was sunk?

They would have gone through any armour the Graf Zepplin had like Playdough!!!


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

> What about a squadron of Lanc's with 12000lb Tall boy bombs!!!



Well, they better come in nice and low and skip-bomb them into her hull. We already know that high altitude bombing of maneuvering ships just doesn't work.  

Rich


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

they would probably go right through out the other side!


----------



## trackend (Mar 18, 2005)

I didn't say that the GZ could have been at operation Sea-lion Del I just was saying that if it had posed any sort of threat it would have been eliminated in very short measure.The fact remains that the German surface fleet in WW2 was small compared to the fleets arrayed against it . This is not to say the German vessels did not pose a threat but compared to the U-boat problem it was of a far more minor nature.
Even if you include the GZ just assuming it had been ready by 1939 
the inbalance in navel surface supremacy is obvious therfore the probability of any significant contribution made by the GZ would be minimal before it would have been removed from the scene. This was known by Admiral Donitz hence his concentration on the U-Boat campaign.

For example this is the Royal Navy and German Navy surface fleet strengths in 1939

* Royal Navy (surface fleet), 1939. * 

15 Battleships Battle-cruisers, 
7 Aircraft carriers. 
66 Cruisers, 
184 Destroyers 
32 fleet destroyers 
20 escort destroyers of the 'Hunt' class.
source http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

*German Kriegsmarine (surface fleet) 1939 *

Battleships/Pocket Battleships 5 
Aircraft Carriers -- 
Cruisers 6 
Destroyers 17 
source http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/tables/GerN.htm

_(neither of these sets of figures include smaller escort or patrol vessels)_


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

How many U-Boats were around at the time?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> How many U-Boats were around at the time?



You can look here, http://uboat.net/


----------



## trackend (Mar 18, 2005)

60 British submarines and 57 German U- boats although i was talking surface vessels only


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

however U-boats would have little part to play in a surface encounter of the type we're considdering.......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 18, 2005)

You never hear much about the exploits of the British submarines in WWII.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

i know a bit about the ol' midget submarines..........


----------



## trackend (Mar 18, 2005)

May I suggest you take a look at this sight, it is I think one of the better ones with a good easy to follow lay out
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/ww2sm2.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

I am sorry del, but I agree with them. The GZ would not have made it very long. Just the fact that Hitler would have put a Carrier out to sea would have given them another battle cry just like Sink the Bismark, Sink the Graf Zeppelin. She would have been hunted and killed. The Royal Navy was too powerful for her or anyone else. I also dont think Hitler would have risked her anyhow, especially after losing the Bismark.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2005)

That´s exactly why it was never completed, I think. You are right Adler. GZ could only barely hope to survive a encounter at open seas (only by means of pure speed, if even) with the mighty royal navy. But in my hypothesis is no need for such a dangerous sortie. Put it into the harbour as a weapon of beeing. I twas pretty protected in the Fjords. And it could help to intercept weak escorted Murmansk convois (or back other heavy units with air recon/air cover, making the sinking of Scharnhorst much harder for the allies). I do not doubt that a unit of Lancs with Tallboys could do the job. But that would happen late in 1944 (so in this case the GZ last a bit). Swordfishs or Beau´s in an AA-protected Fjord would probably result in bad news for the Brits, even if they can damage the ship. The complete RN would never try to chase the GZ in the Barentsea as long as Scharnhorst and Tirpitz stay in the waters (remember PQ-17?). Russian submarines operating close to the norwegian coast would have a pretty chance to hit her (they claim a torpedo hit on Tirpitz, even!). In the end I think it was correct to let GZ incompleted, that´s why it survived the war as the heaviest german Kriegsmarine vessel. Submarine warfare does also give the KM an offensive capability (GZ would not, as mentioned above) and the loss of the GZ would be a heavy blow to Hitler, I agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

The only ways I could see the GZ having been an assett to Hitler was pretty much on paper so as to say Germany had an Aircraft Carrier. The way being the British would have done whatever they could to stop the GZ no matter where she was, in the harbor, in a fjord, in open water if she had been completed. This would have tied up some of the RN assets and given the rest of the Kriegsmarine such as the Tirpitz a chance to do something.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2005)

Then we have to discuss, would it have been more important to knock out GZ or to knock out Tirpitz? With a full scale operation they could have sunken both, but losses would be terribly high (think of some Fritz X and Do-217/He-177 in 1943).


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

I'd go for the Tirpitz personally, it was more of an offensive weapon and, as such more of a danger to the Murmansk convoys


----------



## trackend (Mar 19, 2005)

hi Del, its seems we have moved foward some years as you now mention Fritz X ect ect so Ok now we have the might of the US navy and the US air force in the war and the British Navy and the Royal airforce has grown along with the contributions from the Australians,Canadians and all the other allies the inbalance is even greater in 1943 the biggest naval threat was still the U-boat by the end of that year 241 Kriegsmarine vessels had been lost including the Scharnhorst (the Gneisenau had been laid up since 1942) as opposed to 36 Royal Navy vessels. It was the end of the Happy time and the beginning of the end for the Kreigsmarine as a fighting force
PQ17 was not a Battle group there is a big difference between sinking a convoy and taking on a fleet of warships.
I agree with Mossie Tirpitz was more of a threat. with the skies over europe becoming more and more dominated by the Allies the sort of threat that one carrier could mount against these was next to zero
One large surface raider in amongst a convoy was worth 30 U-boats
So its sink the Tirpitz first and let the US airforce with its Mustang escorts sort out the GZ


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

Or Lancasters with Tallboys


----------



## delcyros (Mar 19, 2005)

Lancs with Tallboys and Mustangs please in 1944, but we will discuss 1944 later. I completely agree with you all: Take out the Tirpitz first! 
In 1943 things are going worse for the Kriegsmarine, it was the turning year, making it even more interesting in my eyes (it makes no sense to discuss the early years, only). So let´s start: 
Early 1943 we have pretty air cover in Norway, Tirptz, Hipper, Lutzow, Gneisenau (and GZ in this scenario) as heavy units and some other smaller ones. (hi Trackend, you are right, only 34 RN- vessels but please take the non- british losses also into this calculation, there is one battleship sunk and 3 others put out of action by Fritz X) The US fleet brings in early 1943 the mighty Iowa into patrol position to protect the Atlantic against an outbreak of heavy german units. Barentsea remains the only probable theatre for the heavy german units. The King George V was put out of order for months (by accident). PQ-17 was protected by two battleships-Washington and Duke of Yorck (that is a battlefleet in my eyes). They were ordered back as soon as it was known that Tirpitz left it´s fjord. GZ would have made further damage to the convoi, it could succesfully lead other german units (like Lutzow) into convois. We know that Lutzow had problems to get in contact. Attacks against Tirpitz and GZ would consist of carrier based bombers (no torpedo bombers in fjords) and maybe some x-boats. None of them did manage to sink Tirpitz (while it is true that x-boats did put the ship out of order for months), why should it work on GZ? Possible: Yes. Probable: no. The presence of GZ would bind even more warships on the ETO, reducing pressure at the PTO. The sinking of Scharnhorst later in 1943 would be impossible, if GZ could succesful warn Scharnhorst of the presence of Duke of Yorck out there...Without the loss of Scharnhorst (debatable) Hitler would allow the reconstruction of Gneisenau: In 1943 were plans to refit Gneisenau (new and elonged bow for more lift and better speed, upgrade of its primary weapon (6 x 15 inch/52), radar and secondary weapons (22 x 5,1 inch multi purpose guns), it was even begun. The RN capabilities to take a heavy german ship out would be divided between Tirptz, Scharnhorst and GZ. I do not doubt that it would be more difficult to do the job. Another point has to be underlined: There is defensive for KM and the RN/US are pressing hard.Maybe someone can imagine a scenario between RN/US forces protecting a convoi and KM+Luftwaffe trying to take it out. Just for fun.


----------



## trackend (Mar 19, 2005)

I get your point Del and concede on PQ17 . However lets say the Washington and the Duke of york and KG V and 30 destroyers and 10 cruisers and 4 aircraft carriers are all sunk by the German navy that still leaves a massive force and which ever way you like to think, it is going to send the GZ,Sharnhorst,Blucher and anything else that shows its face to the bottom you talk as if refitting One ship here and evading detection there would make a huge difference Donitz as I have said knew full well that his surface fleet could at best put up a good show and that's all. The Bismark was one of the most powerful surface vessel he had it lasted 9 days in operational waters the other, the Tirpitz made three brief forays in March and July 42 and Sept 43 total 11 days end result sunk by Lancs after seeking refuge in a fjord any supposition that you make is too unlikely to be credible. But I have enjoyed the thread cheers Del


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

Well I will agree that the Tirpitz would have to go first, but honestly I really dont think the GZ would have lasted at all. She was a beautiful ship and thats about it. The few fighters she would have had for arial defense were Bf-109T's. Basically Bf-109E's with longer folding wings and an arrester hook to land on carriers. To help defend against other ships she would have had Stukas that were modified the same way. By the time the GZ would have been operational both aircraft would have been completely obsolete and would have been completely outmatched. Now I do believe had the Germans gotten the GZ out the same time the Bismark did, and she went out to sea with the Bismark fleet, she may have been able to keep the Bismark afloat longer then she did and might have been able to make an impact.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

A carrier on it's own was easy prey in the Atlantic, not so in the Pacific


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

A carrier alone by itself is easy prey no matter what ocean it was in. If it could not get sufficient warning of attacks from the air it was a sure loss. If it was attacked by a large fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, it was a sure loss. It takes more then a few minutes to start up an aircraft and get it off the carrier deck. In that time the BB's would be shelling it and most likely the flight deck would be damaged to the point that they could not launch aircraft. A lone carrier is also a sure loss if it is by itself and there are submarines in the area. A carrier has zero defences against a Sub.

Carriers however were the main capital ship in the pacific.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

Agreed. A carrier alone was pretty prey for surface fleets, no doubt (The HMS Glorius proved that in 1940). I generally doubt that even the refitting of Gneisenau and GZ would have made an impact in 1943. The odds were against them. But we will move later on (and 1945 will be interesting again). At a pure seabattle between large forces (let´s stay with Washington, Duke of York, KGV, four carriers and escorts against Tirptiz, Scharnhorst, Lutzow, GZ (with all obsolete planes, agreed), Hipper and both air cover and bombers operating from Norway) I would like to give the allies the better chances and the higher losses. But such a scenario is unlikely. 1943 would result in heavy german units sitting in the fjords and US/British forces escorting Murmansk convois. Maybe we would see a single operation (let´s say Schanrhorst) against a convoi. That´s it. Probably all german units could survive by inactivity, agreed? Bismarck was not sunk because it has to be sunk by itself. It has to be sunk because it did sank the Hood. That is activity. Still the weapon of beeing concept works (..and Dönitz knew about this concept).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

I will agree with what you said there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

apart from the fact you put more emphasis on the americans attacking the GZ than the british, we'd have first bite of the cherry............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

How did he put more emphasis on the Americans? Lets see he said the USS Washington, Duke of York, King Goerge V. Thats 2 Royal Navy ships and one US Navy Ship. He did not specify the nationality of the carriers and the escorts. That seems to me he put emphasis on you Brits.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 20, 2005)

lancs just being paranoid again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

yes that's one too many American ships!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeah I would say someone is quite paranoid! Are we okay there Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

well no we should be the first to try (and succed in) sinking her, she's ours


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 20, 2005)

I thought she was German.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

ok, we'll destry her first


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Not if the USS Washington got to her first or a Russian Submarine!

Im just giving you a hard time Lanc!


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

I can really see both of you sitting in an BB + a sub and trying to sink GZ... -


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

No because of family history I would be on the GZ.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

What if Germany's missile program would have succeded... What if their assumed UFO project would have become a reality...??? What if their jetfighters would have been ready by the beginning of the war...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Aren't they all fantasy apart from the Gotha?


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

I don't think so... Germany was interested in UFO technology...and with a leader like Hitler, who stopped at nothing an by the end of the war he had gone desperate, the project was given green light... Tests have been carried out with different engines and fuselages


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

Most of the things you see are infact not real, however there were thousands of designs they were working on including flying disks. The problem with any of these designs is that they would have been powered by existing jet engines which had to replaced after only 10 hours of flight time which would have limited there effectiveness. This would have been the case until they could design better jet engines. A good site to see some of the experimental aircraft is: http://www.luft46.com/ and a good series of books to check out is the _Luftwaffe Secret Projects written by Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer_. The books are a series each one covering bombers, fighters, ground attack, etc. All can be bought from Amazon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

it wasn't the design of the engines that limited their use to 10 hours, it was the fact that Germany had run out of the right metals to use in the engines, so they had to use other metals that couldn't take the heat that well............


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

And the fuel. They couldn´t even provide fuel for all jets, not to mention the prop driven planes. Don´t take the Ufo´s seriuos, please. Schriever, Habermohl, Bellunzio and Miethe never succed to build a free flying one. Just some sketches and a very few R/C-planes, only.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

The idea was running through many peoples heads but it never materialized.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

It never materialized to this day... The topic was "What If?", wasn't it? I never meant to be made fun of... But think at the fact that germany had some of the most brilliant scientific minds of that era... And also concider the fact that most inventions(transport, protection, distruction) were made during/befire/after wartime... so it wouldn't have been such a wonder to acheive that goul... I'm sorry I was found amuzing...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

You weren't, i've just never heard of those sorts of planes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> It never materialized to this day... The topic was "What If?", wasn't it? I never meant to be made fun of... But think at the fact that germany had some of the most brilliant scientific minds of that era... And also concider the fact that most inventions(transport, protection, distruction) were made during/befire/after wartime... so it wouldn't have been such a wonder to acheive that goul... I'm sorry I was found amuzing...



Sorry if we made you feel like we were making fun of you. We were not, just stating facts, you are correct this is a "What if...?".


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

No problem... ... I was only kiddin... and I am aware of the facts...I only posted a What if...  I'm sorry I made a fuss... I'ts not my style...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

No problem.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Okay, here's one, what if the type XXI U-Boat was operational in 1942/3?
Would the convoys still have got across the Atlantic?


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

Probably... Given the right strategy... U-Boats are vulnerable to air attack... so if the convoys would have been supported by air they might have had a chance... From the air they would have been easily spotted, and sinking to avoid detection they wouldn't have been able to engage de convoy... My guess...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

I think it would have made an impact at first but eventually the allies would have found a way to counter it and the convoys would once again come across the Atlantic. I think that in order to stop the convoys and win the Battle of the Atlantic, the Germans would have needed to have a larger surface fleet to accompany there U-boots. They needed for Schlachtschiffen, Panzerschiffen, and they needed to have Flugzeugtraegern from the very beginning.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Sorry to ask, but what do Schlacht and Flugzeugtraedern mean in English?


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

The seccond one meand Aircraft Carrier... I don't realy know the first...sorry


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

ok, thanks


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Flugzeugträger = Aircraft Carrier
Schlachtschiff = Battleship
Panzerschiff = Pocket Battleship (not litterally)
With the given technology in 1942 (remove the Radar-equipment and the guided TVb-Zaunkönig-II torpedoes) I´m pretty sure that type XXI could rule the Atlantic. However, it is silly to seriously think the germans could field such an advanced boat that early. They were not rushed into action (unlike the jets) and thus only a few smaller type XXIII saw action at the end of ww2.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Ok...hey...Wie viele Deutsch Sprecher sind hier???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Ich spreche Deutsch und wohne in Ansbach, Deutschland.

I agree the XXI would not have been as good had it been rushed into service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

ok what did you just say??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 23, 2005)

He said "lanc is a tit."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

well isn't that nice............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

No actually he asked how many people speak German here and I said I speak German and live in Ansbach, Germany. However Lanc that is what I was thinking.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

I knew it.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 24, 2005)

Ich kann ein bisschen Deutch sprechen!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)




----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 24, 2005)

I can speak a little bit of german


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

I can speak a little bit of English. Just a little.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

Je ne parle pa France...  Nur Deutsch, English, and Romanian...  Ce mai faceti fratii mei...?


----------



## red admiral (Mar 24, 2005)

I hate to break the news but there was little chance that Graf Zepplin could ever operate aircraft. She was the first ever carrier designed by the Germans and suffered accordingly. She would have gone to sea with a permament 15 degree list, making it more or less impossible to operate aircraft. The Germans also lacked everything to do with carriers, doctrine, experienced pilots, experienced captains. Basically she would have had no chance. Surely she would have been bombed whilst still in port anyway? They can't build her in Gdansk in 1940.

The 12 Me109T carried by Graf wouldn't stand up well against the 100+ Fulmars and Skuas of the RN home fleet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

And why would she list 15 degrees permanently?


----------



## red admiral (Mar 24, 2005)

The designers got their sums wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Ive never heard of that anywear, sorry. But here is a general history on the GZ, but yes she was doomed from the beginning because of the fight between Goering and Raeder. And I do agree the ship would not have stood a chance but a list of 15 degrees permanantly I can not believe, sorry. It is not that I dont believe you, I have just never seen or heard it anywhere, I may be wrong though.

Graf Zeppelin was an aircraft carrier of the Kriegsmarine, named in honor of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. She was Germany's only aircraft carrier during World War II. Her construction was ordered on 16 November 1935, and her keel was laid down 28 December 1936 by Deutsche Werke of Kiel. She was launched on 8 December 1938, but was never completed, never commissioned, and never saw action.

In 1935, Adolf Hitler announced that Germany would construct aircraft carriers to strengthen the Kriegsmarine. The keels of two were laid down the next year. Two years later, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder presented an ambitious shipbuilding program called the Z Plan, in which four carriers were to be built by 1945. In 1939, he revised the plan, reducing the number to be built to two.

