Why bring kriegmarine?

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

My only gripe with German CV's are the poor aircraft they would carry. Both Stuka and BF 109 are, well, not suited for naval warfare and operating from CV - one of the reasons the development of Graf was so slow and painfull. They couldn't resolve the landing issue. Land aircraft converted for naval warfare were performing below expectations. So despite doing good in land based operations, they are inferior to Wildcat's, SBD's, Zeros etc. 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

My only gripe with German CV's are the poor aircraft they would carry. Both Stuka and BF 109 are, well, not suited for naval warfare and operating from CV - one of the reasons the development of Graf was so slow and painfull. They couldn't resolve the landing issue. Land aircraft converted for naval warfare were performing below expectations. So despite doing good in land based operations, they are inferior to Wildcat's, SBD's, Zeros etc. 

 

True. But the same could be said about the Royal Navy, and they are the only one that could provide a full carrier tree ( the odd "paper ship" being needed for higher tiers)

 

• The Fairey Fulmar was outclassed as a fighter - it struggled to even catch German bombers. The Blackburn Skua was similarly outclassed.
• The Spitfire was a legend of course, but unsuited to carrier ops with its narrow undercarriage and poor visibility while taxiing on deck.
• The Swordfish performed remarkably to be fair, and outlived the aircraft scheduled to replace it IIRC! (Fairey Albacore ?)

 

I think that we can give the German Navy a bit of slack here, and go with the aircraft that they were supposed to use.  Given the lack of Torpedo bombers, maybe the feature of German CVs could be superior Dive Bombers - well it's going to have to be really! 

 

I'm intrigued by what Tier the GZ will get put into. They could increase the number of aircraft or keep to the design limits in order to move the ship up/down tiers.

[Historynerd]

• The Swordfish performed remarkably to be fair, and outlived the aircraft scheduled to replace it IIRC! (Fairey Albacore ?)

 

I think that the Swordfish might have been assisted in its exploits by quite some luck. In the two instances for which it's famous (Taranto and the hunt for the Bismarck), it didn't have to face the most lethal danger that a torpedo bomber could face, i.e. enemy fighters (of course, this gives us the magnitude of the lack of coordination between the Regia Marina and the Regia Aeronautica in the first instance, one of the greatest drawbacks of the Italian war machine during the conflict). During the Channel Dash, for example, when the Swordfish did meet German fighters, its results were non-existent and losses were very heavy.

[C4PT41N_0BV10US]

@Admiral

Well, British were pragmatical, and soon as it was possible they just used US planes. Although late war Barracuda TB was good, also, Sea Fury was one of the best propelled fighters. So, I expect low tier UK CV's to have rather poor planes. Fulmar, Swordfish, Albacore were also subpar, but they were suited for naval warfare. Hurricane and Spitfire were "converted" to aircraft carrier fighters and suffered from same faults. 

 

All in all, early UK sea aircraft were poor, But remember they fighted with much better opponents due to how UK midwar military politics - Zero outclassed anything British could throw at it until US stuff arrived. But late war constructions were good quality and performed well. So it could actually be cool to have mixed planes with mixed capabilities in game - just a thought.

 

We were discussing some CV stuff some time ago, and I had two ideas back then - a spotter plane which decreases dispersion of allied ships while marking opponent ships, and fighter bombers - fighters with bombs. It might be cool to incorporate them in game and make them for example german specific. 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

@Historynerd

 

Good point about the fighters.  Also correct about the amount of luck. You might add that the RN were also lucky to get back control of naval aircraft just before World War 2 (after all the politics between RAF and RN).

The Regia Marina were not so lucky and had to fight with "one arm tied behind its back", as the saying goes. 

 

@Dropsiq

 

Another good point about the RN using US aircraft.  And later in the war there were better British planes. The Fairey Firefly had a distinguished career.

I like your idea about fighter bombers for the Germans. WG like the idea of making the ships from Germany/Japan/USA have slightly different national characteristics. The Me 109 did have fighter bomber variants ("Jabo").  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

 

 

[piritskenyer]

My only gripe with German CV's are the poor aircraft they would carry. Both Stuka and BF 109 are, well, not suited for naval warfare and operating from CV - one of the reasons the development of Graf was so slow and painfull. They couldn't resolve the landing issue. Land aircraft converted for naval warfare were performing below expectations. So despite doing good in land based operations, they are inferior to Wildcat's, SBD's, Zeros etc. 

 

The Bf seems unsuited indeed, for the same reasons the Spitfire would seem unsuited, yet the Spitfire (excuse me, Seafire) worked surprisingly well. That said, it was planned to be replaced with figthers with a wider undercarriage arrangement, yet due to lack of resources I suspect, that never was fully realised until... Well, practacally until full shift to jet-powered aircraft operating from carriers.

 

That said, I for one would have looked toward the FW-190 for conversion into carrier-borne aircraft rather than the Bf-109. Why?

