Priority for the Graf Zeppelins

[Basileus444]

Yeah, well I am new, didnt expect that or at least I hoped people would actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions.

Well, you haven't been called a Nazi, yet, so that's something.

But yeah, this site does seem to have the tendency to automatically jump down people's throats if they try and do anything with the Nazis doing better in any way.

While nothing occurs in a vacuum, that doesn't mean if the Germans try new plan A, the Allies are guaranteed to notice it, be concerned about it, and come up with effective countermeasures in time to prevent the Germans from causing any damage. Unfortunately that seems to be the near-universal response to threads like this, that the Germans alterations will be immediately discovered, analyzed, and countered by the Allies, and nothing changes.

One interesting development is that with a stronger Kriegsmarine, Prince of Wales and Repulse might not get dispatched to the east and thus avoid getting sunk. If the days of the battleship aren't so clearly numbered (Pearl Harbor and Taranto are against BBs in port, so arguably special cases), the Japanese might be more vigorous with their own, which could be interesting.

I don't know enough to comment further, but I wish you the best of luck with this thread since I do find it interesting. Although the reception here is par for the course.

 

[JAG88]

You're also assuming that the Bf 109T would be a good carrier fighter. I doubt it - the 109 was a good fighter yet a large number were lost in landing accidents.

Look at how many Seafires the FAA lost in landing accidents to see how well the 109T would fare.

As for the other aircraft to be carried by the GZ - Stukas. Even Fulmars and Skuas could take these out.

Yes, in accidents by mostly green pilots, you dont send green pilots to a carrier. The 109T went through 2 years of development and 1800 test landings in order to make it carrier worthy, it was no "stick a hook on it" affair like the Seafire which explains why it was never a satisfactory carrier aircraft. The Toni on the other hand was reinforced and strengthened, specially the landing gear, had an enlarged folding wing and a spoiler to allow for power-on approaches. Pilots in Norway loved its flight characteristics which helped significantly when landing on short, windswept airfields in northern Norway.

I doubt it was going to be perfect, but clearly a lot more effort was put into its development than into the Seafire.

Who said Stukas? Read again... And fighters vs attack aircraft? The Fieseler was 100Kmh faster than Swordfish and Albacores, once it got a MG151 it would have been enough to shoot them down, no need to inconvenience the fighter pilots.

 

[CalBear]

Yes, in accidents by mostly green pilots, you dont send green pilots to a carrier. The 109T went through 2 years of development in order to make it carrier worthy, it was no "stick a hook on it" affair like the Seafire which explains why it was never a satisfactory carrier aircraft. The Toni on the other hand was reinforced and strengthened, specially the landing gear, had an enlarged folding wing and a spoiler to allow for power-on approaches. Pilots in Norway loved its flight characteristics that helped significantly when landing on short, windswept airfields in northern Norway.

I doubt it was going to be perfect, but clearly a lot more effort was put into its development than into the Seafire.

Who said Stukas? Read again... And fighters vs attack aircraft? The Fieseler was 100Kmh faster than Swordfish and Albacores, once it got a MG151 it would have been enough to shoot them down, no need to inconvenience the fighter pilots.

Exactly how experienced do you thing a KM pilot would be? The average FAA pilot would have HUNDREDS of more hours, both in type and in carrier operations, than any possible KM pilot would possess. The bF-109 was a pitiful design to use as a carrier fighter. Horrible range (even before adding the extra several hundred pounds of equipment necessary to operate from a carrier), extremely long nose, narrow carriage, less than ideal visibility for landing, etc.

The USN actually tried that "attack bomber as secondary fighter" idea with the SBD (as did the RN with the Skua). It proved to be, well, a truly God-awful idea. The U.S. packed it in after Coral Sea, and a Dauntless could fly circles around any Fi-167 ever even imagined.

 

[JAG88]

Exactly how experienced do you thing a KM pilot would be? The average FAA pilot would have HUNDREDS of more hours, both in type and in carrier operations, than any possible KM pilot would possess. The bF-109 was a pitiful design to use as a carrier fighter. Horrible range (even before adding the extra several hundred pounds of equipment necessary to operate from a carrier), extremely long nose, narrow carriage, less than ideal visibility for landing, etc.

The USN actually tried that "attack bomber as secondary fighter" idea with the SBD (as did the RN with the Skua). It proved to be, well, a truly God-awful idea. The U.S. packed it in after Coral Sea, and a Dauntless could fly circles around any Fi-167 ever even imagined.