The German Navy has always maintained a policy of not assigning a name to a ship until she is launched. The first German carrier, laid down as "Carrier A," was named Graf Zeppelin when launched in 1938. The second carrier bore only the title "Carrier B," since she was never launched. Various names, including Peter Strasser and Deutschland, were rumored, but no official decision was ever made.

A review of the Führer's conferences on matters dealing with the German Navy, the minutes of which were captured after the fall of the Third Reich, reveals Hitler's vacillating interest in the carriers. Marshall Hermann Göring, Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, was resentful of any incursion on his authority as head of the country's air power and he frustrated Raeder at every opportunity. Within his own service, Raeder found opposition in Admiral Karl Dönitz, a submariner.

By May 1941, the strain on manpower and raw materials was being felt in Germany. Raeder was still optimistic, however, and informed Hitler that Graf Zeppelin, then about 85 per cent complete, would be completed in about a year and that another year would be required for sea trials and flight training.

Though Hitler continued to assure Raeder that the carriers would be built, the Admiral's war with Göring had no truce and became increasingly bitter. Göring showed his contempt for the naval air arm by informing Hitler and Raeder that the aircraft ordered for Graf Zeppelin could not be available until the end of 1944. Göring's delaying tactics worked.

Construction on the carriers had been fitful from the start. "Carrier B" was abandoned in 1940 and broken up. Manpower and material shortages plagued the Graf Zeppelin.

Prodded by Raeder, Hitler ordered Göring to produce aircraft for the carrier and under this pressure, the air marshall offered redesigned versions of the Junkers Ju 87B and the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3, which were at that time being phased out of the Luftwaffe first-line squadrons. Raeder was unhappy, but he had to accept them or none at all. This forced another delay in the construction of the carrier: the flight deck installations had to be changed.

By 1943, Hitler had become disenchanted with his Navy. Raeder was relieved at his own request and Dönitz, the submarine admiral, took the top naval post. Work on Graf Zeppelin stopped completely.

As the end of World War II neared, Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water at Szczecin (known to the Germans as Stettin) on 25 April 1945, just before the Red Army captured the city. After Germany's surrender, though, her history and fate is unclear. According to the terms of the Allied Tripartite Commission, a "Category C" ship (damaged or scuttled) should have been destroyed or sunk in deep water by 15 August 1946. Instead, the Russians decided to repair the damaged ship. It was refloated in March, 1946. The last known photo of the carrier shows it leaving Świnoujście (in German Swinemunde) on 7 April 1947 (see [1] (http://www.fds.px.pl/foto/big/1099826239.jpg)). The photo appears to show the carrier deck loaded with various containers, boxes and construction elements, hence the supposition that it was probably used to carry looted factory equipment from Poland and Germany to the Soviet Union.

For many years no other information about the ship's fate was available. There was some speculation that it was very unlikely that the hulk made it to Leningrad, as it was argued that the arrival of such a large and unusual vessel would have been noticed by Western intelligence services. This assumption seemed to imply that the hulk was lost at sea during transfer between Świnoujście and Leningrad. One account concluded that she struck a mine north of Rügen on 15 August 1947, but Rügen, west of Świnoujście, is not on the sailing route to Leningrad. Further north, in the Gulf of Finland, a heavily-mined area difficult for Western observers to monitor, seemed more likely.

After the opening of the Soviet archives, new light was shed on the mystery. It appears that the carrier was towed to Leningrad. There, after unloading, it was designated as "PO-101" (Floating Base Number 101), The Russians hoped that the carrier could be repaired in Leningrad's shipyards (those in Szczecin were destroyed). When this proved impractical, the ship was towed out to sea, back to the Świnoujście area. There, on 16 August 1947, it was used as a practice target for Soviet ships and aircraft. Allegedly, the Soviets installed aerial bombs on the flight deck, in hangars and even inside the funnels (to simulate a load of combat munitions), and then dropped bombs from aircraft, fired shells, and shot torpedoes into her. This assault would both comply with the Tripartite mandate (albeit late) and provide the Soviets with experience in sinking an aircraft carrier. After being hit by 24 bombs and projectiles, the ship did not sink and had to be finished off by torpedoes. The wreck of the carrier has never been located.

Displacement: 23,000 tons 
Length: 920 feet 
Beam: 88 feet 
Power Plant: geared turbines, four screws (unusual for Germany, which preferred triple screws) 
Speed: 33.8 knots 
Aircraft Complement: 42 Messerschmitt Me 109T fighters and Junkers Ju 87C dive bombers


----------



## red admiral (Mar 25, 2005)

My mistake, the list was more like 4.5degrees. It was countered when work restarted on her in 43-44 by the addition of bulges and more ballast.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

well i'd still prefer no list if i was trying to land on her, espeailly in a -109T..............


----------



## delcyros (Mar 25, 2005)

A possible list (never heard about that before, too) would be a minor problem, since there was pretty much possibilitie to counterlist in such a big hull. A captain for such a ship would be the smallest problem. The main problem would be both, airplanes and operations as pointed out above by R Leonard. And a single carrier would be of very limited worth for Kriegsmarine (maybe except for the use as a weapon of beeing as disscussed above). The few Bf-109 T and Fieseler-bomber were clearly obsolete in 1942. I was wondering why they never tried to modify the Fw-190 A for a carrier. It could do all possible carrierplane jobs: fighter, bomber, torpedo carrier and recon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

well by the time the -190 came into service i think they'd realised ti was never gonna happen.........


----------



## delcyros (Mar 25, 2005)

Well, it is a large "what if", agreed. The first Fw-190 units got operational in mid 1941, in 1942 most fighter units in france operated with the Fw-190 A. It was not until 1943 OKL did realize that there was no possibility to bring GZ into service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I think had the GZ become operational and lasted they would have adapted the 190A until they came up with an aircraft designed solely for the purpose of being used on a AC.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

i must say i'd be interested to hear your ideas about the GZ's role in the home defence role.........


----------



## toffigd (Mar 28, 2005)

I must say that adapting FW190 to a carrier-based fighter would be a good idea, better than Bf 109, which had very narrow undercarriage. Nevertheless GZ would rather be useless till this time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I agree she never would have even made it to the Home defense role. Even if she had what would she have done against the allies lets say on D-Day? Nothing, she would have been destroyed.


----------



## toffigd (Mar 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> she would have been destroyed.



I think better sounds: smashed and shot to pieces


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

More then likely yes.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

For this question I wuold like to move on for late 1944/1945. A possible role on DDay is speculation only. (the KM did not had any heavy surface vessels at France) If GZ could make it from Norway back to the Baltic Sea (like Hipper and Lutzow) it could be of importance for the home defense. Refitted with (hypothetical) Fw-190 T it could join the largest Kriegsmarine operation of the war. From early 1945 on they evacuated more than 5 million civilians and military because of the soviet advance. Succesfully shore bombardments by Prinz Eugen, Hipper and Lutzow (historical)as well as additional fighter cover/ air support by GZ (hypothetical) delayed the advance of the soviet forces operating close to the shore. The sinking of Lutzow by soviet air forces would be more difficult if it had proper air cover from GZ or not? The destruction of Hipper by Tall Boys would be more difficult, too. But I don´t doubt that GZ would become the prime target for all allied forces operating on/over tha Baltic...


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 28, 2005)

GZ air group was too small to make a difference in your scenario. Further, even with an all fighter air group, it is still so small that a concerted effort by the Russians would probably overwhelm any combat air patrol by shear weight of numbers. 

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> GZ air group was too small to make a difference in your scenario. Further, even with an all fighter air group, it is still so small that a concerted effort by the Russians would probably overwhelm any combat air patrol by shear weight of numbers.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rich



Okay lets just take this one step further then. If this senerio had played out, then most likely the Bf-109T's would have been swapped out by Fw-109T's, right. Okay now lets say they replaced every aircraft on there with a fighter and put 42 of them on the Carrier and they could have put more in reserve lets say 50 to 100 more Fw-190T's based out of lets say Trondheim or any of the other airfields the Luftwaffe had. They could also have used the Luftwaffe units JG 5 had 4 Gruppen. I. and IV./JG 5 were stationed in Southern Norway, being equipped with the Fw 190A-2s, A-3s and A-4s. I./JG 5 had its bases on Lista, Stavanger-Sola and Forus, Kjevik, and Herdla. IV./JG 5 were distributed on bases around Trondheim also having Bf 109Fs and Fw 190As. It was left up to II. and III. Gruppe to fight the Russians on the Polar Sea Front; at this time they were solely equipped with Bf 109F-4s. Stab, 4./JG 5 and 6./JG 5 were stationed in Alakurtti, 5., 8., and 9./JG 5 were stationed at Kirkenes and 7./JG 5 was to be found at Petsamo. In this case with the amount of Bf-109's and Fw-190's which easily outmatched any Russian fighter that could be put in the air, I think that if the GZ had been placed there she could have made an impact on the homeland defense.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 29, 2005)

Ahh, the basic problem and pitfall with the "what if". If Group A takes Action X must Group B react in their historical context? 

So, if the Germans do all these things that you set up for them (what if's let you be somewhat god-like, you know more than the poor little humans you're moving around), what makes you think the Russians wouldn't throw every aviation asset they had against them. 

Surely, if you can stack the deck, so can the Russians. Again, there's not enough to protect the GZ and meet all other missions requirements. All the Russians have to do is make you commit one way or the other and then go to your weak side. 

What are you going to do about night shipping attacks? Do you have sufficient assets in place to ward off all attacks, every night, night after night? And day attacks? Every day, day after day? In good weather, and especially in bad? And what would be the GZ's fighter direction doctrine? Not a place for makee-learnee. And if the Russians manage to put a couple of bombs through GZ's flight deck, at best, making her unable to carry on flight operations, or at worst, with only a couple of DC mistakes sinking her, what have you accomplished? From the American experience, operating carriers in the face large scale enemy land based air assets meant many carriers with a total operational capability of 1000 to 1500 aircraft. Even then, one, just one, enemy airplane gets though and the day is ruined for a carrier, witness USS Franklin (CV-13). Just a couple of bombs and she was out of the war. Don't even want to get started on suicider's. Would the Russians go to that extreme to get the GZ? Doubt it, but you never know. 

So, what are you going to do? put the GZ in an operating environment where she is sure as the sun shines going to get hit. Remember also, the practice of leaving one's carrier or carriers in a place where they are in danger of 24-7 attack for days on end is just bad business. Witness the Okinawa campaign where the longer the US carriers remained on station the more likely they were to get hit. Are you going to devote all your air assets to GZ's protection and ignore all other operational requirements? For how long? Then what are you accomplishing? What are you doing for the grunts on the ground in desperate need of air cover while you're spending your assets defending a carrier that shouldn't be there in the first place. There's no target spread. There's only one target. So when you finally relent and send your fighters to protect your ground forces from enemy aircraft that have been bombing the crap out of them while you play protect the carrier, what target do you think the Russians are going to attack? Just because you can marshal German assets for your what if scenario, don't think that the Russians would go along with their historical program. Anything you can change, they would have changed to meet. They weren't stupid. More importantly, they knew the efficacy of the massed attack against any target deemed worth it and had the assets to do it.

One carrier in a very limited operating area with major and sizeable enemy land based aircraft within striking distance simply is not practical. Would it not be better to place this all fighter airgroup on an airfield somewhere, something that won't sink? I really don't see the point in employing the GZ in such a manner, is it just to say you did? Well, I'm sure the thousands of dead german sailors that would resulted from such an operational decision would have taken great comfort in that.


Rich


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2005)

Good post.
I think, I got your point. I do not say that GZ would turn the wheel or anything else (i did not initiate this szenario, but I participate). The outcome would be the same. But the odds were good in the Baltic in 1945. The soviets had no considerable surface units (i think the Marat only, but Kronstadt and Marat were both in no seaworthy condition at any time later than 1942) and even their subs were only mediocre (one exception: S-13, which succeed in sinking the transports Wilhelm Gustloff, Goya and Steuben). Not to name the air forces, which were uneffective (they had problems to sink minesweepers) against the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow and Hipper or even against transports (Lutzow was sunken in very late april, at a time when she did not have enough fuel to move, she was to be abandoned, anyway). The soviet air force never worked out a useful ship busting tactic (losses of Il-2 and Tu-2 against KM shipping in the Baltic were huge, even in early 1945). The KM on the other side put all into action, what they had, cruisers, destroyers, pocket battleships, transports, small ships... and they succed in the largest evacuating operation in history. GZ could make some efforts here, either as protection or -more probable- as a huge and fast transport ship. The (hypothetical)Fw-190 could do all carrier jobs, the same plane can bomb targets or provide fighter cover (so all planes were to be used in both roles, freeing some space for additional planes) there is no need for an all interceptor equipped carrier. The main problem belongs to carrier operations, as pointed out above by You. So what would the soviets do? Sub operations and low level bomber attacks (probably in a large scale). More probably: Asking the British for help. Lancaster with Tallboys could deal with the thread, however, it must be remebered that high level bombing on moving ships doesn´t work good with unguided weapons.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2005)

Good post.
I think, I got your point. I do not say that GZ would turn the wheel or anything else (i did not initiate this szenario, but I participate). The outcome would be the same. But the odds were good in the Baltic in 1945. The soviets had no considerable surface units (i think the Marat only, but Kronstadt and Marat were both in no seaworthy condition at any time later than 1942) and even their subs were only mediocre (one exception: S-13, which succeed in sinking the transports Wilhelm Gustloff, Goya and Steuben). Not to name the air forces, which were uneffective (they had problems to sink minesweepers) against the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow and Hipper or even against transports (Lutzow was sunken in very late april, at a time when she did not have enough fuel to move, she was to be abandoned, anyway). The soviet air force never worked out a useful ship busting tactic (losses of Il-2 and Tu-2 against KM shipping in the Baltic were huge, even in early 1945). The KM on the other side put all into action, what they had, cruisers, destroyers, pocket battleships, transports, small ships... and they succed in the largest evacuating operation in history. GZ could make some efforts here, either as protection or -more probable- as a huge and fast transport ship. The (hypothetical)Fw-190 could do all carrier jobs, the same plane can bomb targets or provide fighter cover (so all planes were to be used in both roles, freeing some space for additional planes) there is no need for an all interceptor equipped carrier. The main problem belongs to carrier operations, as pointed out above by You. So what would the soviets do? Sub operations and low level bomber attacks (probably in a large scale). More probably: Asking the British for help. Lancaster with Tallboys could deal with the thread, however, it must be remebered that high level bombing on moving ships doesn´t work good with unguided weapons.


----------



## toffigd (Mar 30, 2005)

But the question is whether Soviets would like to sink the Graf or maybe "just" damage heavily enough to get her to shipyard and then capture it. An aircraft carrier was the thing that Soviets wanted to get - and that's what happened to the GZ after war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Good post.
> I think, I got your point. I do not say that GZ would turn the wheel or anything else (i did not initiate this szenario, but I participate). The outcome would be the same. But the odds were good in the Baltic in 1945. The soviets had no considerable surface units (i think the Marat only, but Kronstadt and Marat were both in no seaworthy condition at any time later than 1942) and even their subs were only mediocre (one exception: S-13, which succeed in sinking the transports Wilhelm Gustloff, Goya and Steuben). Not to name the air forces, which were uneffective (they had problems to sink minesweepers) against the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow and Hipper or even against transports (Lutzow was sunken in very late april, at a time when she did not have enough fuel to move, she was to be abandoned, anyway). The soviet air force never worked out a useful ship busting tactic (losses of Il-2 and Tu-2 against KM shipping in the Baltic were huge, even in early 1945). The KM on the other side put all into action, what they had, cruisers, destroyers, pocket battleships, transports, small ships... and they succed in the largest evacuating operation in history. GZ could make some efforts here, either as protection or -more probable- as a huge and fast transport ship. The (hypothetical)Fw-190 could do all carrier jobs, the same plane can bomb targets or provide fighter cover (so all planes were to be used in both roles, freeing some space for additional planes) there is no need for an all interceptor equipped carrier. The main problem belongs to carrier operations, as pointed out above by You. So what would the soviets do? Sub operations and low level bomber attacks (probably in a large scale). More probably: Asking the British for help. Lancaster with Tallboys could deal with the thread, however, it must be remebered that high level bombing on moving ships doesn´t work good with unguided weapons.



And that is basically what I am trying to say. I think she too would have been destroyed but she had a chance in this kind of a scenerio. And yes as you stated "What if" is exactly that "What if".



toffigd said:


> But the question is whether Soviets would like to sink the Graf or maybe "just" damage heavily enough to get her to shipyard and then capture it. An aircraft carrier was the thing that Soviets wanted to get - and that's what happened to the GZ after war.



I would think they would have rather had her captured but in the end I dont think they would have gotten her alive anyhow. The Germans would have scuttled her like they did the Panzerschiff Admiral Graf Spee in December 1939 and even if the Russians had raised her then like they did after the war she would have been useless to them.


----------



## toffigd (Mar 30, 2005)

Or maybe the carrier was useless to Soviets because they in fact didn;t have to have one. There was no bigger sea where it could be used operational. 
But the GZ were used as a test platform. Many bombs (from 50 up to 250kg if I remember well) were fitted in various place like inside the funnel or just under landing deck to check what damage will they cause. (If anyone wants to know more, i'll search for an article in one of my military magazines.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Yes and they dropped several 1000kg bombs on I believe it was 16 and she still did not sink.


----------



## toffigd (Mar 30, 2005)

It looked like that:

1st phase - 1x1000kg (in funnel), 3x100kg (under the deck), 2x180mm/92kg (under the deck).

2nd phase - 1x1000kg (on the deck)

3rd phase - 1x250kg (deck), 2x180mm (upper hangar)

4th phase - 1x500kg (under the deck), 2x250kg (upper hangar deck), 1x100kg (deck C-the battery deck)

5th phase - 1x500kg and 1x100kg (deck)

6th phase - bombardment by 24 Pe-2 - out of 100 bombs (50kg) only 6 hit!

