ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Graf zepplin and aircraft to be carried, thoughts?

Aviation Discuss Graf zepplin and aircraft to be carried, thoughts? in the World War II - Aviation forums; The graf zepplin was a german aircraft carrier, launched but never completed. It would have been a decent ship, but ...

  1. #1
    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?


  2. #2
    Senior Member R Leonard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    596
    Country
    United States
    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 ...

  3. #3
    Pacific Historian syscom3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    12,124
    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?"

  4. #4
    Senior Member toffigd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, PL
    Posts
    316
    Country
    Poland
    They weren't wise enough when they had started the project.

  5. #5
    JCS
    JCS is offline
    Senior Member JCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Nicholson, PA
    Posts
    672
    Country
    United States
    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?

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,511
    Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare.

  9. #9
    World Travelling Doctor? Gnomey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Royal Deeside/Swansea, UK
    Posts
    29,090
    Country
    United Kingdom
    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.


    "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
    Sir Winston Churchill

    "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today"
    Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London


    My Photo Collections on Flickr

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    WSM, England
    Posts
    20,367
    Country
    United Kingdom
    Me too. I can see many going into a ground loops, closely followed by a sea loop.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Nonskimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    8,858
    Country
    Canada
    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.

  12. #12
    Senior Member the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,986
    Country
    United Kingdom
    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."

  13. #13
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    39,402
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Germany
    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"

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,497
    Call me a coward but I would have a mechanical defect and jump. Better odds of living than shooting myself or landing a 109.

  15. #15
    World Travelling Doctor? Gnomey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Royal Deeside/Swansea, UK
    Posts
    29,090
    Country
    United Kingdom
    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.


    "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
    Sir Winston Churchill

    "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today"
    Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London


    My Photo Collections on Flickr

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88