German Aircraft Carrier of WW2

last SG · 2003-05-11T21:51:55+00:00

hmm…....yea Donetiz is correct.The range of the SAM in the reigon is around 30km while the harpoon has an optimal range of some 100km(60Nm)

Doenitz SG

Anyone has info on the Kriegsmarine’s Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier? Information on the entire history of the program.What I found on the Net is sketchy at best…

bcoy SG

Found this link -
http://members.rogers.com/admfisher/html/grafzepplin.html

hope it helps.

SingaporeMacross SG

omg! if germany got aircraft carrier then america die already….

Doenitz SG

Yes,you are right.Adolf Hitler had plans to build a fleet of aircraft carriers to subjugate America after achieving continental hegemony,but that never happened...

Doenitz SG

Yes,you are right.Adolf Hitler had plans to build a fleet of aircraft carriers to subjugate America after achieving continental hegemony,but that never happened...

Arena SG

haha... at tt time, they must overcome the british naval blockage 1st man...

SingaporeMacross SG

wha lao eh, if japan cooperate with germany and build carrier aircraft, happy new year. we’ll be speaking german or japanese now. gute nacht. oyasuminasai. good night.

Doenitz SG

No.The Z-Plan which envisaged four aircraft carriers and capital ships was cancelled as the war broke out too early.The Navy had no time to build surface ships and they had no choice but to concentrate on U-boats.The Graf Zeppelin never had the choice to launch its planes.

|-|05| SG

Z-plan was to become operational in 1949!!ahha Anyway the Head of the Kriegsmarine was told by Hitler not to expect war with Britan thats why Plan Z was small scale and not as fast.

Typhoon SG

Yup, Z-Plan was to be ready by 1946, and was supposed to knock the Kreigsmarine surface fleet into shape with carriers and ‘H’ class battleships. On hearing the decleration of war in 39, Raeder could only comment glumly that the German naval forces could only show the world that they could die in glory.

APV97MCV91 SG

In a sense PLAN Z was a sad repetition of their naval history prior to the First World War - The risk theory championed by Tripitz which called for an immense expansion of the German Navy to challenge British maritime supremacy. Taking into account the geopolitical position of Germany which neccessitate the maintainance of a large standing army and the distinct possibility of a 2 front war as well as the contrary position of Great Britain which free it from such commitments and allowed the channeling of resources into building a strong Royal Navy, perharps it would be wiser for the resources allocated to surface combatants in Plan Z be diverted to the building of more U Boats. In retrospect, a realistic maritime strategy to be pursued by Germany would probably be that of geurre de course which aim to strange the British. If sufficient U Boats were avilable in early 1940 and 1941 before the US Navy could be fully mobilised, perharps the outcome of the Atlantic Campaign would be very different. In the end, the Kriegsmarine put up a mixed performance in the war. The surface components in its only major campaign put up a dismal performance in the Norwegian Campaign. The major surface combatants either died gloriously in combat such as the Scharnhost and Bismarck or suffer the ignoimy of Graf Spree or the Tripitz. The U Boat arm went down fighting with a cost of 36000 dead out of a force of 55000.

For historical interest, I certainly would have loved a major fleet action between the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine in a reenactment of Jutland...sigh modern technology has robbed naval warfare of much of their traditional romanticsm Smile

I guess that Doenitz is a major U Boat enthusiast then............
Between the 2 major submarine campaign of the second world war, I would have to say that the American submarine force was better equiped for the conduct of unrestricted submarine warface then the U Boat service.

Doenitz SG

Originally posted by APV97MCV91:
[b]

In retrospect, a realistic maritime strategy to be pursued by Germany would probably be that of geurre de course which aim to strange the British. If sufficient U Boats were avilable in early 1940 and 1941 before the US Navy could be fully mobilised, perharps the outcome of the Atlantic Campaign would be very different.

