Political Crossfire Forums

[Wyatt Earp]

I was always thinking about something, how come the Germans never built any Aircraft Carriers (Beside the one they made, and the one converted latter on to a light crusier I think?)I mean they saw the need for Sub's, what I remember they wanted 200 of them and got only 50. If they had a Aircraft Career with the Bismark I think the war would of been different by a bit.
I mean they saw the power of it, what the Japanese did to pearl, why did they not build a good one? It's not like they did not have the no how, with the Jet Airplane, Helicopter, V1 rocket etc...
Just wondering.

[DSwain]

Good question. The Kriegsmarine had let Hitler know that it would not be ready for war until 1944. So, in their timescale, at least one carrier would be ready for war - the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin had been laid down in 1936 but never saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

By the time the Graf Zeppelin was ready to 'work-up', the remainder of the KM's surface fleet had been degraded to such an extent that it really would have been pushed to form a single task force.

[NAB]

DSwain wrote: Good question. The Kriegsmarine had let Hitler know that it would not be ready for war until 1944. So, in their timescale, at least one carrier would be ready for war - the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin had been laid down in 1936 but never saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

By the time the Graf Zeppelin was ready to 'work-up', the remainder of the KM's surface fleet had been degraded to such an extent that it really would have been pushed to form a single task force.

I also wonder if if had to do with the nature of the waters they operated in. It seems that the majority of the waters their navy worked in were much more vulnerable to aircraft launched from land. A carrier would have been a juicy target if it were operating in and around the English Channel/North Sea/ or even Mediterranean. If my memory is correct (off the top of my head here), but I don't remember the US allocating too many Carriers to the European theater either. Just wondering if this were for the same reason, or the need in the Pacific was too great.

[DSwain]

NAB wrote: DSwain wrote: Good question. The Kriegsmarine had let Hitler know that it would not be ready for war until 1944. So, in their timescale, at least one carrier would be ready for war - the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin had been laid down in 1936 but never saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

By the time the Graf Zeppelin was ready to 'work-up', the remainder of the KM's surface fleet had been degraded to such an extent that it really would have been pushed to form a single task force.

I also wonder if if had to do with the nature of the waters they operated in. It seems that the majority of the waters their navy worked in were much more vulnerable to aircraft launched from land. A carrier would have been a juicy target if it were operating in and around the English Channel/North Sea/ or even Mediterranean. If my memory is correct (off the top of my head here), but I don't remember the US allocating too many Carriers to the European theate either. Just wondering if this were for the same reason, or the need in the Pacific was too great.

I think you're right, I'm pretty sure the USN didn't send a single carrier to the ETO. Much of the reason for this was that Royal Navy carriers were already deployed and their CAG's, in addition to land based aircraft, were able to do the job.

As for the difficulty of deploying a carrier in the North Sea, the KM was singularly successful in getting its capital units into the open waters of the Atlantic when it tried as demonstrated by the journey of the Bismarck and the extraordinary forcing of the Channel by the Scharnhorst, the Gneisenau and Prince Eugen (granted, that was in the opposite direction - towards Germany). It's debatable whether they might have tried to be more adventurous with carrier air support. Although those waters were certainly dangerous for RN carriers - Britain lost carriers in the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Med to a variety of surface ships, land based aircraft and submarines (a total of four fleet and five escort carriers lost in these theatres)

[kratos]

At the time no one realized the importance of aircraft carriers. Many thought the war at sea would be won by the submarines and big naval guns, for example the Bismarck.

[DSwain]

kratos wrote: At the time no one realized the importance of aircraft carriers. Many thought the war at sea would be won by the submarines and big naval guns, for example the Bismarck.

To disagree slightly, at the time the Germans certainly underestimated the role of aircraft carriers however Britain had already laid down six carriers before the war started.

