Outline of German carrier development

[PhilKearny]

Whatever the KM builds, the combinations of Stukas and Me-109t is far from ideal. Both, while in many ways superior to the dogs the RN had prior to receiving Grumman and Chance Vought aircraft, are short legged and in other ways leave much to be desired. The RN's most successful aircraft that was not American made was probably during WW II was the long in the tooth Swordfish.

The KM would probably be better served by having some of the longer ranged Fi 167 biplane scout-torpedo bombers, which would be a super Swordfish analogue, as scouting will be key for raiding.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Pretty toys, to be sure. I've always been a sucker for the beauty of the German capital ships in WW2. Sentiment aside, however, the biggest threat to a carrier is another carrier, not yet another obsolete gunboat.

Tell that to the crew of the Glorious, or the Couragious, or the Eagle or the Ark Royal. None of them were sunk by carrier aircraft. In war it's that sort of complaicency gets men killed. Usually in large numbers. Any enemy is a threat.

 

[PhilKearny]

Pretty toys, to be sure. I've always been a sucker for the beauty of the German capital ships in WW2. Sentiment aside, however, the biggest threat to a carrier is another carrier, not yet another obsolete gunboat.

Pretty toys, to be sure. I've always been a sucker for the beauty of the German capital ships in WW2. Sentiment aside, however, the biggest threat to a carrier is another carrier, not yet another obsolete gunboat.

Ok, how about this as a thesis? The biggest naval threat to a well commanded carrier is another carrier.

 

[BlondieBC]

Nice to see this BW

Just a thing, why both a battlecruiser and a battleship in each squadron? In my opinion much better for Germany to bet on a single fast battleship for protection and interdiction. Thinking something along the lines of an lengthend and strengthened Scharnhorst class.

Toyed around in Springsharp (I'm not really good at it, merely a novice) and I think I got a decent fast battleship for you

Not to shabby right? I hope..... Three of these is more then enough to protect any carriers from sneaksy, tricksy Royal Navy surface ships.

How accurate is the Springsharp program?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Ok, how about this as a thesis? The biggest naval threat to a well commanded carrier is another carrier.

I admit Glorious died because for some reason she had no patrols flying, which strikes me as criminally neglegent when it was known the german fleet was out and about. However I've seen nothing to sugest the other ships were poorly commanded. Couragious was carring out her orders, not her captains fault they were stupid orders. Ark Royal was unlucky enough to suffer a torpedo hit in just the right spot to take full advantage of a flaw in her design. Eagle died as a warship should, defending he civilians. The threat to any warship depends greatly on the environment she's operating in. In Europe the biggest threat was the submarine, closely followed in the Med by land based torpedo aircraft. In the Pacific given the dismal performance of the Japanese submarine service it was at least until late 43 the carrier aircraft. The point I'm trying to make is that to just dismis a potential threat as obsolete or irellevant invites disaster.

 

[hairysamarian]

Tell that to the crew of the Glorious, or the Couragious, or the Eagle or the Ark Royal. None of them were sunk by carrier aircraft. In war it's that sort of complaicency gets men killed. Usually in large numbers. Any enemy is a threat.

Complacency is the biggest threat to anything. But assuming that crews are alert and competent, I'll stick with my comment.

EDIT: Which comment, by the way, never said that carriers were the ONLY threat to other carriers. Just the biggest. As an example, the USN lost exactly one carrier to gun action: the CVE USS Gambier Bay.

 

[PhilKearny]

I admit Glorious died because for some reason she had no patrols flying, which strikes me as criminally neglegent when it was known the german fleet was out and about. However I've seen nothing to sugest the other ships were poorly commanded. Couragious was carring out her orders, not her captains fault they were stupid orders. Ark Royal was unlucky enough to suffer a torpedo hit in just the right spot to take full advantage of a flaw in her design. Eagle died as a warship should, defending he civilians. The threat to any warship depends greatly on the environment she's operating in. In Europe the biggest threat was the submarine, closely followed in the Med by land based torpedo aircraft. In the Pacific given the dismal performance of the Japanese submarine service it was at least until late 43 the carrier aircraft. The point I'm trying to make is that to just dismis a potential threat as obsolete or irellevant invites disaster.

