German Aircraft Carriers

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by paulyb102, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. mrya

    mrya Junior Member

    You're correct. The Germans went the entire war w/o a single aircraft carrier. The Graf Zeppelin was never finished.

    Frankly, Hitler didnt' understand naval warfare (that's why he respected Karl Doenitz so much) and the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough resources at its disposal to build aircraft carriers. U-boats became top priority, for the most part.
     
  2. Kuno

    Kuno Very Senior Member

    If I am not completely wrong, the Italians had as well carriers under construction. One of them was named 'Aquila'.
     
  3. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

  4. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

  5. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    The SECOND KM carrier was very tentatively named the Peter Strasser IIRC...but she was never anything more than a keel and ribs. Two other hulls were identified for cpossible conversion to carriers but plans didn't proceed when the Z Plan was truncated.

    The Me109T navalised fighter DID have alterations for carrier use. A verion of the E-1 it had extended, folding wings (Manually IIRC) overwing spoilers and revised flaps for a STOL capability. A first batch of ten T-0 aircraft were built and used for extensive training on carrier landings using marked-out land runways. 60 T-1 series production aircraft were planned - but were completed as T-2s, stripped of their carrier features but retaining the high-lift devices ;) and extended wings. They also IIRC had a stengthened undercarriage, as a good part of the 109's groundlooping issue was a tendancy for one side to collapse on an uneven, overstressed landing.

    These were NOT sent to the Eastern Front; it was decided that their STOL capabilities made them perfect for short runways on land, and they served in Norway and in the defence of Helgoland. They were finally withdrawn from service in 1944.

    The special Stukas saw limited service in Weserubung IIRC, before being fully converted back to standard spec and issued to units.

    HOWEVER - they LW DID plan to deploy a torpedo bomber! The Fieseler Fi 167... Fieseler Fi 167 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    One of THE main issues with the whole design - and it would have been the same with the italian carriers - was the launching of aircraft from "dollies", rocket powered launching platforms. Basically the 109s would be mounted on the wheeled dolly belowdecks with its undercarriage UP, pushed onto the start of a "rail" system that ran them onto the elevator...which hoisted them onto the flightdeck...where they were run forward along a continuation of the rail system to the firing position for the rockets.

    Once the 109 was airborne, the dolly was caught at the end of the flightdeck and returned by a zigzagging set of rails down into the hangar deck again! It would have been like a giant conveyor belt pushing fighters into the air :lol:

    Only ONE problem - if ANYTHING disrupted the system - ONE aircraft in line knocked off its dolly...WITH ITS WHEELS UP....the whole system was blocked. If the rails were damaged in any way...the system was blocked. There was no way to manouver aircraft aprt from on dollies...for if they had their wheels down....they couldn't be launched.

    Basically, this was regarded as a shortcut to having to develop catapaults...but put just SO many possible "points of failure" into the ship as a combat system that it's unreal!

    The Italians went for the same shortcut...IIRC they were to be donated the GZ's dollies for the Aquila.
     
  6. Bob Guercio

    Bob Guercio Senior Member

    don't forget about the difficulties of maneuvering carriers into the wind for launch operations

    Pardon my naivite on this subject but I always thought this to be very simple.

    What is the problem?

    Bob Guercio
     
  7. Kuno

    Kuno Very Senior Member

    IIRC

    Could anybody help me and explain, what this means?
     
  8. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    IIRC

    Could anybody help me and explain, what this means?
    IIRC
    If I Recall Correctly
     
  9. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Bob, the author of the statement you query has been absent for the last year and a half, so I'm afraid your question will likely remain unanswered. The wisdom of interrogating a post made 4 years ago may look somewhat dubious anyway :D
     
  10. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    If I am not completely wrong, the Italians had as well carriers under construction. One of them was named 'Aquila'.

    I wonder what could make the Italians build a carrier, they were supposed to be sitting on an unsinkable one.
     