The pilots sent to Tr.Gr.187 were experienced, they wont be committing novice mistakes, no I am not saying that they will be instant accomplished naval aviators but only that you cant simply claim they will be bad at it. I doubt that experience will be of much use to a Swordfish, Albacore or Fulmar pilot that has a Bf109T on its tail...

The 109T used drop tanks, that doubled the range, visibility was not ideal but they would have to live with that as did the pilots of aircraft of such great visibility as the Corsair, Seafire, etc...

The Dauntless more maneuverable than a Fieseler biplane? Lol, good one! Do you know any about clowns? I love clown jokes!

 

[Just Leo]

The 109T used drop tanks, that doubled the range,

Can you say what configuration these drop tanks came in? I can't seem to find any record of a 109T actually carrying a tank, any tank, although I don't doubt their ability to carry the standard 300 liter tank eventually fitted to the Bf-109E7. That tank didn't double the range.

I can't seem to find any record of any German pilot ever landing on a deck, and no record of the arresting gear assigned for use being useable. The gear sold to the Italians didn't function at all, and it required considerable effort for it to be brought up to poor but functional standard. I am aware that a painted strip was used for practice landings, but these didn't move, either forward, or up and down with a rolling motion, so it wouldn't really impart what could be called real experience.

 

[JAG88]

Can you say what configuration these drop tanks came in? I can't seem to find any record of a 109T actually carrying a tank, any tank, although I don't doubt their ability to carry the standard 300 liter tank eventually fitted to the Bf-109E7. That tank didn't double the range.

I can't seem to find any record of any German pilot ever landing on a deck, and no record of the arresting gear assigned for use being useable. The gear sold to the Italians didn't function at all, and it required considerable effort for it to be brought up to poor but functional standard. I am aware that a painted strip was used for practice landings, but these didn't move, either forward, or up and down with a rolling motion, so it wouldn't really impart what could be called real experience.

The standard 300l tank, I haven seen 1325Km often quoted as the range with the drop tank and 650Km without. There is a "Profiles on Norway N° 3" about the 109T, its mostly about cammo and includes pics with the 300l drop tank.

The runway was implemented with the cable system supplied by Atlas Werke, they werent using painted strips according to Breyer. They initially were worried about the cable going over the wheels and installed wheel screens, but they turned out to be unnecessary and were deleted.

 

[CalBear]

The pilots sent to Tr.Gr.187 were experienced, they wont be committing novice mistakes, no I am not saying that they will be instant accomplished naval aviators but only that you cant simply claim they will be bad at it. I doubt that experience will be of much use to a Swordfish, Albacore or Fulmar pilot that has a Bf109T on its tail...

The 109T used drop tanks, that doubled the range, visibility was not ideal but they would have to live with that as did the pilots of aircraft of such great visibility as the Corsair, Seafire, etc...

The Dauntless more maneuverable than a Fieseler biplane? Lol, good one! Do you know any about clowns? I love clown jokes!

When you are flying something 50 miles an hour faster than your opponent you can LITERALLY fly circles around your opponent (Fi-167 MAX speed 202 mph, SBD 255 MPH) especially when your aircraft has 1/3 greater range. BTW, the Dauntless also carried 2 cowl mounted .50 cal and 2 .30 cal. compared to a total of two guns for the Fi-167 and the Dauntless was an abject failure as a back-up fighter (so was the Skua, despite having actual 1939 fighter level firepower with four forward firing .303). The concept of attack bomber as a back-up/heavy fighter simply did not work.

As far as the pilots, the experience they had as land based flyers is utterly worthless once they get onto a carrier deck. They will be lucky to get on and off the deck alive for the first three or four months. I was also addressing your comments regarding Fi-167 as interceptors, not 109s.

Lastly, the 109(t) never had tanks that DOUBLED its range. In actual fact, the (t) version was never advanced beyond a few prototypes (around 10 or so). The STANDARD 109 could get an extra 100 or so miles on its combat range with a drop tank. The best information I can find on the carrier version indicates that the combat range jumped from 725 to 910 km (185 km or ~110 miles) with a 300 liter drop tank (this being based on the "2" version, which was actually flown from land bases with all carrier specific gear removed to reduce weight).

I would also point out that the Seafire was a really marginal carrier borne fighter, due to handling and visibility issues, and it took better than two years for FAA pilots (those would be the same lads you dismissed earlier) to figure out a way to safely get F4Us into deck operations (God knows if the USN would have ever done it without FAA input). This despite both designs being flown and designed by nations that had been operating carriers since there were carriers.