The sinking of the HMS Ark Royal led to the commanding officer being court martialled and found guilty of two counts of negligence. I think most objective observers would agree at the least that this suggests some issues with the command of the HMS Ark Royal existed at the time of her sinking.

Command of a ship can mean strategic command, too. Perhaps I should have worded my statement to include strategic command. Still an undamaged ship with escorts that is sunk while looking for subs during an anti-submarine patrol, such as the Courageous was, does not suggest good command skills at any level--whether at the level of the individual ship, the task group, or strategic.

While your notion that the Eagle was defending civilians is romantic and appeals to nationalistic emotions. An objective view of the facts would disagree with this assessment. The facts show the HMS Eagle was a warship sunk while in a convoy engaged in primarily delivering military supplies to a military base. It's not like the HMS Eagle was delivering food and supplies for to disastrous relief mission.

 

[Rubicon]

How accurate is the Springsharp program?

As far as I know, if you know what you're doing, it's pretty accurate.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The two German battlecruisers OTL were upgraded from the fourth and fifth pocket battleships so if they come later there should be 5 pocket battleships in the Kriegsmarine, which would reduce the need for at least two heavy cruisers under this plan.

On the other hand, why build the battlecruisers at all if they aren't even started until agreements permit the construction of proper battleships instead of such ships?

 

[Rubicon]

Pretty toys, to be sure. I've always been a sucker for the beauty of the German capital ships in WW2. Sentiment aside, however, the biggest threat to a carrier is another carrier, not yet another obsolete gunboat.

Not building battleships in the late thirties requires hindsight amounts of knowledge. Not really possible, even if it would be better. With these three battlehships I outlined, Germany saves some ~40.000 tonnage in comparison to OTL Scharnhorst+Bismarck classes to other constructions, such as two purpose built 2nd generation carriers laid down late -37, early 38 depending on when a slipway is ready.

 

[Some Bloke]

Intriguing idea, does Germany have the means to pull it off though? If so I predict different decisions from Britain and France on Naval aviation. The German fleet will be more active than OTL (Naval Battle over Iceland perhaps). The naval campaign in British homewaters is going to be much bloodier. What about Italian efforts?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Not building battleships in the late thirties requires hindsight amounts of knowledge. Not really possible, even if it would be better. With these three battlehships I outlined, Germany saves some ~40.000 tonnage in comparison to OTL Scharnhorst+Bismarck classes to other constructions, such as two purpose built 2nd generation carriers laid down late -37, early 38 depending on when a slipway is ready.

The RN did carry out this raid in OTL

http://www.casey.tgis.co.uk/web/dfc/tonder.htm

If the war went into 1919 then there would have been similar raids on KM naval bases if Beatty had got his way. It's not impossible for a German naval theorist to develop a carrier based battle plan (arguably given treaty restrictions they had the most to gain from a "game-changing" tactical innovation) - it just didn't happen in OTL.

 

[Rubicon]

The RN did carry out this raid in OTL

http://www.casey.tgis.co.uk/web/dfc/tonder.htm

If the war went into 1919 then there would have been similar raids on KM naval bases if Beatty had got his way. It's not impossible for a German naval theorist to develop a carrier based battle plan (arguably given treaty restrictions they had the most to gain from a "game-changing" tactical innovation) - it just didn't happen in OTL.

Which is probably enough to get Germany (or someone else for that matter) interested in carrier development, but betting on carrier aviation solely in naval matters is a completely different matter.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Nice to see this BW

Just a thing, why both a battlecruiser and a battleship in each squadron? In my opinion much better for Germany to bet on a single fast battleship for protection and interdiction. Thinking something along the lines of an lengthend and strengthened Scharnhorst class.

Toyed around in Springsharp (I'm not really good at it, merely a novice) and I think I got a decent fast battleship for you

Not to shabby right? I hope..... Three of these is more then enough to protect any carriers from sneaksy, tricksy Royal Navy surface ships.