• Undercarriage: was designed to be wide and robust to work from non-builtup airfields with grass landing strips. That would make it equally well suited for carrier-borne operations.
• Short takeoff: relatively short takeoff distance further helped by the carrier turning into the wind and steaming full ahead.
• Versatility: Some squadrons used FW190's to replace their Stukas. The 190 could carry a pretty high strike load, which would greatly simplify logistics and maintnance.

 

The only thing I really don't know is what she would have carried for torp bombers (no, the Fieseler biplanes don't count!).

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

The Bf seems unsuited indeed, for the same reasons the Spitfire would seem unsuited, yet the Spitfire (excuse me, Seafire) worked surprisingly well. That said, it was planned to be replaced with figthers with a wider undercarriage arrangement, yet due to lack of resources I suspect, that never was fully realised until... Well, practacally until full shift to jet-powered aircraft operating from carriers.

 

That said, I for one would have looked toward the FW-190 for conversion into carrier-borne aircraft rather than the Bf-109. Why?

• Undercarriage: was designed to be wide and robust to work from non-builtup airfields with grass landing strips. That would make it equally well suited for carrier-borne operations.
• Short takeoff: relatively short takeoff distance further helped by the carrier turning into the wind and steaming full ahead.
• Versatility: Some squadrons used FW190's to replace their Stukas. The 190 could carry a pretty high strike load, which would greatly simplify logistics and maintnance.

 

The only thing I really don't know is what she would have carried for torp bombers (no, the Fieseler biplanes don't count!).

 

You will be pleased to know that the Germans fiddled with the Fw190 for this purpose.

Not exactly excellent, given the very low clearance of the torpedo. But they did work on it. Had it continued, they might have made a proper variant with a higher clearance (this version does have an extended rear wheel in order to make it work).

 

Unsurprisingly they also used the Stuka.

 

I'm sure they had a few more exotic attempts as well. But considering the high tier IJN planes, expect something like a Do-335 torpedo bomber.

[psl_58]

The main reason the Graf Zeppelin had no chance of completion , was more political than anything else.  At the very time Goering was being bullied into increase production by Hitler's demands, Raeder was requesting specialised variants for carrier ops. No way!!!!

 

 

 

 

Best option was to go with obsolete Stuka as carrier plane to fill both fighter roles and dive bomber roles....cause that was all LW would give him until Hitler personally intervened and we all know Hitler had little stomach for naval warfare, pulling the fleet back to Norway to interdict Lend Lease to Stalin and keep an eye on Raeder so he doesn't [edited]up again -after Bismarck debacle.

[Tigger3]

The main reason the Graf Zeppelin had no chance of completion , was more political than anything else.  At the very time Goering was being bullied into increase production by Hitler's demands, Raeder was requesting specialised variants for carrier ops. No way!!!!

 

 

 

 

Best option was to go with obsolete Stuka as carrier plane to fill both fighter roles and dive bomber roles....cause that was all LW would give him until Hitler personally intervened and we all know Hitler had little stomach for naval warfare, pulling the fleet back to Norway to interdict Lend Lease to Stalin and keep an eye on Raeder so he doesn't [edited]up again -after Bismarck debacle.

 

Several Bf 109's were built (and used to test carrier equipment) specifically for the KM and use on the Graf Zeppelin as were Ju 87's. With the cancellation of the carrier there was no point in producing them in quantity nor developing replacements for them. 

 

The Germans did have several earlier aircraft designs for use as torpedo bombers as well from Arado and Fiesler

[psl_58]

 

Several Bf 109's were built (and used to test carrier equipment) specifically for the KM and use on the Graf Zeppelin as were Ju 87's. With the cancellation of the carrier there was no point in producing them in quantity nor developing replacements for them. 

 

The Germans did have several earlier aircraft designs for use as torpedo bombers as well from Arado and Fiesler

 

 

 

All true but unfortunately not relevant.

 

 

in order to sustain a force in the field their has to be a steady steam of new planes and pilots all the time. regularly the KM paid for hundreds of sea planes and pilots/crew each year; but in practice their standing force was 150-200 planes. This ratio was often 1.4-1.6 but in demanding fields like fighters or bombers of the LW later in the war this ratio was more like 3:1 or 4:1. So to keep a force of 42 carrier planes for one carrier , the KM may have to divert 120-160 planes produced per year,just to ensure there are always enough for the one carrier. That could be 2/3 of their entire annual production [~1200/5 years].

 

 

 

 

If on the other hand this meager resource was redirected into long range maritime bombers-[Condor/BV-138 giving way to HE-177] roughly 120 per year could be built ....even more if LW models were adapted to support a fleet of 50-70 patrolling over the ocean. B Dienst became fantastic at locating allied convoys from mid 1941 to early 1944 reportedly 50% of all convoys at sea in the N Atlantic were located, however most went unattacked  since Wolf Packs were the only force at sea and they could only attack 1/2 the time due to frequent allied patrols.That would drop to 1/4 and lower once the allies broke the naval enigma code from late 1943 on and much lower when the allies also realised their codes were being read by B Dienst .

 

 

 Land base DF could still locate convoys and long range patrol planes could find these convoys and broadcast locations so silent independent U-Boats could still attack with some chance of success. That would be were the Type XXI was supposed to enter the battle.