[NAB]

DSwain wrote: NAB wrote: DSwain wrote: Good question. The Kriegsmarine had let Hitler know that it would not be ready for war until 1944. So, in their timescale, at least one carrier would be ready for war - the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin had been laid down in 1936 but never saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

By the time the Graf Zeppelin was ready to 'work-up', the remainder of the KM's surface fleet had been degraded to such an extent that it really would have been pushed to form a single task force.

I also wonder if if had to do with the nature of the waters they operated in. It seems that the majority of the waters their navy worked in were much more vulnerable to aircraft launched from land. A carrier would have been a juicy target if it were operating in and around the English Channel/North Sea/ or even Mediterranean. If my memory is correct (off the top of my head here), but I don't remember the US allocating too many Carriers to the European theate either. Just wondering if this were for the same reason, or the need in the Pacific was too great.

I think you're right, I'm pretty sure the USN didn't send a single carrier to the ETO. Much of the reason for this was that Royal Navy carriers were already deployed and their CAG's, in addition to land based aircraft, were able to do the job.

As for the difficulty of deploying a carrier in the North Sea, the KM was singularly successful in getting its capital units into the open waters of the Atlantic when it tried as demonstrated by the journey of the Bismarck and the extraordinary forcing of the Channel by the Scharnhorst, the Gneisenau and Prince Eugen (granted, that was in the opposite direction - towards Germany). It's debatable whether they might have tried to be more adventurous with carrier air support. Although those waters were certainly dangerous for RN carriers - Britain lost carriers in the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Med to a variety of surface ships, land based aircraft and submarines (a total of four fleet and five escort carriers lost in these theatres)

That makes sense why the USN didn't commit any carriers to the ETO. They weren't really needed.

I wonder if the Germans didn't focus on building carriers due to the nature of the naval engagements they knew they'd be involved in. The majority of the conflicts would be far inland, so the projection of air power from a carrier didn't seem necessary to them, unlike in the Pacific where the majority of land battles were done on islands where carrier's were required to project air power. As an alternate history question, I wonder how the war would have been different if the German navy had focused on the production of carriers as had the Japanese? Would they have threatened the US mainland in a more serious manner? Interesting thing to ponder imho.

Maybe as an American I'm a bit Carrier biased due to the importance they have carried in our military/strategic interests. :wink:

On a similar note, I was reading something recently on USN campaign in the Pacific and how the Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval battle in history where the ships never made sight of each other. Thought that was interesting, in a historical factoid sort of way.

[Wyatt Earp]

From what I read the Carrier that Germany built was a piece of junk, they could not get the steam catapult to work-n-such.
But when they captured France didn't they have one? That they could of commissioned? (I know German occupied France's Navy fought the Americans in the Med, where what I remember that was the first American battleship firing in WWII)
Or what about Italy didn't they have at least one? If I were the Germans I would of built one in her port away from Great Britain's Air power.
Yea I guess I am Carrier Bias too.

[DSwain]

NAB wrote: DSwain wrote: NAB wrote: DSwain wrote: Good question. The Kriegsmarine had let Hitler know that it would not be ready for war until 1944. So, in their timescale, at least one carrier would be ready for war - the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin had been laid down in 1936 but never saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

By the time the Graf Zeppelin was ready to 'work-up', the remainder of the KM's surface fleet had been degraded to such an extent that it really would have been pushed to form a single task force.

I also wonder if if had to do with the nature of the waters they operated in. It seems that the majority of the waters their navy worked in were much more vulnerable to aircraft launched from land. A carrier would have been a juicy target if it were operating in and around the English Channel/North Sea/ or even Mediterranean. If my memory is correct (off the top of my head here), but I don't remember the US allocating too many Carriers to the European theate either. Just wondering if this were for the same reason, or the need in the Pacific was too great.

I think you're right, I'm pretty sure the USN didn't send a single carrier to the ETO. Much of the reason for this was that Royal Navy carriers were already deployed and their CAG's, in addition to land based aircraft, were able to do the job.

