Sadly all German carriers are canceled or never completed. You had to wonder how the war will turn out if Graf Zeppelin is completed and put in service.
Sadly all German carriers are canceled or never completed. You had to wonder how the war will turn out if Graf Zeppelin is completed and put in service.
In my opinion (as well as some notes from others) that Germany will get a much better hold on Atlatic as well as a faster capturing in Norway,due that they had aerial support. Bismarck might not had being sunk and Britain might actually suffer really hard.
Too bad this never happen as Hitler was too hungry to conquer the world.
In my opinion (as well as some notes from others) that Germany will get a much better hold on Atlatic as well as a faster capturing in Norway,due that they had aerial support. Bismarck might not had being sunk and Britain might actually suffer really hard.
Too bad this never happen as Hitler was too hungry to conquer the world.
In my opinion (as well as some notes from others) that Germany will get a much better hold on Atlatic...
HAHAHAHAHAH...no. There was nothing Germany could do to gain control over the Atlantic. The Royal Navy was simply too powerful. The Graf Zeppelin herself would have barely lasted five minutes on a sortie before the famous Fairey Swordfish put some torpedoes in her.
HAHAHAHAHAH...no. There was nothing Germany could do to gain control over the Atlantic. The Royal Navy was simply too powerful. The Graf Zeppelin herself would have barely lasted five minutes on a sortie before the famous Fairey Swordfish put some torpedoes in her.
If Italy had actually helped and if Hitler didn't go fucking around with Stalin, the Germans might have stood a chance in taking over Europe and then maybe proceed with the rest of the world. It wasn't like they weren't doing well since for the majority of the war the Axis were winning.
Also the Japanese attacking the Americans and bringing them in was a dumb idea.
Even if the Graf Zeppelin became a reality, Hitler won't give 2 shits about it seeing as he hates the Kriegsmarine and all that was running in his head was "muh panzers and luftwaffe."
In my opinion (as well as some notes from others) that Germany will get a much better hold on Atlatic as well as a faster capturing in Norway,due that they had aerial support. Bismarck might not had being sunk and Britain might actually suffer really hard.
Too bad this never happen as Hitler was too hungry to conquer the world.
Probably not, the Royal Navy was a mighty and experienced force to be reckoned with. A single carrier or even a handful wouldn't have a very significant effect, it might've enhanced ground operations but every carrier is money and material not spent on the ground forces they would be helping.
Against the Royal Navy the Germans would have had to make a comparable armada, one which they had neither the time nor materials for.
War and life is all about maximizing benefits for the least amount of cost and in my opinion a mighty surface Kreigsmarine just wasn't practical for where Germany found herself in the war. Awesome and inspiring yes, but not practical.
Graf Zepplin was nearly complete. She was launched in 1938, and looks complete on the outside in her 1941 pictures. She wasn't finished because of shifting priorities and by 1943 Hitler basically telling his navy they can get stuffed. She was handed over to the Soviets at the end of the war, and eventually sunk as target. Her wreck was reportedly discovered off Poland in 2006.
Graf Zepplin was nearly complete. She was launched in 1938, and looks complete on the outside in her 1941 pictures. She wasn't finished because of shifting priorities and by 1943 Hitler basically telling his navy they can get stuffed. She was handed over to the Soviets at the end of the war, and eventually sunk as target. Her wreck was reportedly discovered off Poland in 2006.
Prinz if cute at a stand in though.
In my personal headcanon, anthropomorphized carriers emphasize the traditional qualities of the country which fields them. So, most of the USN carriers would have a Revolutionary War motif (which also fits in with most of their names), while RN carriers would probably be armored knights and longbow-wielding yeo(wo)men.
Naturally, I picture Graf Zeppelin as a Valkyrie hurling spears.
Sadly all German carriers are canceled or never completed. You had to wonder how the war will turn out if Graf Zeppelin is completed and put in service.
The problem with carriers is so very often not building them, but running them. Carriers require rates, skills, and commanders with entirely different sets of skills from any other ship, someone that has run a destroyer can to some extent run a cruiser or battleship, maybe not quite as well, but overall they're similar. Carriers are not, they a different animal and there is a reason that the smart navies used former pilots to run them. Germany had never run even a converted WWI era botch job, it had zero institutional experience and no one to really learn it from.