BTW: You are new here, so just as reminder, it is a violation of Board policy to start tossing insults in your posts.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What interests me here is the British responce to the knowlege that Germany is building two fleet carriers.

Lets say it's 1937. Britain has a force of 6 carriers three of which are unsuitable for much more than training and trade protection. These are Argus, Eagle and Hermes. The other three are the converted Large Light Cruisers Courageous, Furious and Glorious of which one Furious is of limited utility due to its reduced airgroup. All need replacements.

There is one modern carrier the Ark Royal 3 building.

A further 6 heavily armoured ships are planned. As is a smaller maintenance carrier the future Unicorn.

The navy decides something needs to be done to plug the percieved gap in capability.

Options.
Do nothing extra, the planned ships are enough.

Reconvert HMS Vindictive back into a carrier along with some of her half sisters.

Order a repeat of HMS Ark Royal.

Rush through design of Unicorn but as a dedicated light carrier and order at least 1 more.

Speed up design and construction of the Illustrious class ships and dont alter the design later.

My choice would be to order another Ark Royal and to convert Vindictive and one of her sister ships. Argus is not fit for active service and the Hermes is too small. Eagle can get by as an escort but is too slow for fleet work.

 

[JAG88]

When you are flying something 50 miles an hour faster than your opponent you can LITERALLY fly circles around your opponent (Fi-167 MAX speed 202 mph, SBD 255 MPH) especially when your aircraft has 1/3 greater range. BTW, the Dauntless also carried 2 cowl mounted .50 cal and 2 .30 cal. compared to a total of two guns for the Fi-167 and the Dauntless was an abject failure as a back-up fighter (so was the Skua, despite having actual 1939 fighter level firepower with four forward firing .303). The concept of attack bomber as a back-up/heavy fighter simply did not work.

As far as the pilots, the experience they had as land based flyers is utterly worthless once they get onto a carrier deck. They will be lucky to get on and off the deck alive for the first three or four months. I was also addressing your comments regarding Fi-167 as interceptors, not 109s.

Lastly, the 109(t) never had tanks that DOUBLED its range. In actual fact, the (t) version was never advanced beyond a few prototypes (around 10 or so). The STANDARD 109 could get an extra 100 or so miles on its combat range with a drop tank. The best information I can find on the carrier version indicates that the range jumped from 725 to 910 km (185 km or ~110 miles) with a 300 liter drop tank.

I would also point out that the Seafire was a really marginal carrier borne fighter, due to handling and visibility issues, and it took better than two years for FAA pilots (those would be the same lads you dismissed earlier) to figure out a way to safely get F4Us into deck operations (God knows if the USN would have ever done it without FAA input). This despite both designs being flown and designed by nations that had been operating carriers since there were carriers.

BTW: You are new here, so just as reminder, it is a violation of Board policy to start tossing insults in your posts.

Where are the insults again? Please quote them.

The 167 doesnt need to run around the SBD, it was to face aircraft that are actually 100Kmh slower, the trick is they are all biplanes, they are the ones that can fly when a monoplane cant so having a biplane backup might come in handy in the N. Atlantic.

The USN lost several SBD in anti TB patrol, they also downed several Kates, that was better than having the Kates have a go at the carrier because your fighters are elsewhere, dont you think?

I love your facts, around 70 Bf-109Ts were produced, when GZ was cancelled it was ordered to strip them of their naval equipment on the production line and were designated T2 as opposed to the naval T1s. They served in Norway and later on in Helgoland, a couple dozens where still around in 1943.

I already pointed out the Seafire was marginal, it was still better than flying around in Fulmars, and the LW put a lot more effort into adapting the 109 than the British did with the Seafire so I would expect a better behavior, specially thanks to the added spoiler and extra span.

The 1325Km number is supposedly from Rechlin, at 5.000m and 330Kmh, I am trying to get a pic of the chart. A mere 180Km would be odd given fuel is practically doubled with the DP. For the G:

 

[CalBear]

Where are the insults again? Please quote them.

The 167 doesnt need to run around the SBD, it was to face aircraft that are actually 100Kmh slower, the trick is they are all biplanes, they are the ones that can fly when a monoplane cant so having a biplane backup might come in handy in the N. Atlantic.

The USN lost several SBD in anti TB patrol, they also downed several Kates, that was better than having the Kates have a go at the carrier because your fighters are elsewhere, dont you think?