As for the difficulty of deploying a carrier in the North Sea, the KM was singularly successful in getting its capital units into the open waters of the Atlantic when it tried as demonstrated by the journey of the Bismarck and the extraordinary forcing of the Channel by the Scharnhorst, the Gneisenau and Prince Eugen (granted, that was in the opposite direction - towards Germany). It's debatable whether they might have tried to be more adventurous with carrier air support. Although those waters were certainly dangerous for RN carriers - Britain lost carriers in the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Med to a variety of surface ships, land based aircraft and submarines (a total of four fleet and five escort carriers lost in these theatres)

That makes sense why the USN didn't commit any carriers to the ETO. They weren't really needed.

I wonder if the Germans didn't focus on building carriers due to the nature of the naval engagements they knew they'd be involved in. The majority of the conflicts would be far inland, so the projection of air power from a carrier didn't seem necessary to them, unlike in the Pacific where the majority of land battles were done on islands where carrier's were required to project air power. As an alternate history question, I wonder how the war would have been different if the German navy had focused on the production of carriers as had the Japanese? Would they have threatened the US mainland in a more serious manner? Interesting thing to ponder imho.

Maybe as an American I'm a bit Carrier biased due to the importance they have carried in our military/strategic interests. :wink:

On a similar note, I was reading something recently on USN campaign in the Pacific and how the Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval battle in history where the ships never made sight of each other. Thought that was interesting, in a historical factoid sort of way.

I love carriers too! That's why I'm so excited about the new class of carriers the Royal Navy will be getting over the next ten years

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.273
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_CVF_programme

But back to the topic! I think there's certainly something to your point about how Germany saw the war as going. Certainly, Admiral Raeder (head of the KM) wanted a multi-task navy, with a strong surface element - hence why he wanted war to hold off until the mid to late 1940s. But for German strategy, the navy simply did not figure other than as a means for surface raiding on British convoy routes; even U-boats weren't viewed as potential war winning weapons. Thank God though - the Germans were unable to seriously plan for an invasion of Britain in 1940 simply because no German naval planner had conceived of the potential before the war.

A carrier-capable German fleet would have meant some rebalancing of USN units, I'm sure - dependent on just how many carriers the Germans deployed.

[DSwain]

Wyatt Earp wrote: From what I read the Carrier that Germany built was a piece of junk, they could not get the steam catapult to work-n-such.
But when they captured France didn't they have one? That they could of commissioned? (I know German occupied France's Navy fought the Americans in the Med, where what I remember that was the first American battleship firing in WWII)
Or what about Italy didn't they have at least one? If I were the Germans I would of built one in her port away from Great Britain's Air power.
Yea I guess I am Carrier Bias too.

The Germans never got their hands on the French fleet (thankfully); elements of it were interned in various ports, other units joined Free French forces while the Royal Navy attacked the French squadron at Mers-el-Kebir to prevent it falling into enemy hands (a very controversial act). The Bearn - the French Navy's only carrier in WW2 - remained in the French possession of Martinique in the West Indies. The Italians didn't have any carriers at the beginning of the war though they attempted to convert two ocean liners - Aquila and the Sparviero - into carriers; they remained uncompleted at the war's end.

[NAB]

DSwain wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: From what I read the Carrier that Germany built was a piece of junk, they could not get the steam catapult to work-n-such.
But when they captured France didn't they have one? That they could of commissioned? (I know German occupied France's Navy fought the Americans in the Med, where what I remember that was the first American battleship firing in WWII)
Or what about Italy didn't they have at least one? If I were the Germans I would of built one in her port away from Great Britain's Air power.
Yea I guess I am Carrier Bias too.

The Germans never got their hands on the French fleet (thankfully); elements of it were interned in various ports, other units joined Free French forces while the Royal Navy attacked the French squadron at Mers-el-Kebir to prevent it falling into enemy hands (a very controversial act). The Bearn - the French Navy's only carrier in WW2 - remained in the French possession of Martinique in the West Indies. The Italians didn't have any carriers at the beginning of the war though they attempted to convert two ocean liners - Aquila and the Sparviero - into carriers; they remained uncompleted at the war's end.

