Advantages/Disadvantages of Kriegsmarine possessing carriers?

[AHardDaysNight]

What would the long term advantages and disadvantages of the Germans having aircraft carriers (let's say 2) for their navy?

[maltesefalcon]

I see you are new.

Please do a quick search for "Graf Zeppelin" on this sub-forum and you will find several threads already devoted to the subject (ad nauseum). There are others for Seydlitz as well I believe.

[thaddeus_c]

believe the quick answer is that the KM needed some type of aviation component in their arsenal (if only for recon to feed to u-boats) but not carriers (especially given their limited resources.)

[alecsandros]

believe the quick answer is that the KM needed some type of aviation component in their arsenal (if only for recon to feed to u-boats) but not carriers (especially given their limited resources.)

OTOH, swapping the build of the 2 Bismarck's (43000tons standard and 2200 men, 4 aircraft per battleship) for 2 Graf Zeppelin's (30000 tons standard and 2000 men, 50 aircraft per carrier) and several air naval squadrons (3 squadrons per carrier and 4 extra in reserve on land - for training and reequipping) may have brought more advantages over the long term.

The advantages would have comprised in a larger attack range (Bismarck's guns extended out to 40km, while Graf Zeppelin's embarked aircraft could adequately attack out to 200-300km) , the theoretical possibility of "stinging" hit-and-run attacks near the British coastline, and the real possibility of wipping out entire convoys from stand-off range.

The advantages would mainly come in the form of near-impossible operations in bad weather (such as was the case in the North Atlantic), and the heavy amount of logistical support required to keep such carriers in operations.

[Kingfish]

[OTOH, swapping the build of the 2 Bismarck's (43000tons standard and 2200 men, 4 aircraft per battleship) for 2 Graf Zeppelin's (30000 tons standard and 2000 men, 50 aircraft per carrier) and several air naval squadrons (3 squadrons per carrier and 4 extra in reserve on land - for training and reequipping) may have brought more advantages over the long term.

There is no "long term" with regards to a Kriegsmarine carrier force. The ROI would have been less than that of the Bismark.

[alecsandros]

[OTOH, swapping the build of the 2 Bismarck's (43000tons standard and 2200 men, 4 aircraft per battleship) for 2 Graf Zeppelin's (30000 tons standard and 2000 men, 50 aircraft per carrier) and several air naval squadrons (3 squadrons per carrier and 4 extra in reserve on land - for training and reequipping) may have brought more advantages over the long term.

There is no "long term" with regards to a Kriegsmarine carrier force. The ROI would have been less than that of the Bismark.

Hard to know for sure,
GZ could be completed faster then Bismarck was (in 2-3 years instead of 5) , and thus her crew and especialy airgroup could be relatively experienced at the moment the war started. Having 2 fleet carriers fully operational in the Baltic/ North Atlantic in Sept 1939 could be a substantial threat to the Royal Navy...

[Richard Anderson]

Hard to know for sure,
GZ could be completed faster then Bismarck was (in 2-3 years instead of 5) , and thus her crew and especialy airgroup could be relatively experienced at the moment the war started. Having 2 fleet carriers fully operational in the Baltic/ North Atlantic in Sept 1939 could be a substantial threat to the Royal Navy...

No, quite easy to know for sure..

The design studies began in April 1934.
The keel of the GZ 28 December 1936.
The GZ was launched 8 December 1938.
GZ was still incomplete by April 1940 when work on her was suspended.

They are not going to be "completed faster than Bismarck" because they are a design entirely unknown to the Kriegsmarine.

Meanwhile, the second component that makes up an "aircraft carrier", the aircraft carried, with its flight and ground crews, began testing proposed landing methods in March 1938 and catapult take offs in April 1940. However, since the GZ was never operational, no air group training ever occurred under actual at sea conditions.

In comparison, USN CV 2 Lexington was laid down 8 January 1921 and commissioned 14 December 1927. It took her six months, till 7 April 1928 before she joined the fleet as an operational carrier. And that was after nearly six years of experience derived from tests on CV-1 Langley.

So from scratch, about seven and a half years would be a good time estimate to get the first German CV operational, so a start point for construction would have to be around March 1932. Of course that doesn't resolve the problems associated with the flawed German aircraft carrier concept.

[alecsandros]

No, quite easy to know for sure..