It's going to have the same problem as Tirpitz in RL - too big to be an "expendable" vessel and too small to beat two or three RN battleships. The battlecruisers are as fast if not faster (particularly if designed for the role from the start). A 6 x 15" Scharnhorst doing 33 kns with orders to run with the carriers if outnumbered would be sufficient to keep the Hood and the RN CAs away

 

[Derek Pullem]

Which is probably enough to get Germany (or someone else for that matter) interested in carrier development, but betting on carrier aviation solely in naval matters is a completely different matter.

Arguably the Germans did something similar with their land warfare doctrine - who would have bet on the tank as the decisive weapon of warfare before the fall of France. Again - it's unlikely the Germans would do this but they could do this.

Still don't see how they could "win" though - unless naval aviation / carriers enable the Battle of the Atlantic to be "won". And even then all this does is delay the inevitable until the seige of Britian is broken by massed US ASW and carrier deployment in 1944-5

 

[Rubicon]

It's going to have the same problem as Tirpitz in RL - too big to be an "expendable" vessel and too small to beat two or three RN battleships. The battlecruisers are as fast if not faster (particularly if designed for the role from the start). A 6 x 15" Scharnhorst doing 33 kns with orders to run with the carriers if outnumbered would be sufficient to keep the Hood and the RN CAs away

Possibly, but like I said, no one knew that carriers would be the new Dreadnought during the war. Not building battleships requires hindsight

Arguably the Germans did something similar with their land warfare doctrine - who would have bet on the tank as the decisive weapon of warfare before the fall of France. Again - it's unlikely the Germans would do this but they could do this.

Strongly disagree.

Utilizing tanks was an logical development to the Stoßtruppen tactics that evolved during the Great War.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Strongly disagree.

Utilizing tanks was an logical development to the Stoßtruppen tactics that evolved during the Great War.

If you allow that leap of logic then developing naval aviation from the British raids on the zepellin sheds is also feasible.

Shock troopers had none of the long range mobility of tanks in WW1 (to be honest neither did tanks!). It is the concept of applying the force that was common.

In naval terms it doesn't matter that Sopwith Cuckoos were dropping tiny bombs on inflamable targets - the importance was the idea that naval aviation could be used to project force. All that was really missing was the idea that ships could be sunk by bombs which Mitchell demonstrated in 1921

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

That naval aircraft could sink ships was proved at Gallipoli. Admitably they weren't warships and the torpedos they droped were only 14 inchs and unlikely to damage a modern capital ship but Ark Royals 184s were as effective as was possible at the time. Later on Ben My Chree played merry hell with Ottoman coastal shipping. The lessons were there to be learned and like tanks the technology only needed time to mature. It should also be noted that Germany did design a carrier that had she been built could be said to be arguabley superior to the HMS Argus.

 

[Rubicon]

If you allow that leap of logic then developing naval aviation from the British raids on the zepellin sheds is also feasible.

Shock troopers had none of the long range mobility of tanks in WW1 (to be honest neither did tanks!). It is the concept of applying the force that was common.

In naval terms it doesn't matter that Sopwith Cuckoos were dropping tiny bombs on inflamable targets - the importance was the idea that naval aviation could be used to project force. All that was really missing was the idea that ships could be sunk by bombs which Mitchell demonstrated in 1921

You are comparing kiwis and bananas, one is a berry the other is a fruit. It isn't even close to being an accurate comparison.

The 'blitzkrieg' doctrine is there in 1918 in all parts. The technological evolution of air planes and tanks is the only aspects missing.

An all carrier capital ship navy in 1935-39 lacks doctrine, technology, concept, belief and proponents. The only way to argue for it is with hindsight.
No one in 1935-39 believed carriers would become a decisive weapon during another great war. Useful? Yes. Advantageous? Yes. Decisive? No.

 

[Flayer]

An all carrier capital ship navy in 1935-39

The OP wasn't suggesting an all carrier navy, it has mixed groups with capital ships and heavy cruisers as well.

Now, the more interesting argument: assuming the Germans fairly early on are trying to rotate roughly one task force in maintenance/repairs and the other two on the high seas, how many ships will Britain have to pull from the Mediterranean to protect convoys, intercept the raiders, and try to contain the ones at home? And what will the Italians be able to do differently than OTL with a weaker RN presence in the Med?