Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Things look different from the outside to the reality inside. When I raced most considered that the class I was in was full of mad men who had no care for their own or anyone elses life. Actually everyone had a heightened sense of danger and truly dangerous nutcases were confronted. Leading up to a race everyone got more and more withdrawn into their own world, when it was over it was party time and the racers friends and girlfriends all went out for a beer. It may look "hairy" from the outside but you don't take a corner at 100MPH+ rubbing shoulders with another guy unless you have complete trust in his and your ability.
 
Last edited:
The GZ in the North Sea was in range of land based forces, in the Atlantic it had the same problems of supply and repair that all German ships did. It is only partly true that the Royal Navy would have to field two carriers, it would also have to evade engagement with various battle groups which were too big to sink with the aircraft on board the GZ.
 
For a little more "what iffery" had the British not lost two carriers due to stupidity by early 1941 the GZ would have been facing six British fast carriers, three groups of two? With the 3 old slow ones pottering around edges of the Empire (or training new pilots).

And of course, when the GZ is in port arrangements can be more flexible.
 
As with their battleships once they were in port there was a strong chance they would never leave.
 

But they did, didnt they? Which means at best 4 carriers by the end of 1940, 5 by mid 1941. Not counting maintenance and refits.

Given how hard it was to find a raider in the open GZ would have been a huge pain in the rear, at least the RN thought so, which is why they tried to bomb it even before completion.

"It is the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, which is likely to provide our most disagreeable problem. If this ship, accompanied by Bismarck or one of the Scharnhorsts, were to break out, we should have to be prepared for very serious depredations on our trade. In good weather, the aircraft carrier could reconnoitre some 20,000 square miles in one day and could hardly fail to locate some of our large convoys. Her reconnaissance would serve equally to defend the attackers from our hunting groups. This power of evasion might enable raids to be pressed to the Western Approaches, our most vulnerable area. The conclusion is that the Bismarck herself is not likely to prove the menace that would at first seem likely. It is the aircraft carrier which is going to turn the scales in favour of any raider."
 
Last edited:
Once you got into 1941 the ability of German surface units to stay hidden for long periods of time (say a week or more) in the North Atlantic diminished rather rapidly. The increase in anti-sub patrols flown by shore based aircraft saw to that, as did the replacement of short ranged, low endurance patrol planes by more capable aircraft. Granted this took a while but search radar was being fitted to aircraft in 1941.

Granted the 109s could shoot down snoopers but trading several Catalina's, Whitley's for the location of Germany's only carrier?

And nothing says "German Carrier" quite like a Message that a recon plane is under attack by a 109 1000 miles from German territory.
 
Shortround6 said:
It is docked at the secret Nazi base in Antarctica. It being sunk is a hoax.
Click to expand...
Actually it was a sort of serious question. If the Bismark and Prinz Eugen were in a group with GZ when breaking out who would leave whom and who would stay. The Bismark was damaged in the first engagement and leaking oil, after the second engagement the Prinz Eugen was let go and Bismark headed for France. It is easy to see a scenario where all three, being obliged to support each other went down together in a complete disaster.
 
I don't disagree with your highlights but the use of an accelerator was a very unusual event on RN carriers in WW2 as the aircraft could take off quite easily without them, landing was the hard part.

One observation is the number of aircraft that could be carried. As you pointed out the hanger deck is about the same size of the Ark Royal and the Fi167 is about the size of a Swordfish. What I truly don't know is if the German aircraft had folding wings, the 109T and Ju87 didn't but I don't know about the Fi167.

This would have had a major impact on the number of aircraft carried.

Another interesting fact is that the GZ was designed to use the catapults whilst landing on as a standard operation. To help with this the catapults could be used twice before being recharged. A downside is your comment that the landing on would be done under full power as if you get it wrong, your straight into the aircraft at the bow of the ship trying to launch.

The GZ had a number of features which were quite interesting
 

Actually there are conflicting reports on th 109 folding wing, it was part of the original requirement but several publications claim it was later dropped but, there are original documents stating that the folded width was 2,12m (which seems incredible) and that the de-navalized T2s had the mechanism disabled and welded.





That is indeed something they would have had to figure out once carrier trials had began, they did intend to carry simultaneous launch and recovery operations, but that seems over-optimistic and a recipe for disaster. Everything sounds great on paper.

The reliance on catapults is a bit simple to explain, a carrier running away from someone doesnt get to choose wind direction, so the requirement was for catapults capable of launching independent of the wind.

The carrier had enough compressed air capacity to launch all its fighters and stukas, with the Fieselers doing rolling take offs, after that they needed 50mins to recharge the tanks.

The RN went with armored decks, the USN and IJN with large air groups and CAP, the KM intended to launch its aircraft fast using trolleys, engine, oil and fuel warmers... a tipically complicated German system.

The whole system would be recycled by the IJN in their I400 carrier submarines.
 
Last edited:

True, but all the RN gets is a MPA got shot down by a GZ fighter around X, then they would need to steam all the way there which at least means several hours without certainty as to where exactly the carrier was then, much less hours later. Or send more aircraft, but only if any happen to be close.

Its a datum, and no different from a convoy yelling "we are being attacked by carrier aircraft" at that, so part of the business.

Airborne radar is of course as much greater concern, but I do feel that the crews that emit looking for the carrier would have gotten a date with Tony. ESM and all that.
 
Last edited:
B24 Liberators hunting for submarines found it easy to attack a conning tower at night. Unless the GZ was equipped for night operations it would be located and tracked very quickly. Even in daylight you cannot send fighters out to attack recon planes unless you are sure there isn't a pair of carriers outside your radar range. Surface raiders were one way missions, the idea is sound but with few friendly ports and a sea almost completely controlled and boxed in by the enemy Those 50 aeroplanes need a comprehensive supply chain of fuel, munitions and spares. There would be no need to actually attack the GZ, just make sure it couldn't be supplied at sea. The Hellcat F6F was one of the most successful carrier fighters with a great kill rate, but there were over 12,000 were produced, the loss and wear out rate on carrier operations is a different magnitude to those on land.
 

The Stuka looks like LeRoy Grumman might have a patent infringement case.
 
BiffF15 said:
Having spent a large portion of my adult life (my wife might argue the adult point) in a fighter squadron I've wondered a time or two why the "incessant ball-busting" occurs.
Click to expand...
"I'll take any man from any land in any game that he can name for any amount that he can count".
If that's the oath of office for an exclusive club where only the best are admitted, where every move you make, on duty and off, from the day you report to Indoc to the day you're "piped over the side" is recorded, scrutinized, criticized and graded, and every other member is your competitor for the right to remain a member, you best be always on your toes and constantly testing everyone's mettle. Besides the amusement value, the awareness of your squadron mates' strengths, weaknesses, and personality habits may one day preserve your posterior.
Steeped in the aura of a fighter training environment, having observed the training, heard the lectures, ridden through a little "turn and burn", I'm convinced aggression is the single most critical attribute of a fighter pilot.
So there's your outsider's perspective.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
I will note, as an outsider, that a friend of mine went to see Top Gun when it came out with his father who had flown in VMF-124 at the end of the war. His father commented that he thought the locker room scenes were realistic

Doesn't mean that we should resort to that behavior in a written forum/debate with people of multiple nationalities, languages and cultures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register