No, this isn't another "Germany does everything right while Britain (and the rest of the Entente/Allies) starts drooling" thread, I'm just interested to know would it be possible for the two nations to switch their positions on the issue of carriers, for Germany to get interested in carriers in the 1910s, while Britain remains tied to its battlewagons for much longer than OTL, and what effect this might have on WW1 and afterwards.
German Carriers, British Battleships?
- Thread starter MattII
- Start date
Willmatron
Banned
The Germans would have to rethink naval strategy as well. The carriers would give them the ability to strike at further targets and even northern England and Scotland if they maneuver around Sweden. Aircraft carriers would need more support ships to supply fuel and ammo. I overall don't think that unless German naval strategy changes in WW2 that aircraft carriers would have much more of an impact.
Would 1910's aircraft be off much use other than in the scouting role at that time period? I can't see them replacing the Battleline as the main units.
That hinges on how soon you can sling a torpedo underneath one. A few small bombs won't do much to a battleship, but a torpedo is a) a stand-off weapon, and b) large enough to do real damage. By the end of *WW1, it might be possible for Germany to decide that it can't build enough large ships to seriously harm British naval superiority, and that small, cheap torpedo-delivery systems such as E-boats and U-boats offer a better path to keeping the UK battle-line a safe distance away. At that point you need someone to suggest that torpedo-carrying aircraft can do anything a torpedo-boat can do, only better, and operating them from some sort of base-ship would vastly increase their potential area of operation. So it's not impossible, but you'd need to find the right POD to make it plausible.
^ This.
It would really depend on having someone in a position of influence that sees the potential of naval aviation. The biggest problem I see is getting it past the battleship-obsessed Kaiser. Perhaps they could smooth it over by agreeing to build a few dreadnaughts/battlecruisers for escort duty?
Well sure, I mean it's not like the British or Japanese threw out the Battleship as soon as the carrier came along it is? Also, carriers don't necessarily draw resources from standard warship production, they're much more lightly armoured, and so are actually more likely to be converted from cargo ships. in fact, I think the first carriers might be support vessels in themselves, their aircraft used more for reconnaissance and gunfire fall than actually directly attacking the enemy, torpedoes can come later. As for bombs not doing much damage, no, to a battleship or cruiser they don't, but to something rather flimsier like a docked cargo ship or a dockyard storehouse they could be a real pest.
usertron2020
Donor
They're building WHAT!?
It would require too much faith too early on with an unproven machine: The Aircraft. No one knew in 1910 what aircraft would become, and so quickly. Torpedoes were much too heavy to use as a weapon of war in WWI. With the loss of WWI, Germany would suffer all the problems of Versailles. It takes a very long time (decades) to properly develop a good fleet air arm, as any European naval power can attest.
If Germany starts developing a strong fleet air arm of her own in 1933 (realistically, as early as you could possibly get), it would be similar to as if Germany were developing a huge amphibious Marine Corps. British Naval Intelligence (even under MacDonald, Baldwin, and Chamberlain) would go "TILT!" Meaning, an earlier arms race, no Appeasement (the Germans are clearly not looking East ITTL
), and finally, an earlier and shorter WWII.
It would require too much faith too early on with an unproven machine: The Aircraft. No one knew in 1910 what aircraft would become, and so quickly. Torpedoes were much too heavy to use as a weapon of war in WWI. With the loss of WWI, Germany would suffer all the problems of Versailles. It takes a very long time (decades) to properly develop a good fleet air arm, as any European naval power can attest.
If Germany starts developing a strong fleet air arm of her own in 1933 (realistically, as early as you could possibly get), it would be similar to as if Germany were developing a huge amphibious Marine Corps. British Naval Intelligence (even under MacDonald, Baldwin, and Chamberlain) would go "TILT!" Meaning, an earlier arms race, no Appeasement (the Germans are clearly not looking East ITTL
), and finally, an earlier and shorter WWII.Good points. I especially like the idea of carrier aircraft being used as a supporting arm to the battle line, to enhance recce and spot fall of shot. That will almost inevitably lead to the possibility of tussles between the various "scout" elements of opposing fleets, leading to purpose-designed long-range fighters intended to deny the enemies long-range recce capability. This line of reasoning relies heavily on airborne wireless being practical and reliable - when did it reach that sort of level IOTL?
Not to mention having to deal with Goering trying to take over the Kriegsmarine because they have planes and "airfields".If Germany starts developing a strong fleet air arm of her own in 1933 (realistically, as early as you could possibly get), it would be similar to as if Germany were developing a huge amphibious Marine Corps. British Naval Intelligence (even under MacDonald, Baldwin, and Chamberlain) would go "TILT!" Meaning, an earlier arms race, no Appeasement (the Germans are clearly not looking East ITTL
I think Tirpitz is the real problem here. The Kaiser wanted the prestige of a world-class fleet, but he was very changeable in terms of what he considered necessary for "a world-class fleet". Robert Massie in Dreadnought talks about Tirpitz (relatively early in his high-level career) having to sell the Kaiser on focusing on a battle fleet rather than armored cruisers at one point, since the Kaiser had somehow gotten it into his head that cruisers were more important. I also get the impression that the Kaiser loved novelty for its own sake, and would have been a fairly easy sell on a carrier fleet concept.
Replace Tirpitz with someone equally adept at manipulating the media and capturing the Kaiser's imagination, but who has a more Jeune Ecole strategic vision (i.e. favoring light units built on emergent technologies (torpedo boats and subs at the time, but carriers are a logical extension once the tech is ripe) rather than trying to outbuild the British in traditional capital ships), and there's a good change of making this happen so long as *WW1 doesn't happen before the tech is ripe.