7th phase - torpedoed with two 533mm torps by torpedo boat TK-503 and destroyer Slawnyj

Finally, with damage caused by detonating 2x1000kg, 2x500kg, 3x250kg, 5x100kg bombs and 4x180mm/92kg (each) shells, hitting by 6x50kg bombs and 2x533mm torps - GZ went to the seabed.


There is also sth interesting. Probably Soviets would have renovated the GZ, but when GZ was still at Stettin and Swinemunde (Szczecin and Swinoujscie nowadays), getting ready to depart to Leningrad a commanding officer of supply troops decided, that the GZ will be used as a freighter. Many captured tanks, many locomotives were placed in hangars and on the deck. But they were placed wrong and the GZ almost turned turtle (luckily it happened in harbour not on the sea). The damages were really heavy, so Soviets decided to sink the GZ.
This story is not surely true, but I think it might be. This was the way that Soviets "behaved" often, being very quiet after every such mistake.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

She proved she could take a lot of punishment.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

but we could give allot of punishment............


----------



## toffigd (Mar 30, 2005)

but notice, that there wasn't any detonations done nearby the vital mechanisms
so the main reason of sinking the GZ was the 2 torpedoes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

you know i reckon they had it all wrong trying to sink her, they should have just called in a tallboy raid from the RAF................


----------



## toffigd (Mar 31, 2005)

always looking for the simpliest way - have sometimes some fun


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

well if i was an RAF pilot it'd be fun............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well if i was an RAF pilot it'd be fun............



....And I am sure it would have been fun for the Fw-190 pilot screaming down onto the Lanc!


----------



## delcyros (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, there were a lot of "vital" hits. The soviets modified the hull a bit. They storaged ammonition, fuel and explosives on different places to simulate secondary explosions (by fuel or whatever). 
The ship was in no watertight condition, the main bulkheads/compartment-doors have not been closed (in order to advance the sinking). Also GZ was not torpedoed by only two torps: The two torpedoes were the two, which were credited with the sinking of GZ. I have an interesting book of a soviet fleet officer M.G. Dennisov, "my life for the fleet(or something like that, I have no russian word art here)" he writes in page 92f. (roughly translated):"....we had difficulties to get all torpedoduds of this operation from the bottom of the Baltic after the sinking of the carrier" This clearly indicates that there have been more than two shots on the ship.
And at last: There was no crew to prevent further damage, no flooding countermesures and so on...In general I would go for a Lanc with Tallboys, they would heve the best probability to sink GZ, hands down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

> According to new Russian sources, the Graf Zeppelin was sunk after weapons tests in August 1947:
> 
> The carrier was moved to Stettin in April 1943 where it was sunk by its own crew on 25.04.1945. Being captured by Russians, Graf Zeppelin was renamed to IA-101 (Floating Base No. 101) on 03.02.1947. On 16.08.1947 the carrier has been sunk as a target ship off Swinemünde.
> Graf Zeppelin sank as she "scored" 24 (!) bombs and torpedo hits, including two 1000 kg air bombs. One of them was mounted into the funnel; as it exploded, the funnel was completely destroyed up to top deck, but superstructures of the island remained intact. Two 500 kg bombs, three 250 kg and five 100 kg bombs plus four 180 mm 92 kg shells were used on the ship. All these charges were mounted upon the flight deck and hangar deck. Six training air bombs dropped from the dive bombers and two 53,3 cm torpedoes from the torpedo boat OE-503 and destroyer Slavniy were fired on the ship. The last torpedo scored the fatal hit that finished the destruction of carrier. 23 minutes after the last hit, the Graf Zeppelin sunk.
> http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/carrier/grafzeppelin/history.html


----------



## toffigd (Mar 31, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Also GZ was not torpedoed by only two torps



Sure the Soviets fired much more torps than 2. As we can see it is not as easy as might thought to torpedo anchoraged ship! note also the 6 bomb hits out of 100 dropped bombs... these pilots&torpedo men were really poor trained!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

This is sort of off topic, but I believe that somewhere in this thread the Type XXI U-Boot was mentioned. Well here some pictures of the only Type XXI that survives today.



> Those photos of the Wilhmlm Bauer were taken in Bremerhaven in September 2000. The Wilhlem Bauer is the only survieing Typ XXI U-boat in the world and is now anchored in the Museum Harbor near the Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum in Bremerhaven.
> 
> Originally launched as U2540 in January 1945, the boat was scuttled in May 1945 near Kiel. In 1957, the boat was raised and commissioned in the new German Bundesmarine in September 1960. There it served as an experimental U-boat until its final decommission in 1983. Given to the Museum, the outer appearance of the boat - which was heaviely modifed during its time in the Bundesmarine - was rebuild to the WW2 appearence while the interiour was kept in its last operating state.
> http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/uboats/typxxi/photos.html


----------



## toffigd (Mar 31, 2005)

what a beauty!!! must visit Bremerhaven quickly, it's not that far, only about 550-600km


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 1, 2005)

Another place I've got to go to!


----------



## delcyros (Apr 1, 2005)

Nice picture, Adler.


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Subs have always given me the willies almost satanic in appearance
Great pics Adler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

The XXI was quite a beauty and very deadly. She pretty much dictated the future designs of Submarines after the war.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2005)

A whole generation of soviet subs: the Whiskey class- and early US-nuclear driven submarines used the hull design (Walter-8). It was not prior to the soviet nuclear driven submarines of the K- class that a new and more advanced hull design arrived.
With 17 knotes submerged it was 6,5 knotes faster than the limited speed for ASDIC-use. And with LUT -torpedoes it doesn´t even need to climb to pericope depth, it can fire from 300 ft.
The only ship to see service was U-2511, which made a succesful mock attack on a british cruiser (Schnee doesn´t want to be a war crime, since he got the order to return home, because of VE-day). U-2511 stayed for the whole sortie submerged. Deadly ship, indeed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

After the war a test was done and only 6% of the time a Schnorkel head would be picked up on a British ASV set. In other words, for every six that got septh-charged, 94 would go unnoticed


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

unless they were picked up by any other system.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

Like what?


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2005)

Later Snorkel designs used some stealthy materials, like rubber and bendable graphite-gluemixtures. They have been installed in Type XXI and XXIII exclusively. Type XXIII was a similar, but smaller design, like a coast submarine (or the early type II subs). It saw some considerable service, while "only" running at 11 knotes submerged it was barely one third as large as a type XXI boat. It was still a considerable weapon, this type is credited with the last sinking of an allied ship on the 5th of May at the Firth of Forth. Losses are because of bombing and scuttling, only. No boats have been destroyed by ships, while at least three of them were engaged. A few boats have been risen in post war times and put into the newly formed Bundesmarine of western Germany.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

I've read that the type XXIII sunk 5 ships in areas of high Allied air cover


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Like what?



i don't actually know if there was annother system i just thought there might be.............


----------



## GT (Apr 6, 2005)

Update.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Me-109T's, Ju-87's (I think C varients) and Fi-167's are all that I know of.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Actually the Ju-87C was later changed to Ju-87D's, Bf-109T's, and Fi-167's. There would not have been a large eneogh compliment of Bf-109T's however to protect the ship. I do believe though that had the ship made it into service and had it survived for a considerable time the 109's would have been replaced by Fw-190's.

*Ju-87D*



> With the huge success of the Junkers Ju 87 dive bomber in the early days of World War II (the Battle of Britain did not yet happened at this time), it is no big surprise that the "Stuka" was selected as the primary dive bombers to be used on German aircraft carriers.
> 
> The Junkers Ju 87C-1 was an adapted version of the Junkers Ju 87B-1 which was build between 1938 and 1940. While engine and armament were the same as in the land based version of this famous dive bomber, several enhancements had to be made to adapt it to a carrier bases aircraft. In addition to a more massive fuselage, storable wings and an arrestor hook, the landing gear could be dropped for emergency landings in the ocean.
> 
> ...



Dimensions 
Length: 11,50 m 
Span: 13,80 m 
Height: 3,90 m 
Empty weight: 3900 kg 
Max weight: 6600 kg 
Crew: 2 
Weapons 
MG 17 (7,92 mm): 2 (wings) 
MG 15 (7,92 mm): 
MG 81Z (7,92 mm: 1 (rear cockpit) 
Disposable payload: 1800 kg of bombs 
Engines 
Engines: 1 
Type: Junkers Jumo 211 J-1 12 cylinder 
Engine performance: 1410 hp (1038 kw) 
Performance 
Max. Speed: 410 kph 
Max. Range: 1535 km 
Max. Altitude: 7290 m

*Fi-167*



> The Fieseler Fi 167 was designed as the prime torpedo and reconnaissance bomber for German aircraft carriers. With the beginning of the construction of the Graf Zeppelin in 1937, two aircraft producers, Fieseler and Arado, were ordered to produce prototypes for a carrier based torpedo bomber. By summer of 1938 the Fiesler design proved to be superior to the Arado design, the Ar195.
> 
> Like the famous Fieseler Fi 156 Storch, the Fi 167 had surprising slow speed capabilities, the plane would be able to land almost vertically on a moving aircraft carrier.
> 
> ...



Dimensions 
Length: 11,40 m 
Span: 13,50 m 
Height: 4,80 m 
Empty weight: 2800 kg 
Max weight: 4850 kg 
Crew: 2 
Weapons 
MG 17 (7,92 mm): 1 (forward fuselage) 
MG 15 (7,92 mm): 2 (rear cockpit) 
Disposable payload: 1 SD-1000 bomb (1000 kg) or 1 SC-500 (500 kg) bomb or
1 SC-250 bomb (250 kg) and 4 SC-50 (50) kg bombs or
1 LT F5b torpedo (765 kg) 
Engines 
Engines: 1 
Type: Daimler Benz DB 601B inverted V-piston engine 
Engine performance: 1100 hp (820 kw) 
Performance 
Max. Speed: 325 kph 
Max. Range: 1500 km (932 miles) 
Max. Altitude: 8200 m (26905 ft) 

*Bf-109T*



> The Messerschmitt Me 109T was the projected carrier version of the Me 109E model. About 70 planes of this version were build by Fieseler, several modifications had to be made to adapt these single seat fighters for the use on aircraft carriers:
> 
> T-0: 10 Me 109E-3 modified by Fieseler in 1939/40, Span enhanced to 11.06 meters, arrestor hook and catapult mountings. Those aircraft were planed to be used on the Graf Zeppelin and were later used by I/JG 77.
> T-1: like T-0, 60 build by Fieseler and delivered to JG 5. Since the carrier was not completed, all planes were modified to T-2
> ...



Dimensions 
Length: 8,76 m 
Span: 11,08 m 
Height: 2,60 m 
Empty weight: 2253 kg 
Max weight: 3078 kg 
Crew: 1 
Weapons 
MG 17 (7,92 mm): 2 (forward fuselage) 
either MG 17 (7,92 mm): 2 (wing mounted) 
or MG FF (20mm): 2 (wing mounted) 
Engines 
Engines: 1 
Type: Daimler Benz DB 601N inverted V-piston engine 
Engine performance: 1200 hp (895 kw) 
Performance 
Max. Speed: 575 kph 
Max. Range: 915 km (568 miles) 
Max. Altitude: 10500 m (34450 ft)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

wow some great info there..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

The 109T looks great in blue and yellow.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

i wonder if she'd keep those colours


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Look at the first two letters; 'TK'. plan_D should have that one in his airforce


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

good times............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i wonder if she'd keep those colours


Actually they were painted with regular camoflage schemes when they were scent to Norway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

shame


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Shame. It looks great in blue.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

i wonder what the sea camoflague would look like though.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

Pink with yellow spots, with any luck


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

It would have been just like you saw it there, blue and yellow. However I think it would have evolved more into a Gull Grey color.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 27, 2005)

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/flettner/HE6.htm

Flettner received a small production contract from the German Navy in 1938, and the aircraft made its first flight in May 1939. The aircraft proved impressively controllable in flight and was a major improvement over the Focke-Achgelis designs.

In 1941, the Navy conducted an evaluation using two fighter planes to stage a mock attack on a Fl 265. The fighters could not hold the agile craft in their gunsights.
Six of his Fl 265’s were evaluated by the Navy, spotting from warships and submarines. They proved to be remarkably successful in all conditions. A FW 190 and Me 109 tried for twenty minutes to shoot down one…. with camera guns but not one hit was recorded!
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/choppers/fl-282.htm

In 1941/1942 the Kriegsmarine used a Fl 282 for tests on board of the CL Köln . With a landing platform mounted on turret Bruno, several operational patterns were successfully tested. The Kolibri proved to be very maneuverable, reliable and a stable platform even at bad weather conditions.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/aviation/shipbased/fl282/

In 1940, Flettner debuted an improved version designated the Fl 282 Kolibri (hummingbird). The Kolibri could fly at almost 90 miles per hour (145 kilometers per hour), could reach 13,000 feet (3,962 meters), and could carry an 800-pound (383-kilogram) load.

A Siemens-Halske Sh14A engine providing 150 to 160 horsepower (112 to 119 kilowatts) powered the Kolibri Fl 282.

Flettner designed his craft to carry two people, a pilot and an observer.

Imagine if a 1,175 hp DB601 engine had been fitted. It could probably carry 8 people (or 16 with two engines).

There could have been transport versions for troops and tanks, and armoured attack versions armed with cannons, machine guns and rockets.
:robot:

These could have been produced in the 100s in 1940 and used to land invasion forces of 1000s of troops in some remote area in the USSR to prepare and defend airfields to fly in more troops and tanks with the Me 323 Gigant http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Inbox/k-m/me-323-i.htm

This force could be armed with these
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ir.htm
This would lead to ownage during night battles.
When this force was big enough it could have attacked Moscow from another direction simultaneously with the main German army (if Hitler had launched Operation Barbarossa in April as originally planned). 
This could have led to the fall of Moscow.

(However, thankfully Hitler was an idiot and invaded Yugoslavia, delaying Barbarossa by 2 crucial months. The prescence of Axis troops in Yugoslavia also made Soviet military leaders nervous, but it seems Stalin would not believe that Hitler would attack the huge USSR.)

Eventually the whole Soviet Union is defeated and its factories and minerals are used to makes 10s of 1000s of Panthers, Tigers and aircraft, including jet aircraft.
The UK is easily defeated, and Australia is invaded and captured.
This leads to a cold war type stalemate between the Axis powers and the US.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

> Imagine if a 1,175 hp DB601 engine had been fitted. It could probably carry 8 people (or 16 with two engines).
> 
> There could have been transport versions for troops and tanks, and armoured attack versions armed with cannons, machine guns and rockets.



i think this is optermistic even for the germans............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

Smokey said:


> Imagine if a 1,175 hp DB601 engine had been fitted. It could probably carry 8 people (or 16 with two engines).



I doubt this would have been possible. Maybe a radial engine but not a DB601. 




Smokey said:


> The UK is easily defeated, and Australia is invaded and captured.
> This leads to a cold war type stalemate between the Axis powers and the US.



I doubt the British would have given up easily adn even with all the firepower you suggested there still was not eneogh landing craft to conduct the invasion of England nor eneogh logostics. In this scenerio that you presented I could see the British Isles being taken however not as easily as you say.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 27, 2005)

Yeah, I meant a reverse D-Day type operation, possibly on an even greater scale. Hitler would have had all the resources of Europe whereas the Allies had the resources of the US and had to transport everything by ship to the UK.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

all the resorses of Europe?? he may of had them but in no way was he about to use them all in an invasion, i mean they were using barges for invasion craft!! and we would have put up an even more feirce defence than the germans did through normandy, and when you considder all out weapons were still sitting on the beaches at Dunkurk............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

Dont worry Lanc, it would not have happened!  The logistical problems would have been to large for him to sustain an invasion force long eneogh.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

oh i'm not worried, we would have taken 'im 'cos we're 'ard........


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2005)

I enjoyed the comments and views on the aircraft to be used on the GZ. Does anyone have any ideas as to what aircraft were to be used on the Italian Aircraft carries the name of which escapes me. My belief is that she was as near as damn it finished but lacked aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

an fundimental flaw in the opperation of any aircraft carrier


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2005)

Just awnsered my own question. Name Aquila 27,000 tons converted liner with a max speed of 30 knots. On 8th Sept 1943 was ready for sea trials but lacked aircraft.
Designed to carry 36 max 51 Re2001.

Captured by the Germans but damaged by bombs. Theres a what if for you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

she would have been sunk even more easily than the Graf.........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

I would like to point out that the Allies didn't just rely on the economic power of the US. The war was won by the economic power of the British Empire, Soviet Union and United States of America. Even with Germany holding continent Europe, he'd still be out-matched in economy. 

An invasion on the British Isles would be near impossible. Think how hard it is to fight across a 500 metre wide river, then transfer that to a 26 mile one. There was a constant threat during Operation Neptune of the Allied landing craft going under the waves and the Allies had been prepping for nearing 3 years!


----------



## Smokey (Apr 28, 2005)

Well, I thought an invasion of the UK would have gone like this:

1) I have read that if the Luftwaffe had continued to attack RAF fields, instead of launching the blitz, the RAF would eventually have been destroyed on the ground.
If BF 109s had been fiited with bomb racks and extra fuel lines for drop tanks earlier they would have been highly effective against RAF airfields and would have accelerated the RAF's defeat.

2) Now having air superiority over the UK, there are huge attacks on Scapa Flow, and many British warships are sunk. 
U boats wait outside Scapa Flow, sinking many fleeing surface ships and subs.
The remnants of the Royal Navy flee to ports on the west coast of the UK.

