PDA

View Full Version : Graf Zeppelin found



wintergoose
08-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Hitlers carier Graf Zeppelin is found outside the cost of Poland.
A wrack outside Polands coust is identified from the Polish navy as Graf Zeppelin by help of sonar.
She lays on 87 meters deep.
Short history.
1935 : Ordred by Hitler
1938 : On the see, but not finnished
1941 : Loss of manpower made it difficult to finnish the ship
1943 : Hitler is not satisfied. The work on the 95% finished ship stopped.
All weapons moved to forts on the Norwegian cost.
1945 25.april: The carier is sunked on shalloow water just before the read army takes Berlin.
1946 : The soviets repears the hurted ship.
1947 : The soviets juses the ship as target practice, but what happened to it is unnown.
2006 : The Polish navy founds a large wrac which is idetified as Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Zeppelin was 262,5 meters.
What would have happened if it had been oprationed in 1942 and had been able to reach the atlantic ?
I supose it would have been hunted down like Bismark.

Taylortony
08-21-2006, 05:04 PM
would have been a heck of a sight though with her 109 twins onboard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
08-21-2006, 05:12 PM
It would have had the life span of the Bismarck if it ever engaged a real carrier with real carrier aircraft.

Sergio_101
08-21-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
It would have had the life span of the Bismarck if it ever engaged a real carrier with real carrier aircraft.

Any US, British or Japanese carrier would
have made short work of it.

Graf Zeppelin's value is more as a curiousity
than as a weapon.

Germany really had no strategic need for a carrier.

Sergio

JG53Frankyboy
08-21-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
It would have had the life span of the Bismarck if it ever engaged a real carrier with real carrier aircraft.

what was so great about RN carrierbased aircraft in 1942 ?

sure , the armoured decks of the Illustrious class were a point ! How Malta and later in the Pacific proved !
and at the beginning its planed airgroup was also 36 planes only...........
Indomitable's was 48 aircraft.

im not talking about the strategic usefullness of having a carrier or not.
i mean only the tactical battle.

and dont forget - luck is also very important - as Midway showed.

Sergio_101
08-21-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It would have had the life span of the Bismarck if it ever engaged a real carrier with real carrier aircraft.

what was so great about RN carrierbased aircraft in 1942 ?

sure , the armoured decks of the Illustrious class were a point ! How Malta and later in the Pacific proved !
and at the beginning its planed airgroup was also 36 planes only...........
Indomitable's was 48 aircraft.

im not talking about the strategic usefullness of having a carrier or not.
i mean only the tactical battle.

and dont forget - luck is also very important - as Midway showed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Midway showed luck?
Maybe a bit of luck.
What Midway and Coral Sea showed
was the cracking of JN-25 Naval code!
We knew where they were and would be.

Also Midway showed that the Japanese had
largely ignored fire prevention in favor of more
capacity. Like their planes their carriers
were extremely vulnerable to fire.

In WWII and even more so today the US NAVY
has constant fire fighting training.
When a fire starts, everyone is a fireman.

Sergio

puhakka-GB
08-23-2006, 01:15 AM
The Kriegsmarine had none of the decades worth of experince built up by the RN, USN and Japanese navies and the Bf-109 was fragile enough operating from permanent airbases on land, there is no way that the Bf109T would have stood up to the wear and tear of carrier ops.

Viper2005_
08-23-2006, 02:37 AM
Bf-109 was fragile enough operating from permanent airbases on land, there is no way that the Bf109T would have stood up to the wear and tear of carrier ops.

The same could equally be said of the Spitfire, but the Seafire did ok. It just had a relatively high accident rate.

I suspect that the Germans would have quickly learned how to operate the 109T from carriers. They were fast learners.

WOLFMondo
08-23-2006, 02:59 AM
The Germans didn't have the surface fleet to make up a carrier task force. The carrier might have replaced the BB but they need destoryers, mine sweepers, picket ships, hospital ships, muntion carriers, auxillery carriers to operate with any efficiency.

The British had that, the US had that, the Japanese had that, the Germans had no hope of putting all that together.

KIMURA
08-23-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by puhakka-GB:
The Kriegsmarine had none of the decades worth of experince built up by the RN, USN and Japanese navies and the Bf-109 was fragile enough operating from permanent airbases on land, there is no way that the Bf109T would have stood up to the wear and tear of carrier ops.

I absolutely not agree. Look at the harsh enviroment the Bf109 operated from. N.Africa with heat, dust, rough runway etc. From bases in Russia with arctic winters, short supplies, macerated runways, again dust. Then under subtropic enviroment in Russia in summer.

And as Franky mentioned above. Also the Spitfire was far from ideal for carrier ops. On my understanding on technique the Bf109 and Spitfire/Seafire differed not that much. So there's no reason why the one can get successful the other not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Irish_Rogues
08-23-2006, 02:58 PM
A single carrier task force what do you do with it? Convoy raid I guess? The thing with the Bismark it could operate alone as a raider and it would out gun any convoy escort. But catch a carrier at night or bad weather with out support and it's game over.

MrMojok
08-23-2006, 03:09 PM
How did they plan to change the BF109's spindly little legs so that they could withstand repeated impacts of carrier landings? Were they redesigning the whole undercarriage?