German Aircraft Carriers
Richard Pan
Theater, why weren't aircraft carriers used as extensively in the European
Theater? I know the British had carriers, but I've never heard of any
carrier opertations against the German or Italian Navy in Europe. Were
there any carrier operations at all in Europe during WW2? The Battle of
the North Atlantic was mostly fought by capital ships such as Destoyers,
Battleships, and U-Boats. Seeing the devastating power that naval-based
aircraft had against any capital ships in the Pacific, why didn't the
British or the Germans use aircraft carriers to operate against the
enemy? I've heard that the Germans did plan a project to get carriers
into operation but was eventually abandoned. I really think that had the
German Navy developled carrier-based naval power like the Japanese, it
would have severely crippled Allied logistics and naval operations. The
many amphibious operations of the Allies would have been a lot tougher had
there been German fleet carriers patrolling the Atlantic and
Mediterranean. I really enjoy playing naval warfare games on my computer
and I have explored this possibility extensivesly. One that I
particularly enjoy is "Carriers at War." This game contained a
hypothetical scenario in which an outnumbered German fleet had six large
carriers that faces a final showdown with a overwhelming British Navy in
the Atlantic. I uses the carriers to devastating effects as I launch full
decks to sink the British Fleet. Capital ships, it seems with all the
anti-aircraft fire in the world, are simply no match against naval-based
aircraft, they are just as good as dead. It's really an intriguing
possibility. What about the French? Didn't they have carriers too?
Another possibility would be that for Italian Navy to have developled
carrier-based fleets to combine with the German Navy and U-Boats. Or that
both the Italians and Germans had carriers, that would be pretty scary. I
really think that the side that held carrier power would have gained naval
supremacy just like in the Pacific War. German carrier power would have
certainly prolonged the war and challenged the suprmacy of the British
Navy.
Rich
--
Miles or Lorraine Constable
ric...@ucla.edu says...
>Seeing the crucial role that aircraft carriers played in the Pacific
>Theater, why weren't aircraft carriers used as extensively in the
European
>Theater?
Alas Rich, reality is not like playing a carrier sim. Carriers, and any
capital ships, in the Med. were dead ducks for torpedo- and dive-bombers.
The Italians planned a carrier, but their navy spent a lot of time just
evading the Brits, even then they were mostly destroyed by an aircraft as
unsophisticated as the Swordfish.
As for the Atlantic, the Germans relied heavily on their U-Boats for two
reasons, 1. they had them and knew the technology, 2. they could get into
and out of their ports at Brest and other places in relative anonimity.
Remember, that the Brits had easy reconnaissance access to all of the
major ports of the Baltic, North Sea and Atlantic. German capital ships
were severely hampered by a lack of anonimity and were hemmed in by the
seriously overpowering Royal Navy. So they went under the water with
U-Boats. The strategic situations of Japan and Germany are fascinating,
but not very comparable.
M. Constable
--
Miles or Lorraine Constable
Ben Schapiro
In Article <richpan-0404962215190001@s187_98.resnet.ucla.edu>,
ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) wrote:
>Seeing the crucial role that aircraft carriers played in the Pacific
>Theater, why weren't aircraft carriers used as extensively in the European
>carrier opertations against the German or Italian Navy in Europe. Were
>there any carrier operations at all in Europe during WW2?
Extensive operations by the British in the Med. escorting convoys and
interdicting Italian and German shipping, also a minor but portentious raid
on Taranto. Atlantic operations include strikes against targets in Norway:
coastal shipping, Tirpitz, etc. Also sweeps for surface raiders ie cruisers
and Bismark operation. Brits and USN operated numerous CVEs (escort
carriers) escorting convoys (RN preference) to deter surface raiders/U-boats
or as part of hunter killer groups (USN preference) stalking U-boats.
Extensive resources were put into providing CV assets in the Atlantic. US
fleet carriers provided air support for operation TORCH and for GRENADIER.
A lot has been written on naval air in the Atlantic, a trip to the library
will fill you in.
> The Battle of
>the North Atlantic was mostly fought by capital ships such as Destoyers,
>Battleships, and U-Boats.
Destroyers and U-boats are not considered capital ships.