3) On D-Day (or T-Tag ), diversionary air raids are flown against many ports along the east coast of the UK.

4) Meanwhile, early in the morning, 1000s of paratroops equipped with night vision sights are landed in a remote area of Scotland near the east coast, with many antitank guns with NV sights. Nearby ports are also captured.
Immediately rough airfields for gigants and ju52s are prepared, and tanks, troops, fuel and supplies begin to arrive.
1000s of landing craft are also sent to the nearby captured ports.
Many BF109s and stukas also land, with their own fuel, bombs and ammo, to provide more air assistance.
All this time, the luftwaffe, with full air superiority and NV sights, has flown around the entire area and for many miles around.

5) The first day is crucial, for once 10s of 1000s of troops are on the ground with 100s of antitank guns and 100s of tanks, many with NV devices, there is not much the UK army can do without air assistance except fight a guerilla war.
Without the huge jungles of Vietnam, most troop movements could be seen from the air and Luftwaffe air strikes called.
If the German military had many NV devices this would mean many night battles which the UK army would not have a hope of winning.

The campaign would probably last a couple of weeks.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

This being a 'What If...?' thread allows bizarre fantasy like that, I suppose. 

1) The story behind the Battle of Britain was not of one to destroy the RAF over the skies of Britain. The Luftwaffe was aiming to achieve localised air superiority over the possible landing sites along the south coast of Britain. 
If the Luftwaffe had continued it's offensive against the RAF instead of moving to the Blitz, the RAF would have moved north to protect the vital production facilities. 
The Luftwaffe would not be able to conduct effective operations much more north than London. The strikes north of London were largely ineffective or lucky. And a concentrated defence north of London by the RAF would halt any attempts on the production facilities based up there. 
Remember, the RAF was stationed throughout the entirety of the British Isles throughout the whole of the BoB. They could move some down from Scotland, if it got beyond desperate. 

2) They would have never gained complete air superiority without taking out every airfield. Let's say, somehow they have. The Luftwaffe could not reach Scapa Flow, they hadn't the range to strike at it. There were very few U-boats in 1940, not nearly enough to strike at the British Homefleet head on. 
The Royal Navy only had one fleet stationed in Scapa Flow, the Homefleet. Force H were in the Med and could be brought home to defend Britain's shores if it was required. 

3) The excellent organsation RAF Fighter Command had, along with RADAR could detect diversion from the real thing. Doing those raids would only take resources from the actual assault. Especially if, as you wish, the Royal Navy is wiped out. The ports are of no use. 

4) Heavy equipment cannot be brought in by air. It took until 1944 for the Allies to design a Glider that was capable of carrying 'heavy' equipment into battle. At best the heaviest cannon was 57mm (6 pdr). Paratroopers were never designed to perform strikes, only to cause confusion. 
It is well known that paratroopers cannot hold against a concentrated counter-attack or armoured attack. The paratroopers would be slaughtered in the air, and on the ground. Read about Crete, look at the German air invasion of there. 
The landing craft have to be a capable to cross the Channel. As I said, the Allied landing armada was in constant threat of going under the waves in 1944. The Germans did not have an invasion fleet built that could cross the channel. 

5) All this about Night Vision equipment is nice but the German forces did not have that technology until 1944, when they gave it to one single unit equipped with Panthers. 
The first days are always crucial in an airborne offensive, the airborne must be able to capture their objectives and hold them until the main force arrives. 
The British 1st Airborne were remarkable at Arnhem for holding one side of the bridge for 10 days against a SS Panzer Division but they had already failed when they failed to capture both sides. The German Fallschirmjager would have had to be perfect, on the ball and be able to hold off all concentrated British counter-attacks, supported by armour. It's a near impossible task to give a paratrooper division. 

Guerilla warfare doesn't need jungles, it doesn't rely on army movements.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 28, 2005)

This scenario imagined that General Walther Wever had not died in an air crash in April 1936 and that Goering was not a retard (which thankfully he was). General Walther Wever wanted to develop the 'Ural bombers', long range heavy bombers, which Goering was not a fan of.
If these bombers had been developed, then the luftwaffe would have had bombers in the B17/B24/Lancaster/Halifax class by 1940, possibly in the hundreds.
Flying at an altitude of at least 20,000 ft these bombers would have been difficult for the Spitfires and Hurricanes to intercept.

Also this scenario included the theoretical defeat of the Soviet Union, giving Hitler huge resources and at least a year or two to make 1000s of landing craft, helicopters, bombers and fighters, as well as 100s of U-Boats.

On the subject of U boats, if Hitler had half a brain cell (which thankfully he didn't), he would have agreed to Doenitz's request for 300 U Boats to be made before the war started, which is the number that Doenitz estimated would be needed to starve the UK into surrender.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

That's a lot of things you're suggesting that would bring about the defeat of Britain. I imagine it probably would have destroyed a lot but the actual crossing itself is always a problem. Air power alone does not win wars.

Helicopters are out of the question. They weren't an effective fighting machine in World War 2 because they still relied on a piston engine to power them. It wasn't until the jet engine became properly developed and researched that the helicopter became a weapon of war. 

You forget that the British Empire and United States combined would still have economic might equal or above that of the theroetical Nazi Empire you're suggesting. The constant political flaws on the Nazi side would cause massive logistical problems in running and bringing about efficient use of that vast land mass. 

There were over 1000 U-boats made by the wars end, a U-boat isn't an invincible machine. They can, and would, have been spotted while operating in British waters. Surface vessels are also efficient at destroying U-boats. In actual fact, the U-boats could only attack on hit and run strikes against poorly protected merchant vessels and convoys. 
The Royal Navy would have no problem destroying the U-Boats because the U-boats would constantly be in a situation that the U-boat was not designed for, attacking surface warships.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 29, 2005)

Piston engined helicopters were used in Korea and I think early in Vietnam. The Kolibri had a maximum speed of about 93 mph, the Huey couild reach about 127 mph. This is a significant speed increase, but not massive. 
Turbines are essential for heavy loads, but 10 troops do not weigh that much.
The heli that flew the most rescue missions and had the highest success rate in vietnam was the Kaman HH43 Huskie









It uses the same rotors as the Kolibri.

The 300 U boats were designed to attack merchant vessels early in the war, before effective sonar had been developed and the UK had bought lots of old destroyers from the US. It wasn't until 1943 that the U boat fleet was defeated by sonar , destroyers and escort carriers for convoys.
The UK may have been starved into surrender by 1941/1942 if 300 U boats had been available before the war began. 
Thankfully Hitler made barttleships like Bismarck instead, a massive waste of resources. Battleships like Bismarck scared merchant ships, but U Boats sunk ships. I would not be surprised if you could make 50 U boats for every battleship, and Hitler had 3 or 4 battleships, and could have had 150 - 200 Uboats instead.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2005)

It's not speed that the jet improved, it was the efficieny. The range of a helicopter is always going to be low but it was extremely low on piston driven machines. Never high enough to conduct combat operations. 

The U-boat was always designed to attack merchant vessels, in the waters of Britain though the U-boat was in constant danger of being discovered by surface vessels. The U-boat could not be submerged for a long periods of time, it relied on hit and run tactics. 
Another 300 U-boats in the water would have certainly made a huge impact on the Atlantic conflict. The steel used to build the Bismarck might have been enough for 50 - 100 U-boats (quite optimistic, I think) but that doesn't give the time needed to build the U-boats.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 29, 2005)

Piston helicopter were used in Korea and Vietnam, yes, but we are talking the early 40s here. It would have required development time and resources to be a feasible transport. Not to mention that 93 MPH would get you into trouble very fast if there were anti-aircraft guns nearby. Groundfire would also be a factor.

10 troops don;t weigh much? Lets just say that the average soldier was 150 lbs. That's 1,500 lbs before you even get them into their web gear and give them their weapons, ammo and supplies. It adds up faster than you think. The UH-1D, which went to Vietnam in 1963 could carry 12 troops. That's with a jet engine. I really don't think that the helicopter would have been a viable option for sealion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

Smokey said:


> 5) The first day is crucial, for once 10s of 1000s of troops are on the ground with 100s of antitank guns and 100s of tanks, many with NV devices, there is not much the UK army can do without air assistance except fight a guerilla war.
> Without the huge jungles of Vietnam, most troop movements could be seen from the air and Luftwaffe air strikes called.
> If the German military had many NV devices this would mean many night battles which the UK army would not have a hope of winning.
> 
> The campaign would probably last a couple of weeks.



Tell that to the German troops who fought in Stalingrad and the US troops fighting over in Iraq right now. Sorry man but Urban Guerilla warfare as you call it is just as bad. You dont know you enemy and they get you when you least expect it. Trust me I know everyone of those bastards that fired at my helicopter in Iraq looked like a civilian to me. The same would have happened to the German troops. Plus you say the German planes land with there own fuel. Where are they going to carry that fuel and what are they going to do when they run out?



Smokey said:


> Piston engined helicopters were used in Korea and I think early in Vietnam. The Kolibri had a maximum speed of about 93 mph, the Huey couild reach about 127 mph. This is a significant speed increase, but not massive.
> Turbines are essential for heavy loads, but 10 troops do not weigh that much.



Yes you are correct that piston engined hellicopters were used in Korea. Actually my friend piston engined rotary wing aircraft were into the late 70's. The last ones actually being retired from Fort Rucker at the US Army flight school.

*10 Troops dont weigh that much?* Here my friend you are wrong! My UH-60L Blackhawk helicopter carries 11 fully equiped troops. Each troop that we carry weighs about 300lb with there full rucksacks and weapons and ammo. I am actually probably being generous with the weight of each soldier here. So that is 3300lb. The aircraft already weighs in at about 14000lb (also being generous here) so that brings the weight up to 17000lb then you got the crew of 4 so we will say 200lb (that is what hour weight and balance forms have us weighed in for purposes of CG) and that is another 800lb, then we have our survival equipment and 2 M-60D machien guns with 1000 rounds of ammo. We will call all of this about 500lb. That makes a total of 18300lb. That is a lot of weight. Whenever we fly a combat mission with 11 troops our aircraft is straining, she becomes sluggish and we have to pull the guts out of her just to get her to fly, once she gets up to speed though she is fine. 

Now all of this is with General Electric T-700-701C engines rated at 1800SHP per engine. Thats 3600SHP and we are struggling. Imagine a Kolibri doing this with 2 DB-601 pistons. I dont see it happening.

If you want to talk helicopters there is a thread in the modern section that I have started. It has been dead for a while now. I know my stuff about rotary wing aircraft I fly them and maintain them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

gotta love them pics........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Traffic cone eh? I hope someone wasnt going on drunken binges while on duty


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

Actually I need to rephrase what I said up there I said that the Blackhawk struggles to carry 11 passengers at 3600shp on 2 engines. It does not struggle it just is not easy. 10 passengers weigh more then he thinks, and a DB-601 or hell even 2 DB-601 would more then likely not have been possible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

yes you can't help but wonder about the traffic cone.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

That is when we flew our aircraft to the Port in Kuwait to have them put on boats and they have these traffic cones secured to the ground so that the rotor wash does not blow them away. They put them there so that we would ground taxi the aircraft to the cone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

man i'd be temped to run it over.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

What they need is some of them robotic cones that move by themselves...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

remote controlled!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

No actually I believe they have GPS which is programmed to a destination and then they move by theirselves...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

no i was saying how cool that'd be, to own a remote contolled traffic cone or two........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Kinda like Daleks working for the Highways agency?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

looking at some of the guys i thought they already did........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

Lanc would cause havoc with one.


----------



## cls12vg30 (May 13, 2005)

Haven't been here in awhile, guys, nice to see the place is still active.

To get this thread back on topic, here's a what if that I find intriguing:

What if the United States had remained divided after 1861, and was still divided in 1939? I know there has been a series of books written about how WWI might have gone had the US remained divided, but what about WWII? It's a really big question when you think about how history would be different from 1861 on, the whole geo-political situation in 1939 might be totally different, especially in the western hemisphere.

What do you think?

Would the USA and CSA fight on the same side or against each other? Would either or both even enter the war? If so, when? What other countries might have risen to prominence in the absence of a single united America? Would we be talking about things like the Mexican Campaign and the Caribbean Theatre of Operations?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2005)

i don't know enough about the split in america to comment.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I have actually read that series of books you are talkin about by Harry Turtledove. Great alternate history author.

Here is how I think it would go. I personally dont see the CSA getting involved in WW1 however if they did I think it would have been on the same side ast eh USA. They would have fought side by side allied with the British and the French. However after WW1 with all the industry I see the CSA needing more and more help from the USA because the CSA is mostley agriculture and there are not as much industry there. The Depression of 1929 hits and the CSA is hit very hard. The CSA recieves help from the USA econimically. Come 1941 and Pearl Harbor the CSA again unites with the USA and fights in WW2 and come victory in 1945 the CSA and the USA unite as one again.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 16, 2005)

But the south shall rise again!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> But the south shall rise again!


\

My father would agree with you.


----------



## Chocks away! (May 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok so she tries to break out into the atlantic, she figures she's got her own air cover so they brave it an try to dash through the English channel, asuuming they're not hit by a mine or two, or three, we're almost cirtain to spot her, we know she's an important target an so send every beaufort and beaufighter we have out to get her, hell we could even send a spitfire escort, the spitfires and some beaufighters will tangle with the -109Ts and any other fighter opposition (no, the stukas would not be scrambled), in the meantime the beauforts are sticking a few torps into the sides of the Graf, if she lives through the repeated attacks and mines, we have a couple of battleships and a carrier waiting for her in the atlantic...............


 It probably wouldn't have been used in the chanel anyway. Plus-are you forgetting the famous chanel dash? It could have been accompanied by those ships, gone through the chanel and probably used against the Russians...


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

The Channel Dash was extremely lucky and it wasn't done by an Aircraft Carrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

yes and as soon as we'd see the graf even begin to look completed, we'd be flying constant recon. over her and we'd have a couple of beaufort squadrons on standby, with their beaufighter escort, naturally.......


----------



## connrebel (Jun 4, 2005)

thats a nice model. too bad no aircraft aboard would like to see her compliment.


----------



## connrebel (Jun 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have actually read that series of books you are talkin about by Harry Turtledove. Great alternate history author.
> 
> Here is how I think it would go. I personally dont see the CSA getting involved in WW1 however if they did I think it would have been on the same side ast eh USA. They would have fought side by side allied with the British and the French. However after WW1 with all the industry I see the CSA needing more and more help from the USA because the CSA is mostley agriculture and there are not as much industry there. The Depression of 1929 hits and the CSA is hit very hard. The CSA recieves help from the USA econimically. Come 1941 and Pearl Harbor the CSA again unites with the USA and fights in WW2 and come victory in 1945 the CSA and the USA unite as one again.


----------



## connrebel (Jun 4, 2005)

heres a question. if the us had split would there have been a pearl harbor??


----------



## connrebel (Jun 4, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> 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
> ...


----------



## connrebel (Jun 4, 2005)

very good points


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Wow that was a long quote. Did you just quote that all and then post again after it with you comments?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 11, 2005)

What do you think would have happened to the Japanese war stretegy if in early 1943, the RAAF based a squadron of Lancaster bombers in Darwin, with the sole purpose of night attacks on the oil refineries in Borneo.

Remember that the Japanese never had a night fighter worth anything, nor was their flak defenses something to be feared. The missions would be of extremely long range (2300 miles one way, so some of the bomb load would need to be reduced to allow fuel tanks to be fitted in the bomb bays) but most of it would be over undefended ocean and islands.

But, the payoff could be huge. Imagine if the refineries were put out of commision for several days at a time, and the IJN had no fuel for its warships or maritime fleet.

Comments?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

It may have spead up the war in the Pacific however if this were to happen the Japanese would have found a way to counter it such as build a better night fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

but that'd still take allot of time, giving us an advantage.......


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 12, 2005)

Concerning the Graff Zeppelin: How can you be positive that it would have been sunk by the RN/RAF early in the war? Germany lost big warships as late as April 1945, and one survived. I mean obviously it's merely a ''what if'' but if it was built...the Germans were not stupid!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

the only was we wouldn't sink it is if they kept her in harbour out of range of lancs based in russia or britian, no such a place exists........


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 13, 2005)

The GZ would have been ready when the great war pan was developed and not before. It did not help that work was stopped at least twice and steel was not flowing like it was out of Pittsburg  As for the GZ being sunk if it did become operational, they seemed to have been able to get some very big battleships out under the RN nose.

Lanc, missions in 1942 over 2300 miles of ope pacific ocian is not a simple sing even if they are lightly defended. And the oil fields would becoe a well defended site, maybe not Polesti, but the Japanese never were short of developing a solution to a new problum. Only some were better then others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> Concerning the Graff Zeppelin: How can you be positive that it would have been sunk by the RN/RAF early in the war? Germany lost big warships as late as April 1945, and one survived. I mean obviously it's merely a ''what if'' but if it was built...the Germans were not stupid!



Remember the Bismark? I truely dont think she would have survived. The British could not afford to have a Carrier around preying on the convoys, they would have put everything they against her just like the Bismark.

The only way she may have been effective was if she had been completed before the war started and slipped out the straight into the North Atlantic before hostilities started and then she may have had a chance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2005)

but even then we'd put her out of action before making other naval commitments, we had one of the largest navies in the world at the start of the war, we could easily have a couple of carriers plus escorts and battleships along for the ride.........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

lanc, the Royal Navy *was* the largest navy in the world. It was only just taken over by the USN during the war. The Royal Navy would have thrown more at the GZ than they did at the Bismarck. They had 352 warships sailing the oceans in 1939, wherever the GZ turned up the Royal Navy would send 1,2 maybe 3 battle groups to end it's days. 

