Graf zepplin and aircraft to be carried, thoughts? - Aircraft of World War II

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 01:21 AM

The graf zepplin was a german aircraft carrier, launched but never completed. It would have been a decent ship, but a single carrier would have been crushed in the theater, with RAF an RN aircraft attacking it the second they had the chance. However a single carrier launched before the war, and ready to go at the start could have posed a threat, as did the other elements of the Kreigsmarines surface fleet in the opening stages of the conflict. The carrier would have been equipped with the extended wing and carrier equipped Me-109T, and the Ju-87C, a carrier equipped, stuka with jettisonable landing gear and attachments for bombs or torpedoes. (some Me-109T's were built and would serve on short airfileds with a great service career, into 1944). Had the graf zepplin and and some other warships, preferably commerce raiders slipped into the atlantic on the first days of the war, they would have caused merry hell for the british...what are your thoughts?

R Leonard · 10-04-2005, 01:28 AM

You may wish to look at an earlier discussion of this topic

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...093&highlight=

Regards

Rich

syscom3 · 10-04-2005, 01:36 AM

The German aircraft carrier would have been a disaster for the them. Anyone can build a ship to carry airplanes, but there is far more to it than that. It takes decades to have a doctrine in place, extensive training to at least enable the pilots to land in one piece, and then actually learning how to fight a carrier war while avoiding being sunk yourself.

The German planes were land based aircraft adapted for shipboard use. hardly a brilliant idea. The ship carried only a few of them, so if you factor in normal attrition, they would sooner or later run short of them mighty fast. Then escort vessels would be required to sortie with it, all of which would also be targets.

Then factor in the enviornment they had to fly in. The North Atlantic in autumn. With no radar, on a foggy day, what are the planes going to do?

Id say the Germans were wise not to procede with the project.

toffigd · 10-04-2005, 03:50 AM

They weren't wise enough when they had started the project.

JCS · 10-04-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

and the Ju-87C, a carrier equipped, stuka with jettisonable landing gear and attachments for bombs or torpedoes.

Didnt all Stukas have jettisonable landing gear?

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 08:01 PM

No all of them didnt, maybe some later marks, but the C came up with the idea to allow them to avoid fighters with faster flight, and to be able to make a landing in water without flipping.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-04-2005, 08:02 PM

And the german carrier would have carried a number around 40, or above aircraft, ive heard 48. Thats about the number british carriers were embarking, more or less, because theyre armor and under decks required small complements.

Lightning Guy · 10-05-2005, 06:37 PM

Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare.

Gnomey · 10-05-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare.

I'd agree with that. It's narrow undercarriage was bad enough on land (and killed/injured many pilots). I would imagine that on a carrier which was riding even light seas would have been a nightmare, if not impossible. I think it would have been an absolute death trap to land a 109 on a carrier.

cheddar cheese · 10-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Me too. I can see many going into a ground loops, closely followed by a sea loop.

Nonskimmer · 10-07-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare.

I'd agree with that. It's narrow undercarriage was bad enough on land (and killed/injured many pilots).

Seafires had the narrow gear too. They had their share of prangs, although they weren't all due to the landing gear. A few were though.

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-07-2005, 02:51 PM

that's annother point though- we had carrier tactics through use of them and bloody inventing them! the Germans were new to carriers, which showed........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-08-2005, 08:35 AM

I think I would rather shoot myself in the head than land a 109 on a carrier.

Glider · 10-08-2005, 11:27 AM

Call me a coward but I would have a mechanical defect and jump. Better odds of living than shooting myself or landing a 109.

Gnomey · 10-08-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Call me a coward but I would have a mechanical defect and jump. Better odds of living than shooting myself or landing a 109.

Good point Glider, bail rather than land. You might as well of just ditched in the sea if you were landing a 109 on a carrier it would be likely you would end up in the 'drink' anyway.

10-04-2005, 01:21 AM	#1
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	Graf zepplin and aircraft to be carried, thoughts? The graf zepplin was a german aircraft carrier, launched but never completed. It would have been a decent ship, but a single carrier would have been crushed in the theater, with RAF an RN aircraft attacking it the second they had the chance. However a single carrier launched before the war, and ready to go at the start could have posed a threat, as did the other elements of the Kreigsmarines surface fleet in the opening stages of the conflict. The carrier would have been equipped with the extended wing and carrier equipped Me-109T, and the Ju-87C, a carrier equipped, stuka with jettisonable landing gear and attachments for bombs or torpedoes. (some Me-109T's were built and would serve on short airfileds with a great service career, into 1944). Had the graf zepplin and and some other warships, preferably commerce raiders slipped into the atlantic on the first days of the war, they would have caused merry hell for the british...what are your thoughts?

10-04-2005, 01:28 AM	#2
R Leonard Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 490	You may wish to look at an earlier discussion of this topic http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...093&highlight= Regards Rich __________________ hmmm ... I wonder what this switch does ...

10-04-2005, 01:36 AM	#3
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,281	The German aircraft carrier would have been a disaster for the them. Anyone can build a ship to carry airplanes, but there is far more to it than that. It takes decades to have a doctrine in place, extensive training to at least enable the pilots to land in one piece, and then actually learning how to fight a carrier war while avoiding being sunk yourself. The German planes were land based aircraft adapted for shipboard use. hardly a brilliant idea. The ship carried only a few of them, so if you factor in normal attrition, they would sooner or later run short of them mighty fast. Then escort vessels would be required to sortie with it, all of which would also be targets. Then factor in the enviornment they had to fly in. The North Atlantic in autumn. With no radar, on a foggy day, what are the planes going to do? Id say the Germans were wise not to procede with the project. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

10-04-2005, 03:50 AM	#4
toffigd Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Gdansk, PL Posts: 316	They weren't wise enough when they had started the project. __________________ Pozdrawiam

10-05-2005, 06:37 PM	#8
Lightning Guy Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,512	Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare. __________________

10-04-2005, 08:01 PM	#6
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	No all of them didnt, maybe some later marks, but the C came up with the idea to allow them to avoid fighters with faster flight, and to be able to make a landing in water without flipping.

10-04-2005, 08:02 PM	#7
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	And the german carrier would have carried a number around 40, or above aircraft, ive heard 48. Thats about the number british carriers were embarking, more or less, because theyre armor and under decks required small complements.

10-07-2005, 01:25 PM	#10
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Me too. I can see many going into a ground loops, closely followed by a sea loop.

10-07-2005, 02:51 PM	#12
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	that's annother point though- we had carrier tactics through use of them and bloody inventing them! the Germans were new to carriers, which showed........ __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

10-08-2005, 08:35 AM	#13
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,152	I think I would rather shoot myself in the head than land a 109 on a carrier. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-08-2005, 11:27 AM	#14
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	Call me a coward but I would have a mechanical defect and jump. Better odds of living than shooting myself or landing a 109.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode