the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
does that seem rather pathetic to anyone else?
German carriers
- Thread starter rebel8303
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was actually about the standard amount of aircraft carried on most aircraft Carriers. Only the US had a large ammount of Carriers that carried large ammount of aircraft. The Royal Navy had a few but most were about 40 aircraft.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i was thinking more in terms of the actual aircraft, although i can't really speak we were still using swordfish 
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Is the composition that makes me a bit perplexed. It seems unbalanced in favour of the attack, while the self defence could be a problem for an unit destinate to operate far away from ground support.
The Aquila, for example, was projected for 51 aircrafts, all Reggiane Re-2001, (that could be used also as dive bombers and torpedo bombers, even if it's not their primary role), but it was intended primary as a fleet escort.
DogW
The Aquila, for example, was projected for 51 aircrafts, all Reggiane Re-2001, (that could be used also as dive bombers and torpedo bombers, even if it's not their primary role), but it was intended primary as a fleet escort.
DogW
- Thread starter
- #25
Even with more aircraft it would be difficult to operate in the Atlantic...
But there would be quite a headache for the British if there was a carrier during the BoB. If they were to take her down they would need resources. And they did not have plenty... What do you think?
But there would be quite a headache for the British if there was a carrier during the BoB. If they were to take her down they would need resources. And they did not have plenty... What do you think?
Erich
the old Sage
forget the gutless single engine jobs. Eric was correct in the application of seaborne equipment on the KM flat tops, but which ones were they ??
syscom3
Pacific Historian
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The Japanese carriers held quite a lot of aircraft too. Between 70-90 per fleet carrier
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Hold on a mo Lanc ( "hi ho silver" Lone Ranger to the rescue, well I have to say somethingthe lancaster kicks ass said:i was thinking more in terms of the actual aircraft, although i can't really speak we were still using swordfish
) The Bag may have been out of date but it worked brilliantly. The A10 is slow and lumbering compared too many of its contemporaries but it worked really well sometimes a slowly slowly catchy monkey approach works better, another example is the cruise missile it's very slow(compared to other missiles) but does the business superbly.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
sorry track don't get me wrong i know the stringbag did a phenominal job, i was just covering my back 'cos i knew if i didn't after i had a go at the german carrier aircraft someone would mention the fact we were still using the ol' girl.........
i don't really see how, a few planes carrying pathetic excuses for bombs, and sometimes none at all, coming from a different direction to some of the others wouldn't mean a great deal to us when jerry's sending hundreds of bombers our way over the channel............
i don't really see how, a few planes carrying pathetic excuses for bombs, and sometimes none at all, coming from a different direction to some of the others wouldn't mean a great deal to us when jerry's sending hundreds of bombers our way over the channel............
the lancaster kicks ass said:i was thinking more in terms of the actual aircraft, although i can't really speak we were still using swordfish
Well the Bf-109T was not a bad aircraft once it was in the air. You have to remember that this is 1940 and 1941. During that era the Bf-109E was still the top of the game for fighters and the T was just a carrier version of the 109E. I agree that it would have been a bitch to land on a carrier though, but that was a quality fighter to deal with. They just did not have sufficient numbers in my opinion on the carrier.
As for the Ju-87C, remember that at the time it was also a good dive bomber still. It was still causing terror and would have been a very good dive bomber over ships also. It proved on numerous occasions that it could take out ships.
As for the Fi-167 it would have had the same capabilities as the good old Stringbag, but better performance. She was more modern, and was not a bad torpedo bomber when compared to the Stringbag. Only the Avenger, Devestator and the Japanese Torpedo Bombers were better at them time.
I just think that the breakdown of the aircraft on the Graf Zeppelin was not thought out very well.
me262 said:
There was actually a plan for the Fw-190 to replace the Bf-109T at some point, if I recall. I read a good book about the Bf-109T called Sea Eagles by F. L. Marshall and they talk about it. Once the GZ was canceled the idea of a Fw-190 Carrier aircraft was soon forgotten.
Erich said:
Im sorry Erich, but I really have no clue.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
There was a plan to reactivate Graf Zeppelin in 1942, with all the carrierbattles of PTO in mind. Not only GZ but also carrier"B", and plans to convert the already in production hulls of CA Seydlitz as well as some passengerships (Scharnhorst if I recall correctly) into carriers. For this task they wanted to equip them fully with Fw190 because of various reasons:
wider track and more durable gear construction
radial engine (can take more damage and bring the plane back)
more versatile(indeed Fw190 can perform CAP, bomb as well as torpedo attacks)
more endurance
Focke Wulf responded to the calling with some prelimenary studys of A3/4 converts (reduced armement:2MG151/20,2Mg17+ETC), with folding wings and hook as well as some further structural reinforcements.
None of them left the drawing board because of the worse KM record in the North Cape battles (Lutzow failed repeatedly to make contact with JW-51B) resulted in cancelling of all carrier plans (+Gneisenau refit) later that year.
