WI: Germany license produces Japanese aircraft carriers

[McPherson]

If it can be modified into a two-seater, signs point to
'Yes'

But that requires the GERMANS to redesign the plane for CG, CM and trim issues and find the room in that single seater fighter, not a two seater pilot trainer. Cause a 100 kg radio the size of a microwave oven in a thing as small as a Zero is NOT a low density object like a 60 kg cylinder shaped human being. It will eat volume that is not available and its mass is large enough to affect stability, roll, yaw and nose point issues. The Zero was as finely balanced as a marble sitting on a razor blade.

It is a problem and not a small one.

 

[marathag]

It is a problem and not a small one.

The US rebuilt Zero used in flight testing was retrofitted with a US Radio set. Test pilots reported favorably on its handling, noting the high speed reduction in roll, which not the fault of the box behind the pilot.
I don't see it as a problem at all. Germany was far better in the radio department than Japan.
The early war SCR-283 used in the P-40 and such was under 44 pounds and took up 1.5 cubic feet
The German FuG 7 was similar

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Any German carriers would probably be sunk during the Norway campaign, since they would be the Royal Navy's main targets.

 

[McPherson]

The US rebuilt Zero used in flight testing was retrofitted with a US Radio set. Test pilots reported favorably on its handling, noting the high speed reduction in roll, which not the fault of the box behind the pilot.
I don't see it as a problem at all. Germany was far better in the radio department than Japan.
The early war SCR-283 used in the P-40 and such was under 44 pounds and took up 1.5 cubic feet
The German FuG 7 was similar

Our guys are better than their guys and it must be noted (as I did) that there is more than just the basic set that goes with the radio. In that assembly is a transponder and a generator which does double the weight. Also, the Fug 7 was air to air and barely adequate beyond 70 km at 7 watts output. What you want is the FuG 16. That piece of junk

Source Wikimedia commons...

File:FuG 16 Z radio Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6

is not as small or well designed as the SCR 283 and its attendant systems.

From Here.

And what the Japanese did, here.

Follow the links in the article cited and embedded for more information on not just Japanese radios HERE.. (www.armyradio.com )

It is not that simple as just sticking a box in a space somewhere.

 

[CalBear]

Ok, finished my summer classes so now I can come back to this. @CalBear , care to offer an opinion if you have time? You're the expert on this sort of thing around here. Could the Japanese have licensed carriers to the Germans?



No doubt Japanese WWII naval architecture left some stuff to be desired, but it's a pretty big stretch to say it's worse than the Graf Zeppelin. That thing was a pile of crap. Permanent list to the side because some idiot put a heavy pair of guns on it, could hold half as many aircraft as the Soryu, twice the tonnage for the same capability...for all the Soryu's issues, the Japanese managed to at least create a useful asset that they got decent mileage out of. Even if the Graf Zeppelin had been completed, the list would have made it almost unusable for flight ops and even if it was it would have been a fleet carrier sized ship with an escort carrier sized load of planes. Usable trumps unusable.

What basis do you have for saying that it was a far inferior fighter to a Wildcat? I'm skeptical of that purely because the British had Wildcats (well, they called them Martlets) and they weren't used to slaughter Bf-109s en masse. The Bf-109T was an adapted E series, which had about the same performance as the Wildcat in most key respects. Very slightly higher maximum speed, slightly lower maximum service ceiling, and I'm pretty sure the maneuverability was comparable.



You sure? The Fi-167 was reported to have excellent handling characteristics, could approach at a very low speed, and it had fairly wide fixed landing gear, at least comparable to that of a Swordfish, which had no such issues. From what I understand, the hover was a maneuver that the pilot could perform, but it didn't do that involuntarily or uncontrolled.

Outside of the Shokaku class the Japanese carriers were not models of design brilliance. Akagi and Kaga were, as was the case with the U.S. Lexington class, converted battleship/battle cruiser hulls not purpose built carriers while the semi-sister Soryu and Hiryu were just flat poor designs partly due to the need to stay inside of Treaty tonnage limits. While better than the GZ in many respects (quite difficult to be markedly inferior) none of the designs were world beaters.

Worse, the Germans would need to actually understand what the hell the were building, something that was never in evidence with their carrier program. They put SIXTEEN 15cm guns on here, the better to engage in surface actions, in 1938! They seemed to picture the GZ as a surface raider, much like a Deutchland class with aircraft. That is either brilliant or idiotic, I come down heavily on the latter. Either way none of the Japanese designs were suited for the role.

Regarding aircraft - When you look at the potential performance of a Me-109T it is very important to remember that the aircraft would differ from the rest of the E family in a critical respect, weight. The addition of things like arresting gear, catapult spools, reinforced landing gear and overall structure, will add between 400 and 500 pounds to the aircraft. That represents around a 10% weight penalty, which is enormous (as an example the early F2A Buffalo was a fairly decent design for the era, adding 500 pounds of armor/self sealing tanks or about an 8% weight penalty turned into a pig). The F4F would have been a much better aircraft in a possible engagement.

The Fi-167 did have a reputation for remarkably short take off and landing distance. However, that wasn't the issue. The issue was that it wouldn't sit down reliably. As noted by other posters it tended to float or hover when landing in certain conditions; that is a VERY bad thing for a carrier aircraft. Having a low stall speed is good, missing the wires and winding up in the barrier is bad. Planes that "float" especially going onto a carrier in the sort of weather found in the North Atlantic are a poor fit. The aircraft was also slow as hell, 35mph slower than the B5N, close to the same speed as the TBD (which at least had the excuse of being designed four+ years earlier and being acknowledged as being on its last legs) and 75mph flower than its near design contemporary the TBF. Slow = dead.