Italians started something but was never completed. WTF? :P

That's interesting, I didn't realize the French had a carrier. So it just sat out the war in Martinique? I wonder why it wasn't utilized by the Allies, unless it s*cked of course. :shock:

Like you guys, I've always been a big fan of carriers. I built my own Navy as a kid, with a kickin' carrier fleet. :wink:

I had a Great Uncle who was a Navy pilot in the Pacific who flew off of carriers. He was killed in Leyte Gulf (if I remember correctly). My Grandfather (his brother) flew bombers in the Pacific for the Army Air Corp and was always "jealous" of his fighter pilot brother getting to fly off of carriers, althought it ultimately was the much more dangerous assignment.

[DSwain]

NAB wrote: DSwain wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: From what I read the Carrier that Germany built was a piece of junk, they could not get the steam catapult to work-n-such.
But when they captured France didn't they have one? That they could of commissioned? (I know German occupied France's Navy fought the Americans in the Med, where what I remember that was the first American battleship firing in WWII)
Or what about Italy didn't they have at least one? If I were the Germans I would of built one in her port away from Great Britain's Air power.
Yea I guess I am Carrier Bias too.

The Germans never got their hands on the French fleet (thankfully); elements of it were interned in various ports, other units joined Free French forces while the Royal Navy attacked the French squadron at Mers-el-Kebir to prevent it falling into enemy hands (a very controversial act). The Bearn - the French Navy's only carrier in WW2 - remained in the French possession of Martinique in the West Indies. The Italians didn't have any carriers at the beginning of the war though they attempted to convert two ocean liners - Aquila and the Sparviero - into carriers; they remained uncompleted at the war's end.

Italians started something but was never completed. WTF? :P

That's interesting, I didn't realize the French had a carrier. So it just sat out the war in Martinique? I wonder why it wasn't utilized by the Allies, unless it s*cked of course. :shock:

Like you guys, I've always been a big fan of carriers. I built my own Navy as a kid, with a kickin' carrier fleet. :wink:

I had a Great Uncle who was a Navy pilot in the Pacific who flew off of carriers. He was killed in Leyte Gulf (if I remember correctly). My Grandfather (his brother) flew bombers in the Pacific for the Army Air Corp and was always "jealous" of his fighter pilot brother getting to fly off of carriers, althought it ultimately was the much more dangerous assignment.

Actually, looks like the Allies did make some use of the Bearn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_B%C3%A9arn

Sounds like a real aviator family you've got there! My father served on carriers at the very end of WW2 and during the 50s, seeing action during the Korean War and a few Empire jobs (sailor, not an aviator however). I created my own navy as a kid as well - lots of carriers, well six as I recall, can't remember what I called the class though.

[thorn]

Germany was far more interested in securing the eastern and western front, that's why their navy just had some half-assed attempts at big vessels, after having lost the Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Bismarck, and so on, basically all the big units. Plus, High Command was not interested in sea battles too much, that's why they at first didn't even support their own sub forces for quite some time. I mean the Type XXI snorkel boats didn't need much more work around 1942, but there weren't enough ressources put that way, instead they just built a couple more Type VII C and Type IX boats until 1944 (and considering a 75% share of losses in that field it's safe to say that wasn't too much of a success in general).
And another thing: don't forget the kinds of waters we have in Northern Germany: the Baltic Sea has water depths around 80 m (a little further out), but is small enough to spit across, and was easily in reach of Russian planes and boats. A ship of the size of a battle cruiser or a carrier would have been easy enough to find there. On the other hand we have the North Sea coast, a wadden sea of considerable size, with only a few routes ie to Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven or Hamburg that can be taken by ships with lots of draft. again: sitting duck principle. (there's a reason why todays biggest naval units in the Bundesmarine are the supply ships of the Berlin class and the Sachsen, Brandenburg and Bremen class frigates, and also why those frigates are at home in the exact same harbour, Wilhelmshaven; at the same time the Bundesmarine sports lots of naval units fit for littoral defense.)
Then there were the occupied countries of the Netherlands, Belgium, France just across the channel and hence in easy reach of British planes. So what's left? Norway. That coast was pretty well fortified, so not much use having lots of firepower on ships, and a little too complicated to get there with reinforcements or material to support those ships.
Oh, and the Mediterranean? Do you expect the Royal Navy to let a battle group of German vessels pass Gibraltar, basically their workshop at the time, just like that?
So no, chances to deploy huge naval battle groups were not feasible. To answer NAB's question: It would have been too wasteful to have invested in carriers, really. Just look at how long the Bismarck withstood the RN's efforts to hunt her down.