They also had the further issue that like Britain they had no independent naval air arm and like the RAF the Luftwaffe was both incompetent at and largely uninterested in providing aircraft and pilots for what amounted to a rival service. This can be seen in the near total lack of anti-shipping units going into the war, the pathetic patrol force (the Fw-200 was a shitty airliner conversion that fell apart and burned like a torch at the slightest provocation and they were thin in numbers to boot), and the near total lack of any focused development of naval aircraft. The Seafire was bad enough, but the proposed bodged up naval 109 would have been a killing machine... of German pilots attempting to land it on a carrier. The Stuka was much too short ranged to operate as a really effective naval bomber and it was slow and ungainly even by the low standards of dive bombers. The purposed TB was a bi-plane only marginally more advanced then the swordfish.
So you have a fairly badly designed (16(!) casemate guns all along the sides just for a start, THOSE are sure to be useful!) carrier, crewed and run by people with zero experience, filled with aircraft ranging from outright dangerous to simply poorly performing, and universally short ranged and it's up against a navy with literally almost ten times as many carriers. Oh also it's basically trapped in the North Sea large parts of which are within range of land based maritime aircraft which routinely attacked German shipping in the area. Most likely if finished it sits in port for several years before Britain drops a bunch of Tallboys on it in 1944. The full extent of it's contribution is that it might well force Britain and the US to keep one or two CVs on hand in the North Sea in case it does come out, but this would not an undue burden. Ranger was pissing around in the North Sea historically anyway and a few CVEs might well suffice to contain it later on too.
The only way this ends if the thing actually puts to sea is that it gets ganked by 2 or 3 RN CV is hilariously ineffective, and it ends up sunk.
T34/38 said:
Only Japan made Aviation Battleships and nobody else.
Interestingly enough though the USN had a phase in the 30s where it had a real hard on for "Flight Deck Cruisers", this was mostly a treaty dodge thing admittedly. Technically speaking nothing in the treaty said that a cruiser couldn't carry airplanes, as long as it met the various other requirements. So the idea was that they could build these 10,000 ton hybrids that could sort of function as carriers, at least enough to free up the carriers from some basic scouting and fighter defense tasks, allowing the carrier force to focus on offensive operations, but they would still have guns so they were technically cruisers and so would not use allocated carrier displacement.
The plans that emerged were basically the ass end of a carrier with the front of a cruiser bolted on. They actually came close to being built, and if not for the depression it's quite possible at least one or two would've been produced for experimental purposes, but they were most in vogue in the early 30s and the money was just not their to be playing with such new ideas. By the time money was available again in the late 30s treaties had lapsed meaning they could have as many CV as they could build, and most officers had come to the probably correct conclusion that the idea mostly produced something that was both a shitty cruiser and a shitty carrier.
Keo said:
Nonsense about World war II
If Italy had actually helped
People need to lay off Italy, it's army's staff wasn't good, but with competent officers in charge the Italian units generally fought well in North Africa. It's industry and population was also limited and it was never going to be able to equal the output of even Britain or France. Could it have been managed somewhat better then it was? Probably, but Germany was a mess for much of the early war too and even later on it was unduly obsessed with various vanity projects and wonder weapons.
As it was it produced a number of very good warships and a fair few quite good aircraft as well (admittedly never in the numbers needed), it was really only in armored vehicles that it was truly disastrously behind the curve. Italy was also the sole reason Rommel army didn't starve to death in a matter of weeks. The Italian navy suffered many of it's worsts losses operating in support of the various convoy operations supplying North Africa, and people that act like they were sandbagging it and could have done more are delusional. Preserving the threat of their fleet and feinting and shadow boxing with the RN was the correct strategy. A direct major fleet action that they lost would've instantly handed the Med to the enemy wholesale and doomed the Africa Korps in an afternoon.