One point to concern you might be the longer take off run of the Fw-190´s, but this is more than offsetted by the twin steam catapults of GZ, little different of recent steam assisted catapults for carrierbased jets and an advanced design feature of this carrier.
wider track and more durable gear construction
radial engine (can take more damage and bring the plane back)
more versatile(indeed Fw190 can perform CAP, bomb as well as torpedo attacks)
more endurance
Focke Wulf responded to the calling with some prelimenary studys of A3/4 converts (reduced armement:2MG151/20,2Mg17+ETC), with folding wings and hook as well as some further structural reinforcements.
None of them left the drawing board because of the worse KM record in the North Cape battles (Lutzow failed repeatedly to make contact with JW-51B) resulted in cancelling of all carrier plans (+Gneisenau refit) later that year.
One point to concern you might be the longer take off run of the Fw-190´s, but this is more than offsetted by the twin steam catapults of GZ, little different of recent steam assisted catapults for carrierbased jets and an advanced design feature of this carrier.
- Thread starter
- #33
Glider
Captain
I suspect that the Germans would have had at least four problems.
a) one carrier on its own with a max load of about 40 planes would be insufficient to either defend itself against significant attacks or launch heavy attacks of its own.
b) the 109 would suffer significant losses due to accidents. Think of the Seafires accident rate and increase it as the 109 had a weaker undercarridge than the Spit.
c) It would be difficult for the German Carrier to avoid being spotted. We had a lot of aircraft equipped with A/S radar and would ahve tracked her down.
d) Everything we had would be put to sea to find and sink her.
a) one carrier on its own with a max load of about 40 planes would be insufficient to either defend itself against significant attacks or launch heavy attacks of its own.
b) the 109 would suffer significant losses due to accidents. Think of the Seafires accident rate and increase it as the 109 had a weaker undercarridge than the Spit.
c) It would be difficult for the German Carrier to avoid being spotted. We had a lot of aircraft equipped with A/S radar and would ahve tracked her down.
d) Everything we had would be put to sea to find and sink her.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I suggest everyone read the post from Leonard about the difficulties the Germans were going to face once they were cruising at sea.
When you look at it, they were launching the equivelant to a medium sized carrier, or a large escort carrier. Once it steamed into the North Sea, it was going to have a short and inglorious demise. Not enough fighters to defend the ship, and not enough bombers to threaten the convoys.
When you look at it, they were launching the equivelant to a medium sized carrier, or a large escort carrier. Once it steamed into the North Sea, it was going to have a short and inglorious demise. Not enough fighters to defend the ship, and not enough bombers to threaten the convoys.
Agreed, the RN would of gone all out to destroy it as well like they did with the Bismark. If she was ever put into service and then to sea she would not have lasted long at all for the reasons you have stated syscom.syscom3 said:
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
It would have needed a heavy escort and even then, wouldn't have been able to withstand the entire home fleet
- Thread starter
- #38
I agree. Had she been launched they would have thrown everything at her that they did and she would not have lasted long.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The RN is overwhelming, but GZ is very fast, too.
I mean anything bigger than a DD cannot catch GZ (35kts design speed), and it has a huge range, also. This may offset some numerical advantage as long as the ship can resume high travel speed.
Another point discussed in another poll was that the most probable scenario to perform sorties for GZ was the North Cape, the proposed anchorage was Drontheim, at the southern end of the Feattenfjord / Norway.
I can imagine that the ship could be a worthy addition to disrupt the convoilines there, esspeccially since it would regularly operate under protection of Luftwaffe fighter force, Seekriegsstaffeln, submarines and some heavy KM units (Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Lutzow, Scheer, Hipper, some DD). With only 37 + 6(reserve) planes it could perform some useful recon and maybe CAP for the own heavy units (Tirpitz), at best. A Fw-190 complemant would be better (41 + 8), nethertheless it´s suited to deal with the escort carriers, which operated there. At least it would be more diffcult for allied heavy units to be deployed there. However all plans were cancelled after JW-51B and Reader was replaced by Dönitz.
I mean anything bigger than a DD cannot catch GZ (35kts design speed), and it has a huge range, also. This may offset some numerical advantage as long as the ship can resume high travel speed.
Another point discussed in another poll was that the most probable scenario to perform sorties for GZ was the North Cape, the proposed anchorage was Drontheim, at the southern end of the Feattenfjord / Norway.
I can imagine that the ship could be a worthy addition to disrupt the convoilines there, esspeccially since it would regularly operate under protection of Luftwaffe fighter force, Seekriegsstaffeln, submarines and some heavy KM units (Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Lutzow, Scheer, Hipper, some DD). With only 37 + 6(reserve) planes it could perform some useful recon and maybe CAP for the own heavy units (Tirpitz), at best. A Fw-190 complemant would be better (41 + 8), nethertheless it´s suited to deal with the escort carriers, which operated there. At least it would be more diffcult for allied heavy units to be deployed there. However all plans were cancelled after JW-51B and Reader was replaced by Dönitz.
