assuming you were referring to disadvantages of bad weather operations in their main theater of operations? think that reinforces my view they needed to further develop their flying boat/floatplane fleet, and naval fleet to handle them.thaddeus_c wrote: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.alecsandros wrote: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.thaddeus_c wrote: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.)
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)
total commitment to carriers and what could KM have operating at wartime? 2 carriers of Graf Zeppelin-class and plausibly 2 converted merchant ships (too slow to keep pace with warships at say? 20 knts?)
2 carriers would be hunted with every RN ship and sunk just as Bismarck was? or much easier to sink in port than Tirpitz?
OR they could further develop flying boat or floatplane, with air launched torpedo or rudimentary guided munitions? and equip all their warships, auxiliary cruisers, and supply ships to handle them?