The German big hitters that survived only survived because they were left in Norway after the Commandos' blew up St. Nazaire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Yeah I dont think she would have lasted very long at all.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 15, 2005)

You all might be right, but if she was at sea, the carrier airwing was not that much to look at. The 109T still had narrow tracked landing and as stated before by others the pilots were nt really prepared. 

But I still would have liked to see it in action Thik the Graff Zeplin with two or three wolf packs around her. Even if she did not sink lots of ships the amout of trouble and material used to find and kill her would have been worth it. And the U-boats would get a few more war ships and oilers. I think that Russia might have been the hardest hit, because what would have gotte to England would stay, not as much to go on to Russia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

I agree the aircraft selection for the GZ was not very good and she did not have much of an air defence anyhow.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2005)

did the GZ have any decent RADAR??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 15, 2005)

Unfortunately for them, the GZ didn't have much of a decent _anything_. The Germans were brand new to the carrier biz and all sorts of mistakes were made.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2005)

annother reasion she would have met a very quick end......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Unfortunately for them, the GZ didn't have much of a decent _anything_. The Germans were brand new to the carrier biz and all sorts of mistakes were made.



Agreed


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 20, 2005)

They never really tried though, and the plans were not thought through that much. I have read a little more and the German Navy was planning for war in 1940 or so. But the GZ would have had a lot of RN ships and planes to look after it, I wounder if that alone would have affected the war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

well the mere presence of a bug capital ship like that has a huge impact, look at the tirpitz, the tirpitz was our biggest naval threat before she was destroyed, she had so many royal naval resources tied down that her destruction would change the entire naval situation on a global scale, but why?? all she did was sit in harbour, well it was because there was the possibility that she could make it into the atlantic, well, we would have given the GZ the same attention we did the tirptiz, because she could have done damage, however it would be unlikely she would do damage because of allt eh "attention" we'd be giving her........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the mere presence of a bug capital ship like that has a huge impact, look at the tirpitz, the tirpitz was our biggest naval threat before she was destroyed, she had so many royal naval resources tied down that her destruction would change the entire naval situation on a global scale, but why?? all she did was sit in harbour, well it was because there was the possibility that she could make it into the atlantic, well, we would have given the GZ the same attention we did the tirptiz, because she could have done damage, however it would be unlikely she would do damage because of allt eh "attention" we'd be giving her........



Well said I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

thing is she was too early to be "tall boyed"


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2005)

True Lanc, but that was what I was thinking that the RN would have somuch tied up on the GZ that the war would be changed or the thinking of war plans. 

I think that a good solution would have come up maybe even the Tally Boy would bee created for the Graf Zeplin


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

Why use Lancasters when you can use Swordfish?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

because swordfish can't carry a tall boy 

but, as much as it pains me to say it, you're right, if we couldn't attack with lancasters, the raid proberly would have been done by swordfish/beauforts and beaufighter escort, depending on location.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Or course they can carry a Tall Boy, just put it on a line between the two


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

oh god


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Unless its an African Swordfish, in which case it can manage on its own.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Alright now that I did not get.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Monty Python, he's talking about the Swallow sketch in Monty Python's "Search of the Holy Grail"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Ahhhh


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

but they're talking about carrying coconuts, not tallboys, obviously........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Yeah I have to watch it again because I am lost.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2005)

But it is the same, the Tally Bot replaces the coconut and the Swordfish the swallows. 

I really love that Film and the Swallows


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Ill give you something to swallow!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

Me too.

No, wait, I wont


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

CC only has cheese.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

And lots of it! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Ive got some good Extra Sharp Cheddar in my frindge right now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

Ive got some Mature cheddar in my stomach, as part of my snack when I get home from school each night 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I dont need an image of cheese in your stomach, thank you very much.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

I know you dont need one, but youre getting one anyway


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

AHHHHHH Get out of my Head!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

If youre not careful, you know whats coming next...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2005)

i currently have no food inside me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

Why is that on a diet or something.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2005)

no, there's very little food in the house at the moment........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

Oh well I am on a diet.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not, HA!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Ever since I got back from Iraq and I have been eating good food I have put on some weight. So my wife has me on a wiered diet where I eat only one normal meal a day and then eat Salad at night.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

My mum is on the weirdest diet ever. I eat more food in a snack than she does in 3 days...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I will never let my wife put me on a diet where I can not eat real food.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

you just eat salad insted.......


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2005)

Adler, you can always go back to K-Rations 

Or what you had in Iraq it is RMEs I think. I am glad you got back safe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

umm, mashed potato, steak and kidney pie, a large slice of beef pie stuff and mushy peas.........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm on the best diet, it's called; "Eat what you want and don't get fat" - what you do is, eat what ever you want...and don't get fat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'm on the best diet, it's called; "Eat what you want and don't get fat" - what you do is, eat what ever you want...and don't get fat.



It works for me. The amount of shit I eat without putting on a pound is amazing!


----------



## JCS (Jul 5, 2005)

Same here. I eat all the greasy, bad for your health food I can get my hands on yet I still only weigh around 150.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Well all this should probably go back to the "What you last ate" thread and leave this on topic. Nice siggy three JCS.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2005)

that's true, everyone, the the what you last ate thread!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Lanc is storming it by suprise.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2005)

i made the thread


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

Im going to make a new thread. "Which body part did you last touch with the middle finger on your left hand?" 

That should be fun


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

It also could get quite nasty!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

my face........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 8, 2005)

No, i wasnt talking _literally_...


----------



## trackend (Jul 8, 2005)

> CC said
> Im going to make a new thread. "Which body part did you last touch with the middle finger on your left hand?"
> 
> That should be fun


Depends on how many layers of toilet paper you use unless your right handed of course in which case it would be the control key for my pc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Damn thats wrong.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 10, 2005)

ummmm...Ew!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Yes I will not get any sleep tonight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

that's nothing! me and CC could keep you up for weeks


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Yeah...ill start by annoucing I have a WET T-SHIRT on...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

So have I! I've been fruckin' sweating all day.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Pig.  I deliberately made mine wet, and gave my self an amazing hairstyle at the same time


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

I am a pig...but it's also a very humid and hot day...so what did I do? Opened the patio door and took my shirt off...

...don't get horny...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Too late..


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

Talk about premature ejaculation...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

I know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Oh Boy and he we go again!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Oh yeah 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

We have a habit of taking things into the gutter dont we?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)

Don't try and pass it off as 'we' - Adler. Everyone knows you take it far beyond the gutter and into the sewer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 11, 2005)

Actually I take the blame, I live in a gutter


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

That is why I said we PD.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2005)

it's more me and CC though aint it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Probably.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 20, 2005)

So is there any hope of getting back to near the topic?

I would sugest this, the US stays out of this bloody European war? We deal with the Japonese and as best we can to avoid being drawn into the war in Europe this would be hard if Germany declairs war on the US, but maybe they will think it over with help fom Japan and we all are happy


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

You're saying that Japan attacks Pearl Harbour on the 7th December, 1941 and the U.S takes it as a declaration of war. Germany doesn't declare war on the U.S and the U.S concentrates on Japan and leaves Europe (actually Britain) to fend off Germany on it's own?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Would not have happend. Roosevelt and Churchhill had already decided that Germany was first a year before Pearl Harbor when they met in Nova Scotia.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

What if...

Hitler had a bout of semi-consciousness instead of megalomania shortly after the opening of hostilities and although still seeking what he felt were his nation's tactical and strategic dues, left his waning personality out of the whole mess.

Takes the Sudetenlund but leaves it at that (doesn't press further into Austria and Czechoslovakia than the Germanic homelands originally promised to disposed and relocated Germans during the mediaeval Hundred Years War, as was his claim to the region). Refuses to take a contract out with the USSR over Poland but delivers demands for parts of that country anyway (WW1 counter-reparations and the period of Prussian rule in mind perhaps), with no intention of immediately making good on any threat. Don't want the angry sickle to come down on Germany just yet (gotta wait for Britain to attack them first).

Avoided that whole "night of blood" thing which set his secondary leaderships in stone during the prewar years...instead of sanctioned shooting of Hitler's political rivals and giving people like Himmler, Goebbels, Goering and others their permanent foothold (remember as those individuals certainly knew, Fuhrer was a title more than a man, though it took a man to create the title, Hitler did promise, after all a Reich that would last a thousand years...I don't think he quite intended to be there personally and I am absolutely positive his secondary leadership most certainly didn't).
This was in my opinion his single greatest strategic error (aside from being all too willingly played like a harpsichord initially), as they systematically destroyed any sense in the armed forces, probably encouraging Hitler's poorer sides in concert, in everything from implementation to engineering specifications in military equipment and doctrine.
In fact I should think Goering's poor attempt at assuming the Reich's leadership in early 1945 was merely a premature execution of something the original extreemist Nationalists had always intended...once their vaunted construction of a Reichs-Monarchy had been satisfactorially generated in the minds of the German people.

The original "German" monarchy was in fact a Prussian dictatorship, organised during the creation of Germany by those nations who'd been using Germanic peoples as hirelings and mercinaries for centuries. We'll give you homelands, they promised, we'll give you back your original tribal farming areas. They relocated them in what became Germany, after taking the pick and division of Germanic regions and put the russo Prussian state in absolute authority over them. Then some of the very same bastards did it again at Versailles...
(it's just Lawrence of Arabia all over again isn't it..."we promise we'll give you homelands if you fight for us, honest we will...now get in your box and don't bother us again")

But an insular monarchy generated through nationalism, now that would create a true homologated monarchy from within. Goodbye German Empire under Prussian Aristocrats, goodbye German workers doing it hard under the thumb, hello Germanic Empire all of their own making.

But most especially the whole anti-semitism cum holocaust thing just smacks of purist National Socialism at its foundation to me, the same way political synonymities around the world feel about aborigines, african-americans, hutus, kurds and any perceivedly dissident cultures that coincidentally have alternate political views in the majority.

Hitler and his cronies didn't even come up with Blitzkreig. It was published by a high ranking Wehrmacht officer in the late 20's from memory and although copies were held in libraries throughout the later allied nations, it was ignored in favour of early "battleships, brigades and (carpet) bombers" tactics favoured by the world's armed forces.

So say, Germany holds off further conflict in the low countries whilst development of the later 109E/F models, heavy bombers and a wider range of newer heavy equipment is made, instead of waiting until 1941-43 for things like Tiger tanks, Ju-88's, Fw-187...ad infinitum. No urgency and therefore concentration on resources to individual companies like Messerschmitt for development but a more rounded, longer sighted military expenditure right from the stalls.
And personally touring industrial sites to discover they were still running at peacetime production rates until midwar...finding that out and putting them on track say, before hostilities were even begun might've pushed contemporary line equipment in the field ahead to 1941-42 instead of 1943-44 with the highest war production during 1944 (a bit late don't you think).

I think it's been established well enough on this site, whilst Germany was perhaps supreme in ideas, it did not have the monopoly on actual military technology in the field except in isolated examples and for relatively short periods. Hitler's doctrine as it stood was never designed to fight a lasting war but merely short, fierce actions. He should've stuck to it until the military was developed enough (compared to say...any of the major powers), to do more.

Invaded Norway sure, but held off there for its industrial value and just strengthened defences in case French and BEF invaded. The Brits and Soviets were on shaky terms and close to war with each other.
It would have been a crazy-scary time for the Germans but if they held out until say 1941 without going another step forward (ie. leave Poland, France and the low countries alone for the moment), GB may have warred the USSR (especially over Finland), GB probably wouldn't have tried to invade Germany or anything, the USSR was unlikely to without yet stepping into Poland (untreatised) and here's an example of the French attitude:

Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, when German lines on the French border had been weakened due to Wehrmacht attacks in the southeast and north, a journalist was interviewing French troops manning defences. Across the fields to the German lines their soldiers could clearly be seen openly playing soccer in the fields, barely a couple of hundred metres away.
The journalist asked a French NCO, why aren't you shooting at them, they're the enemy aren't they?
To which the soldier replied, why should we shoot them? They're not shooting at us, they're fine.
Within two weeks the Wehrmacht was marching on Paris.


I mean you can probably see where I'm going with this and I'd like to be the first one to admit my overall knowledge of WWII is less than many on the site, some of the opinions expressed above are just that, from a perhaps incomplete appraisal of information and comparitively limited resources.
I can take being corrected on any point matter.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

_"Hitler and his cronies didn't even come up with Blitzkreig. It was published by a high ranking Wehrmacht officer in the late 20's from memory and although copies were held in libraries throughout the later allied nations, it was ignored in favour of early "battleships, brigades and (carpet) bombers" tactics favoured by the world's armed forces."_

What became known as "Blitzkrieg" (coined by a NY Times journalist in 1940) was created by a collection of ideas from France, Britain and Germany. The British forces were most advanced in armour doctrine in the 1920s. The one man that brought everything together was Heinz Guderian - hardly high ranking but he was in the German General Staff. The whole idea was published and given freely to the world in 1937, in the works; _Achtung! Panzer!_ by Heinz Guderian (Preface by General der Panzertruppen Lutz). Which I currently own.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

That's the one. I'd thought it was published much earlier. The most common layman's view I keep running into in general conversation, of blitzkreig tactics seems to be that Hitler had invented them himself, which is certainly not the case.

I mean the whole evil genius supernatural svengali thing and us poor normal people really burns my bacon. It's like blaming a red light district for extra marital affairs.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

Guderian had been studying the use of armour throughout the 1920s but he did not produce a full written report on it until the mid-1930s. Then it was publically produced in 1937, as I said. It's quite remarkable that if the Allied countries had read that book and taken it into account they would have known how Germany was going to fight the war. 

Hitler was a smart man, no one can deny that. Germanys success was the work of the German General Staff though.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 27, 2005)

Some of the Blitzkrieg tactics could be seen towards the end of WW1. Close air support of stormtroopers, and the emergence of tanks, in particular the superb Renault FT-17 tank

It is surprising that some old military leaders in Britain and France did not really seem to understand combined operations (for example having lots of fast tanks for a rapid advance, rather than slow heavy tanks). This led to disaster in France in 1940 and 5 years of war

As for Hitler, he seems to have been quite a cunning politician, and he understood the value of blitzkrieg, but he was a c**p military leader






Renault FT-17 tank
http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/tanks/cipri.htm

The all metal Junkers stand out for their great strength





Junkers D1




Junkers D1
http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/w1/junkersd1preview.htm




http://www.wwi-models.org/Photos/index.ht




http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Historisch/Junkers_J-9/junkers_j-9.html
Number Built: 41





Junkers CL I
Number Built: 47





Junkers J.I
Number Built: 227



> In late 1916, the demand for a durable observation aircraft capable of performing ground attack missions led to the introduction of the Junkers J.I. Developed in early 1917, it was the world's first all-metal aircraft produced in quantity. Eliminating the need for external bracing wires, the fuselage, wings and tail were constructed of Duralumin while *the engine and two-man crew were protected by a nose-capsule of 5-mm chrome-nickel sheet-steel*. Although this unique design resulted in a strong and durable aircraft capable of surviving the effects of enemy ground fire, the Junkers J.I was heavy, cumbersome and took forever to get off the ground. The only surviving example of the J.I biplane was sent to Canada in 1919 and is now part of the National Aviation Museum's collection.



There were also the Halberstadts, which which were very successful in harassing Allied troops from the Spring of 1918 until the end of the war.
http://www.wwiaviation.com/German_2seaters.shtml





Halberstadt CL-II
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWhalberstadt.htm





Halberstadt CL-IV
http://www.wwi-models.org/Photos/Ger/Halb_ClIV/


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

They weren't what became known as "Blitzkrieg" they were merely effective uses of new weapons. It'd take me a long time to explain "Blitzkrieg" so just go buy Achtung! Panzer! it's not that expensive.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 27, 2005)

I know, thats why I said some of the Blitzkreig tactics could be seen towards the end of WW1.

These are some of the missing elements:

-a relatively narrow front of advance
-encirclement and trapping of large armies
-distraction attacks to create a sense of a relatively huge front of attack and hence panic
-reaching and capturing the capital city as soon as possible
-excellent coded radio communication between land, naval and air forces
-dedicated tank escort troops
-superb close air support with agile fighterbombers able to carry a relatively large bombload
-tanks with a good balance of speed, armour and firepower
-motorized, accurate artillery which can keep up with the advance
-accurate long range infantry weapons (for example MG34), accurate mortars, rifle grenades
-avoid sending tanks into urban areas/thick vegetation
-all round infantry weapons (later it was assault rifles such as the MP44, earlier it was a mix of submachine guns and rifles)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

Really, man, go buy Achtung! Panzer!

_"-a relatively narrow front of advance"_

Wrong! The attack needs to be on a wide front, in great depth to avoid enemy flanking attacks. 

_"-encirclement and trapping of large armies"_

Correct.

_"-distraction attacks to create a sense of a relatively huge front of attack and hence panic"_

Wrong. Blitzkrieg requires surprise but does not have distraction written into the doctrine. The false moves by the Wehrmacht in _Fall Gelb_ were merely an idea of the German General Staff, not a part of the "Blitzkrieg" doctrine. 

_"-reaching and capturing the capital city as soon as possible"_

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Blitzkrieg is based on the idea to fight over land, not for it. The idea is to capture/destroy the enemies army, not their cities. Paris was never an objective in _Fall Gelb_. 

_"-excellent coded radio coomunication between land, naval and air forces"_

Communication is a vital part of any war effort. Blitzkrieg states close co-operation between every arm of service. 

_"-dedicated tank escort troops"_

There are no "tank escort troops" what you are refering to is the infantry as a whole. Blitzkrieg states close co-operation and support for the tank from infantry. 