Currently,I am doing research on whether could a guerre de course strategy could have made the outcome different.Will share my findings soon. Wink

By the way,what I really like to do research on is not the Battle of the Atlantic,but the development of the Imperial Japanese Navy before World War Two.But I think Doenitz sounds pretty cool as a name. Wink

|-|05| SG

The imperial Japanese navy was modelled alot after the British counter part.For a good read i would suggest the book "standard of power" which is about Britians struggle for naval power and it's changing plans as it goes along including the treaties of 1920's.Japan is alot more fortunate in the lead up to ww2 since they could afford to build their fleet during the war years of 1914-1918 when Britans ships were going down and also they were the only naval power in that reigon after thrashing the Russian fleet earlier.
Ok back the z plan....well Z plan was ambitious but it was workable considering it envisioned some 230 unterzeeboots by it's completetion just a mere 8 years after it was started??I believe your views on the Kriegsmarine is rather skewed?I mean you said if germany had built more U-boats and had more during the 1940-1941 time period instead of concentrating on surface boats?Well 2 things we have to note...By late 1939 early 1940 Hitler ordered construction of surface boats be placed secondary to construction of U-boats.Only about 2 surfance ships were launched during that time.....Bismark being the only 1 i can recall.Anyway the 2nd thing we have to note is that under the treaty that ended ww1 Germany could not build U boats at all.And because of that it only started construction of U-boats in 1936.At the outset of war in 1939 Germany had a massive 57 boats all of which were the most modern in the world!Britan which had the most of any other navy had a mere 59(i think cant really remember)!!!So in the time of starting construction till 1941 the German navy did all they could as like mentioned Z plan was not suppose to be ready till 1946!!

Doenitz SG

I didnt say that Germany would win the war if it had concentrated on anti-commerce operations,another forumite did.In fact,I will argue this postulation which is put forth by most individuals,has serious limitations. Wink

|-|05| SG

The defeat of the German 3rd Riech can be traced basically to 2 men…....Hitler and Goering!!

APV97MCV91 SG

Even though the IJN was relatively unscathed by the 1st World War, the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty of 1920 did placed the Japanese at a disadvantage with regards to capital ship and other surface ship construction. The IJN managed to circumvent the handicap by exploiting a clause which allows for the conversion of existing hulls into carriers when the potential for naval aviation was not as fully understood. The result was the creation of the 1st Air Fleet, probably the most powerful carrier strike force at the outbreak of war. The conditions for the growth of the IJN and its rivals - the IJN and the USN/RN were in my opinion relatively even when all aspects are considered. The IJN expansion compared to that of the RN and USN was not due to the 1st War World but was rather due to the application of sufficient political will as exerted by the military in the civilian government of the 1920s and early 1930s as well as the military regimes of the mid 1930s onwards. This political will was ineffectual in the case of the RN and USN with an example being the strong isolationistic sentiments of the US Goverments in the inter war period. A disproportionately large part of the Japanese budgets were diverted to the military and to finance this, increase taxation, inflation, economic imbalances and a relative deterioation in civilian standards of living were the downside of this expansion. It can be concluded that the expansion of the IJN and IJA was thus unsustainable over the long term.

As for my opinions on the Kriegsmarine, I apologise if my statements were not clear enough. What I mean was that had Germany allocated more resources to U Boat in Plan Z and had more U Boats ready on the eve of the Second World War as a result of such allocation, then the larger submarine force might just be sufficient to strangle Britain. I understand that Hitler ordered the switch in priority from surface construction to U Boat in late 1939 but then perharps in retrospect, the change in policy was a bit too late to have a decisive impact at the initlal point of the submarine campaign when the British were at their most vulnerable to such a campaign. Yes it is true that the Treaty of Versaille specifically prohibited the Germans from constructing submarines but as with other branches of the German armed forces, the Treaty was frequently corvetly broken. German U Boat construction expertise was maintained during the interwar years prior to the abrogation of the Treaty by their covert involvements in the submarine projects of friendly countries notably Finland and Russia. A latent industrial base was also maintained for future U Boat programs during this period of time. Hence it is not surprising that Germany began the open buildup of its U Boat arm, progress was rapid. I think the other battleship launched was the Tripitz.

|-|05| SG

Well you have to also include the fact that the IJN had the advantage of not needing to scrap nor complete outdated ww1 ships.Also they had the advantage of being able to concentrate their naval forces in just 1 ocean unlike the brits and to some extent the USN.