On the whole Europe is just small enough to not really need carrier groups to deploy troops or attack the enemy. Planes normally are sufficient. And we have a railway network worth the name :razz:

I think the reason the English already had six carriers ready before the war can be easily seen from two points: a) no land corridor to Europe, so they normally have to defend themselves on a sea front first, and b) projection of power, England was still a colonial power at the time, and I think they foresaw the use of carrier groups in conjunction with expeditionary forces.

On a side note: a drilling company found the remains of the Graf Zeppelin in the Baltic Sea just two weeks ago.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428857,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,429119,00.html

[DSwain]

Very interesting Thorn, especially re the seas around Germany and what became of the Graf Zeppelin.

Don't you think that a small carrier, say of the size of an escort carrier, could have made a difference with Germany's surface raiders and with vessels such as the Bismarck? If Lutjens had had a small carrier to take with the Bismarck and the Prince Eugen, what might have been the outcome? The final stroke that caught the Bismarck - the torpedoing by a RN Fleet Air Arm Swordfish of its rudder - might have been avoided with a CAP over the squadron.

[NAB]

Thanks as well Thorn. Sounds like my initial gut hunch was somewhere in the ballpark. The waters/necessity of the German navy weren't conducive to a large carrier fleet. It also sounds like the German navy might have been stuck a bit in the last war. Maybe all of the focus on innovation/strategy was done for the ground forces and air force, with the navy getting the short shrift.

[thorn]

DSwain wrote: Very interesting Thorn, especially re the seas around Germany and what became of the Graf Zeppelin.

Don't you think that a small carrier, say of the size of an escort carrier, could have made a difference with Germany's surface raiders and with vessels such as the Bismarck? If Lutjens had had a small carrier to take with the Bismarck and the Prince Eugen, what might have been the outcome? The final stroke that caught the Bismarck - the torpedoing by a RN Fleet Air Arm Swordfish of its rudder - might have been avoided with a CAP over the squadron.
Sure, it might have made a difference if Germany had a plane that could have been launched from a carrier having enough carrying capability or firepower to actually do something. The Bf/Me-109 I would consider too big and more of a fighter than a bomber, and I wouldn't know of a naval version suitable for a carrier. The He-100 and 112 were not suitable at all. The FW-190 also was more of a fighter than a bomber, and I don't know of a naval version. So the only thing that would have helped was a couple of smaller ships equipped exclusively with 88s to give air defence capabilities.
Generally all the planes the German mil at the time fielded were mostly if not exclusively suitable for use off of small airfields.

[thorn]

Thanks NAB and DSwain. Actually what I said in the above is more or less a gut hunch I have myself, trying to figure out an answer to the questions posted in this thread. So there might be a couple mistakes in the details, but overall I don't think I'm too far off.