_"-superb close air support with agile fighterbombers able to carry a relatively large bombload"_

Again, it's merely close co-operation. The supporting Air Force must be able to conduct raids close to their own forces. The specifications of the aircraft is something for the designer to consider.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

Was hearing on Clash of Wings the other day very few air forces even worked in close conjunction with the army, Great Britain specifically mentioned notably. The USSR apparently treated their air force as an extension of the artillery corps but this brought about its own problems, though it gave rise to the prominance of the namesake to my favorite game, Sturmovik and it was an effective enough tactic that German soldiers apparently called the IL2 the "black death." Plus anyone who puts cute chicks in fighter cockpits can't be all bad.

Anyway they were also mentioning German tanks were in direct communication with individual Stuka pilots and thus could call precision strikes at will. The narrator calls it an early "smart weapon" in effect. I can easily see the point of view and liked the appraisal.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

I have never heard that German tanks were in contact with the individual pilots. It seems a little over the top, to be honest. What the German units did have though was an air liasion officer attached to every unit. 

The RAF provided many close support operations, especially in Burma. So, the specific mention of Britain is just plain wrong.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 27, 2005)

> _"-a relatively narrow front of advance"_
> 
> Wrong! The attack needs to be on a wide front, in great depth to avoid enemy flanking attacks.



Sorry, I meant many attacks along a wide front, but each of the spearheads is relatively narrow, with ground units and aircraft on the flanks to provide protection



> _"-reaching and capturing the capital city as soon as possible"_
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong! Blitzkrieg is based on the idea to fight over land, not for it. The idea is to capture destroy the enemies army, not their cities. Paris was never an objective in _Fall Gelb_.



I meant capturing the capital after the rival armies had been destroyed, surrounded and captured or had fled



> _"-dedicated tank escort troops"_
> 
> There are no "tank escort troops" what you are refering to is the infantry as a whole. Blitzkrieg states close co-operation and support for the tank from infantry.



I know, I was referring to the Panzer Grenadiers, who seemed to specialise in escorting the Panzers


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

The main axis of attack was the punch and the most powerful units attacked there. 

The capital is never important unless it has some industrial or transport base. The only reason Moscow was an objective during Operation Barbarossa was because it had a massive transport network, it was a rail and road center. Capturing Moscow would have increased German transport while decreasing the Soviet movement of reserves. Cast the idea of the capital being important because it just isn't. 

Panzer Grenadiers were merely infantry inside Panzer Divisions, that's all. They weren't any better or worse than normal infantry.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 27, 2005)

> The only reason Moscow was an objective during Operation Barbarossa was because it had a massive transport network, it was a rail and road center.



Yeah, I heard that apparently a huge proportion of Soviet factories were in the Moscow area, which seems like putting all your eggs in one basket



> Panzer Grenadiers were merely infantry inside Panzer Divisions, that's all. They weren't any better or worse than normal infantry.



I didn't think they were any better than other infantry, I was just saying that tanks depended on infantry protection and vice versa


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

Soviet factories were located all over the western part of the Soviet Union. That's what the Wehrmacht hoped to capture and crush; the industrial heart of the Soviet Union. 

They are just not "tank escort troops" as you called them. They just support the armour like all infantry does. It is close co-operation between man and machine, that is all.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

I'd never heard of the direct panzer communication either before seeing this recent documentary series, Clash of Wings. It's presented well, the German aircraft by Ekhard Tolkhan (sp?), and its assertions clear and unambiguous.

It makes good tactical sense, considering the relative lightness of Germany's early war tanks and yet their importance in Wehrmacht strategy. It also displays the nature of the often remarked, unusually close relationship between Luftwaffe and ground forces, when as you mention, other air forces certainly did provide ground support...so what was the difference? According to this circa. 2000 documentary the Stukas were in direct individual contact with panzers, who called pinpoint strikes at will.
"..it was in a sense, a smart-weapon," to quote Ekhard.

As for England, their British narrator asserts a lack of cooperation between ground units and the RAF, giving examples of different doctrines and strategic approaches directly in competition with each other. And of course we know the competition even between individual field commands within the RAF during the BoB, but this was played off well by HC.
I'm not challenging the exemplary and pioneering centralised organisation of the RAF, don't get me wrong. It wasn't until 1942 I think, Germany replicated it in the Luftwaffe.

However the closest direct comparison to such air force/ground forces closeness might be the USSR's doctrine that the air force was an extension of the artillery corps, but this left their interceptor, escort, bomber and fighter squadrons playing catchup to the very well equipped ground attack classes at the start of the Great Patriotic War.
As far as I know even the so named US Army Air Force regarded itself as prone to completely seperate tactical organisation from ground forces.

GB, the US, France and other nations were apparently often at odds between what their air force and army commanders thought was the best way to go about any given objective.

It all sounds very plausable to me...nice simple facts that all by themselves would work precisely as the historical example.

Who knows?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2005)

There was always inter-service rivalry, that is true. Definately in Burma though the RAF *had* to be there when and where the ground forces needed them. The Chindits and Marauders would not have been able to survive without close air support and air drops. 

In 1944-'45, over NW-Europe, the RAF and USAAF had aircraft circling constantly just waiting for ground troops to request assistance. Once it had been called six or so aircraft would swoop down to area and "give 'em hell".


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

I do somewhat agree with you D, although the 1944-45 incidence can easily be attributed to the total air superiority allies enjoyed.
It has been stated, "...their numbers were so great fighter-bombers literally had to wait in line to attack targets."
It may be equally likely strict air force targets took precedence over reactive ground support...but since some are just waiting around...

Would it be fair to say at the beginning of the war the Luftwaffe was one of the few air forces in western Europe which practised a determinedly reactive ground support as a primary objective, to good effect?

I mean I wouldn't go so far as to say the allies were stagnant tactically, throughout the war by any measure. Quite the contrary, I place many of them in precisely the same basket as I do Nazis and Stalinists in any capacity.

WW2 Germany definitely had the best looking array of uniforms though. Wide shouldered Field Marshalls in leather signing the VE treaty in front of cap wearing scots, it's almost a shame not to see them punch 'em in the mouth and then sign. Just kidding.

Whilst axis and allied powers are much of a muchness in political ends, I observe they most certainly aren't on the tactical battlefield.
It would appear we have fundamentally oppositional outlooks, you and I.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

It certainly would be fair. The Luftwaffe was based around the sole purpose of ground support. In fact, it was so perfectly tuned to that role that when it came to change to a strategic bomber campaign, it failed. 

On that though, the RAF were one of, if not, the most well-rounded air force of the Second World War. The RAF served in every theatre, in every role, with every kind of aircraft and they did it well. The vast array of equipment the RAF had, along with tactical prowess allowed them to conduct any kind of operation.


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

Well except for sustained daylight bombing (which the US could probably only do by attrition anyway), and I think they got their precision bombsights from the US, but the bomber campaign was a carpet one...

Anyway you're right, the RAF was simply a better strategic organisation than the Luftwaffe. Due to the nature of the war I don't seriously think any military force involved could be understated.
You'd all be married to frighteningly muscular women named Helga and sending your kids to "white" school if it wasn't for the RAF. Now maybe things are different in the land where even the stones stand on end due to the cold, but I like my women slight and friendly.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

The wonderful creation; the P-51 kept the daylight offensive alive for the USAAF. It's something that the RAF never had in large enough numbers to secure a place in daylight raids. That said, by the time the Mustang arrived it had already been agreed; RAF by night, USAAF by day. 

The RAF had bombsights good enough to do the job. The problem was navigation and the RAF soon developed aids to help them with that.


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

love the underfuselage radome on lancs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

vanir said:


> You'd all be married to frighteningly muscular women named Helga



Hey now my wife is not named Helga and she is actually small and petit like most German women.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

and yes i agree, the H2S radome is very attractive, and all our bombsights were out own, the problems with bombing accuracy came about from navigation, not the bomb sights...........


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

Don't forget that the weather also played a part in bomb accuracy before the H2S


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

yes that's true, all i'm trying to say is that before H2S, most of the reason so few of our bombs were on target was because so few found the target!! if the bomber made it to the target, he was pretty cirtain to hit it, you can't really miss a city if you're over it........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

It was only precision targets that were missed, when on city bombing missions even in the early days they were hitting the target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Exactly unless you are trying for a precision target it is pretty hard to miss it, hense precision.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It certainly would be fair. The Luftwaffe was based around the sole purpose of ground support. In fact, it was so perfectly tuned to that role that when it came to change to a strategic bomber campaign, it failed.



It wasn't so much because the Luftwaffe was perfectly tuned to ground support, it was because Goering refused to have any four engined bombers and because General Walther Wever, a strong four engine bomber supporter, was killed in an air crash before the war, so ending the four engine bomber program. If these bombers had entered service before WW2, then they would have needed a long range escort fighter, which General Walther Wever may have insisted upon. Together, these could then form a 'long range command' in the Luftwaffe, which was equipped with four engined heavy bombers. As the Allied heavy bombers over Caen showed, close support of ground forces with relatively high altitude heavy bombers is not exactly a good idea, so this 'long range command' would be used for raids on factories.
Basically the Luftwaffe could easily have had both excellent close air support aircraft and a good long range force, but the death of General Wever and Goering's idiocy prevented this. And this, along with Hitler refusing Doenitz's demand for 300 U boats before the war, and the delay of Operation Barbarossa, thankfully cost Hitler the war.






Junkers Ju 89

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju89.html



> Developed as part of General Walther Wever's Ural bomber program, the Ju 89 proved to be far more capable than it's primary competitor the Do 19. Though this aircraft had impressive potential, support for the long range heavy bomber program died with Gen. Wever. The Ju 89 prototypes were eventually used as test beds and to set records but the development program was terminated on April 29, 1937.



Has a passing resemblance to the Lancaster don't you think?













http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/junkers/ju89.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 1, 2005)

Yeah it does a bit...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2005)

No it doesn't. And the fact that the Luftwaffe didn't have heavy bombers proves my point exactly. The Luftwaffe were too finely tuned to ground support roles instead of being well-rounded like the USAAF and RAF.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 1, 2005)

Yet more proof of how Hitler and Goering were their own worst enemies


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

that doesn't really look like the lanc............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 1, 2005)

I think it does.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 1, 2005)

The Dornier Do19, primary competitor the Junkers Ju 89, looks sort of like a Lancaster with Hercules radials





Dornier Do 19
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/do19.html

Both the Ju 89 and the Do 19 first flew in 1936

If Speer had used the distributed manufacture system before the war/ early in the war, then the Luftwaffe could have had hundreds of these in service by 1940/1941.
The Junkers Ju 89 was the favourite, and with better engines would have been better than the Heinkel He177/277 with its crap dual engine design


----------



## Smokey (Aug 1, 2005)

goddamn double post


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

actually that looks more like the stirling........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 1, 2005)

Yeah that is Stirling-esqe. But much uglier


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

yes


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

So what would have happened if those heavy bombers made it into the war? They'd be shot down by Spitfires and Jugs and we'd be talking about how unprotected and poor performing they were? Or how they were the next biggest Luftwaffe mistake and it would've all been different if only they'd...

I'm guessing some of us would only be happy if the Luftwaffe used Spits and Lancs like the rest of us. Damn commie bastards. I mean fascists.


----------



## vanir (Aug 1, 2005)

I've got one. What if Brits never believed in aircraft. At all. They just said sometime in the 30's, "Oh nobody could possibly win a war with aircraft. None that couldn't get past our mighty anti-aircraft guns and stolid British resolve."
?

No Spit. No Hurricane. No Lancaster. Just lots of new battleships.

But...Frank Whittle invented the guided missile in 1938 instead of the Jet engine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2005)

a similer idea was being proposed in the 60s, a purely missile defence of Britian, the lightening however porved that they still needed intercepters 

and the british stiff upper lip is powerfull enough to bring down any foe who is unfortunate to gaze upon it!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

Frank Whittle invented the jet engine in the early 20s.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 2, 2005)

The amazing thing is that the Luftwaffe did NOT have a long range force. If Hitler and Goering planned to invade the Soviet Union at some point, surely it was obvious that long range bombers and escort fighters were needed?
It is the extreme idiocy of Hitler and Goering that is so amazing in this case.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

It wasn't idiocy. The Soviet destruction would be on the ground, the Luftwaffe needed to be able to support the ground forces. Heavy bombers are only required when you need to strike long distances or across areas that your ground forces cannot reach. 

The Luftwaffe only needed to support the Heeres during Operation Barbarossa. Heavy bombers were not needed against the Soviet Union because the ground forces could have reached the factories and production facilities. 

That is to say, if Hitler hadn't messed with the strategic planning. 

The only time the Luftwaffe would have needed heavy bombers was against Britain during the Battle of Britain. The only reason the USAAF and RAF had massive amounts of heavy bombers was because we were striking at the enemy while being unable to use our ground forces against them.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 2, 2005)

It is interesting how the jet engine developed. Henri Coanda's 1910 aircraft is intriuging. If this had been developed further, when would jet aircraft have entered service?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Coanda


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2005)

That's an overly complicated engine. A mix of piston and jet technology, it's just senseless but I'm sure it provided good lessons for the future. It wouldn't have gone any further with the study of that engine, they needed a proper jet engine. 

Plus, design technology can only advance as far as the materials available to mankind will allow it.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 2, 2005)

Yeah, but it's a shame that there wasn't more attention paid to it, someone could have come up with the idea of a gas turbine. I think nickel was availble at the time. 
At least we had the cool prop planes of the 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Im with Plan_D on the fact that the Germans were too dependent on ground support rather than strategic bombing. It was Hitler who said that all aircraft had to be able to perform dive bombing duties.


----------



## vanir (Aug 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Frank Whittle invented the jet engine in the early 20s.


In 1928 he submitted the idea of a "sleeved propeller engine for high altitude performance," as part of a thesis to RAF college.
In 1929 he further developed the idea, proposing a gas turbine to provide "thrust."
In 1930 he applied for a patent for a "reaction motor suitable for aircraft propulsion," it was granted in 1932. The relatively incomplete idea was proposed to and ignored by the Air Ministry at this time.
1934 attended Cambridge and was encouraged to pursue his idea.
1936 begins a development company called "Power Jets Ltd." with collegues. Germany begins development of turbojet engines at Junkers and Heinkell.
1937 first test of an experimental bench model, the WU at PJL. (I would personally place an independant body's invention of a jet engine at this event, that is my opinion or else perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci invented it in one of his sketchings and everybody's just been following his work).
1939 the Air Ministry awards a contract to PJL for engines to power a Gloster prototype.
1941 Gloster E28-39, first British jet-powered prototype aircraft flies.


Certainly jet aircraft prototypes could have been operational in England well prior to 1941, however the Air Ministry seemed oblivious to the impending war in terms of funding ideas. It's a social class thing I'm sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2005)

Every country has problems with its government getting involved with projects but no one topped the Germans with letting Hitler run every aspect of the militaries weapons development. If you were not in favor with the Nazi heirarchy you stuff got denied and turned down.


----------



## vanir (Aug 6, 2005)

I'm unconvinced an oligarchy is better than fascism, since I feel the only real difference is the institution of a dictatorship. We'd probably need to discuss the merits of either in the political forum.
Needless to say it was simply an observation that if Whittle was Sir Frank before the success of his invention, England could very well have been equipping Meteors for the Battle of Britain. This was the "what if" thread?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2005)

Interesting point you make but I dont think that Meteors would have been ready for the Battle of Britain. 1943 maybe but not the battle of britain. The concept was still quit new.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 9, 2005)

I find the role of Turkey in WW1 and WW2 really interesting.

In WW1 there was the Gallipoli disaster which failed due to crap maps and amazingly slow movement on the part of some British officers after they made unopposed landings while other landing parties found steep terrain and determined resistance.
If the Gallipoli landings were successful then it MAY have led to huge numbers of French and UK troops landing in Turkey and this new front in the Balkans MAY have caused the German and Austro Hungarian high commands to sign a peace treaty.....in early/mid 1915!!!!
The failure must have haunted Churchill who was involved in the planning.

In WW2 the wise Turkish leader signed secret alliance pacts with everyone (an obvious and old tactic ) and maintained neutrality.
Were'nt there British forces occupying Iraq? After December 1941 US, UK and even a small Soviet force (for diplomatic reasons) could have used Turkey as a back door and......opened another front on the Balkans.
Hitler would be in deep shit as alot of his forces were on the Eastern Front and it seems that his forces in Yugoslavia seem to have already been fighting a Vietnam style war against guerilla resistance forces.

Here is a list of treaties which President Inönü of Turkey signed to avoid occupation/war in Turkey:

Turkey - During WW2

“If one defines a successful foreign policy as the pursuit of national interest, then President Inönü‘s conduct of Turkish diplomacy during World War 2 must be judged a triumph. Resisting pressures for an alliance by both the Allies and the Axis, Inönü guided his country along a cautious path of friendly neutrality until the outcome of the war was decided.” William L. Cleveland

* 13 October 1939: After the treaty between USSR and Germany was signed (23 August 1939), President Inönü singed a treaty with France and Great Britain and obtained financial help.
* 25 March 1941: Turkey signed a treaty with the USSR which guaranteed that the USSR would not attack Turkey.
* June 1941: A few days before Germany declared war on the USSR, Turkey signed a treaty with Germany which guaranteed that Germany would not attack Turkey.
* 23 February 1945: Turkey declared war on Germany, and later on Japan, three months before the armistice.
* 24 October 1945: Turkey entered the United Nations.

Turkey seems to have received 3 spitfire 1s in 1940 but obviously buying huge numbers of fighters could have provoked a reaction from Hitler, though he needed all his forces for Barbarossa and invasion/occupation of Turkey would have been a huge drain on the German military.

Heres a site on this subject:
http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/ww2_0998.htm

According to this thread Turkey was



> reasonably strong on their own and more important, were within
> reach of support by the Western Allies.


http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-54399.asp

So you can see why Hitler wanted to avoid invasion/occupation of Turkey, it would have weakened his forces on the Eastern Front.