As for my opinions on the Kriegsmarine, I apologise if my statements were not clear enough. What I mean was that had Germany allocated more resources to U Boat in Plan Z and had more U Boats ready on the eve of the Second World War as a result of such allocation, then the larger submarine force might just be sufficient to strangle Britain. I understand that Hitler ordered the switch in priority from surface construction to U Boat in late 1939 but then perharps in retrospect, the change in policy was a bit too late to have a decisive impact at the initlal point of the submarine campaign when the British were at their most vulnerable to such a campaign. Yes it is true that the Treaty of Versaille specifically prohibited the Germans from constructing submarines but as with other branches of the German armed forces, the Treaty was frequently corvetly broken. German U Boat construction expertise was maintained during the interwar years prior to the abrogation of the Treaty by their covert involvements in the submarine projects of friendly countries notably Finland and Russia. A latent industrial base was also maintained for future U Boat programs during this period of time. Hence it is not surprising that Germany began the open buildup of its U Boat arm, progress was rapid. I think the other battleship launched was the Tripitz.

Yes the German sub fleet was being built during that time but they could not put full scale production into place thus limiting the fleet to some 2 constructions a year!!The germans did try to build more U-boats but they had to little time.They had the best subs in the reigon and the 2nd biggest sub fleet at the outbreak of war....i highly doubt they could do any better then that! Also you have to remember that the surface fleet was needed for Norway.

APV97MCV91 SG

Hello 05

Before I comment on your points, I just want to say that our discussions and disagreements are nothing personal and let us not get too heated up by the disagreements. This may sound a bit frivolous but I have seen discussions degenerated in this forum into shouting matches because of strong disagreement Very Happy

Our main point of disagreement was that the IJN pre world war 2 conditions were more agreeable for its expansion vis a vis its regional rivals - the RN and the USN. I share your view that on the outbreak of the Pacific War, the IJN was superior to its rival. I merely disagree with your view that the reason for their greater expansion was due to the fact that they were unscathed by the WW1 vis a vis the RN. I still consider that the presence of political will and its determination to channel resources into military build up was the main factor that led to their greater expansion. Let's keep our disagreement in focus Wink Yes it is true that the IJN only had to focus on the Pacific Ocean as their threatre of operation. However it should be noted that RN had more or less abandonedits pretense of being able to exert dominance in the Pacific at the turn of the 19th century. When Fisher became the 1st Lord of the Admiralty, he instituted a program of closing down the peripheral squadrons and concentrating the RN in home waters and maintaining minimal strenght in the Mediterranean only - the gun boats and patrol boats in other locations can be ignored in our force balance. Simultaneously, the Anglo - Japanese Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1904 which effectively handed over the security of the British Asian colonies to the Japanese. This situation was not rectified in the inter war years due to various factors such as financial weakness, political apathy etc. I have not read the book " Standards of Power" as you have recommended but if proposed another viewpoint, I would surely love to read it. As for the USN, it recognised after WW1 that the IJN would emerged its most likely adversary and hence the force structure and strategy were already geared towards a war with Japan. Examples of this include the formation of a carrier arm with most of the carriers being focused in the Pacific, the famous War Plan Orange drafted in the late 20s and early 30s which gave the USN a major role in the Pacific War and a minimal role in a European conflict. Even if there was not no implicit understanding the the main theatre of operation for the USN was in the Pacific, the vast industrial strength of the US would allow it to develope a sizable force in the Pacific as envisioned in the Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940.

As for the Kriegsmarine, we should not confuse the product of policy with the cause of policy. The surface components of the Kriegsmarine were not constructed under Plan Z for an invasion of Norway. Rather it was fortunate that the surface components were present to allow for the execution of the plan. Still I have the fullest admiration for the Kriegsmarine in the execution of the initial phase of the invasion - a multi pronged invasion executed in the greatest secrecy and in the face of an absence of sea command contradict military orthodoxy and its success was a magnificent feat of arms.
I also agree with you that given the constraints on U Boat construction due to Plan Z, the Kriegsmarine did its best in preparing the U Boat fleet for war. I also have my reservation that Plan Z would give the Kriegsmarine superiority over the RN had it being allowed to carry on untill 1946. The indication of the extent of German expansion would have been alarmed the Britain and a naval armed race would surely have been triggered with the outcome going either way. German naval expansion can only be directed at the British and since the loss of sea command would mean imperiling the survival of Britain, it is highly unlikely that the British would not respond in kind. History would again repeats itself and we will see the reenactment of the dreadnought race between Britain and Germany in the decade prior to the outbreak of WW1

Doenitz SG

The replies to my thread are definitely not by novices.I wonder if you people read such things for recreation or you are into serious research like me? I am a postgraduate in History.

SingaporeMacross SG

I am a postgraduate in History.

wah!!! pro!!! dont mind me asking, but what career path does this lead to? i have a strong interest in history...