  11. Bob Guercio

    Bob Guercio Senior Member

    Bob, the author of the statement you query has been absent for the last year and a half, so I'm afraid your question will likely remain unanswered. The wisdom of interrogating a post made 4 years ago may look somewhat dubious anyway :D

    Not in this case. I asked a very general question that other members of this forum can probably answer.

    Bob
     
  12. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Pardon my naivite on this subject but I always thought this to be very simple.

    What is the problem?

    Bob Guercio

    Well look on this site and read page 207. Maybe that answer your question.

    Naval Shiphandler's Guide - Google Books
     
  13. Bob Guercio

    Bob Guercio Senior Member

    Well look on this site and read page 207. Maybe that answer your question.

    Naval Shiphandler's Guide - Google Books


    That was a good explanation.

    Another question: Why are the decks angled to the direction the carrier is travelling? They were not originally designed this way but this was changed for some reason.

    Bob
     
  14. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    I might be wrong but I will guess it makes aborted landings easier to deal with.
     
  15. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    That was a good explanation.

    Another question: Why are the decks angled to the direction the carrier is travelling? They were not originally designed this way but this was changed for some reason.

    Bob

    Well Bob the angled flight deck was designed with the higher landing speeds of jet aircraft in mind, which would have required the entire length of a centreline flight deck to stop. Here on Wikipedia you can find more about why are the decks angled and some other things about flight deck of an aircraft carrier. You also have a animated representation of how the angled flight deck allows for simultaneous launch and recovery operations without risk of aircraft colliding on deck.

    Flight deck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  16. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    I wonder what could make the Italians build a carrier, they were supposed to be sitting on an unsinkable one.

    Maybe they just wished to have aircraft carriers because all other mayor naval powers, Britain, France, US and Japan, had them, even Germans tried to build one. :D
     
  17. Bob Guercio

    Bob Guercio Senior Member

    Well Bob the angled flight deck was designed with the higher landing speeds of jet aircraft in mind, which would have required the entire length of a centreline flight deck to stop. Here on Wikipedia you can find more about why are the decks angled and some other things about flight deck of an aircraft carrier. You also have a animated representation of how the angled flight deck allows for simultaneous launch and recovery operations without risk of aircraft colliding on deck.

    Flight deck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Nice animation.


    I'm trying to figure out how angled deck aircraft carriers were used in World War II and this is what I figure.

    There was no steam catapult at the time so the bow was not used for takeoffs or landings but was only used for parking.

    Planes took off and landed on the angled deck pretty much as shown in the illustration.

    Landed planes taxied to the bow of the ship in order to get off the runway.

    An angled deck had a distinct advantage if a crash occurred in that the crashed plane is more apt to go over the side rather than damage the aircraft carrier and disrupt operations.

    Is this simplification accurate?

    Bob
     
  18. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    Weren't angled deck carriers only post WW2?

    Regards
    Tom
     
  19. Bob Guercio

    Bob Guercio Senior Member

    Weren't angled deck carriers only post WW2?

    Regards
    Tom

    I cut and pasted this.

    USS Hornet (CV/CVA/CVS-12) is a United States Navy aircraft carrier of the Essex class. Construction started in August 1942; she was originally named USS Kearsarge, but was renamed in honor of the USS Hornet (CV-8), which was lost in October 1942, becoming the eighth ship to bear the name.
    Hornet was commissioned in November 1943, and after three months of training joined the U.S. forces in the Pacific War


    [​IMG]

    This one has a runway off the bow so here I can see two runways being used simultaneoulsy as an advantage.

    So now I can see the definite advantage having an angled flight deck. Safer operation and two runways.


    Bob Guercio
     
  20. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Bob, the OP COULD also have been referring to the GZ's anticipated bad sea manners when he was taking difficulties in turning into the wind! It had to have it's bows altered once to the "Atlantic" pattern, and the added bulges on her keel to balance her weight would also slow her down.
     

Share This Page