WI Better Kriegsmarine in WW2
- Thread starter Marklin
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Yet the midship cats might not have even been installed, for lack of use.
Devils Advocate mode, slow cycling time may not been a huge hindrance, given the small number if A/C that they planned to operate.
McPherson
Banned
Yes. If you had read the action reports, then you would know for example that USS Enterprise threw about 27 fighters and dive bombers up in a CAP reinforcement during the fighting sound USS Yorktown. She also launched a recon mission to find Hiryu. That was in a half hour. She did not have dead cats limited to 8 tonne throw limits.
So just to be clear... The Mailplane types of cats were one shot in practice,not theory and they needed to recharge between the throws. The Graf Zeppelib cats never worked as hoped. Never. In practice the Germans would have jatoed.
marathag
Banned
Why would you ever think that 80% HOOH mixed with N2H4 with a bit of alcohol could cause fires?
Or the minor problem of causing flesh to melt, even without ignition?
Garrison
Donor
Eh technical details. If developing a catapult is too hard just have something like the vertical launch system modern ships use for missiles only with the Ba 349 'Natter' instead, . (Side note in my sci-fi novel that is exactly how my bombers launch and land from their spaceborne carrier), I mean the pilots might be able to be pulled out of the water right?
Obviously these suggestions are more than a little facetious but they do give a flavour of how the Nazi's were willing to embrace all manner of crazy ideas. If they were truly desperate for a carrier who knows what they would have been willing to try?
... "the internet" would have been only slightly less precise ...
So far on Navypedia I haven't found any reference to german, italian or japanese efforts on airplane catapults of any configuration.
And trying a search on Global Security brings only links to ... wikipedia or similar with as much (aka none) references to the above.
aaand once again : what's the source of your 'wisdom' ? ... any reports ? ... or similar ?
Last edited:
... in other words with semdimg me doing your source searching :
you have no idea where and if there's any source at all for your statements ... or shall I now call them ... 'confabulations' ...
At that time cats were hardly used and mainly for cycle ops to keep the deck functioning. This is why it is note in report, it was novel
JFYI
The Role of the Escort Carrier Catapults did not come into general use aboard aircraft carriers until the escort or jeep carriers joined the fleet . Because of the long flight decks and the speed of the larger carriers , there had been virtually no perimental purposes when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor . As the war pro gressed , however , carrier aircraft weights continued to increase primarily because experience against the enemy showed that aircraft needed better armor plating to protect the pilots and heavier machine guns , rockets , and bombs . These higher weights inevitably meant that the aircraft would require longer take - off runs . More over , the number of personnel required to get a Navy fighter into the air kept in creasing , thereby cutting down on the available deck area .
So it was a matter of necessity that catapult launching from carriers became a common occurrence as the War progressed . By 1945 , CV's got their planes into the air by catapult 40 percent of the time , CVL's 70 percent , while the jeep escort carriers used the catapult technique to launch their aircraft on almost every occasion .
The steam catapult, US Dept of Navy.
Naval Aviation News May-June 1995
Yorktown and Enterprise, commis-
sioned in 1937 and 1938 (as well as a
few subsequent carriers), were each
fitted with an athwartships catapult on
the hangar deck, along with two bow
catapults on the flight deck. Both ships
made their first catapult launches on 4
August 1939, scarcely a month before
the outbreak of war in Europe. Wasp,
during her first year of operation, mid-
1940 to 1941, made only three dozen
live catapult launches. After the US.
joined the war, hangar deck catapults
were removed from existing carriers.
Until mid-l 943, however, Essex-class
carrier plans called for hangar deck
catapults.
In April 1943 Enterprise recommended
her catapults be removed because
they were so limited to small, slow air-
planes that they were of no use. Instead,
they were replaced with updated H2-1
catapults capable of accelerating an
11 ,OOO-pound airplane to 70 mph in a
73-foot run. In February 1944 Com-
mander Naval Air Force, Pacific Fleet,
reported that catapults were important
for all carriers and were vital for CVEs
and CVLs. They became so essential
to the CVE mission of aircraft resupply
that all Army fighters earmarked for
the Pacific were fitted for catapults
while on the production line.
Yorktown and Enterprise, commis-
sioned in 1937 and 1938 (as well as a
few subsequent carriers), were each
fitted with an athwartships catapult on
the hangar deck, along with two bow
catapults on the flight deck. Both ships
made their first catapult launches on 4
August 1939, scarcely a month before
the outbreak of war in Europe. Wasp,
during her first year of operation, mid-
1940 to 1941, made only three dozen
live catapult launches. After the US.
joined the war, hangar deck catapults
were removed from existing carriers.
Until mid-l 943, however, Essex-class
carrier plans called for hangar deck
catapults.
In April 1943 Enterprise recommended
her catapults be removed because
they were so limited to small, slow air-
planes that they were of no use. Instead,
they were replaced with updated H2-1
catapults capable of accelerating an
11 ,OOO-pound airplane to 70 mph in a
73-foot run. In February 1944 Com-
mander Naval Air Force, Pacific Fleet,
reported that catapults were important
for all carriers and were vital for CVEs
and CVLs. They became so essential
to the CVE mission of aircraft resupply
that all Army fighters earmarked for
the Pacific were fitted for catapults
while on the production line.
