German Aircraft Carriers

[Hidden_Sniper]

I had no clue the Germans had aircraft carriers. I just thought that they were what the just were, U-BOAT lovers.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by Hidden_Sniper@May 9 2005, 05:35 PM
I had no clue the Germans had aircraft carriers. I just thought that they were what the just were, U-BOAT lovers.

Quoted post

You learn something new every day! Hitler and Goering launched the Graf Zeppelin, by the way, and Hitler inspected it briefly when he visited Gydnia to see the Bismarck off.

[Hidden_Sniper]

Yeah, that's something that I just learned. I am going to have to look up more on this subject.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

This is a fasinating subject and the article is very informative, especially about the end of the Graf Zeppelin. Good thread!!

[Hidden_Sniper]

Who headed the Graf Zepplin? and when was it launched

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by Hidden_Sniper@May 12 2005, 07:58 AM
Who headed the Graf Zepplin? and when was it launched

Quoted post

I don't know who commanded it -- I don't think it ever reached that phase of its construction -- but it was launched by Hitler and Goering in 1939 with the usual German pomp and Nazi circumstance. Fatty was supposed to provide the squadrons and airmen and a squadron of Me 109Ts was ordered and created, which was configured for carrier landings and take-offs. The attack arm would have been naval versions of the Ju 87. It would have been a formidable combination.

[halfyank]

One thing many people forget to take into account concerning the German carriers is that Germany had NO experience operating such ships. Britain, Japan, and the US had had twenty some years experience in naval aviation. They had learned such things as how to deploy arrester cables, park aircraft, refuel and re-arm, etc. Even if Germany had completed these ships, and built aircraft to operate off them, the learning curve on how to operate aircraft at sea would make these ships pretty useless.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by halfyank@May 16 2005, 01:38 PM
One thing many people forget to take into account concerning the German carriers is that Germany had NO experience operating such ships. Britain, Japan, and the US had had twenty some years experience in naval aviation. They had learned such things as how to deploy arrester cables, park aircraft, refuel and re-arm, etc. Even if Germany had completed these ships, and built aircraft to operate off them, the learning curve on how to operate aircraft at sea would make these ships pretty useless.

Quoted post

They would have had a terrible time trying to get up to speed on all aspects of carrier operations -- don't forget about the difficulties of maneuvering carriers into the wind for launch operations, and then forming up strike groups, and over-sea navigation. Notice the Graf Zeppelin was not to carry torpedo-bombers. The Italians were better at torpedo-bombing attacks than the Luftwaffe.

[angie999]

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@May 16 2005, 01:38 PM
a squadron of Me 109Ts was ordered and created

Quoted post

The Bf109 undercarriage was very lightweight and positioned poorly for all weather deck landing. It would have been difficult to redesign because of the lack of space to mount it in the wings, thus creating a wider wheelbase. It always was a difficult aircraft to land.

I wonder if it really would have coped with operational carrier service.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by angie999+May 17 2005, 05:04 AM-->

The Bf109 undercarriage was very lightweight and positioned poorly for all weather deck landing. It would have been difficult to redesign because of the lack of space to mount it in the wings, thus creating a wider wheelbase. It always was a difficult aircraft to land.

I wonder if it really would have coped with operational carrier service.

Quoted post

[/b]

I don't know offhand. I just know a squadron of Me 109Ts was created for the Graf. The reference is in Martin Caidin's book on the Me 109, called "Me 109," in the Ballantine series, which is at home, not in front of me. The Me 109 had an unstable undercarriage, as you say, and they had a tendency to groundloop or even collapse on take-off or landing. It also had poor visibility in its cage-like cockpit and required a constant jab on the rudder to stay on course. On the other hand, the fuel-injected engine prevented stalls at high speeds or in dives.