The thing is, when things were really going bad for the Axis in 1942, why wasn't a secret deal struck with Inönü to allow a huge allied force into Turkey from where they could open a second front in the Balkans and screw Hitler?
Was it because many Turkish leaders hated the British Empire?
What was the situation in Iraq in WW2? There must have been very strong hatred of the British military for the bombings in Iraq in the 20s. Churchill wanted harmless gases used instead of bombs to put down a freedom force who had risen against the occupying British military in the 1920s.

Surely by 1943 with Rommel defeated this front could have been opened? Or would it have created another Italian Front, with the Allied forces making very slow progress through the tree covered hills of Yugoslavia and arid/mountainous terrain of Greece?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes the British were in Iraq and in Iran during WW2. That is one reason why there were able to hold the Tehran Conference there between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill.


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 15, 2005)

The British weren't liked too much in Iraq though, there was an uprising there led by someone called AliRashid (I think). They besieged the RAF base of Habbaniya which was only equipped with 1920s era planes but they survived


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 24, 2005)

> If you were not in favor with the Nazi heirarchy you stuff got denied and turned down.



The Horton brothers were liked by Goering but not Gotha  .

Anyway I may have mentioned this before, but Riley WW2 Aero-engines had DOHC's per bank and 4v per cylinder (worth a lot of hp).

'What if' the Merlin had them? 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 25, 2005)

Question, if the Ju89 and Do19 were produced and they had a fighter to go with them, that would be say one like the Me410 or a development from it, they could have had the arms to cross the Urals. This would have ment to dalat the war. And really if they stayed out of Poland It might have been 1941 before they had to fight. AS said earlier, this has been a grand read


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

I am reading a good book about the German Long Range bomber program. The program was plauged by everying imaginable and would not get off the ground. One thing that it covers is the fact that Germany had several good designs but since they had a range of only about 10000 to 13000 km they were rejected and told to continue development of them to find a way to get the range to 15000 km or more. Supposadly to reach the US Eastern Coast. If they had further developed these aircraft maybe but they did not obviously.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

I dont think the Intercontinental bomber idea of the 40's was well thought out.

To fly 10,000 km, sustain battle damage and then expect to fly back to friendly territory is a bit optimistic.

Look at how bad Iwo Jima was needed for the damaged B29's, fighting over essentially undefended Japanese airspace.

Id say that Germany flying missions against the USA would have quickly become cost prohibitive. Same as if we flew B36's against them.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

It is indeed a tall order for the technology of the time. 

The other problem they had with Iwo Jima is that the Japanese had 2 fighter bases there that could harass the B-29s on the way to and the way back from their raids over Japan. Having a place to land in an emergency was definitely a big plus. 

For the Germans, it would have been really treacherous. There was no place for emergencies and they obviously would have to have flown south of England to avoid a nest of fighters. It was wishful thinking, IMO.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Sep 11, 2005)

I always heard the Gallipoli Campaign failed because of the terrain. The maps were bad, but even with bad maps the defenders had terrain that was perfect for defense. Why wouldn't you want to open a front in the Balkans? Terrain. Its mountains. Too easily defended with a small force. Plus the supply lines would have been pretty nasty. 

Look at how long it took the allies to move north in Italy trying to get through the mountains. It was too difficult, too easily defended. 

I don't think the Balkans would have ever been a viable front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think the Intercontinental bomber idea of the 40's was well thought out.
> 
> To fly 10,000 km, sustain battle damage and then expect to fly back to friendly territory is a bit optimistic.
> 
> ...



I agree I doubt anything would have seriously come about it, especially considering the situation they were in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 13, 2005)

and they wouldn't do huge ammounts of damage would they, do to serious damage they'd need thousands of these bombing being launched almost every night, which even america would struggle to maintain!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Alright, seriously now... 

...what if...



...I hadn't had my cups of tea this morning?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 13, 2005)

you'd look like CC........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

You mean minibloke?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Hahaha.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 13, 2005)

ROFL!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and they wouldn't do huge ammounts of damage would they, do to serious damage they'd need thousands of these bombing being launched almost every night, which even america would struggle to maintain!



That I completely agree with. In the book I am reading about this subject, there was a briefing between Messerschmitt and the RLM and he said he could turn out 2 of the aircraft a month. That is only 24 a year and that would do nothing.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

> What if I hadn't had my cups of tea this morning?



Dunno 'bout you, I'd die myself.

Hey remember that Riley I was telling you about?

Well it was 150 bhp per litre sans 4v per cyl (supercharged).

27* x 150 = 4,050bhp!!

With 4v per cylinder????

- I'll work it out later.

*Merlin was 27 litre, right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> You mean minibloke?



What if I hadnt publicised that email? 

I should have put my US Marines email up...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

US Marines?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2005)

yes, you can set up an account with them, like hotmail or AOL, and you get a @usmarines.com email adress or summit like that..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

O brother and CC has one?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2005)

i dunno he said he was getting one- like i say i don't know......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

[email protected] 8)  I should really check it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

CC you are such a poser!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

Why?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 15, 2005)

i never realised you actually went through with it........


----------



## evangilder (Sep 15, 2005)

Usmarines.com is not the official USMC website though. That would be www.usmc.mil.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeah but then people think he is affiliated.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 19, 2005)

Exactly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

god CC your new siggy really doesn't look real......


----------



## starfish1 (Nov 19, 2005)

How easy to do a blitz thru France if the Fr/Brit/Belgians etc had thousands and thousands of these?Just curious.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

thousands of what?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2005)

Questions marks? Maybe they had to just keep asking the Wehrmacht "Why?" over and over again to irritate them into submission.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2005)

> Post subject: bazooka had been fully developed pre-war[/img]
> 
> Maybe he means that...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2005)

That would have been interesting, if they had an effective personal AT weapon in the early war years. But it wouldn't have stopped the German advance through the West. Most of the attacks were across open land, no where for the infantry to hide. The Wehrmacht was just too fast for the Allies who, aside from the British, were thinking in terms of World War I positional warfare. 

The French thought it best to stay in their fortifications, along with the Belgians. None had studied Napoleon, I assume, because he stated "He who stays in his fortifications, loses."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Here's an interesting What-if?
What if the Germans had gotten their jet going a little earlier? The Heinkel He 178 that is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Which Jet? They had many. I do not think it would have changed the outcome of the war any. The allies were pummeling the German production capability and the engines on the Me-262 (I presume that is the one you are talking about ) were not very reliable. Now if they could have gotten the Ta-183 and the Messerschmitt P.1011 as early as lets say 1943 then maybe they could have done something.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

it'd be interesting anyhow to see an early jet fight against a prop


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

It happened. There were plenty of Me-262 v. P-51D fights.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

That's not what my history teacher told me.. he said the jet did fly during WWII, but never entered combat. Maybe I should get an award for "most misinformed".. or just "most clueless"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I do not mean to be abbrasive here to you, and I do not wish to offend you here but the Me-262 saw combat in WW2. Your History Teacher is full of shit and you can tell him that I said that. I will give you my address if you like so he can write me and I can tell him personally.

The Me-262 shot down numerous B-17's, B-24's and P-51D's. Not only did the Me-262 see combat, the He-162 also saw combat, and so did the Ar-232 jet bomber. The Me-163 even though it was not a jet but rather a rocket plane also saw combat and shot down allied aircraft. The British Meteor also saw combat even though it did not see air to air. It attacked some German convoys I believe over Belgium.

The Me-262 shot down about 150 aircraft in WW2. On March 18, 1945 alone Me-262's shot down 12 bombers and 1 fighter.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Impressive!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Well I hope you can learn some real stuff here not the propaganda stuff that floats around on the internet and history teachers as i your case.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2005)

before you go any further on the site is there anything that we can prove your history teacher wrong on? he better not've insulted the lancaster or i'd personally come over there and bitch slap into the middle of next week


----------



## starfish1 (Nov 21, 2005)

is the story of churchill being in the Nelson when a type 2 tried to torpedo it accurate?what if the germ had good torpedos(like the long lance)I know the lance was 24 inch dia.not 21 inch like germ torp.but couldn't they modify their subs for this?what effect overall for the period before spring 43 when u-boats crushed by allied ASW????


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

As a history teacher, tell him or her the same thing. Gawd, it just gets my panties in a wad when I hear of teachers doing this crap! I may not know every little aspect of WWII but I can at least teach the basics correctly and truthfully and if I have a doubt I research. 

GRRRRRR  

:{)




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not mean to be abbrasive here to you, and I do not wish to offend you here but the Me-262 saw combat in WW2. Your History Teacher is full of sh*t and you can tell him that I said that. I will give you my address if you like so he can write me and I can tell him personally.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

That borders on the criminal, IMO. To teach such misinformation is a disserrvice to history.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

i remember getting into a bit of a debate with my history teacher infront of the class over which was better, the Pz. kpwf IV or the T-34-85, the debate stoped when the head of year walked in, the teacher told him the disscussion and he says "the T-34? that was a russian tank wasn't it? that's as much as i know on the subject", me and CC couldn't help but correct our teacher when he was trying to teach us about the battle of britain .........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2005)

I dont remembere that at all...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

SUperflanker37 said:


> That's not what my history teacher told me.. he said the jet did fly during WWII, but never entered combat. Maybe I should get an award for "most misinformed".. or just "most clueless"



Print this out for your history teacher....

DESCRIPTION: 
The historic Me 262 Schwalbe (Swallow) was the first jet-powered aircraft ever to see combat. The project began in 1938 when Messerschmitt was called upon to design a new fighter powered by two gas turbine engines being developed by B.M.W. The configuration eventually chosen featured a sleek streamlined fuselage with the two podded engines carried beneath a low-mounted wing. 
Although the airframe was ready to fly by 1941, the early B.M.W. turbojet engines were well behind schedule due to prolonged development delays. German designers instead chose to make the first flights using a single piston engine located in the nose. These early flights confirmed the good handling characteristics of the Me 262 and allowed other systems to be tested until the jet engines were finally ready a year later. Being conservative, the designers decided to keep the piston engine in the nose as a backup. Luckily, this move paid off. On its first jet-powered flight, the Me 262 had barely become airborne using the combined power of all three engines when both jets failed. The auxiliary piston engine provided just enough power to make a safe landing, thereby saving the plane for future testing. 

It is a common misconception that the Me 262 might have won the war if Adolf Hitler had not delayed the project by insisting the aircraft be used as a bomber. Though this demand did play a role, as did the indifference of key Luftwaffe leaders, it was continuing problems developing the jet engines that provided the greatest impediment to the program. However, Junkers had finally developed engines of sufficient power and reliability by late 1943 to make the new fighter feasible. 

The Luftwaffe began committing the remarkable Me 262A-1a to combat in mid-1944 when air defense squadrons were pitted against the columns of heavy bombers making daily raids on German cities and military targets. Later models included the Me 262A-2a Sturmvogel (Stormbird) bomber and the Me 262B two-seat night fighter carrying an early form of airborne radar. 

Despite being well-armed with 30-mm cannons and air-to-air rockets, the Me 262 was simply too little too late to turn the tide of war in Germany's favor. Maintaining production was difficult due to Allied attacks on industrial centers, and many aircraft were destroyed on the ground or shot down because of poor pilot training. The few that did see action may have outclassed their Allied opponents in terms of speed, but several were lost to the superior numbers and better maneuverability of enemy piston-powered fighters. 

A total of about 1,430 examples of the Me 262 were ultimately built, though only about 300 ever saw combat. Many of the survivors were captured by the victorious Allies and used to help jumpstart the blossoming jet age. 

Data below for Me 262A-1a
Last modified 14 November 2004 



HISTORY: 
First Flight 18 April 1941 (with piston engine)
25 March 1942 (with jet engines) 
Service Entry 

30 June 1944 


CREW: (Me 262A) 1 pilot
(Me 262B) 1 pilot and 1 radar officer 


ESTIMATED COST: 

unknown 


AIRFOIL SECTIONS: 
Wing Root NACA 00011-0.825-35 
Wing Tip 

NACA 00009-1.1-40 


DIMENSIONS: 
Length 34.79 ft (10.60 m) 
Wingspan 40.96 ft (12.48 m) 
Height 12.58 ft (3.84 m) 
Wing Area 233.58 ft2 (21.70 m2) 
Canard Area 

not applicable 


WEIGHTS: 
Empty (Me 262A-1a) 8,380 lb (3,800 kg)
(Me 262B-1a) 9,700 lb (4,400 kg) 
Typical Load 14,110 lb (6,400 kg) 
Max Takeoff 15,720 lb (7,130 kg) 
Fuel Capacity 635 gal (2,400 L) 
Max Payload 

at least 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) 


PROPULSION: 
Powerplant two Junkers Jumo 004B-1/-2/-3 axial turbojets 
Thrust 3,968 lb (17.7 kN) 


PERFORMANCE: 
Max Level Speed at altitude:
(Me 262A-1a) 540 mph (870 km/h) at 19,685 ft (6,000 m)
(Me 262A-2a) 470 mph (755 km/h)
(Me 262B-1a) 495 mph (800 km/h)
at sea level: 515 mph (825 km/h) 
Initial Climb Rate 3,935 ft (1,200 m) / min 
Service Ceiling 37,565 ft (11,450 m) 
Range 565 nm (1,050 km) 
g-Limits unknown 


ARMAMENT: 
Gun (Me 262A-1a) four 30-mm MK 108 cannons (two w/100 rds ea, two w/80 rds ea)
(Me 262B-2a) some equipped with one 50-mm MK 114 cannon 
Stations two external hardpoints 
Air-to-Air Missile none 
Air-to-Surface Missile none 
Bomb (Me 262A-2a) up to two 1,100 lb (500 kg) bombs 
Other (Me 262A-1b) up to 24 55-mm R4/M rockets
(Me 262B-2a) up to 48 55-mm R4/M rockets 


KNOWN VARIANTS: 
Me 262 V1 First prototype initially fitted with a piston engine to test flight characteristics, later fitted with two B.M.W. 003 turbojets 
Me 262 V2 through V12 Test aircraft 
Me 262A-0 Preproduction aircraft 
Me 262A-1a Schwalbe Production single-seat fighter interceptor fitted with four cannons in the nose 
Me 262A-1b Single-seat interceptor fitted with R4M air-to-air rockets 
Me 262A-2a Sturmvogel Single-seat bomber based on the Me 262A-1a 
Me 262A-5a Reconnaissance model 
Me 262B-1a Two-seat trainer 
Me 262B-1a/U1 Early two-seat night fighter equipped with a radar in the nose 
Me 262B-2a Improved two-seat night fighter 
Me 262C Test aircraft fitted with rocket-assisted takeoff gear; 3 built 


*KNOWN COMBAT RECORD: 

World War II (Germany, 1944-1945) 


KNOWN OPERATORS: 

Germany *


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

CC said:


> I dont remembere that at all...



well ok maybe not infront of the whole class, but a few people heard 


and print this out for your history teacher too:

The Avro 683 Lancaster was the best heavy bomber to see service over Europe or at night during WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

Lanc, do you have the hiccups too?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

not my fault, the site wasn't working great at the time as CC will testify........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not my fault, the site wasn't working great at the time as CC will testify........



I think you and CC are hitting the bubbly!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

CC's more inclined to dring bubble bath than anything alcoholic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> CC's more inclined to dring bubble bath than anything alcoholic



He seems to like those girly wine coolers?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

oh god yeah he likes alco-pops too!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh god yeah he likes alco-pops too!



My god, I think he needs a night out with Plan D, but wait, be sure to have him wear his motorcycle helmet!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

or just send him into a country pub full of cider and beer drinking farmers armed to the theeth with pitch forks and shotguns and watch as he orders a bicardi breezer


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> or just send him into a country pub full of cider and beer drinking farmers armed to the theeth with pitch forks and shotguns and watch as he orders a bicardi breezer



That would be funny! CC might even find a wife (or something) very quickly!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

he wouldn't find a wife, the one woman in there would be indistingishable from a man and would be the first to punch him in the face


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2005)

I'll then pull out an MP-5 I got from...somewhere....and take them all out. Or just say ok im leaving and then call in an airstrike on the bar. I wouldnt go the pub in the first place though


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 23, 2005)

Back to the What If, A question about Normandy, would the landings have been repelled if the guns on Point De hawk were in place and firing on the beaches?

With that, would it have mattered to have the German armor moving at first contact, not hours latter?


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 23, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Back to the What If, A question about Normandy, would the landings have been repelled if the guns on Point De hawk were in place and firing on the beaches?
> 
> With that, would it have mattered to have the German armor moving at first contact, not hours latter?



As far as the guns at Point Du Hoc, I have two words, Battleships. Yes a battleship would have taken longer to knock the guns out, but BB shells with airstrikes would have maybe not knocked out the guns but made them inoperable. The reason why the the Rangers landed here was really to be able to get behind the guns and do a blocking position behind the guns.

As far as the armour, with Allied air supremacy those tanks would have been sitting turtles whether the Little Corporal or not had realeased them to Rommel.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Agreed in order for the landings to have been destroyed, the Luftwaffe would have had to have shown up on D-Day.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed in order for the landings to have been destroyed, the Luftwaffe would have had to have shown up on D-Day.


Agreed Alder, and then they would have had to have been able to achieve at least parity with the Allied airforces to achieve real damage. On D-day the Luftwaffe (I think) made around 2000 sorties to the allies 15000+. For damage to be done, they would have to have shown up in numbers, which they didn't. It didn't matter where the Panzers where, what mattered was the air superioty without D-day would not have succeeded, that was once of the main reasons in the postponement of D-day to the 6th anyway below the required level of visibility required for the planes as well as poor sea conditions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

They may have done 2000 sorties on June 6, 1944 but as far as I know only 2 flights were made over the beaches. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 24, 2005)

Ja my friend. "Pips" Priller and his wingman did one strafing pass over the British beaches in thier Fw-190s. Just as an aside, in the movie the Longest Day this incident was shown but the planes were Me-108s the fav 109 impostor!