And yes, the Navy always got the short end of the stick in Germany, that's nothing new. Germany just never was a real colonial or naval power, so there isn't this huge naval tradition you'd find in England, France, Spain or Italy. Or the US for that matter. People here were traditionally more afraid of what came from East or West, and less from what came out of the Sea or down the mountains. :lol:

[bigstick61]

Considering how much control Germany had over much of Europe, they probably realized that land-based air power took care of most of what they would have otherwise needed a carrier for. The small seas in the area also don't bode too well for carriers. Several were lost to surface ships in the area. Also, the weather is also not particularly conducive to any air operations in northern Europe. Aircraft cannot normally operate in foul weather. I remember reading about the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau literally sneaking up on a British carrier (Glorious?) and sinking it with long-range gunfire. Such things even happened in the Pacific in restricted waters.

During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Kurita's battle line got within gunnery range before being detected by the carrier task forces guarding Leyte Gulf and opened fire within seconds of detection, before any sizeable amounts of aircraft could be launched to counter by the Taffy 3. If Admiral Kurita had ordered his units to form a battle line rather than a general attack and handled his destroyers better, or even if he had not lost his nerve, he would have wiped out all of the carriers and been able to shoot up the beachhead and transports in Leyte Gulf; even if Oldendorf's battle line got there first, Kurita would have won because Oldendorf's battleships were low on ammo from the bombardments and from the previous nights engagements with Japanese battleships, and also quite obsolete in comparison to Kurita's ships, and would likely have been routed. Te only reason that the IJN plan failed was that Kurita lost his nerve. Everything else pretty much went well: Halsey took the bait of the planeless carriers and went north, taking Lee's battleline with him and all of 3rd Fleet's carriers, which allowed Kurita to pass through the San Bernardino Strait and attack the carrier forces guarding Leyte Gulf with the 7th Fleet.

[DSwain]

bigstick61 wrote: Considering how much control Germany had over much of Europe, they probably realized that land-based air power took care of most of what they would have otherwise needed a carrier for. The small seas in the area also don't bode too well for carriers. Several were lost to surface ships in the area. Also, the weather is also not particularly conducive to any air operations in northern Europe. Aircraft cannot normally operate in foul weather. I remember reading about the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau literally sneaking up on a British carrier (Glorious?) and sinking it with long-range gunfire. Such things even happened in the Pacific in restricted waters.

During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Kurita's battle line got within gunnery range before being detected by the carrier task forces guarding Leyte Gulf and opened fire within seconds of detection, before any sizeable amounts of aircraft could be launched to counter by the Taffy 3. If Admiral Kurita had ordered his units to form a battle line rather than a general attack and handled his destroyers better, or even if he had not lost his nerve, he would have wiped out all of the carriers and been able to shoot up the beachhead and transports in Leyte Gulf; even if Oldendorf's battle line got there first, Kurita would have won because Oldendorf's battleships were low on ammo from the bombardments and from the previous nights engagements with Japanese battleships, and also quite obsolete in comparison to Kurita's ships, and would likely have been routed. Te only reason that the IJN plan failed was that Kurita lost his nerve. Everything else pretty much went well: Halsey took the bait of the planeless carriers and went north, taking Lee's battleline with him and all of 3rd Fleet's carriers, which allowed Kurita to pass through the San Bernardino Strait and attack the carrier forces guarding Leyte Gulf with the 7th Fleet.

Yes - the Glorious was lost during operations off Norway - absolute criminal incompetence on the part of the British naval staff.

[Wyatt Earp]

DSwain wrote:
The Germans never got their hands on the French fleet (thankfully); elements of it were interned in various ports, other units joined Free French forces while the Royal Navy attacked the French squadron at Mers-el-Kebir to prevent it falling into enemy hands (a very controversial act). The Bearn - the French Navy's only carrier in WW2 - remained in the French possession of Martinique in the West Indies. The Italians didn't have any carriers at the beginning of the war though they attempted to convert two ocean liners - Aquila and the Sparviero - into carriers; they remained uncompleted at the war's end.

So the French Carrier sat out the war huh? they did not even go under the American or Great Britain's flag?

Isn't it written somewhere in the Royal Navy that if Britain get's nuked off the face of the earth that the skipper has two choices, Keep on fighting under the Brit's flag or put the ship under the USA's command?