German Navy's Aircraft Carrier

[Tiornu]

Bismarck separated from PE because she was damaged and was heading toward France. No reason to drag PE along with her rather than let her continue her mission.
You're asking me why a monoplane fighter that stalls at 80 knots or so would not match the operational ability of a biplane with a landing speed of 60 knots without flaps. The Swordfish was a plane that landed itself; the 109 certainly wasn't.
Arne mentioned the Fi 167. In addition to be an extremely cool-looking aircraft, it was a great plane to fly--or so I've heard. I've been told (though can't verify) that it could descend almost vertically--and I'm not talking about a dive, I mean it could virtually float on the air. She sounds like a wonderful candidate for carrier duty, even better than the Stuka.
Do you understand that when you're talking about training and experience, you're talking about several different things at once? Obviously the GZ would have no battle experience until she had been sent into battle. That's what we're talking about with regard to vectoring fighters against enemy aircraft. The Americans and British had years of experience doing it, using purpose-designed fighters and advanced radars, but still ran into problems in 1945. GZ would not have any such experience until she had some such experience--she's not blooded in battle until she's blooded in battle, and that's when she'd start gaining experience. At that point she can start relying on her short-ranged fighters, but only if the Germans change their radar doctrine and freely broadcast their position 24 hours a day. Of course, they can turn off their radar at night, but then again they'll be fighterless when confronted by the only navy in the world with night-qualified attack groups.

[Sam H.]

Bismarck separated from PE because she was damaged and was heading toward France. No reason to drag PE along with her rather than let her continue her mission.

Ok, I'll accept your explanation of Swordfish vs. Me-109 capabilities, you obviously know more about this than me.

However, are you sure PS seperated because Bismark had to head to port and not simply because the Bismark could not shack the British tail and Lutjens wanted the PE to pursue its own destiny? Seems to me it could be either way.

In any event, I doubt the GZ and PE would have abandoned the Bismark if all three had sortied togeather. The very reason for having a carrier on this voyage (hypotheically speaking) is to provide protection against airial attack and to aid in scouting for prey.

[Tiornu]

Think of it this way. The three ships would be sent out to perform a mission. If one ship proved incapable of continuing, that would not mean the other two couldn't go on. If GZ goes with Bismarck, she can't provide air support for the mission, and that's her job. Since Bismarck was going home, she had less need of scouts and air cover. GZ could have continued with Bismarck, but that would be a strange move.

[Sam H.]

Well, we obviously view raiding missions diffrently.

First, I don't believe Bismarck was that badly damaged that she had to sail for port imedetatly... if she was, she would/should have turned around after sinking the Hood and sailed for Norwary.

Second, I don't understand why a commander would scatter his forces when facing possible enemy action. The Bismarck, GZ and PE would have been a formidable foe (even with damage to the Bismarck), by keeping the fleet together, they stood a much better chance of facing any opposition and winning.

[Lustmolch]

The Bf 109T variant did see service, though only from land bases. The arrestor gear and catapault spools were removed, though the aircraft retained its longer span wings. These enabled it to operate from shorter runways than would have been possible with the 109E (from which it was derived). I think they flew from airfields in Norway.

[behblc]

The Hipper Class cruiser was of little value in terms of engaging capital ships , she was unsuited for long range operations throught the nature of her turbines and her fuel consumption.
It took a short time for Lutjens to fully grasp the extent of his damage , had he done so earlier he might well have headed for home directly on sinking Hood rather than head on into the Atlantic.
Given the damage to Bismarck its hard to see any advantage in keeping her at sea as part of a raiding force.

[von_noobie]

if it was completed much sooner they could have used on the panama cannal so they could either destroy/damage it to prevent any allied shipping flowing through there and then attack one of the 2 or 3 ports being used by the russians to recieve supply's from the british

[Paul Lakowski]

GZ was conceved in two roles , one was to provide aircover for battlefleet to free up the BB/BC to do there work without enemy air interference and two the long term goal was Admiral Carls idea of 4 battle groups each with a carrier BC and Heavy cruiser & escorts to secure sea lanes for overseas trade. Since the European war secured a 'autarky' for germany she no longer needed secure sea lanes. Remember Admiral Raeders vision was a world class navy by 1949, while Hitler wanted to spend as little on the KM as possible since it took so long to build anything. Thats probably why the schedual for building GZ slipped to 12 months behind in 1937 and 22 months behind in 1938. It was all political as were most problems with the Wehrmacht.

[paarthur]

INTERESTING DISSCUSSION ABOUT BISMARK BEING ESCORTED BY GZ,HOWEVER NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE NORTH ATLANTIC WEATHER,HALF THE JOURNEY THROUGH THE DENMARK STRAIGHTS WAS MADE IN THICK FOG,AND THE NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BOTH SHADOWED USING THE COVER OF FOG,I WOULD NOT EVEN LIKE TO CONSIDER WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD AIR OPS BEEN UNDERTAKEN ECSPECIALLY WITH A PLANE AS UNSTABLE AS THE ME109,THIS AIRCRAFT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY UNSUITED TO NORTH ATLANTIC AIR OPS,LACKING RANGE AND DURABILITY AS IT DID.I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT THE PILOT WOULD HAVE BEEN THINKING AS HE APPROACHED A HEAVING DECK IN BAD VISIBILITY AND DRIVING SLEET,WITH THE DECK PITCHING SEVERAL FEET UP AND DOWN,IT WAS HARD ENOUGH FOR THE FLEET AIR ARM IN AIRCRAFT LIKE THE SKUA AND SWORDFISH THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR CARRIER OPS.

