WI: German aircraft carriers?

plenka

Banned
Ahem: "It has been said that a war between a land power like Germany and a naval power such as ourselves is difficult, as it is a war between an Elephant and a Whale!. Well, on New Year Herr Hitler learned that THIS Whale has wings!"

Shamelessly taken from Whale has Wings, a great WW2 TL where RN gets carrier crazy, goes around the world, meets new fleets... And sinks them. :D
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ahem: "It has been said that a war between a land power like Germany and a naval power such as ourselves is difficult, as it is a war between an Elephant and a Whale!. Well, on New Year Herr Hitler learned that THIS Whale has wings!"

Shamelessly taken from Whale has Wings, a great WW2 TL where RN gets carrier crazy, goes around the world, meets new fleets... And sinks them. :D
Well, I didn't want to just say "Britain starts a new carrier program and then you're into Whale Has Wings", but it's a reasonable approximation...
 

thaddeus

Donor
still think an enhanced seaplane design would have made the most sense, more powerful engine, aerodynamic, etc.

no need for purpose built carrier, an enhanced seaplane could be deployed across range of existing ships.
 
The Graf zeppelin wasn't the only the attempt to build a aircraft carrier in the second world war. The Germans decided aircraft carriers were a good idea in march 1942. They had plans for 5 ships, mostly passengers ships. These are quite unlikely after Hitler gave orders to scrap all service ships in 1943.

Could be possible in the 1930's that the Germans could have decided to build a smaller carrier to test out carrier operations, a bit like a escort carrier, or the Kreigmarine is more carrier friendly and the Graf zeppelin gets finished?

Others in this thread have pointed out the flaws pitfalls and politics of Germany Building an Carrier.

But in answer to the OP - I think that they could have built one based on an existing hull - so a later 'experimental' carrier rather than a purpose built one.

But I don't really see it being any better than the French Carrier in terms of operational effectiveness although it would have allowed them to build up some operational experiance over the years.

How this would play out and impact the development of the GZ - I don't know - maybe smaller carrier would be built but given the German design philosophy of the time I doubt it.
 
still think an enhanced seaplane design would have made the most sense, more powerful engine, aerodynamic, etc.

no need for purpose built carrier, an enhanced seaplane could be deployed across range of existing ships.
Seaplanes have inherently shorter ranges than land-based planes, plus more awkward silhouettes.
 

Rubicon

Banned
At 17,000 tons, this would be slightly larger than the Royal Navy’s HMS Hermes, so a complement of 20 aircraft would be reasonable.

Or go down the Sōryū & Hiryū  path with 60+ complement with that tonnage, though of course with much less armour protection.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Germans are going to face the same problem the RN had, though more so. The RN had the following issues with their carrier design:

1) We are going to often (for Germany it's always) be operating within range of land based air cover for some or most of a deployment.
2) We are going to often (again, for Germany it's always) be operating in potentially stormy seas.
3) We have a stingy bugger in charge of aircraft allotment. (Again, plus ca change, Germany).

So the likelihood is that a German CV will look not a million miles different from a British one, at least if they follow the same logic. Armoured to defend against bombs from land based air, built for small air groups, and enclosed rather than open hangars.
The third, of course, is the easiest one to change, but it does mean no Goring most likely and that'll have knock on effects elsewhere.
 
The third, of course, is the easiest one to change, but it does mean no Goring most likely and that'll have knock on effects elsewhere.

Now that's what I call an understatement. :D

It would appear that more than 90% (if not the full 100%) of the Luftwaffe's deficiencies can be mostly traced back to Göring...
 
There is a tendency in some quarters to insist that “they didn’t do that, therefore they wouldn’t and couldn’t do that”, particularly amongst people who haven’t bothered to check into the details of a subject; hence the bulk of the dogpile of comments above.



Your question is a good one and by no means out of scope of either the requirements or capabilities of the Kreigsmarine, nor in fact far beyond what they did indeed do. It is firstly important to consider the German Navy’s doctrine and mission, and how a light carrier would have conformed to, and enhanced, that mission.

