German Navy's Aircraft Carrier

Paul Lakowski · Post by **Paul Lakowski** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:34 pm

Srgt Rock, good post and I mostly agree.

I would add another point. Most people who discuss RN/KM actions focus on a few select missions that highlite vulnerablities of those said ships and tactics and generalise from those cases to the whole.This gives an distorted image of the naval war in WW-II. I' ve been pouring over O'Harra's "The German Fleet at War 1939-1945". It seems that German tactics and training were quite good especially upto 1943 and could be quickly adapted to changing situations. This was especially true of the earlier years over the later years where aggressive spirited leadership often allowed a handful of torpedo boote to engage larger much better gunned cruiser lead flotillas and win. It seems the germans made much better use of torpedos than the allies until the last years of the war.

As far back as WW-I the germans were searching for ways to enhance their fleet reconnassiance. They put sea planes on the backs of Torpedoboots and embraced their first carrier . At that time it was a hybrid carrier for sea plane /carrier plane, but the concept was their. Even at the start of the war they had a mini seaplane carrier. In 1935 Admiral Canaris was putting down proposals for a fleet of carriers to help the navy realise its convoy escort missions across oceans. So it was being discussed and I have no doubt they would have uses such assets well.

Its clear in naval clashes that finding the enemy is more than half the battle. Who spots who first often defines the action. No platform better does this than carriers. Even if they are mostly spotter planes they could make great contributions to existing naval operations and bring more offensive power to the Germans.

Even in Carrier - Carrier clashs in the early years, the Me-109T would be able to atleast match Sea Hurricane performance until the Seafire appears in mid war? It stands to reason that if the early Me-109 could be modified to carrier role then so to could the Me-109F and Me-109G to fill a carrier role by mid -late war period.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:41 am

Hi Paul,

It strikes me that a German carrier would have been of limited value against Britain in WWII. However, as I understand it, the German Navy was rebuilt in the 1930s with a view to giving French commerce a hard time. An aircraft carrier would probably have been of great value in that circumstance where the French were not in a position to block free German access to the Atlantic and had ony one carrier of their own.

Cheers,

Sid.

Srgt Rock · Post by **Srgt Rock** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:21 am

Two additional thoughts have bounced around my head.

Frist, image T Krancke commanding GZ in the Atlantic in Jul 41->

The second thought is how quickly could the navy yards have converted Friesenland into a flush deck carrier?

As I look at her, I would place a 400 X 60 foot FD w/one lift aft. It seems that the platform abaft the funnel would have been the perfect height. Only the funnel would have to be changed to discharge to the side as in IJN CVEs and the upper most superstructure would have had to been removed.

With Friesenland, the Germans would have had a ship to escort convoys to southern Norway and most importantly, train replacement pilots for GZ!

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:26 pm

Change in KM tactics/strategy mid-war......

Replacement of Raeder by Donitz? hmmmmm

Certainly the recontruction of the surface fleet took a well-recorded distinct 2nd place to the Uboat development after Donitz took over.

Also re the discussion about ME109T vs RN fighters....until the advent of the Seafire the RN had NOTHING that would even approach the 109 in real or theoretical performance. Given this, the GZ would have been able to chase off ANYTHING, especially bombers of ANY sort available mid-atlantic to the RN. Wouldn't have made her impregnable - mines, submarines etc. - but certainly no capital ship would have been able to get within gunnery range. And the Mediteranean theatre and events around Dunkirk showed exactly how good the Germans - whether KM to-be, or Luftwaffe - were with Stukas against surface vessels.

phylo

Epaminondas · Post by **Epaminondas** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:16 pm

My reading of the air war in Russia implies that the ME 109 was a difficult plane to fly and land; good in the hands of an expert, but not an easy place to fly.

Not a airforce nut though... very much opinion.

---

One point I think people are over looking is the Brits, Japanese and USA were playing around with carrier technology, designs, aircraft and usage since WWI extensively... German would have at most one or two carriers in 1940/1... and would be starting out in theory only.

Sure they might get some help from the Japanese... but how serious would the KMS take advise from them?

The carrier tradions of the Royal Navy, USN and Imperial Navy took decades to establish... not easy to create it overnight.

===

From a design perspective what is important in aircraft carrier design is the number of strike a/c carried, and the number of sortes they can lauch before running out of gas and bullets.

From that point of view, German Carrier design was aweful; worst ratios per ton of any naval power.

Sure wartime pressures might decrease the time to work out some problems/tactics... but with a lead time measured in years from the design stage to hull in the water, building capital ships is a very lenghty process...

Paul Lakowski · Post by **Paul Lakowski** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:19 pm

Epaminondas wrote: My reading of the air war in Russia implies that the ME 109 was a difficult plane to fly and land; good in the hands of an expert, but not an easy place to fly.

Not a airforce nut though... very much opinion.

===...

Sure but with only 40 planes per carrier I suspect they would have the best pilots...after you shoot Goering.

Epaminondas wrote:
From a design perspective what is important in aircraft carrier design is the number of strike a/c carried, and the number of sortes they can lauch before running out of gas and bullets.

From that point of view, German Carrier design was aweful; worst ratios per ton of any naval power.

Sure wartime pressures might decrease the time to work out some problems/tactics... but with a lead time measured in years from the design stage to hull in the water, building capital ships is a very lenghty process...

Well none of that would have been an issue had the rearmament plan been followed, since the GZ would have been commissioned by 1940. How ever the concept of keeping cruiser level of firepower into a carrier took up far to much extra space for the ammo. I bet they could have tripled fuel supply had they removed the 6" guns and ammo bunkers.

Besides that maynot be the issue some suggest, since the Germans had a practiced and quite effective replenishment at sea capability.