I love your facts, around 70 Bf-109Ts were produced, when GZ was cancelled it was ordered to strip them of their naval equipment on the production line and were designated T2 as opposed to the naval T1s. They served in Norway and later on in Helgoland, a couple dozens where still around in 1943.

I already pointed out the Seafire was marginal, it was still better than flying around in Fulmars, and the LW put a lot more effort into adapting the 109 than the British did with the Seafire so I would expect a better behavior, specially thanks to the added spoiler and extra span.

The 1325Km number is supposedly from Rechlin, at 5.000m and 330Kmh, I am trying to get a pic of the chart. A mere 180Km would be odd given fuel is practically doubled with the DP. For the G:

The FACTS are that TEN carrier capable prototypes were completed.

Additional aircraft, WITHOUT the required landing equipment were built as the "t2" these were NOT carrier capable and were sent to Norway where their somewhat superior short take off capacity was of use. The removal of the arresting equipment and other strengthening needed for carrier operations markedly altered the performance of the "t2" aircraft.

My point was, and remains that utilization of two place carrier capable attack aircraft in the secondary fighter role was attempted and was found to be a very poor tactic. This was true even with far more capable designs than the theoretical Fi-167 you postulated.

Sadly, it is clear that you are going to hop from fact to fact in entirely unrelated elements to justify your positions.

That makes further discussion with you fairly pointless.

 

[Gunnarnz]

What interests me here is the British responce to the knowlege that Germany is building two fleet carriers.

That's what I'm curious about as well.
IOTL, the German capital ships didn't do very well: Bismarck had a dramatic but short career and arguably didn't achieve much at all; while Tirpitz spent the entire war in a Norwegian fjord. It's worth pointing out, however, that her presence there forced the British to devote a good deal of effort to keeping an eye on her and keeping heavy units of the Home Fleet available just in case she set sail. So from that point of view she was fairly useful.

ITTL, neither Bismarck nor Tirpitz is completed, so the British don't have to worry about them. This is a bad swap, however: they DO have to worry about two German fleet carriers instead, and no matter what we might think of the proposed German air group they'd require something different in the way of a counter.
The obvious response is with additional fleet carriers of their own - this might also trigger a bit more urgency about the FAA getting better aircraft than the pretty awful stuff they had at the start of the war. But is there anything else they could try?
And, since all those battleships and submarines aren't needed to bottle up Tirpitz any more, what will they be doing instead?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

What interests me here is the British responce to the knowlege that Germany is building two fleet carriers.

Lets say it's 1937. Britain has a force of 6 carriers three of which are unsuitable for much more than training and trade protection. These are Argus, Eagle and Hermes. The other three are the converted Large Light Cruisers Courageous, Furious and Glorious of which one Furious is of limited utility due to its reduced airgroup. All need replacements.

There is one modern carrier the Ark Royal 3 building.

A further 6 heavily armoured ships are planned. As is a smaller maintenance carrier the future Unicorn.

The navy decides something needs to be done to plug the percieved gap in capability.

Options.
Do nothing extra, the planned ships are enough.

Reconvert HMS Vindictive back into a carrier along with some of her half sisters.

Order a repeat of HMS Ark Royal.

Rush through design of Unicorn but as a dedicated light carrier and order at least 1 more.

Speed up design and construction of the Illustrious class ships and dont alter the design later.

My choice would be to order another Ark Royal and to convert Vindictive and one of her sister ships. Argus is not fit for active service and the Hermes is too small. Eagle can get by as an escort but is too slow for fleet work.

The historical RN construction program:

1934, 56.6m, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 6in cruisers, 9 destroyers, 3 submarines, 2 sloops, 2 patrol vessels, 2 minesweepers.
1935, 60m, 3 6in cruisers, 16 destroyers, 3 submarines, 1 sloops, 2 patrol vessel, 3 minesweepers
1936, 70m, 2 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 2 6in cruisers, 5 5.25in cruisers, 18 destroyers, 8 submarines, 2 sloops, 1 patrol vessel, 3 minesweepers
1937, 78.1m, 3 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 5 6in cruisers, 2 5.25in cruisers, 15 destroyers, 7 submarines, 3 sloops, 3 patrol vessels, 4 minesweepers.
1938, 93.7m, 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 4 6in cruisers, 3 5.25in cruisers, 3 fast minelayers, 3 submarines, 1 aircraft maintenance ship
1939 69.4m, 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 2 6in cruisers, 1 fast minelayer, 16 detroyers, 20 hunts, 2 sloops, 56 corvetes, 20 minesweepers"