The capital ships of the Kriegsmarine’s surface fleet were not intended to form a battle fleet to challenge the Royal Navy’s control of the Atlantic; such a mission was recognised in 1935 as being well beyond the scope of the KM for the foreseeable future. The 1939 plan for the expansion of the Kriegsmarine (Plan Z), which was for expansion of the fleet to the point where it could challenge the Royal Navy in battle, wasn’t expected to be completed until 1948, none of the major surface vessels proposed in Plan Z were completed, most weren’t even laid down, so we need not consider that further. The role anticipated for the Kriegsmarine prior to 1939, which was its primary role during World War Two, was to interdict Britain’s merchant fleet and force Britain to the negotiation table by disrupting British maritime trade and sinking cargo ships. All of Germany’s warships were designed around this mission; even the Bismarck, despite being the most powerful battleship afloat, was first and foremost a commerce raider. This was KreuzerKrieg: Cruiser Warfare.

The principal problem of cruiser warfare was simply finding a ship to attack in the enormous expanse of the Atlantic Ocean to begin with. This was encountered by the Germans in the First World War, and the building program of the 1930s included efforts to cope with this. Prior to 1935, the German navy was prohibited from building aircraft carriers, and the warships it was permitted were restricted to 10,000 ton displacement; despite this size restriction, the Deutchland-class cruisers (generally referred to as "pocket battleships") each carried 2 x Ar 196 floatplanes, which represents a considerable allocation of resources considering the small size of the ship. Prior to 1935, the Germans also gained experience operating aircraft as sea through the use of Lufthansa catapult vessels. These were ships that had large catapult on the aft deck to launch two and three-engine flying boats; generally the Dornier Do 18. So clearly the requirement for a maritime aviation was both recognised and given a reasonably high priority. Nor is this surprising, since the North Atlantic is four times larger than Europe from the Urals to the French coast: reconnaissance was indispensable.

In 1935 the Baldwin Government, in an effort to avoid a naval arms race with Germany, negotiated and signed the Anglo-German Naval Treaty in 1935. This “restricted” Germany to a fleet 1/3 the tonnage of the Royal Navy, including aircraft carriers and submarines. (A provision of the treaty even permitted Germany to build up their submarine fleet to match that of Britain "should they so desire".) In fact the treaty was no restriction at all; Germany’s shipyards would have been fully occupied for ten years turning out a fleet equal to a third of the Royal Navy, and would have tied up enormous amounts of German resources; all of the ships completed between 1935 and the end of World War Two came under the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. The treaty simply gave official British approval for Germany to tear up the naval provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.

The importance of naval aviation for reconnaissance by this time is reflected in the fact that the new Hipper-class heavy cruisers and the battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst all carried 3 x Ardo Ar 196 floatplanes, armed reconnaissance aircraft that could vastly increase the frontage of ocean that the battleship could sweep in its search for prey. The larger Bismarck and Tirpitz both carried 4 x Ar 196 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition the Kriegsmarine built and operated a string of seaplane tenders; Krischan I (commissioned in 1934), Krischan II and Krischan III (’35), Grief (’37), Hans Rolshoven (’38), Karl Mayer (’40), Max Stinsky (’41), Immelmann (’41), Drache (’41) and Boelcke (’42). These ships launched the Do 18, DV 138 reconnaissance flying-boats and the He 114 floatplane. Finally there was the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, laid down in 1936 and launching it in 1938. Given the small overall size of the Kriegsmarine, clearly a significant proportion of it was in fact involved the use of maritime aviation.

The Graf Zeppelin was 85% complete when work on it was halted at the end of April 1940; priority being given to other vessels. Graf Zeppelin displaced 33,500 tons, making it slightly larger than the Scharnhorst-class battleships that it was intended to accompany on commerce raiding missions; by comparison, HMS Ark Royal displaced 22,000 tons.

Clearly, for Germany to have had an operational aircraft carrier in World War Two, it would have had to be completed prior to the beginning of the war, so something smaller laid down in 1936 instead of Graf Zeppelin. Optimally this would be a vessel of the Hipper-class in size, and built using the keel of the Prinz Eugen or Seydlitz. At 17,000 tons, this would be slightly larger than the Royal Navy’s HMS Hermes, so a complement of 20 aircraft would be reasonable.

