German WWII carrier Graf Zeppelin found

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Lancer
The Bismark would have swept the seas if they had a CAP of modern fighters to kill those torpedo biplanes. No convoy could have faced her guns.

The German navy should have run like hell after dropping off the army in Norway. Inexcusable waste.

Where would these modern fighters come from? As has been noted, it's implausible that the Germans would have been able to field a well organised carrier force with no experience.

[BlackCat]

The germs was not stupid and they must have been aware of what problems other countries have had with carriers. Their technical abilities was also pretty good, so I guess that they would cath up fast.

Besides the more carrier relevant problems, then there are the question about air combat. That part the germans didn't have problems with, so whatever thy put on their carrier, it would be pretty much better than swordfishes and their pilots probably more experienced in air combat.

[Whaleboy]

It made sense IN THE PACIFIC with sea campaigns being fought over hundreds of miles of open ocean with hundreds of little islands and atols scattered about without pre-existing airfields (or even clear land to build an airfield). In Northern Europe, carriers made no sense. The ONLY practical use I could see of a German carrier was to conduct operations in northern Britain during the Battle of Britain because Me 109s at the time did not have the range for such forays. I don't believe the germans even did that, instead using land-based me 110 fighters from France/Holland and Norway.

While Britain effectively served as a giant aircraft carrier up to and including the invasion of Europe (whereupon suitable landing strips were made available to the Allies in France and later even in German), aircraft carriers frequently made themselves useful in operations against Axis shipping. I can't think of a better examples than the sinking of the Bismark or the Battle of Taranto that show how sea-based air power was decisive in the battles of the Atlantic and Meditterranian.

[BlackCat]

The british escort carriers also did a pretty good job in the convoys to murmansk.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Sandman


Where would these modern fighters come from? As has been noted, it's implausible that the Germans would have been able to field a well organised carrier force with no experience.

A single carrier with the simple arresting wires of the time and flying 109s would have sufficed to do in the biplanes sent against the Bismark.

[CerberusIV]

The Kriegsmarine basically tried building carriers as part of the "Z plan" naval expansion (assuming that they had until 1944 before war started) . They laid down a second carrier "Peter Strasser" as a sistership to GZ but she was never completed IIRC.

They also did try to develop carrier aircraft, notably a Fiesler designed torpedo bomber. With the loss of Bismarck the whole carrier project was abandoned and the dozen planes built were transferred to Romania for coastal defence.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sandman


Where would these modern fighters come from? As has been noted, it's implausible that the Germans would have been able to field a well organised carrier force with no experience.

It's not that other countries needed decades when they build up their first carrier air groups. And as posted before, the carrier versions of the 109 (which was a modern fighter when the carrier was launched) and the Stuka were already done. They were produced in limited numbers for the carrier, and later, when work on the Zeppelin was stopped, refitted for "normal" use as land based planes.

[Sandman]

The UK's seven carriers carried fighters as well - not very good ones, but probably enough of them. Also, the Stuka had a poor record at attacking ships.

[BeBMan]

Well, this is not a "OMG TEH ZEPPELIN WOULD HAVE PWND ALL" thread. It's quite known that other carriers had fighters too (although some older models didn't, at least not at the beginning of the war, but that's another story).

Still, from a purely military POV even one carrier could have had some impact under certain circumstances (like I posted in Che's thread, the RN's attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto is proof enough, the Illustrious just turned the tide in the med in favor of the UK). If that would be a good thing in case of the GZ from today's view is of course another matter.

[Sandman]

Taranto was made possible by the stay-in-port strategy of the Italians, though.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
BeBro:

the whole German capital ship thing was a mistake anyway. The only part of the Kriegsmarine that did anything worthy was the u-boat corps.

My reply might be a little late, but the sailors on the British flagship Hood would probably have another opinion (only 3 on them survived the attack by Bismarck anyway). Bismarck's problem was that it sailed alone. Combined arms rule!

Edit: While reading the thread, I note that a few others already pointed that out.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Sandman
The UK's seven carriers carried fighters as well - not very good ones, but probably enough of them. Also, the Stuka had a poor record at attacking ships.

There seems to be some disagreement on your last claim :

http://www.battleofbritain.net/0015.html

If ever there was to be an effective weapon that could be termed as being successful as well as deadly, it would have to be the Junkers Ju87, known to Germans as the Sturzkampfbomber, and better known to the English as a dive-bomber or better still a "Stuka". No other aircraft can make claim to the number of ships sunk and also it ranks second to the number of enemy tanks destroyed during times of warfare.

No question, they were hopeless in air combat, but protected by fighters, they were pretty deadly as bombers.

[Chemical Ollie]

I used a Stuka to shoot down a Spitfire IX in WW2online once. But it was a noob flying it...

[Ecthy]

Yeah, try that in HOI.

[BlackCat]

HOI ?