>Seeing the devastating power that naval-based
>aircraft had against any capital ships in the Pacific, why didn't the
>British or the Germans use aircraft carriers to operate against the
>enemy?
The Fleet Air Arm struck at Tirpitz and assisted in the sinking of Bismark.
The Atlantic was not as surface combatant rich a hunting ground as was the
Pacific. The proximity of landbased air had a much greater impact than in
the Pacific. The Fleet Air Arm had come under RAF control for the ordering
of aircraft after WWI and the RN's carriers fielded a selection of truely
second rate carrier aircraft.
>I've heard that the Germans did plan a project to get carriers
>into operation but was eventually abandoned. I really think that had the
>German Navy developled carrier-based naval power like the Japanese, it
>would have severely crippled Allied logistics and naval operations.
They (Germans and Italians) did try, but it takes years to develop the
operational expertise to use naval air and the neither Germans nor the
Italians had the time nor the economic resources to develop CVs.
Additionally their position on the globe isn't conducive to carrier ops. The
Germans were hard pressed to get two ship raiding units past the British.
The Italians were better served by landbased air and Brit control of the
neck of the bag that is the Med negated their being more than a regional
naval force. A german CV convoy raiding party would be far from home with
no hope of having the supporting fleet train that the USN enjoyed in the
Pacific. A german carrier, if it got to sea, would soon be hunted down and sunk.
> The
>many amphibious operations of the Allies would have been a lot tougher had
>there been German fleet carriers patrolling the Atlantic and
>Mediterranean.
Allied landings always took place under local air superiority usually
maintained by land based aircraft. Off the top of my head the only allied
ETO/MTO landing without extensive landbased airsupport was TORCH and I do
not think a German carrier or two could have arrived off the TORCH operating
area in any kind of fighting shape.
>I really enjoy playing naval warfare games on my computer
>and I have explored this possibility extensivesly. One that I
>particularly enjoy is "Carriers at War."
Computer games tend to ignore some important elements of warfare: economic
strenght of the combatants and their logistics capabilities. Levels of
training, doctrine and tactical or strategic expertise are also ignored.
>This game contained a
>hypothetical scenario in which an outnumbered German fleet had six large
>carriers that faces a final showdown with a overwhelming British Navy in
>the Atlantic. I uses the carriers to devastating effects as I launch full
>decks to sink the British Fleet. Capital ships, it seems with all the
>anti-aircraft fire in the world, are simply no match against naval-based
>aircraft, they are just as good as dead.
Very true re: Prince of Wales/Repulse and Yamato as prime examples. The RN
in the Med would be another. A german carrier in the Atlantic would face the
same situation. The KM recognized that and when the Graf Zeppelin's utility
against the Russians evaporated construction lost its priority.
>It's really an intriguing
>possibility. What about the French? Didn't they have carriers too?
>Another possibility would be that for Italian Navy to have developled
>carrier-based fleets to combine with the German Navy and U-Boats. Or that
>both the Italians and Germans had carriers, that would be pretty scary.
Just having a weapon system doesn't mean you can use it. There has got to be
a tail to support the teeth or it's a suicide force.
> I
>really think that the side that held carrier power would have gained naval
>supremacy just like in the Pacific War. German carrier power would have
>certainly prolonged the war and challenged the suprmacy of the British
>Navy.
The major problem for the Germans is a lack of a safe haven for the carriers
and ready access to the sea. The IJN had both the KM had neither. There are
good reasons the Germans went with a submarine force. The very forces than
made the U-boat the weapon of choice for the KM mitigate against the
aircraft carrier.
>
>Rich
>
>--
>
A good book to read is:"Carrier Operations in WWII, vol 1 The Royal Navy",
by J. D. Brown; Ian Allen, London;1968.
********************************************************************************
Ben Schapiro Business be...@wpmail.als.ameritech.com
Customer Support Personal scha...@notis.com
URL http://www.als.ameritech.com:80/isc94.htm
Those who fail to study history are doomed to never get the joke.
I am NOT speaking for Ameritech.
mas...@river.tay.ac.uk
In article <richpan-0404962215190001@s187_98.resnet.ucla.edu>, ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) writes:
> Seeing the crucial role that aircraft carriers played in the Pacific
> Theater, why weren't aircraft carriers used as extensively in the European
> Theater? I know the British had carriers, but I've never heard of any
> carrier opertations against the German or Italian Navy in Europe. Were
> there any carrier operations at all in Europe during WW2?