For aircraft, the Me 109 would have been out; not only would its undercarriage have been far too unstable and easily damaged for deck landings, but its priority as the front-line Luftwaffe fighter would have made it unavailable anyway. Fortunately there was an aircraft available which did suit the requirements of the Kriegsmarine for a carrier-borne fighter: the Heinkel He 51. (At the start of the war, the best FAA fighter was the Gloster Sea Gladiator, so for naval aviation purposes, the otherwise obsolete biplane fighter was still valuable.) The durable undercarriage of the Heinkel, as well as its slower landing speed, would have made it quite desirable for carrier operations in the early war period, later the Fw 190 would have been desirable, but hard to gain priority for. In the reconnaissance/torpedo bomber role, the Fieseler Fi 167 was available, this was capable of carrying a torpedo of similar size to the Fairey Swordfish, but had both greater speed and greater range.

The potential of such a vessel, accompanying the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst in their hunt for convoys, would have been considerable, not to mention accompanying the Bismarck. In fact the threat posed from even a light carrier accompanying a battleship would have greatly disrupted British convoying; battleships began to be used to escort the convoys in 1941 because of the threat posed by the German battleships, but a battleship, rather than being able to provide protection to a convoy, would itself become a major target to torpedo bombers.

Thanks for taking the effort to write such an elaborate post. Unfortunately it's IMHO mostly baloney.

You're starting with facts which aren't correct. As a result your conclusions aren't correct either. For instance;
- a cruiser isn't exceptionally naval oriented (or for that matter "considerably allocated") with two seaplanes (it's even common for light cruisers, such as for example the De Ruyter light cruiser, to carry two seaplanes on approx 7 tonnes, at less then 70% of the tonnage of the Deutschland class);
- a battleship equally isn't considerably allocated with three or four floatplanes, for example the KGV carried an equal amount of seaplanes.
If you were arguing that the Japanese Tone-class cruisers were oriented considerably towards naval reconnaissance, then I'd agree with you. A maximum of 8 floatplanes on a cruiser is a lot. The numbers mentioned by you aren't anything out of the ordinary.

I also fail to see what civilian postal aircraft have to do with military maritime reconnaissance. The only things that come to mind are indirect matters such as the training of navigators or training with endurance flights.

I'm also puzzled why you specifically mention a commissioning year for the seaplane tenders (again, nothing out of the ordinary to have these, even Sweden operated one during WWII) but a launching year for the never commissioned Graf Zeppelin? That seems a bit misleading, although I could be a bit paranoid.

With the 20 aircraft on the Seydlitz I can't agree either. Considering the design followed with the GZ, it's logical to assume the Germans would stick to a relative heavy conventional armament on a carrier. This means 20 aircraft are a pipedream.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Now that's what I call an understatement. :D

It would appear that more than 90% (if not the full 100%) of the Luftwaffe's deficiencies can be mostly traced back to Göring...
Oh, I didn't just mean in deficiency terms. I mean that Goring was also kind of essential in making sure the German Luftwaffe got the industrial priority that it did, and was equally important in ensuring the German economy didn't melt down in the thirties. (That is, that it didn't melt down and didn't compromise other Nazi axioms - and the German economy in the mid-thirties was at times living hand-to-mouth in raw materials terms.)
Without Goring, you may well have a German air force which is more rational. It may well also be smaller. (That means the Army is larger, perhaps... or perhaps not. Maybe the resources go on VW Beetles, the Nazis certainly collected enough money for them without making a single one.)
 
Gotta remember though what carriers are for. France, the UK, Japan and America all had Empires and territories overseas which made carriers a practical option. No point having carriers if you don't have a large sea area to defend, you can simply launch planes from air-bases. It would have to be a vanity project, but again as others have said, the expertise and interest in Germany wasn't there. If they ever did produce them, I doubt they'd last long, they just don't have the experience that the UK, Japan or the USA have considering those three basically pioneered the concept. Better to produce more submarines, the Germans were good at that and they are far more useful for protecting German interests.