Then there is the Tentative Fleet Plan

"Tentative Fleet Plan

18 Battleships (5 KGV, 5 Vanguards, 8 Lion)
8 Fleet carriers (inc one training)
5 Trade protection carriers
8 8in Cruisers (treaty 10,000 ton type)
37 large 6in cruisers (Belfast & Fiji types)
18 Small cruisers (eventually Didos)
2 Fast mine layers
24 Tribal class destroyers
90 J onwards type
3 AA sloops
37 MS sloops
13 Costal sloops

To be laid down 1936-1945

1936 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1937 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1938 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1939 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1940 1 fleet carrier, 1 trade protection carrier
1941 1 fleet carrier
1942 1 fleet carrier
1943 No carrier construction this year
1944 1 fleet carrier

Hood, Nelson, Rodney, Renown, Repulse and 3 QEs to be retained"

Based on those, merging trade protection with the role of Unicorn gives a way to get some CVLs laid down in 1938 and 1939, whilst bringing forward the Implacables in the manner mentioned previously

A repeat Ark Royal would be nice, but by 1937 perhaps the better option is the development of Illustrious and Implacable classes.

Re-converting Vindictive and converting other Elizabethans would need to be weighed against how soon they could be in service, their cost and their relative value as compared to larger trade protection carriers.

 

[MattII]

A repeat Ark Royal would be nice, but by 1937 perhaps the better option is the development of Illustrious and Implacable classes.

In terms of survivability, yes, in terms of aircraft numbers, not so much, given that HMS Ark Royal embarked at first 50 and later 54 aircraft, while in May of '42, HMS Illustrious had only 41 aircraft embarked (Ark's extra hanger deck was to thank there).

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Just over a dozen more aircraft on an older ship design isn't really worth it considering that more aircraft can be carried on Implacables. In 1937, going for a 1934 design isn't as effective as going for a 1937 or 1938 design; in 1935, a pair of Ark Royals would be very, very nice indeed.

 

[kalamona]

That's what I'm curious about as well.

IMHO, nothing grand, no need to change the original plan, however, i expect a bitter infgith between the navy and the raf over the resources. And while iotl the navy practically lost against the raf, in this case they can justificate their position, and maybe they could get some resources for CAGs and RAF get less fighters (BC still triumphs over the CC).

Okay, this is still pure speculation out of my bottom, with intereesting consequences, lets just speculate on a way that the britons do not make any changes at all.

In this case, what could they do with 2 operational fleet carriers against the brits?

They could do some sophisticated merchant raiding operations, condors, uboats, surface raiders and CVs in concert (risky operation tough), but most likely, they would no do that, they would use the CVs as large merchant raiders instead, and that kind of operations punish even the simpliest errors with grave consequnces (either you execute it practically flawless or you lose your ship), and since especially in wartime you will make mistakes.....

 

[Andy42]

Carriers without destroyer escorts don't do well, especially against attacking planes and submarines.

Germany never produced many large fleet destroyers IIRC, and most of those were lost at Narvik leaving them with the smaller destroyers with less range.

Should they try to operate in the North Sea or out in the Atlantic, even with a cruiser as escort then I can see them getting a tin fish from a sub or a Swordfish. The cruiser would have to remain with the carrier to try to protect it, rather than go off on its own to shell any convoy. There are no destroyers available to act as 'goalkeepers' for the CV. The accompanying cruiser or battle-cruiser has no anti-submarine value either.

The British response to these carriers being produced therefore should be a few more submarine patrols, and fast carrier groups to hunt them down. Plus basing a few Beaufort and similar naval attack squadrons in the Shetlands, Scapa, Faeroes and so on perhaps.

If they sortie, I can see one getting a submarine torpedo as with Ark Royal, and one going under from air attack.

Most likely they will both do a Tirpitz and hide in some fiord. That will have a similar effect as in OTL - some ships set aside to deal with any sortie, subs hanging around off the port, recce overflights and RAF bomber raids and X-craft attacks. Unlike Tirpitz, they wont need a Tallboy to sink them et their moorings though. Also unlike Tirpitz, they can at least provide a few fighters of their own to operate off nearby land airbases!.

 

[JAG88]

That's what I'm curious about as well.
IOTL, the German capital ships didn't do very well: Bismarck had a dramatic but short career and arguably didn't achieve much at all; while Tirpitz spent the entire war in a Norwegian fjord. It's worth pointing out, however, that her presence there forced the British to devote a good deal of effort to keeping an eye on her and keeping heavy units of the Home Fleet available just in case she set sail. So from that point of view she was fairly useful.