The design studies began in April 1934.
The keel of the GZ 28 December 1936.
The GZ was launched 8 December 1938.
GZ was still incomplete by April 1940 when work on her was suspended.

That was while they were also historically building Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and 4 x 8" heavy cruisers, amounting to some 200.000 tons standard displacement, requiring huge amounts of specialised labor, and special naval construction steel St52.
Brushing aside at least B and T, that amount of skilled labor and steel (and the capacity to mould that steel, etc) becomes available for something else.

Some form of experience exchange with Japan (which already operated several carriers in mid-1930s) and Italy (which wanted 2 Mediteranean carriers and already operated a seaplane tender in the 1920s) was underway, in terms of naval design and construction but the depth of that exchange, and if it would / could have been sufficient to sufficiently help a "final " design/construction of realistic proportions and performance is another problem.

[Terry Duncan]

Germany is a 'land power' and really doesnt need carriers to win the most likely wars she will fight. Tanks, artillery, and planes are a better use of the materials. If Germany really must have a carrier, then learning how to use it will take time, and it is probably to consider being allied to, or at least in a situation where Britain is neutral.

[Kingfish]

One other thing to consider, and this was pointed out in a previous KM carrier thread, is that each carrier would require an appropriate number of escorts (say 4 DDs min - even more if she is venturing into the convoy routes) at all times. For the Norwegian campaign Germany needed every capable warship, right down to torpedo boats, as fast transport for the initial landings. Only the "Twins" were exempt from that role, but their roles did not require escorts.

If Germany went ahead with a 2-carrier force, and assuming both were operational by April 1940, the choice would have been to either keep them in port and use the DD as historically intended, or nix a couple of the landings sites.

[thaddeus_c]

believe the quick answer is that the KM needed some type of aviation component in their arsenal (if only for recon to feed to u-boats) but not carriers (especially given their limited resources.)

OTOH, swapping the build of the 2 Bismarck's (43000tons standard and 2200 men, 4 aircraft per battleship) for 2 Graf Zeppelin's (30000 tons standard and 2000 men, 50 aircraft per carrier) and several air naval squadrons (3 squadrons per carrier and 4 extra in reserve on land - for training and reequipping) may have brought more advantages over the long term.

The advantages would have comprised in a larger attack range (Bismarck's guns extended out to 40km, while Graf Zeppelin's embarked aircraft could adequately attack out to 200-300km) , the theoretical possibility of "stinging" hit-and-run attacks near the British coastline, and the real possibility of wipping out entire convoys from stand-off range.

The advantages would mainly come in the form of near-impossible operations in bad weather (such as was the case in the North Atlantic), and the heavy amount of logistical support required to keep such carriers in operations.

never said they were without value but with finite resources of KM there is never going to be trade-off where the carriers are the winner.

historically the KM operated several hundred flying boats and floatplanes, any improvement to those aircraft and ship(s) to support them further away from Europe should have been first priority. (and this type of operations were something they had experience with)

[Gorque]

One other thing to consider, and this was pointed out in a previous KM carrier thread, is that each carrier would require an appropriate number of escorts (say 4 DDs min - even more if she is venturing into the convoy routes) at all times. For the Norwegian campaign Germany needed every capable warship, right down to torpedo boats, as fast transport for the initial landings. Only the "Twins" were exempt from that role, but their roles did not require escorts.

Well now if the Germans were able to make these two carriers watertight enough in order to be submersible, then there would be no need for escorts as they could just surface at the right place, launch their planes, resubmerge, and then proceed to the appointed rendezvous point for aircraft retrieval. Of course the schnorkels that would be needed to supply the diesels that would be needed to drive these leviathans just might give away their position. I wonder how many Opel batteries would have been needed for deeper operations?

[Kingfish]

Ditch the submersible option and go straight into a Romulan cloaking device. That gives you the option of sailing undetected through the St Lawrence seaway and bomb Detroit.

[Gorque]

Gomer Pyle: "Well Golly Sgt Carter. It was Shazam and then they were gone."

[Dark Age]

Stop contributing to these lazy What If posts.

I come back to this website after a couple years and the moderators seem more absent. These posts should be purged!

"We're gonna purge it like it's Nineteen....Thirty....Nine....(do do ....do do do )


I know I know but 1937 doesn't sound right : (