Srgt Rock · Post by **Srgt Rock** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:34 am

To Phylo-- Replace Reader with Carls! Every time his opinions are quoted they are well balanced and make a ton of sence!

As far as unrep goes, the Germans had 3 fleet supply ships (Nordmark, Altmarck and Dishenmarchen sp?) but they only practiced bow to stern not side by side unrep.[/quote]

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:46 am

Hi Sgt, Rock,

From memory, I think you are wrong. It was the British who practiced bow-to-stern resupply. The Dithmarschen class, of which there due to be nine and of which five, I think, were completed, practiced side-by-side resupply like the US Navy developed.

Cheers,

Sid.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:53 am

Hi Guys,

For a good article covering the Dithmarschens and resupply, amongst other things, try typing "Hansen Raeder versus Wegener" into Google search.

Cheers,

Sid.

Srgt Rock · Post by **Srgt Rock** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:54 am

Sid:

You my be righ. The only books I've read that had anythng to do with the use of the fleet supply ships and Battleship Scheer & Under Three Flags which is an account to those ships

Paul Lakowski · Post by **Paul Lakowski** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:39 pm

got this off WARSHIP-1 board....

“According to Brown

Ranger class - 2,582 tons oil fuel, 541 tons diesel fuel and 90 tons petrol with two 350 ton/hour pumps for oil fuel and one 20 ton/hour for petrol.

Wave class - 7,950 tons oil fuel, 750 tons diesel fuel, 980 tons spirit with two 390 tons/hr pumps, one 50 ton/hour pump and one 59 ton/hour pump.

Dale Class - 11,800 tons cargo with four 270 ton/hour pumps for oil fuel and two 50 ton/hour for petrol.

Ol class - 9,000 tons oil fuel, 3,000 tons diesel fuel, 2,350 tons petrol and 240 tons lubricating oil with four 390 ton/hour pumps for oil fuel, one 150 ton/hour pump for diesel and two 200 ton/hour pumps for petrol.

Captured German unit Nordmark renamed Northmark (submarine and raider supply ship, sister Dithmarschen remaned Southmark eventually went to the US)) - 9,400 tons oil fuel, 390 tons lubricating oil, 920 tons dry cargo (including refrigerated) with pumping capacities 900 tons/hr for black oil and 90 tons/hr for lubricating oil”

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discu ... 7084.topic

German replenishment at sea was quite good. Also many merchants were employed as replenishment ships during the war. James Levy wrote ["The Royal Navy's Home Fleet in World War II" p77].

"On extended patrol, German surface raiders could rendezvoue with prepositioned supply ships. Tankers , either trapped in Foreign ports when the war was declared or having run the blockade from Germany, were stationed at shifting coordinates in the vast expanses between normal shipping lanes. For a given number of days , these ships would be at a specifice location, so any raider on patrol could link up with a tanker/supply ship , top-up with fuel , and receive vital Stores."

I read some where [can't find it now], that during the Spanish Civil war the Germans had over a dozen ships envolved in replenishment at sea in support of their ops.

Polish Ace · Post by **Polish Ace** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:32 am

Ok I found some new info about the aircraft that was to be on the Zepplin .Yes first it was to Be the Me 109 t and the Stuka .But as 1944 -45 the me 262 was already being developed with Folding wings .Alsoo there were some designs for Radar Aircraft like we have today .A me 262 against a torpedo plane LOL .Also guess what the bomber would be on the aircraft .Ofcourse it was the Arado 234 with Rocket Assist. Also the plans for what germany was going to do with the carrier was lost .If you havent read yet that the Russians did use the Zepplin for target practice .Showing how to sink a carrier.It took some 24 hits to sink it and None of the bombs did it .They needed to finish it off with torpedos .A very tough ship.Man if they would have finished it the British Navy would have been decimated

Srgt Rock · Post by **Srgt Rock** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:51 am

Where did you get the intel that the Russians used GZ for target practice?

Paul Lakowski · Post by **Paul Lakowski** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:40 am

Srgt Rock wrote:Where did you get the intel that the Russians used GZ for target practice?

http://www.geocities.com/grafzeppelintrager/index.html

Near Swinemünde, Graf Zeppelin was expended as a target ship by the Soviet navy on beginning on August 16, 1947. Dive-bombers pounded the ship with bombs and charges placed inside the ship were detonated causing massive damage. Torpedo boat OE-503 and the destroyer Slavniy fired two torpedoes in the flaming hull finishing her off. Graf Zeppelin succumbed to her wounds and sank on August 18, 1947. The wreck of Graf Zeppelin lies at 55 degrees 48’ N, 18 degrees 38’E.

It took many bombs as I recall but was finished off with torpedos.

I would like to know where the info on the jets came. How could they stop on such a small deck?

Polish Ace · Post by **Polish Ace** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:50 am

When in the second half of 1944 the land based version of the Me 262 started to show success, also the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy) became interested in the new jet propelled aircraft types. So on October 19, 1944, the order to develop a new carrier based fighter that should replace the obsolete Bf 109T went to Messerschmitt, Arado and Blohm&Voss. Simultaneously Messerschmitt started to modify the Me 262 design, since a totally new design would require some time and the aircraft carriers 'Graf Zeppelin' and 'Fürst Pückler' were near completition. The necessary modifications included foldable wings, a landing gear suited for flight deck operations, special protection against corrosion and an arrestor hook. The new front landing gear was a longer and slightly angled backwards to obtain better landing deck handling characteristics. This resulted in a steeper angle of the aircraft on the ground. For corrosion protection a translucent blue lacquer -- based on phenolic resin and produced under license from a Japanese company -- was used. The arrestor hook was mounted under the rear fuselage.