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Ja my friend. "Pips" Priller and his wingman did one strafing pass over the British beaches in thier Fw-190s. Just as an aside, in the movie the Longest Day this incident was shown but the planes were Me-108s the fav 109 impostor!
> 
> :{)



I would think the fav 109 imposter be the Ha-1112's. They have been used in many films including The Battle of Britain and Memphis Belle. They look much closer to a 109 than a 108 also.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

yes i noticed that, they were the Buchon (spelling??) great film too..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Yeap thats them Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

i know i just wasn't sure of the spelling?


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2005)

Thanks all! the Me 108 was not a bad little plane.
I just wanted to ask you wall what you thought.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

The Bf-108 was actually a great plane when used as a Liason plane or just for regular private flying. She had good performance and great flying qualities.


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 7, 2005)

Yes but it is the plane du jur to impersonate a 109 which makes my teeth itch. For example, don't tell me that Steven Spielberg did not have the budget or the moxie to have even the Hispano versions of the 109 in Last Crusade. 

It is a great plane and very similar to the 109 in look, but its not a 109! 

My two very exasperated yen.
I'm better now.

):{/ grrrrrr


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 7, 2005)

I would think the fav 109 imposter be the Ha-1112's. They have been used in many films including The Battle of Britain and Memphis Belle. They look much closer to a 109 than a 108 also.[/quote]

You have to admit though in the Battle of Britain they did look very cool. BTW, there is, at least here in the US a new edition of this movie with tons of extras, commentaries, and 5.1 dolby surround. The same thing for A Bridge to Far. Both are on my Santa list. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

I never said that the Bf-108 was a 109. I think that I said that the 1112s were the better impersonators than the 108's. Infact the only movie that I can recall 108's being used is the "Last Crusade".


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2005)

Theyre used in The Longest Day and 633 Squadron too.


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I never said that the Bf-108 was a 109. I think that I said that the 1112s were the better impersonators than the 108's. Infact the only movie that I can recall 108's being used is the "Last Crusade".



Oh I am not dis-agreeing with you. When I saw The Battle of Britain as a small child who only thought a ME-109 was a ME-109, I thought the 1112 were the bomb because I thought they were the real deal. In fact I did not like 633 squadron because of the use of the 108 and to a certain point I still don't, the book series is much better. In the longest day I can forgive them some becuase I know that during the filiming I don't think any 190's were flying then.

I am just anal when it comes to accuracy with aircraft in movies. Use the correct plane, that what a budget is for! For example in Pearl Harbor my wife had to tell me to shut up because I was relating which Zeros were real or Texan rebuilts.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Theyre used in The Longest Day and 633 Squadron too.



Sorry I forgot about those. I remember the scene now of the 108 flying down the beach.



CurzonDax said:


> Oh I am not dis-agreeing with you. When I saw The Battle of Britain as a small child who only thought a ME-109 was a ME-109, I thought the 1112 were the bomb because I thought they were the real deal. In fact I did not like 633 squadron because of the use of the 108 and to a certain point I still don't, the book series is much better. In the longest day I can forgive them some becuase I know that during the filiming I don't think any 190's were flying then.
> 
> I am just anal when it comes to accuracy with aircraft in movies. Use the correct plane, that what a budget is for! For example in Pearl Harbor my wife had to tell me to shut up because I was relating which Zeros were real or Texan rebuilts.
> 
> :{)



That is what I was saying. They use those aircraft because they have no choice but to use them because there a not a bunch of 109's or Zeros flying around today.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2005)

Thats what was so clever about The Battle Of Britain. They had a group of two or 3 Ha-1112's, He-111's etc flying together and then replicated the image several times, giving the impression of lots of planes. Easy to do with todays CGI, but for 1968 very impressive and imaginative indeed. And the remote controlled Stuka's are hilarious


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Today they just need to get computer graphics to make it happen.


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 9, 2005)

And thats what I was saying. Even when Last Crusade was made, Spileberg who is a amatuer WWII historian could have used special effects to do dogfight. I can handle that the plane that Indy flew was a Moth in Luftwaffe regalia but not the 108s. Even back then there were at least two G model 109s flying and a passell of 1112s. 

Thats what makes Pearl Harbor so great in my opinion, its because they used real planes in many of the scenes including to real 109s, one which was a G model. (no 111s were harmed in the making of this movie, they were all CGI). Even in Patton they used the Hispano versions of the 111s. Hell, in Pink Floyd's The Wall they even had the last flying Stuka in it during the Dunkirk scene. Even in 633, if they found Mosquitos they could have found 109s or 1112s.

My point on all of this is that even in the sixties the planes were available, its just the directors and producers were too lazy to search a little more for the correct aircraft of the period.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

At the time of the Last Crusade. There was only one flying Bf-109 and it was a Bf-109G and it crashed a few years ago. It was the only "real" Bf-109 that was still flying. There were several Israeli and Czech ones and they are all gone now also. As a matter of fact there are only 2 more Bf-109's being restored to flying condition right now.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> At the time of the Last Crusade. There was only one flying Bf-109 and it was a Bf-109G and it crashed a few years ago. It was the only "real" Bf-109 that was still flying. There were several Israeli and Czech ones and they are all gone now also. As a matter of fact there are only 2 more Bf-109's being restored to flying condition right now.



There is a Bf-109G in Medford Oregone that it is both restored and flyable. It even has a DB engine in it.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 29, 2005)

there is a 109 e in niagara that doesn't fly enough to please me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > At the time of the Last Crusade. There was only one flying Bf-109 and it was a Bf-109G and it crashed a few years ago. It was the only "real" Bf-109 that was still flying. There were several Israeli and Czech ones and they are all gone now also. As a matter of fact there are only 2 more Bf-109's being restored to flying condition right now.
> ...



Yeah there are now several flying Bf-109s, I was just saying at the time of the filming of the Last Crusade there was just one.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 6, 2006)

In most cases the planes needed now are not available. But you can use CGI to reproduce them. But that has its own set of problums, so we are just stuck. Unless we all want to use RC aircraft or just build new full size frames.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2006)

just use RC aircraft, what's the difference between a full sized plane at 4,000ft and a 1/8 scale plane at 500ft


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 7, 2006)

My problem with RC in movies is then you get the Stuka scene in the Battle of Britian or it looks like Gozilla movie. But still at the time of Last Crusade the technology was available to make a special effect 109, CGI was not quite there yet.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> My problem with RC in movies is then you get the Stuka scene in the Battle of Britian or it looks like Gozilla movie. But still at the time of Last Crusade the technology was available to make a special effect 109, CGI was not quite there yet.
> 
> :{)



With CGI not there yet, how else were you going to do it, in special effects other than using 108s? I think they did the best they could do.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 9, 2006)

I guess. Maybe I am being too picky. But only one year seperated Last Crusade and Memphis Belle and in the 'Belle the used 1112s. 

Still wot da 'ell brought us to this point and what does all of this have to do with "what if"? (as I beat this dead horse)

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Probably did not have the money to get 1112s.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 11, 2006)

Spielberg with no money for a budget? Thats like saying the Pope's not catholic. Okay point taken. Also after doing a little research this part of the film was filmed in Romania, logistics probably were involved too.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Logistics and Spielberg does not fork the money out for the film the studio and producing company do so.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 12, 2006)

Also point taken, I am just being picky. Still for a amature historian it must of have rankled Steven's bones not to have a 109 or even a 1112.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

I am sure it did. I am sure he would have wanted to be as accurate as possible.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 7, 2006)

Well one of the great things about the state of CGI today is that we could conceivable enjoy a combat scene with the Go 229 and a P-80 and not notice much, if any, bogus-ness. I don't care what planes they use it's cool to see the "fly" again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

That I can agree with.


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 10, 2006)

Okay time to ressurect this list: I was reading some time ago a book by Newt Gengritch called 1945, about how the Germans were trying to kill the Manhattan Project. In this book the US went to war with the Japanese not the Germans because they never declared war on the US. My question, if both the US and the Germans had continued to develop thier arms and the thier leaders naturally, as in like some of the fantasy projects that we all would like to see fly or float, would the US and Germany eventually gone to war and who would have won. (also take economics and technology into thought). Also the book does follow actual history in the ETO from 1939 to 1941. Also without a US in the Allied mix, could have Hitler defeated Russia?

:{)


----------



## Twitch (Mar 12, 2006)

Think of how vast the Western and North African commitment was in materiel and manpower invested in by Germany. With no threatening flanks the whole weight of the German armed forces would have been available to destroy Russia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

I think eventually they would have. Think about it, the cold war would have been Democracy against Faciscm. Eventually Bush would have invaded Germany!


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 6, 2006)

Bush invaiding Germany  In the spirit of the question at the top of this page, the US would have been drawn in yes latter, after Germany had beaton England, but they would have been bogged down in the east. It would then have been beaten by the Duch and Polish resistance, among others. The empire would not have held together, but might have long enouph to shake hands with Japan someplace in Burma


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 6, 2006)

If America went to war with the Japanese they would win, no questions asked, and most likely hitler would not flagrantly help the japanese in fear of bringing america into the war. By the time germany beat england amd russia, japan would have been crushed. So now you have the US with forces off the russian cost, lots of forces, and maybe even some of china, which was owned by the US. Such a strong US presense and fear of the massive german empire would most likely allow an alliance between tehe victorious americans and the battered chinese. Americas massive production and industrial capabilities would be more capable than those of the germans, even if they beat both russia and england, because they had more experienced workers, had been in place longer, and morale on the homefront was always high. Germanys empire would be in a huge pincer, on two fronts. Americas Atlantic fleet would have been supplemented by more carriers and BB;s, including Montanas (most likely) and the projects designed could have come to fruition. German forces would also have to contend with chinese borders to the russian front. Now germays massive empire would need to have occupational forces and repair damage and morale on all fronts. My vite, I would say the US would emerge the victors, along with china, and then eventually would lead to a cold war with the chinese and US.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

I thought that the Russians had already stopped the Germans in their tracks by the time America entered the war... The Allies landed in Normandy due to Stalin's charge that they were letting Russia do all the bleeding. The Western Front was opened to give the Russians some breathing room, in addition to the realization that Russia would eventually beat back Germany and unless the Allies wanted a communist-controlled Europe, they had to get in on the action.


----------



## blue swede (Apr 14, 2006)

True, but they were fighting the Allies on the Medditerranen front and were building the West wall. If these force had been freed up, according to the scenario, I believe they could have conquered the Soviets. Also the United States probably would not have been helping the Soviets with military aid.
What happens next would depend on the Germans using a liitle common sense in handling the conquered people. If done right, I think they could have won the support of the Russian people, presenting a unified bloc against the proposed Chinese/America forces.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> I thought that the Russians had already stopped the Germans in their tracks by the time America entered the war... The Allies landed in Normandy due to Stalin's charge that they were letting Russia do all the bleeding. The Western Front was opened to give the Russians some breathing room, in addition to the realization that Russia would eventually beat back Germany and unless the Allies wanted a communist-controlled Europe, they had to get in on the action.



The German army was stopped in Russia at Moscow, and by winter conditions.

The Allies always intended to invade Normandy, the quesiton was when. Stalin wanted it sooner than later. Eisenhower wisely planned the invasion for when he had the men, material and air supremecy to sucede.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 17, 2006)

Roger that, syscom. The German army ran up against General January and General February, and didn't have much better luck than Napoleon. Had America continued with its status quo in 1941, the Russians would have been able to push the Germans back eventually, albeit not as quickly as they did once the Normandy invasion happened. The winter of 1941 allowed the Russians to pack up their production factories and move them east of the Urals, out of reach of the German offensive. While this is only one side, the British still had pressure on the Western Front. The Germans couldn't abandon any of the other fronts to beef up the Russian front without weakening another.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 17, 2006)

Japan, already at war with china, mad about the border class in manchuria, and not fearing an american invasion might well defeat china and the move on to russia, because china wouldnt be getting american supplies, and it would most likely fall, opening up resources to the japanese who could pound the soviets. making it unwinnable for them...even if the japanese lost on their front, it would make needed russian forces they couldnt spare on their eastern front


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The German army was stopped in Russia at Moscow, and by winter conditions.
> 
> The Allies always intended to invade Normandy, the quesiton was when. Stalin wanted it sooner than later. Eisenhower wisely planned the invasion for when he had the men, material and air supremecy to sucede.


 That is a bit of a myth. The Russians were just as much effected by the winter as the Germans. The only Russian troops 'winter' equiped were those from Siberia.

The Spring and Fall seasons had more effect on the battles on the EF.

Should add, that the wrecking of the Russian rail system and having to be re-built to German rr guage slowed the delivery of much needed supplies.

Normandy was not the prime invasion place. The whole coast was looked at and there was thoughts of going up the under belly of Europe, Italy.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2006)

Yes. The only way Hitler succeeding in Russia are:
1.) Replace spy Dr. Richard Sorge in Japan (who supported Stalin with concrete attack plans of Japan and Germany and had some political influence on the japanese prime minister) in time 
2.) convince Japan to attack Russia instead of the US (as originally wanted and called for).
ergo:
no sibirian reinforcement in late 1941 for Moscow
military operations in 1941/early 1942 would be more difficult to cunduct for the red army, maybe that Moscow would fall, maybe that Stalin ask for armistice (as he indeed did) or he will be replaced by another one.
It remains still questionable if a joint attack on Russia would be powerful enough to defeat Russia (Japans ground forces are of questionable value and the distances are really beyond good and evil)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 18, 2006)

Questionable or not delcyros, the Japanese would have pulled men and resources from the EF which might have been the edge the Germans needed.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Japan, already at war with china, mad about the border class in manchuria, and not fearing an american invasion might well defeat china and the move on to russia, because china wouldnt be getting american supplies, and it would most likely fall, opening up resources to the japanese who could pound the soviets. making it unwinnable for them...even if the japanese lost on their front, it would make needed russian forces they couldnt spare on their eastern front



The Japanese were unlikely able to provide support to Germany with Russia under any circumstance. The US had issued an ultimatum to Japan telling them either to get out of China or face an embargo of oil. Without oil, Japan could not defeat China. The Japanese had only a few months of oil available when they attacked Pearl Harbor. To continue the fight with China, the US had to be neutralized. In addition, Japan was hesitant to engage Russia, whch agravated Hitler (he declared war on the US expecting Japan to do the same with Russia). You see, the Japanese had already engaged Russia, along the Manchuran border I believe, and had been spanked. It seems they had met a no-name Marshal called Zhukov!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 18, 2006)

yeah, but were assuming the US would not issue the Ultimatum, not wanting a war, and might not totally embargo oil. with no aid from the US china would likely fall, and her natural resources would become available to the japanese...when the russians moved production facities, the japanese had long range bombers and fighters that could disrupt this.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 21, 2006)

The japanese would not have had the oil and rubber resources without taking over american-controlled ocean territory. If not taking complete control, they would have left themselves vulnerable. Either way, the Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere included American territory. 

Even if Japan had defeated China, they wouldn't have been able to support a remote air force strong enough to impact Russia's production capability in a strategic sense.


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the Graf Spee was completed and she was a pocket battleship i believe, the Graf Zepplin was the uncompleted carrier, but i don't think it'd make much difference, we'd have sent allot of power to meet her in the atlantic if she even made the break out.........



I don't recall the Germans having a GZ battleship, the only GZ that I can remember was the airship, maybe I was too young at the time 
I do remember the airship.
The Graf Zeppelin predated the Hindenberg. which was lost due to a fire, I believe in 1936 or 37.they were airships . No airship would have fared well in WW2, they would have been very easy to destroy. They were used by the Germans in WW1, they had very limited success


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 18, 2006)

jhor9 said:


> The Graf Zeppelin predated the Hindenberg.they were airships .


Graf Zeppelin was also the name of an uncompleted German aircraft carrier, built between 1936 and 1938.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

As nonskimmer said it was an aircraft carrier that was launched but never completed. It was taken by the Russians and sank later. Here are some pics.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

jhor9 said:


> .......No airship would have fared well in WW2, they would have been very easy to destroy. They were used by the Germans in WW1, they had very limited success



The USN used them for coastal anti sub patrols.

Here's I started a thread of the blimp hangers that still exist at the decommisioned Tustin MCAS.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/tustin-blimp-base-2599.html?highlight=tustin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

They were limited in what they could do but they still had uses as in the case of the US Navy. I really dont think anyone had the idea of using them as bombers in WW2 except for maybe the Japs who did try and bomb the west coast.


----------



## Dac (May 26, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They were limited in what they could do but they still had uses as in the case of the US Navy. I really dont think anyone had the idea of using them as bombers in WW2 except for maybe the Japs who did try and bomb the west coast.



The Japanese launched thousands of balloon bombs at North American. They thought it would be possible to set the forests of the Pacific Northwest on fire and cause a lot of damage. They did start a few forest fires and a small number of people were killed by fragmentation bombs while examining crashed balloons. There was a plan to include chemical and biological weapons as part of the payload, but as far as I know they never did. The furthest one of the ricepaper balloons got was over the Rockies into Alberta.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2006)

I know thats why I said the Japanese were the only ones that thought tried it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 27, 2006)

And also why we discussed the topic in 2 different threads already......


----------



## Dac (May 28, 2006)

didn't mean to duplicate the discussion, which is the other thread?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2006)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/japanese-balloons-bats-3974.html?highlight=balloons

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/bombing-america-3805.html?highlight=balloons


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)




----------



## Dac (May 28, 2006)

Interesting article, thanks for the link.


----------