Once the US joined the war it was hopeless, there is literally nothing they could do to stop the combined USN/RN from steam rolling the Med.
and if Hitler didn't go fucking around with Stalin,
War between Russia and Germany was inevitable, both sides knew it, both sides were preparing for it. It was only a question of when and who would strike first. In point of fact on review Hitler probably picked about the best possible moment to strike. Holding off longer merely means that various Soviet formations are fully equipped with the better gear they would begin getting from 1942 onward and with the worst of the purges somewhat further behind them and more time to work up the leadership and organization is probably more robust and competent then it was historically. (Though likely still a shadow of what years of brutal warfare would later forge.)
Indeed if Hitler waits even a few months and Japan goes through with Pearl Harbor he's quite likely to end up facing a totally undamaged Russia that's had time to roll out much of it's latest gear and work up the units near the border, a fully mobilized Britain, and the single largest economy on the planet rapidly gearing up to support both. If he holds off attacking the Soviet union and tries to focus West and South against the US and Britain it's only a matter of time until the Soviet attack him once he becomes embroiled in those operations. They can even look like the 'good guys' despite being the attackers as they come to the aid of the west against the imperalist Germans...
By attacking first he was at least able to seize huge tracts of land that gave him something critical that soviets had and he initially didn't: strategic depth. If the war with the Russians begins with millions of them rolling over the Polish and Hungary borders in say 1942-43 while large portions of the army are occupied fighting the Allies in North Africa and the Air Force is being bled away against the RAF now massively reinforced by a seemingly endless stream of planes from America it's not going to last four years like it did historically.
If Germany and Italy was allowed to fight Russia in a complete vacuum were they still control all of Western Europe and no one else interferes in anyway there is a chance they can at least force a negotiated capitulation and destroy Stalin's government, but that was never going to happen and so Germany never had any real chance to win. All Russia had to do was keep falling back across it's massive length until the Germany supply lines simply became unsustainably long and pressure on their rear from Britain and the US began sapping off significant portions of their strength.
the Germans might have stood a chance in taking over Europe and then maybe proceed with the rest of the world.
Germany was fucked the moment it made enemies of both Britain and Russia at the same time. It could not knock the UK out of the war and it's industrial capacity alone was close to Germany, Russia was likewise close in capacity and so together they nearly doubled it's output and more then doubled it's population. The areas captured by Germany contained industry, but occupied populations make awful workers for any number of reasons and it never even approached per-invasion outputs or really contributed much. British control of the seas also meant that it was free to utilize it's output to directly support it's ally with war materials in addition to being able to divert some troops via operations in subsidiary areas.
US entry into the war merely seals the deal and shortens the process, and is largely inevitable in any case. Japan cannot survive the embargo without attacking European colonial interests, the US will not stand aside as they do so. They must attack the US and they are allies of Germany.
Roosevelt is blatantly pro Britain and is really only looking for an excuse. Japan's attack was all he needed. Hitler's own declaration of war merely made it even easier, but the moment Japan attacked the intention was to declare war on BOTH. Japan must attack the US and when they do the US is going to declare war on Germany, and then Germany is doomed within a few years at most. US GDP in this period was approaching 50% of the WORLD'S output, it could have fought any three of the other power involved with a reasonable chance of success (It might have had issues with all four at once, but arguably more due to running out of manpower then materials).
It wasn't like they weren't doing well since for the majority of the war the Axis were winning.
[/quote]
Um, not really. You could legimtately say that Germany was winning from about April 1940 (Conquering Poland doesn't really count, and the 'phony war' period was a stalemate) to about November-December 1941 when it became clear it would fail to Capture Moscow. Thus if we're generous we could give it about 20 months of 'winning'. It was failing in all areas throughout the rest of the war amounting to about 40 (45 or so if we count Japan's Summer '45 death ride) months.
It doesn't matter though Germany was doomed from the start by having made enemies of Russia, Britain, and through the later the United States between them these nations had triple the GDP and population of the Europeon axis powers. Germany could never win, it was just a question of how fast it would loose once the aforementioned states fully mobilized. The Axis could never win, not baring the most outlandish of scenarios like literal aliens coming down from the sky and allying with them.
Also the Japanese attacking the Americans and bringing them in was a dumb idea.
It wasn't dumb it was a matter of survival for the current regime, they'd been put under an embargo and had no viable domestic resources. The only ones within reach were controlled by European interests and it was blindingly obvious the US would not just stand by if they invaded. The options thus amounted to 'back down and vacate occupied areas' or 'attack and hope to seize what you need in the window you have', ruled by half crazed militarists as it was Japan choose the later, it choose... poorly.
Also the Japanese attacking the Americans and bringing them in was a dumb idea.
TK already said a bit on this post, but I want to expand on this part more...
First of all, Japan declaring war on America (and, let's not forget, the Netherlands and Britain...) wasn't exactly a choice of Germany's. Hitler's choice of declaring war on America, however, was probably a little more foolish, as he was gambling on Japan declaring war on Russia in return, and that didn't happen. Basically, Germany just let the biggest army and industrial complex in the world become its enemy while it was already biting off more than it could chew for nothing to show for it, although granted, had the gamble worked, there's some room for debate that it might have stretched Russia's already reeling military thin enough that Germany might have been able to put Russia out of the war, and been able to actually harden itself to try to rebuild a military that could at least fight the other Allies to a bleeding attritional standstill where a truce might have been signed.
But onto Japan... Japan was caught overextended into a war with China it desperately wanted, but was drawing heavy international sanctions from the rest of the world, not entirely unlike Russia is now in Ukraine. Unlike Russia, however, Japan is an active volcanic island chain, which means it has no access to oil and little iron of any decent quality. These were the things that were targeted by the sanctions, and would absolutely eliminate Japan's dreams of empire if they were not somehow lifted. They could either accept the terms of the International sanctions, and pull back from their war on China, which would humiliate themselves before their people to whom they promised they were done bowing and cowtowing to international pressure (which would be certain political upheaval) or they could declare they were going to screw the embargo and declare war. They declared war, knowing it was nearly suicidal.
Japan, however, did have at least some not-entirely-insane plan to turn the whole stunt into something they could profit from. The Netherlands proper was currently under German occupation, and their navy was obsolete and scattered. They were easily routed by the much larger and better-prepared Japanese, and they were "Greeted as liberators" in the places they conquered from the notoriously heavy-handed Dutch, at least initially. Japan managed to rout America from the Philipines before they could rally any sort of serious opposition. Japan could push Britain on its heels, especially since Britain was clearly not that interested in spending the resources to fully commit to a fight in the Pacific and Indian Oceans when its homeland was under constant bombardment. (Much to the eternal grumbling of the Australians...)
Japan lacked the capacity to win a war of total conquest, but its original idea had always been to sign a peace treaty where they just kept some land with oil on it. Basically, make a few quick wins and cash out while everyone else was too busy beating the crap out of Germany to give Japan its comeuppance. The problem is, they DRASTICALLY misjudged the American response to an attack like Pearl Harbor, and thought it would demoralize America, rather than inflame it with blazing (and frankly, more than a little racist,) hatred and desire for revenge. They constantly thought America would come to them first with terms of surrender, rather than proactively trying to make an offer where they'd give up some of their gains in order to keep others before the fight really properly started. It may not have necessarily worked, but it would have been a much more realistic goal to conquer the Philipines in a couple weeks of surprise attack, (which the American populace by and large hardly knew existed, and wouldn't have given half a damn about in any event,) and then offered to give half of it back if there was a peace accord signed. Their upper echelons KNEW they couldn't win a proper attritional war, but couldn't convince their political leaders, who were too scared to tell the truth to their populace, and chose inglorious ruin over accepting reality.
The problem is, they DRASTICALLY misjudged the American response to an attack like Pearl Harbor, and thought it would demoralize America, rather than inflame it with blazing (and frankly, more than a little racist,) hatred and desire for revenge. They constantly thought America would come to them first with terms of surrender, rather than proactively trying to make an offer where they'd give up some of their gains in order to keep others before the fight really properly started.
IIRC during that time the Americans were trying too avoid war at all cost since WWI, so that probably give the Japanese an impression of American won't fight back too hard. But too bad President Rooservelt wanted an excuse to declare war on Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbour occur at the right time.