Last edited:
Not quite the 200-300 every night??
I note the majority are Motor Launches, and the focus was on ASW, and not counter E-boat. Most ML had 3 PDR (45mm), a pair of Lewis and a few depth charges. Not really the set up to barge bash?
Some had 2pdr pompoms, but the little round bottom boats struggled to hit. A destroyer need 5 solid 40mm hits to sink a S-boat (sorry forgot which one) Also saw a vessel managed to sink ship by launching depth charge nearby.
All the barges had stirrup fittings for MGs (assume MG-34??), I can't imagine wooden ML closing with barges???
BTW some of those ML went to Iceland and Gibraltar, far out in the Bay outside LW range!!
(Ironically deep mine fields keep U-boats out of channel, and MLs redundant in their primary role)
By mid-1940, the U-boat offensive had been largely contained by the laying of mine barriers and regular air patrols by Coastal Command. These defences were sufficient to keep most U-boats away from coastal waters, and in any event there were fewer available since one-third of the German U-boat fleet at that time had been sunk and new craft had not yet come into service to take their place.
Excerpt From: "The E-Boat Threat" by Bryan Cooper. Scribd.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Read this book on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/book/444840437
Last edited:
The mass majority of 'targets' in a Sea mammal foolishness would not be S-Boats
As for the rest...well those forces were no worse armed that the majority of the invasion forces vessels
And the Coastal forces included their own 'S Boats'
Barge bashing, not S-boats.
Would expect a Mexican stand-off btw MLs and barges, with a fusiade of MG fire btw. Wooden ML vs Wooden barges, lots of match wood all round.
Coastal forces only had a few MTB, and only really got it together AFTER '40.
At this time, MTBs came under the authority of the individual naval home commands. It was not until November 1940 that Coastal Forces was formed as a separate organisation and only in 1943 did it take operational control of MTBs and MGBs, with a department of its own within the Admiralty. To begin with the Commanders-in-Chief, who saw little value in light craft anyway, assigned the MTBs to escorting coastal convoys. Designed to be an offensive and not a defensive weapon, they were of course totally ill-equipped for this task, especially when armed only with .303inch machine-guns which was the case until 20mm Oerlikons became available. They had their torpedoes, of course, but these were of little use against submarines and E-boats, and the Germans wisely decided to employ these weapons rather than larger warships against coastal shipping.
Excerpt From: "The E-Boat Threat" by Bryan Cooper. Scribd.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Read this book on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/book/444840437
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Edited by me since only focusing on this part. I would not expect a standoff, since the British ones have only machine guns and sailors, while the German barges have (stored for transport, mind you) various cargoes of horses, men, and supplies. Again, how many German barges are set up for machine gun combat in the channel, versus makeshift mounts that will have blind spots?
Last edited:
Well I am satisfied that the Coastal forces or whatever title you want to call the Green water littoral forces that existed around the coast of Britain in Sept 1940 would have been sufficient to seriously impact any Sealion misadventure, through destruction and damage of ships, delay, and confusion.
I have provided information that these forces existed and there is no 'reasonable' doubt that they would have sortied en-mass in the face of any invasion and in doing so would have been a major force in preventing the invasion force from achieving its mission.
The Germans were planning to use their scant numbers of badly out numbered destroyers, Torpedo boats and Motor Torpedo boats (S-Boats) units to act as blocking forces to the East and West of the Landing zones.
Available was 7 Destroyers, 17 Torpedo boats (these are effectively light destroyers of about 800-900 tons) and what ever E-Boats aka S-boats were available (I've yet been unable to determine the number of these in Sept 1940 but its looks like a few dozen at most)
Very few of these combat vessels would actually be carrying out a close escort but instead trying to protect the main invasion zone operating to the East and West.
thaddeus
Donor
they had some known fixes for their CLs but choose the CAs, one can assume to "use up" treaty limits? my own view they should have built torpedo boats and light cruisers, instead they attempted large destroyers and heavy cruisers.
and I am not knocking the idea of heavy cruisers, but not in the pre-war time frame. they needed some numbers of ships, for more mundane tasks that they are not going to risk a 18 - 20k tonne ship to perform?
I don't expect there'll be any real German escorts!
Everything they proposed was ad-hoc.
But I do question the over hyped rhectic off 300 vessels, etc, when only fast ships were used for operations closer to France.
German reports have barges doing 5kts, not 1-2kts, etc. Etc
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
The bolded part is useful if Sealion was a British operation invading Europe, but as the German barges are moving towards the slow (but faster than barges) British ships, near Britain, I do have to ask why you added that in. It feels more deflecting attention away from the crux of the problem, there are too many British ships near Britain for the KM.
The crux of there problem, is the reaction time to the invasion. The MLs only do 12kts, the barges 5kts. How far the Germans get before the MLs can close, and how much damage before the destroyers and daylight arrives????
The RAF fighters only have limited range of comms from ground control, losing their advantage. And fixed escorts to fleet uses up considerable resources.