 

[marathag]

Slow = dead.

Yet faster than the Stringbag by a good margin. Cruise Speed loaded and Range are the characteristics to look at, not top speed clean.
Any fighter will slaughter any Torpedo plane. Avengers faired little better than Devastators at Midway. But their increased cruising speed is what made them useful later

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Slow = dead.

Not always, it can be very difficult for a fighter to engage a much slower aircraft, particularly if they stay low down.

 

[CalBear]

Yet faster than the Stringbag by a good margin. Cruise Speed loaded and Range are the characteristics to look at, not top speed clean.
Any fighter will slaughter any Torpedo plane. Avengers faired little better than Devastators at Midway. But their increased cruising speed is what made them useful later

Yes it did, As did a better torpedo. Nevertheless, given the option of getting out of enemy AAA range 25% faster, it is fairly clear which way is preferable. This, of course also works the other way round, getting into attack range 25% faster might be the difference between taking an enemy warship with you when the CAP shoots you down and being VT-8.

 

[CalBear]

Not always, it can be very difficult for a fighter to engage a much slower aircraft, particularly if they stay low down.

Over the water? Not much evidence of that. See: Midway.

 

[marathag]

Over the water? Not much evidence of that. See: Midway.

Over land, the Hs-123, Po-2 and L-4 proved difficult targets for fighters

 

[CalBear]

Over land, the Hs-123, Po-2 and L-4 proved difficult targets for fighters

Unless I am mistaken the discussion was about torpedo bombers, which is a distinctly different scenario than flying over the Russian steppe or even doing light observation.

 

[alfredtuomi]

Yet faster than the Stringbag by a good margin. Cruise Speed loaded and Range are the characteristics to look at, not top speed clean.
Any fighter will slaughter any Torpedo plane. Avengers faired little better than Devastators at Midway. But their increased cruising speed is what made them useful later

Yes to the slow stringbag BUT the stringbag rarely encountered other aircraft much less fighters whereas the fiesler would have to assume it would.Even the much maligned skua would handle the fiesler.

 

[marathag]

Unless I am mistaken the discussion was about torpedo bombers, which is a distinctly different scenario than flying over the Russian steppe or even doing light observation.

Just saying that at low level, some very slow aircraft were not easy meat for fighters

 

[marathag]

Yes to the slow stringbag BUT the stringbag rarely encountered other aircraft much less fighters whereas the fiesler would have to assume it would.Even the much maligned skua would handle the fiesler.

Air superiority lets attack aircraft live to do their job.
In the GZ case, Skua driver would be worried about the escorting Me-109T were doing, not the Torpedo Plane

 

[alfredtuomi]

Air superiority lets attack aircraft live to do their job.
In the GZ case, Skua driver would be worried about the escorting Me-109T were doing, not the Torpedo Plane

but the skua would be the spare fighter and the 109 would have hurricanes/f4f4s and or seafires to worry about.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Unless I am mistaken the discussion was about torpedo bombers, which is a distinctly different scenario than flying over the Russian steppe or even doing light observation.

A lot depends on the conditions, in calm weather and good visability the TB, any TB is most likely dead. If conditions are difficult, perhaps there's a haze or light mist close to the water, there's a real danger of the attacking fighter flying into the sea. Conditions are rarely perfect over the North Atlantic, or any large body of water.

 

[Intosh]

Ok, so this idea is an outgrowth of OTL; in 1935, Germany actually did license technology from the Akagi to use in building the Graf Zeppelin, as well as naval aviation technology designed to convert numerous planes including the Bf-109, Ju-87, and Fi-167 for carrier operations. Basically, what if the Reich has an outbreak of common sense and realizes they actually have no idea what they're doing and agrees to just license produce one or two carriers in Germany to build expertise, as well as a training and support agreement? I'm thinking the Soryu class, though perhaps an earlier one like the Akagi if the Japanese aren't willing to part with their most modern one. This honestly probably would have cost less than what they did IOTL; the Graf Zeppelin was designed as a 34,000 ton warship and they completed 70% of it, while the Soryu was 19,000 tons, and just using an existing design probably would have saved a lot on R&D. They also designed and produced the Fi-167 and had the carrier versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87 (designated the Bf-109T and the Ju-87C respectively) in production before the Graf Zeppelin was canceled and they stopped, so the aircraft are basically there.

There is no chance that this wins Germany the war, but is there a way they could go in this direction?

If you look at a map of Europe, I don't see the need for the Germans to have an aircraft carrier when land based aircrafts can do the job.

The Graf Zeppelin could only be useful in the Norway Invasion, and sending it with the Bismarck is almost a suicide.

In Europe in 1939, only the UK and France had operationnal aircraft carriers, and they have an Empire to defend. Italy and the Soviet Union didn't invest in an aircraft carrier.

 

[BlackDragon98]

What if the Germans installed a aircraft catapult on their heavy cruisers and battleships (similar to the ones on Allied CAM ships) that could launch Bf 109s?
ITTL the KMS Bismarck launches it's Bf 109 and it scatters the Swordfish bombers that would have crippled the Bismarck's rudder IOTL

 

[alfredtuomi]

What if the Germans installed a aircraft catapult on their heavy cruisers and battleships (similar to the ones on Allied CAM ships) that could launch Bf 109s?
ITTL the KMS Bismarck launches it's Bf 109 and it scatters the Swordfish bombers that would have crippled the Bismarck's rudder IOTL

Would that be the strike from the Victorious?And if not why would they not have launched?And where do they land?

 

[Zheng He]

Would that be the strike from the Victorious?And if not why would they not have launched?And where do they land?

They don’t, they are like the Hurricanes off the CAM ships.