The decisive hit on the Bismark was scored by a swordfish. The propeller was
hit and it enabled the British battleships to close up.
Tarento saw a handful of swordfish cripple the Italian battleship force.
Moreover carriers were used By the British in the mediterranean.
> The Battle of the North Atlantic was mostly fought by capital ships such as
> Destoyers, Battleships, and U-Boats.
Fleet carriers were used by the British in the first days of the war. However,
after one had been sunk by a U-boat and an other one barely escaped the same
fate, they decide to withdraw them.
Later in the war escort carriers were used extensively to give effective air
cover to the convoys in the Atlantic. Large numbers were used. I think the
British had something like 30 of those. I'm not sure about the figure.
Americans and Canadians also had a good number in operation. These were rather
efficient against German submarines.
However fleet carriers WERE vulnerable to submarines. See what happened in the
Pacific.
The Wasp was sunk, The Saratoga disabled a couple of times, The Yorktown,
Hornet??????????
On the Japanese side, Taiho, Shinano, the Zuikaku
I've played a few wargames on the Pacific war and I decided to use Us
submarines in a Fleet role. There no carrier battles for months because the
Japanese did not want to risk his precious carriers In restricted waters with
20 US subscruising around. Actually he tried once and gave up after he had a
couple of carriers and a few other ships badly torpedoed.
Axis carriers in the Atlantic or the Mediterrannean might well have suffered
the same fate. However, allied carriers would have faced the same danger.
> I've heard that the Germans did plan a project to get carriers
> into operation but was eventually abandoned.
I think they planned to build a couple of carriers but this advanced slowly.
And they eventually gave up.
In fact hey lacked experience in this field and they probably suffered from
trying to make things too complex. A bad German habbit of the period.
> I really think that had the
> German Navy developled carrier-based naval power like the Japanese, it
> would have severely crippled Allied logistics and naval operations.
Developing carrier fleets takes a long time. Years. Germany entered war with
almost no navy to speak of. Would they had changed their policy, the British
would have answered with an increased construction effort. Moreover, the
resources diverted to the naval effort would have slowed down the development
of the army and the Russian campaign would have been impossible.
However, this would have been a major issue for the British.
> The many amphibious operations of the Allies would have been a lot tougher had
> there been German fleet carriers patrolling the Atlantic and
> Mediterranean.
There would have been a large carrier battle before. However, the campaign
wouldprobably have similar to what happened in the Pacific. After a few battles
the Germans would have been outnumbered by by the Anglo-american Fleets.
They couldnot replace their ships as easily as the Americans could. This would
have been a major threat to the allied convoys anyway and would have slowed
the invasion considerably. Torch for exemple would have been much harder with
a couple of German carriers hanging around.
> Capital ships, it seems with all the anti-aircraft fire in the world,
> are simply no match against naval-based aircraft, they are just as good as
> dead.
True, see what happened to the Japanese in the Leyte Gulf ,or with the Yamato.
Or to the brits in Malaysia or even in the Mediterranean. However even the
British did not think battleships were vulnerable to air attacks until the
Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk. The Japanese believed the same thing
until their battleships went down.
I believe Americans used carriers extensively because their battleships were
put out of action at Pearl Harbour. Otherwise they would have considered their
battle fleet as their main weapon I guess the German and Italian doctrines
were similar, relegating carriers to a support role and it's the reason they
did not develop them.
> What about the French? Didn't they have carriers too?
They had a few ships but those were more experimental than really effective.
Probably more like big seaplane tenders than real fleet carriers. I don't think
they played any role in the operations. I am not sure about the exact number
they had. Something like one or two. But there were some seaplane tenders too.
> Another possibility would be that for Italian Navy to have developled
> carrier-based fleets to combine with the German Navy and U-Boats.
In fact the Italians had considered the possibility but they concluded that
land based aircrafts would provide sufficient support. Anyway I don't think
they would have been able to produce a significant carrier fleet. And I have
doubts about their efficiency. Italian aircrafts and pilots were not
outstanding, and they achieved little against the British. They might however
have provided useful air cover. The British had mainly swordfish as attack
aircraft and those were pretty vulnerable.