IIRC during that time the Americans were trying too avoid war at all cost since WWI, so that probably give the Japanese an impression of American won't fight back too hard. But too bad President Rooservelt wanted an excuse to declare war on Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbour occur at the right time.
This is largely a myth, by 1940 anyway. The executive branch was firmly on allied side and amid increasing news of what was occurring in Britain such as the blitz so was the wider population. Having won the 1940 election FDR had basically been given free reign to let his allied leanings run loose. The major build up of US military assets began before Pearl Harbor including a massive draft, the naval build up, establishment of factories, etc. The US was gearing up for total war long before Pearl Harbor and the expected target was Germany. It was already supplying ever increasing quantities of weaponry to Britain, US yards were refitting and servicing British warships, US navy ships where fighting U-boats and dodging torpedoes in the Atlantic.
Pearl Harbor was a perfectly made excuse, but by 1941 the US was merely looking for one to enter the war and no matter what it was, it was never going to be confined to just Japan.
This is largely a myth, by 1940 anyway. The executive branch was firmly on allied side and amid increasing news of what was occurring in Britain such as the blitz so was the wider population. Having won the 1940 election FDR had basically been given free reign to let his allied leanings run loose. The major build up of US military assets began before Pearl Harbor including a massive draft, the naval build up, establishment of factories, etc. The US was gearing up for total war long before Pearl Harbor and the expected target was Germany. It was already supplying ever increasing quantities of weaponry to Britain, US yards were refitting and servicing British warships, US navy ships where fighting U-boats and dodging torpedoes in the Atlantic.
Pearl Harbor was a perfectly made excuse, but by 1941 the US was merely looking for one to enter the war and no matter what it was, it was never going to be confined to just Japan.
That explains it. I have always wondered how in the world did they manage to produce so many equipment so quickly as soon as the war started. So they already preparing for a war, just finding an excuse to officially enter it.
NNescio said: In my personal headcanon, anthropomorphized carriers emphasize the traditional qualities of the country which fields them. So, most of the USN carriers would have a Revolutionary War motif (which also fits in with most of their names), while RN carriers would probably be armored knights and longbow-wielding yeo(wo)men.
Naturally, I picture Graf Zeppelin as a Valkyrie hurling spears.
As a Brit, I picture our carriers being antropomorphised as longbow (wo)men archers and Robin Hood-style archers, as well as Withches/Wizards, to match with the Japanese Samurai Archers and Onmyodo.
Also, HMS Victorious should have the most obvious Robin Hood connection (but I picture her also using a revolver, as a souvenir from when she was on-loan).
"Seydlitz is that you...? Eugen? When were you converted to a Carrier?"
Seydlitz was an Admiral Hipper-class cruiser, like Prinz Eugen, but during her construction, she was selected to be converted into a Light Carrier and renamed Weser. Eventually her construction, like Graf Zeppelin, was cancelled and she never got her complement of Bf 109T and Ju 87E.
Wasn't the Graf Spee sort of an aviation battleship it launched a scout plane if I remember correctly
Krugger said:
The Graf Spee did in fact launch a float plane when it met with the Clement so technically
...No. Scout planes were almost a requirement for battleships come WWII. Their ranges far exceeded what ship-based range finders of the day could accurately track and ID. So the sterns had catapults, a crane, and at least two float planes mounted on them. They would launch the plane, the plane would scout out targets, and radio back the position, plus any hits or misses.
Aviation battleships require flight decks, amongst other things.
Was too lazy to read all wall-o-text but in first place...
T34/38 said:
In my opinion (as well as some notes from others) that Germany will get a much better hold on Atlatic as well as a faster capturing in Norway,due that they had aerial support. Bismarck might not had being sunk and Britain might actually suffer really hard.
Too bad this never happen as Hitler was too hungry to conquer the world.
Hitler put stakes on land forces first and aerial forces second. He gave a little attention to his Kriegsmarine and actually didn't liked it.
Got it!You're imagining things!Huh? Isn't that Prinz Eugen?Do you Germans have any carriers?
Come to think of it, I've never seen a German aircraft carrier before.Hilfe!I'm not good at this!Nein!Modifying in progressNow we have one!The debut of the German aircraft carrier, Graf Zeppelin!