Advantages/Disadvantages of Kriegsmarine possessing carriers?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Kriegsmarine possessing carriers?

#16

Post by thaddeus_c » 08 Oct 2017, 16:37

thaddeus_c wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
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.)
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)
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.

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?

alecsandros
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 09:37

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Kriegsmarine possessing carriers?

#17

Post by alecsandros » 08 Oct 2017, 19:15

Yes, my mistake - it was disadvantages surely...

Then, assuming that both Graf Zeppelins were finalised and fully operational by 1939, that would create big trouble for the Royal Navy. The carriers were as fast as the fastest battleships and battlecruisers, and had a force of ~ 20 Me109s each , easily able to destroy coastguard seaplanes that would be scouring the seas looking for them. Those Me109s could also easily dispatch the equivalent of 1 full squadrons of torpedo bobmers (15 Swordfishes) , thus making actualy cathing the enemy carriers quite troublesome with the technology, and forces, available as of Sept 1939.

Forcing the entry into the Atlantic in the winter of 1939/1940 was more simple then it was 1.5 years later - when radar had become widespread in the Royal Navy, and many patrol ships were equipped with it.

As it was in Nov 1939 to Fev 1940 (but also Nov 1940 to Fev 1941), 2 heavy carriers could force the entry into the Atlantic, and, IF they could be adequately ressuplied on the open sea (by using a rather large cargoship network...) , they could produce significant troubles to Allied Atlantic convoys.

This must be seen in the context of the historical Atlantic war, which involved several raids by German heavy cruisers (first Graf Spee, then Hipper, then Scheer), and continous, and ever-growing Uboat attacks. Add 2 heavy carriers in 1939, and ... things may be very very bad for the Allies...

---

On the other hand, I also see the interesting development of the KGM seaplane airfleet. It is a pitty they didn't put more effort into it - after all, it was a pair of Arado196 seaplanes that saved Tirpitz from being torpedoed in March 1942.

But do you think such developments were mutualy exclusive ?


thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Kriegsmarine possessing carriers?

#18

Post by thaddeus_c » 09 Oct 2017, 04:32

alecsandros wrote:On the other hand, I also see the interesting development of the KGM seaplane airfleet. It is a pitty they didn't put more effort into it - after all, it was a pair of Arado196 seaplanes that saved Tirpitz from being torpedoed in March 1942.

But do you think such developments were mutualy exclusive ?
my view? more counterproductive than "mutually exclusive" to set on course of dual programs, improved flying boats, float planes, and ships equipped to handle them AND development of conventional carrier forces.

seems a better idea to focus on the former for resource starved KM, since they were already operating such aircraft from many of their warships.

(i.e. there was streamlined Arado AR-196C, BMW 801 powered HE-115, pre-war design for HE-119 float plane that could reach 350 mph, etc.)

Post Reply

Return to “What if”