> I really think that the side that held carrier power would have gained naval
> supremacy just like in the Pacific War. German carrier power would have
> certainly prolonged the war and challenged the suprmacy of the British
> Navy.
Probably true, but German strategy would have been completly different in this
casee. It is difficult to make any realistic statement of what would have
happened.
can...@valis.worldgate.com
The Germans had plans for 2 carriers of which one was nearly completed. They
even developed 2 aircraft for it, the JU 87C (if I recall) and the BF-109T.
The carrier was called the Gref Zeppelin. It was eventually put on hold after
the Bismarck disaster and U-Boats were the one and only think the
Kreigsmarine should use. Hitler also sacked his Fleet Admiral Raeder and put
Gross Admiral Doenitz in charge. Anyhow, the Graf Zeppelin was docked in
Stettin (now a part of Poland) where it stored exotic wood and was a AA
platform. Before the end of the war it was scuttled in the Baltic after
which the Russians raised it planning to make their own carrier but later
scraped it.
Paul
Andrew Toppan
FYI, a summary of German, Italian and French prewar/war-era carrier
projects:
Germany:
--------
2 28,000 ton fleet carriers
Gref Zeppelin -- Laid down 28 Dec 1936, launched 8 Dec 1938, suspended
mid-1940. Work resumed May 1942, work again stopped early 1943. Ship
was mostly complete to the flight deck level. Scuttled at Settin near
the end of the war, raised by the Russians postwar. Lost under tow
to Leningrad mid-1947.
Peter Strasser -- Cancelled mid-1940, scrapped on the building ways.
1 18,000 ton light carrier
Seydlitz -- Laid down as a heavy cruiser 29 Dec 1936, launched
19 Jan 1939, suspended 1940. Conversion to carrier ordered 1942,
stripped of superstructure, work stopped 1943. Later scuttled at
Konigsberg.
3 Converted liners
Plans to convert the liners Potsdam, Europa and Gneisenau (not the
battlecruiser) were cancelled.
Italy:
------
1 Converted liner
Aquila -- The liner Roma was completely gutted out and reconstructed as a
23,000 ton carrier. Conversion began mid-1941, nearly complete by
September 1943. Taken over by the Germans, damaged by Allied raids,
scuttled. Refloated postwar, planned refit cancelled, scrapped 1951-52.
1 Converted liner
Sparviero -- The liner Augustus was taken over for conversion to an
auxiliary aircraft carrier. Conversion began 9/1942 but little work
was done beyond removing the original superstructure. Scuttled by
the Germans.
France:
-------
1 Converted battleship
Bearn -- Incomplete WWI era battleship converted to a slow (21.5 knot)
22,000 ton carrier. Conversion began 9/1923, completed 5/1927.
Refitted 1935. Used as an aircraft transport prior to WWII. Held
at Martinique on US orders 6/1940, joined the Free French, reconstructed
in the US late-1943 to 1944, again served as an aircraft transport.
Hulked 1948 as a training ship, then a submarine depot ship, stricken
11/1966, sold 1967, scrapped.
1 Seaplane carrier
Commandant Teste -- 10,000 ton seaplane completed 1932. Planned
conversion to an aircraft carrier cancelled. Scuttled at Toulon
when France fell; raised and repaired postwar, served as stores ship
until sold for scrapping 5/1950.
2 Cruiser-Carriers
Joffre and Painleve -- 2 18,000 ton cruiser-carriers laid down 1938-1939;
work stopped upon German invasion, both scrapped on the building ways.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Paul Eric Hoecke
Re; Graf Zeppelin
Actually, I think the Soviets sank/scuttled it by accident in the
Baltic after the war. Appairently they had so overloaded it with war
"stuff" that it got about half-way to Russia and then capsized and sank
in heavy but typical Baltic seas.
Albert Lowe
Richard Pan (ric...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: Seeing the crucial role that aircraft carriers played in the Pacific
Taking into consideration the other responses, I'll try to keep this
short and to the point.