ITTL, neither Bismarck nor Tirpitz is completed, so the British don't have to worry about them. This is a bad swap, however: they DO have to worry about two German fleet carriers instead, and no matter what we might think of the proposed German air group they'd require something different in the way of a counter.
The obvious response is with additional fleet carriers of their own - this might also trigger a bit more urgency about the FAA getting better aircraft than the pretty awful stuff they had at the start of the war. But is there anything else they could try?
And, since all those battleships and submarines aren't needed to bottle up Tirpitz any more, what will they be doing instead?

I am sorry but I do not know why you keep insisting Bismarck and Tirpitz do not get built or that the RN has to take into account 2 DKM CVs being built, ITTL Bismack is built as historical, Tirpitz is delayed by a paltry 2 months.

IOTL GZ was laid down Dec. 1936 and was to be completed in May 1940, whatever the RN did building wise, they already did. PS on the other hand was laid down in 1938 in spite of originally being scheduled for 1935, that is a sizable difference and that one might trigger a change but the RN would have 8v2 even in this case and 10v2 shortly thereafter, plus the smaller old carriers.

 

[JAG88]

The FACTS are that TEN carrier capable prototypes were completed.

Additional aircraft, WITHOUT the required landing equipment were built as the "t2" these were NOT carrier capable and were sent to Norway where their somewhat superior short take off capacity was of use. The removal of the arresting equipment and other strengthening needed for carrier operations markedly altered the performance of the "t2" aircraft.

My point was, and remains that utilization of two place carrier capable attack aircraft in the secondary fighter role was attempted and was found to be a very poor tactic. This was true even with far more capable designs than the theoretical Fi-167 you postulated.

Sadly, it is clear that you are going to hop from fact to fact in entirely unrelated elements to justify your positions.

That makes further discussion with you fairly pointless.

I see, no quotes about insults, just another rather emotional post.

You claimed there were only prototypes, I showed you the type was already in production and were modified in the production line, at one point the order was for 170 aircraft.

They took off the hook, the catapult attachment points, welded the folding mechanism and faired over the spoiler, that is it. Thats a denavalized T2.

The secondary fighter role "failed" in the pacific in an all monoplane environment, in the harsher NA environment there were often conditions in which only biplanes could operate, in that context a Fieseler with a MG151 would be quite useful to shoot down unescorted and slow FAA biplanes. Simple as that.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

Germany never produced many large fleet destroyers IIRC, and most of those were lost at Narvik leaving them with the smaller destroyers with less range.

However with 2 carriers to call upon to help in the invasion of Norway I would imagine that not as many destroyers were damaged/sunk ... just saying ...

 

[JAG88]

Carriers without destroyer escorts don't do well, especially against attacking planes and submarines.

Germany never produced many large fleet destroyers IIRC, and most of those were lost at Narvik leaving them with the smaller destroyers with less range.

Should they try to operate in the North Sea or out in the Atlantic, even with a cruiser as escort then I can see them getting a tin fish from a sub or a Swordfish. The cruiser would have to remain with the carrier to try to protect it, rather than go off on its own to shell any convoy. There are no destroyers available to act as 'goalkeepers' for the CV. The accompanying cruiser or battle-cruiser has no anti-submarine value either.

The British response to these carriers being produced therefore should be a few more submarine patrols, and fast carrier groups to hunt them down. Plus basing a few Beaufort and similar naval attack squadrons in the Shetlands, Scapa, Faeroes and so on perhaps.

If they sortie, I can see one getting a submarine torpedo as with Ark Royal, and one going under from air attack.

Most likely they will both do a Tirpitz and hide in some fiord. That will have a similar effect as in OTL - some ships set aside to deal with any sortie, subs hanging around off the port, recce overflights and RAF bomber raids and X-craft attacks. Unlike Tirpitz, they wont need a Tallboy to sink them et their moorings though. Also unlike Tirpitz, they can at least provide a few fighters of their own to operate off nearby land airbases!.

Submarines wont be wasted in the Atlantic searching for a needle in a haystack, they will be deployed around the French ports, which is why DKM ships were escorted by DDs in and out of port and AFAIK none were torpedoed. However, this would be a far more dangerous threat, so I would expect even more interest by the RAF and RN.

If the carriers go to Norway they wont need to hide, they will truly pose a danger to the Murmansk convoys since now strikes will be escorted and would be a lot larger, plus that would give a lot more flexibility to the DKM surface units that were weary of operating against carrier escorted convoys.