Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums

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 ...


Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-04-2005, 12:21 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 286
Send a message via MSN to carpenoctem1689
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?
carpenoctem1689 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 12:28 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
R Leonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 423
Country:
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 ...
R Leonard is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 12:36 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
syscom3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,446
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?"
syscom3 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 02:50 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
toffigd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gdansk, PL
Posts: 316
Country:
They weren't wise enough when they had started the project.
__________________
Pozdrawiam
toffigd is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 04:06 PM   #5
JCS
Senior Member
 
JCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nicholson, PA
Posts: 673
Country:
Send a message via AIM to JCS
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?
__________________
JCS is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 07:01 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 286
Send a message via MSN to carpenoctem1689
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 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 07:02 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 286
Send a message via MSN to carpenoctem1689
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.
carpenoctem1689 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2005, 05:37 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
Personally, I think landing a 109 on a carrier would have been an absolute nightmare.
__________________
Lightning Guy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2005, 05:42 PM   #9
World Traveler
 
Gnomey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Posts: 11,708
Country:
Send a message via AIM to Gnomey Send a message via MSN to 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). 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


Moderator WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum

My Photo Collections on Flickr
Gnomey is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 12:25 PM   #10
Konfused with a 'K'
 
cheddar cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:
Send a message via AIM to cheddar cheese Send a message via MSN to cheddar cheese
Me too. I can see many going into a ground loops, closely followed by a sea loop.
__________________

with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt...
cheddar cheese is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 01:33 PM   #11
He who does not skim
 
Nonskimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,957
Country:
Send a message via MSN to Nonskimmer
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.
Nonskimmer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 01:51 PM   #12
Master of Ewes
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
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."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 07:35 AM   #13
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,198
Country:
I think I would rather shoot myself in the head than land a 109 on a carrier.
__________________

US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006

Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes:

fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

"wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2"

"ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 10:27 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,856
Call me a coward but I would have a mechanical defect and jump. Better odds of living than shooting myself or landing a 109.
Glider is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 10:52 AM   #15
World Traveler
 
Gnomey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Posts: 11,708
Country:
Send a message via AIM to Gnomey Send a message via MSN to Gnomey
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


Moderator WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum

My Photo Collections on Flickr
Gnomey is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
   

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com


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 89 90 91 92 93