[Arne]

Why do you compare the German carrier fighter with the multi purpose attack aircrafts of the british? I think the Fiesler in similar position on the "Graf Zep" would have made a good stand in rough weather landings...

[Paul Lakowski]

Why do you compare the German carrier fighter with the multi purpose attack aircrafts of the british? I think the Fiesler in similar position on the "Graf Zep" would have made a good stand in rough weather landings...

Not only that but any carrier ops in foggy weather is avoided if possible since it so difficult for this level of technology planes.

BTW turn of the Caps lock, unless you really are yelling at us?

[Ron Klages]

Gentleman,

An aircraft carrier is only as good as it's aircraft. What made the US and Japan the premier aircarrier operators was the fact that the aircraft had been designed to operate from an aircraft.

Germany was modifying Bf-109s and Ju-87s. The British fooled around with Hurricanes and later Spitfires and the Swordfish was the only operational designed aircraft for carriers. Bf-109s had landing gear failures trying to land on ground, can you imagine what would have happened to them slamming down on the pitching decks of aircraft carriers. Disaster!

The weapons for delivery were also very important. The Japanese had the best aerial torpedo of the war, in fact he US torpedo was a failure the entire war. I do not believe the Germans or the British had effective ones either.

Training of the aircrews was also critical. Göring would have created a disaster for the Germans. The Japanese and US created separate air arms within their respective services and the training was entirely different.

An important feature for aircraft operating from a floating airfield is the ability to have long legs, in otherwords the ability to fly great distances. The reason is quite simple. Carriers need to remain out of harms way. Carriers do not charge up on the enemy an engage in hand to hand combat. They fight one another from a distance. Even the escourt carriers used by the US were not in the convoy but operated in zones with the search and attack aircfat operating from the carrier at great distance. Bf-109s could not do that to provide cover for the bombing Stukas.

Here are some comparisons of the aircraft:

FIGHTERS:
F4F Wildcat with two drop tanks=1,275 miles[2051 km]
F6F Hellcat with drop tank=1,620 miles[2607 km]
F4U Corsair=1735 miles [2792 km]
Bf-109T with drop tank=568 miles [914 km]
Sea Hurricane with two drop tanks=908 miles[1461 km]
Seafire[Spitfire] with drop tank=513 miles [825 km]
Zero Model 21 with drop tanks=1930 miles [2105 km]
Zero Model 32 with drop tanks=1477 miles [2376 km]
Zero Model 52 with drop tanks=1194 miles [1921 km]

BOMBERS:
Douglas Dauntless=1100 miles [1770 km]
Curtiss Helldiver=1110 miles [1786 km]
SB2U Vidicator=1170 miles [1882 km]
Grumman Avenger=1390 miles [2236 km]
Fairley Swordfish=1030 miles [1657 km]
Albacore=930 miles [1497 km]
Aichi Val D3A1=915 miles [1472 km]
Aichi Val D3A2=840 miles [1351 km]
Nakajima Kate B5N1=1404 miles [2259 km]
Nakajima Kate B5N2=1237 miles [1990 km]
Ju 87 Stuka=370 miles [595 km]


As you can see the German aircraft were way behind in range to most all other nations carrier aircraft. This would have spelled disaster for any German carrier either as an effective offensive weapon or for the aircraft to protect the carrier.

Not building carriers was one of the wiser deciisions made by the Third Reich.

Best regards,

Ron Klages

[Paul Lakowski]

We've been over this ground before and it yaws....

Stuka C [naval version] with drop tanks had range of 994 miles (1600 km). Have you ever looked at a map of the NSea or NAtlantic. Its only 900km from Europe to past N Scotland. How much further do you plan to go? This is not the pacific ocean your fighting over....all the carrier has to do is cover invasions of Norway and UK etc and its furfilled its role!

[Paul Lakowski]

We've been over this ground before and it yaws....

Stuka C [naval version] with drop tanks had range of 994 miles (1600 km). Have you ever looked at a map of the NSea or NAtlantic. Its only 900km from Europe to past N Scotland. How much further do you plan to go? This is not the pacific ocean your fighting over....all the carrier has to do is cover invasions of Norway and UK etc and its furfilled its role!

Not building up the KM prewar to engadge and Neutralize RN long enough to invade UK was one of the all time dumb Hitler moves...that and abandoning strategic bomber.

[Ron Klages]

Paul,

I guess that is why the Stuka and the Bf 109 were not successful in the Battle of Britian. They could not operate successfully from land so if Germany had a carrier or carriers than they would have taken GB.

I do not argue the fact that Germany may have been better off by developing an effective surface navy prior to entering a war but Germany never was a naval power and I do not believe Hitler and the Third Reich could have made them one.

Also another reason a carrier was not practical for Germany was where could they keep them. Look at the Bismark, could hardly get out of the Baltic and never did get back. Seemed to be a problem with all of the German capital ships. Exit quickly, run around doing damage for awhile but then turn tail for a port and lay up for the duration or until we are bombed to destruction.

You have been over this ground before and it yaws.... YOU---but others haven't so do not bother interacting if you are YAWED.

Best regards,

Ron Klages