1. There was a lot of use of carriers in the ETO/Med. It was primarily
in the form of convoy escort, and U-Boat hunting. There was also a use
of carriers in the role of aircraft transport. Such as when the USS
Wasp transported Spitfires to Malta. And American and Brit carriers gave
support to the Torch landings in North Africa. But it wasn't the same
kind of "game" as in the Pacific. In the ETO/Med, you were dealing with
land masses that were not too far apart, and NO island hopping. So you'd
never see the type of carrier dominated sea action that you get in the
Pacific.
2. German carriers would have had a MAJOR problem with the HUGE,
UNSINKABLE carrier the Allies had to guard Normandy, she was called Great
Britain. Being as close as she was, makes carrier opposition to the
D-Day landings suicidal.
What it all boils down to is with a lack of real reason, you just don't
need aircraft carriers as the Axis forces. It doesn't really get you any
real benefit. From the Allied point of view it just creates another
capital ship to concentrate on sinking.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth.
--
+-----------------------------------------+
:Albert "Al" Lowe sir...@xnet.com :
: "I'd rather win nothing, than WIN95" :
+-----------------------------------------+
Murff
(scha...@als.ameritech.com) wrote:
: In Article <richpan-0404962215190001@s187_98.resnet.ucla.edu>,
: ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) wrote:
: > I uses the carriers to devastating effects as I launch full
: >decks to sink the British Fleet. Capital ships, it seems with all the
: >anti-aircraft fire in the world, are simply no match against naval-based
: >aircraft, they are just as good as dead.
: Very true re: Prince of Wales/Repulse and Yamato as prime examples. The RN
: in the Med would be another. A german carrier in the Atlantic would face the
: same situation. The KM recognized that and when the Graf Zeppelin's utility
: against the Russians evaporated construction lost its priority.
What about RN submarines ? Or USN ones ? The Allied forces developed,
by virtue of necessity, a strong ASW capability which the KM never had.
So even given the ability of naval aviation to do a lot of damage to
surface combatants, a serious threat such as a large German carrier
task force would have attracted a lot of subsurface attention.
Bear in mind that a carrier group is a large target (submariner quips
about submarines and targets aside). In response to the point that
Bismark and PE managed to "slip out" into the Atlantic, it would have
to be countered that two ships are a relatively small target to detect
and track. The same does not hold for a carrier group.
And as the USN showed against the IJN at Midway, a full-deck carrier is
in a lot of trouble if it is engaged while busy.
If you have the leisure to deploy, then yes, a purely surface group is
at a disadvantage when faced with concentrated air attack. Such leisure
would not have been available if deployment involved sailing past the
mainland UK.
--
Murff... http://www.clues.com/~murff/home.html
--
Dave Casper
>Seeing the crucial role that aircraft carriers played in the Pacific
>Theater?
As others have commented, the Allies did use aircraft carriers to some
effect in the ETO. On the Allied side, British carriers were small,
and heavy armoring prevented large hangar space. Also, the only planes
which could be carried on British carriers were no match for front-line
German aircraft based on land, so there was a reluctance to go within
range of enemy airbases.
On the Axis side, the Germans had severe design problems with the Graf
Zeppelin which forced many delays - as I recall, the engines didn't
fit with the rest of the ship and the hull had to be redesigned; in
the end, shortages of materials (since a crash program to build more
Uboats was underway) forced the project to be essentially abandoned.
The air squadron which was earmarked to operate from the Graf Zeppelin
was eventually committed to the Battle of the Atlantic from bases in
France.
I tend to agree with others that building carriers was probably not
the best idea for Germany - given that there were a finite amount
of resources available for prosecuting the war, Uboats and tanks were
more likely to win it for them. Other than the Battle of the Atlantic,
most major naval battles in Europe tended to be fought within range of
Axis air bases and in restricted areas anyhow, making the utility of
aircraft carriers as a decisive element doubtful.
Dave
d.ca...@cern.ch
--
Chris Steadman
Paul Eric Hoecke <peho...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Re; Graf Zeppelin
> Actually, I think the Soviets sank/scuttled it by accident in the
>Baltic after the war. Appairently they had so overloaded it with war
>"stuff" that it got about half-way to Russia and then capsized and sank
>in heavy but typical Baltic seas.