Totally agree it would be a luxury item but nations and militaries are not immune to such nonsense. Brazil and Thailand today with their carriers is a great example. IMWO the most plausible way for the Germans to have a carrier is that Nazi leadership decides that they want one just because.
 
Totally agree it would be a luxury item but nations and militaries are not immune to such nonsense. Brazil and Thailand today with their carriers is a great example. IMWO the most plausible way for the Germans to have a carrier is that Nazi leadership decides that they want one just because.

They kind of did that IOTL. They just never finished it.
 

Cook

Banned
As a result your conclusions aren't correct either. For instance...
You’ve made no comment regarding the doctrine of the Kriegsmarine and its influence of their surface fleet. Would this be because you haven’t thought to look into it?
I also fail to see what civilian postal aircraft have to do with military maritime reconnaissance.
Lufthansa was used by Germany, prohibited from operating an air force, as a proving ground for military aviation concepts and the development of aircraft and equipment for military purposes, and the civilian catapult ships were absorbed by the Luftwaffe and used throughout the war as flyingboat tenders.
I'm also puzzled why you specifically mention a commissioning year for the seaplane tenders...but a launching year for the never commissioned Graf Zeppelin?
Quite obviously because the Graf Zeppelin didn't reach commission.

With the 20 aircraft on the Seydlitz I can't agree either. Considering the design followed with the GZ, it's logical to assume the Germans would stick to a relative heavy conventional armament on a carrier. This means 20 aircraft are a pipedream.
Graf Zeppelin was designed to carry 50 aircraft. Its RN equivalent in size, the Ark Royal, had been designed to carry 72 aircraft but seldom carried more than 60, so the Seydlitz being configured to carry 20 is definitely not exceptional.

Gotta remember though what carriers are for.
The Graf Zeppelin was to have been a surface raider; it wasn't to defend sea areas, it was to seek out and destroy merchant convoys.
 
OK,

1936 Hitler declares that Germany shall build a aircraft carrier for national defence purposes and pride. it is built on the hull of a merchant ship

1939 - the carrier, named the Nassau is commissioned into service. she contains a four 15 cm SK C/25 gun on two mounts plus another 4 5cm guns, and 10 3.7cm AA guns plus two torpedo tubes. She carries 10 Messerschmitt Bf109 and 10 Junkers Ju87 dive bombers. Mussolini, not to be outdone, orders the construction of a similar ship from a merchant ship

1940 after many exercises in the Baltic sea the Nassau, is sent to attack Oslo with the blucher and the Lutzow. the blucher is sunk due to the Oscarsborg fortress. however, the Nassau is able to bomb the fortress and the Lutzow escaped with only minor damage.

1941 The Nassau is used to support the Tirpitz in the Baltic fleet in 1941. the Italian carrier is completed in December. Her Messerschmitt's are removed and replaced with navalised Focke wulf Fw 190 which were slightly more successful.

1942 The Nassau sails north to Norway to act in a fleet in being with the Tirpitz.

1943 She takes part in the German attack on Svalbard and during the battle of the north cape, badly damages the HMS Sheffield despite the Scharnhorst barely surviving.

1944 She is sunk by off Norway by a convoy escorts. the Scharnhorst is scuttled in 1944 due to the amount of damage it had taken, after it had been stripped of all useful parts.

The Nassau is considered to be a unsuccessful attempt by Germany to create a carrier, though their is debate on if she should have gone on operation Rheinburg. her effects on the war are minor.


Their is a urban legend about a German aircraft carrier frozen in the arctic, sinking a royal navy destroyer in 1947 in this TL. *

*yep, just a little fun.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am wrong but I have a suspicion that a navalized 109 will be even troublesome than the early marks of the navalized Spitfire/Seafire.
 
Maybe I am wrong but I have a suspicion that a navalized 109 will be even troublesome than the early marks of the navalized Spitfire/Seafire.

I agree. I changed the timeline to reflect it, but Germany doesn't make good carrier aircraft at the end of the day due to lack of aircraft carriers, but they might be tempted to stick on more Ju87's for convoy raiding.
 
Last edited:
Some other German Designs for a carrier on merchant hulls

ger_cv7.gif
 
Top