Both Britain and Japan realised what might eventually be possible and put money behind it, so why not Germany? As for the other stuff, if Britain doesn't really realise the potential of aircraft carriers they might be less likely to place significant restrictions on them.
Last edited:
sharlin
Banned
Aircraft in 1910 are very much an untested and untried thing that to most folks had no appreciable military application perhaps beyond recon. Its simply too radical and new a thing to suddenly have the Kaiser who wanted a battle fleet and had spent a huge ammount of money building one to suddenly embrace a new technology as well as get this new way supported by the German admiralty.
Carriers require (and indeed can take) little armour, and few guns, so they're not going to be taking those resources from the battleline. Further, at the start of the war Germany suddenly has a load of rather useless former merchant ships (now trapped due to the blockade) to try out in various configurations.
sharlin
Banned
But its not as simple as gutting a hull, slapping a flat deck on it and done. Merchant ships of the time were ponderiously slow although bi-planes could take off and land at speeds that no WW2 aircraft save perhaps something like the Storch would even be able to think of doing.
To build a workable carrier takes a LOT of trial and error, the RN had the most experience with carriers and even then they got it wrong a lot of times, see the first conversion of the Furious for example.
In 1910 trying to get a plane powerful enough to lug a torpedo is also asking a huge amount.
To build a workable carrier takes a LOT of trial and error, the RN had the most experience with carriers and even then they got it wrong a lot of times, see the first conversion of the Furious for example.
In 1910 trying to get a plane powerful enough to lug a torpedo is also asking a huge amount.
Shadow Master
Banned
I agree that building a 'main battle fleet' based upon carriers is premature in 1910 for all the obvious reasons. OTOH, with the HMS Dreadnought and the follow on classes, the Kaiser is going to realise that germany is not going to be able to outbuild the UK, and that not only are his battleships going to be fewer, but under gunned.
So what to do? The Germanys are already looking to give the brits hell with the U-Boats.
Lets say the Germans start off thinking that the aircraft cannot sink a battleship, but they do realise aircraft CAN sink merchantmen.
So Germany takes the plunge and builds a fleet of unarmored, fast, crusier sized flatops, with the idea that these ships can server well as scouts for the battleline, but really come into their own in the anti-shipping role.
As long as airborne radio's are standard equipment, then these airborne eyes can do the scouting for the submarines, and can drop bombs on merchantmen right off the bat. Later on, as aircraft become longer ranged and generally more advanced, who knows what state the German carriers might be in?
I would think that a POD that has Tirpitz fuming over the Dreadnought and QE classes, decides to try an alternate strategy.
I guess what it really boils down to is, not wether or not the Germans think that aircraft cannot sink battleships so why build them, but rather that aircraft can sink merchantmen, so build them in quantity, base them on small, light (Unarmored) warships, and start planning to gun for the merchie's from the beginning.
Precisely, speed isn't really enough of an issue to matter.
The first example of a really useful carrier was the Argus in 1918.
I'd have thought it was outright impossible, but then as I said, the first use of carrier aircraft would not have been for torpedo bombers anyway.
Now I admit this isn't an easy proposition, Gunnarz, Bregil and Maniakes have pointed out some of the problems, but I refuse to believe that it would be impossible for Germany to match the OTL achievements of the British or Japanese, olr to keep the British tied to the battle-line.
I'm starting to think that isn't necessary. As has been mentioned up-thread, the first carriers could be seen as support units for the battleships, by enhancing the scouting capability which until then had rested on the destroyers and cruisers. For that role the ability to lug a torpedo isn't necessary - what seems more relevant are endurance and range, to make the most of the aircraft that are embarked. It will not take long for it to occur to someone that the aerial scouts of the fleet might well encounter each other before they locate the enemy fleet, so I could see some thought being given to air-to-air capabilities as well. But the strike capabilities would come much more slowly, partly because the technology isn't there yet and partly because "that isn't the carrier's job" - the role of the carrier would be to provide scouting, report fall of shot for long-range fire, and perhaps provide air defence. The battleships would still be seen as the real killers, at least at first.
I should think carriers in the 1910/20s would require a "sponsor".
Churchill was apparantly very iterested in carriers (and was also the one who got the tanks started).
Who in Germany, with enough influece, could sponsor carriers?
The other point is that both Britain and Jpan might have seen the future of carriers based on the vastness of the empire and the vastness of the Pacific.
Now, Germany might not have perceived this need insofar as the vastness of North Sea is rather limited.
Germany might also have been running out of resources and management bandwidth if they had also tried to get into carrier development. That, as pointed out, is not simple. Especially if there is no tradition for naval developments.
After all, the German naval tradition is not impressive. Even in 1864, a Danish collection of ships (only one really), defeated the Prussian handful of ships.
Let us just imagine: Germany gets focused on carriers. Building numerous carriers in 1910. What is flying off those things? with what?
Ivan
Churchill was apparantly very iterested in carriers (and was also the one who got the tanks started).
Who in Germany, with enough influece, could sponsor carriers?
The other point is that both Britain and Jpan might have seen the future of carriers based on the vastness of the empire and the vastness of the Pacific.
Now, Germany might not have perceived this need insofar as the vastness of North Sea is rather limited.
Germany might also have been running out of resources and management bandwidth if they had also tried to get into carrier development. That, as pointed out, is not simple. Especially if there is no tradition for naval developments.
After all, the German naval tradition is not impressive. Even in 1864, a Danish collection of ships (only one really), defeated the Prussian handful of ships.
Let us just imagine: Germany gets focused on carriers. Building numerous carriers in 1910. What is flying off those things? with what?
Ivan