Agreed. In "Soviet Warships of the Second World War" Jurg Meister
writes..."..the railroad cars loaded as part of war reparations on
flight and hangar decks shifted in a storm, and the carrier
capsized..." page 28.
Hope this helps
Chris Steadman
email: ch...@steadman.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Please cite your sources.
Robert W. Carter
On the effectiveness of German aircraft carriers, it may be
helpful to paraphrase author Tom Clancy's comment about Soviet aircraft
carriers (during the 1980').
Given a German carrier's vulnerability to air attack from Britain
and its lack of escorting vessels, "[The carrier] is not so much a military
threat as a Navy Cross (or Victoria Cross?) waiting to be awarded."
Rob Carter, S.J.
Loyola University of Chicago
Stefan J. patejak
Given the nature of the Germany's geography, I don't see that german
carriers would have been that useful. First they would have to break out
into the North Atlantic with little chance of getting to Germany. Second
the use of fleet carriers and their relatively short ranged aircraft to
go raiding convoys seems to be a waste of resources. Land based bombers
flying out of France should be able to accomplish the same thing for a
smaller expenditure or resources.
Sean Barnett
In article <4m08bi$t...@portal.gmu.edu>, st...@loc.gov (Stefan J. patejak) wrote:
*> Given the nature of the Germany's geography, I don't see that german
*> carriers would have been that useful.[snip] Second
*> the use of fleet carriers and their relatively short ranged aircraft to
*> go raiding convoys seems to be a waste of resources. Land based bombers
*> flying out of France should be able to accomplish the same thing . . .
I think you're probably right about German aircraft carriers not being
worthwhile in the end, when you consider where the resources could have
been spent. But what about using a carrier in a reconnaissance role, the
way both the USN and the IJN, at least, considered using them in the 20s
and 30s? Reconnaissance aircraft, by virtue of being unloaded, would have
longer range even if they were derived from bombers or torpedo planes.
The reconnaissance the carrier provided might allow a German surface task
group to find merchant ships and avoid battles with superior British
forces. Thoughts?
--
Sean Barnett
sbar...@ida.org
If you're headed down the road one day and it looks like everything is coming your way, . . . you're in the wrong lane.
Paolo Pizzi
sbar...@ida.org (Sean Barnett) writes:
>But what about using a carrier in a reconnaissance role, the
>way both the USN and the IJN, at least, considered using them in the 20s
>and 30s?
Yeah but the North Sea was blockaded by the allies as early as 1939 and a
carrier force couldn't have gone too much far out without being
intercepted by the British who had carriers with torpedo and dive bombers
and could enjoy the luxury of 16" battlewagons as escorts.
Paolo Pizzi
Cypress, CA
Paul J Hollander
And the Germans had a good four-engined plane, the FW Kondor, for
reconnaissance. I read somewhere that the Kondor could start in France
and fly a semicircular route out to sea and land in Norway. And one of
the first, if not the first, air kill by a USAAF pilot was a Kondor near
Iceland. Seems to me a couple of squadrons of Kondors would be cheaper
and more effective than a carrier for reconnaissance.
Paul Hollander phol...@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
Bryan McRoberts
In article <4m7krl$a...@portal.gmu.edu> sbar...@ida.org (Sean Barnett)
writes:
:I think you're probably right about German aircraft carriers not being
:worthwhile in the end, when you consider where the resources could have
:been spent. But what about using a carrier in a reconnaissance role, the
:way both the USN and the IJN, at least, considered using them in the 20s
:and 30s? Reconnaissance aircraft, by virtue of being unloaded, would
have
:longer range even if they were derived from bombers or torpedo planes.
:The reconnaissance the carrier provided might allow a German surface task
:group to find merchant ships and avoid battles with superior British
:forces. Thoughts?
But what would the point be? The only country they would need a navy to
attack would be the UK - and yet with only 20 miles of sea between them
and captured France they were unnecessary. Land-based planes could reach
all the desired targets. For all the resources required to put out one
carrier, they could make several pocket BB's, or many many tanks. Which
would you rather have to bulk up your military force fast? I'd take the
tanks, thank you.
--
-- Bryan McRoberts
First Chicago NBD Corporation
bmcr...@abacab.cmg.FCNBD.COM