BlackDragon98
Banned
Maybe the Germans could make use of the 100 or so He 100s that were produced.
The He 100's weakness was it's landing gear.
Remove that, add the floats, and the Kriegsmarine now have a good seaplane fighter.
WI: Germany license produces Japanese aircraft carriers
- Thread starter Asp
- Start date
The He 100's weakness was it's landing gear.
Remove that, add the floats, and the Kriegsmarine now have a good seaplane fighter.
The picture gets muddy as later versions were ship based and had the heavy armament but considering she had four aboard and no attempt was made to launch it was either too rough or they were early versions with no fwd armament.
BlackDragon98
Banned
The A-2 version was introduced in Nov. 1939.
The type aboard Bismarck was definitely the A-2 version.
from the bismark site...3 A2 and one A3.
from youtube a short clip of the engine mounts failing on landing in a moderate chop....the plane burnt and the crew went swimming so landing in a moderate gale is probably not happening.
i think the RN had the right idea....ditch the seaplanes and use the hanger as a movie theater
Much less of a fire hazard and radar generally made the seaplanes redundant, plus the RN had carrier support.
And most importantly a brewery ship....the yanks can bring the popcorn.
cross decking....apparently the American air crew transferred to hms Victorious/uss robin hood rather enjoyed the wardroom amenities.
i found it rather amusing when we had American crew aboard ship and they would go up to the cafeteria pop machine see all sorts of weird brands and just randomly pick one............then open it and go OH!
Carriers built for pacific operation are not suitable for operations in North Atlantic. Even American battleships and Carriers had trouble operating there due to sea states that hampered and slowed the ship as well as disable the ability to launch aircraft.
Secondly unlike pacific North Atlantic and Mediterranean are often within striking range of ground based aircraft. It’s what dictated the British carrier development to invest into deck armor rather than simple size. It’s what made them invest into armored hangars which also limited the number of aircraft as well as ability to upgrade them with bigger ones. And all of that was considered necessary to operate the ship in the waters Britain controlled. And waters Germany would have to operate. Ferrari is a great car but trying to pull logs out of the woods with it won’t end well. Same with Akagi in Europe.
Secondly unlike pacific North Atlantic and Mediterranean are often within striking range of ground based aircraft. It’s what dictated the British carrier development to invest into deck armor rather than simple size. It’s what made them invest into armored hangars which also limited the number of aircraft as well as ability to upgrade them with bigger ones. And all of that was considered necessary to operate the ship in the waters Britain controlled. And waters Germany would have to operate. Ferrari is a great car but trying to pull logs out of the woods with it won’t end well. Same with Akagi in Europe.
marathag
Banned
They assumed that the bomber always would get thru. so had small groups and deck armor
with a large enough cap, that was proven that bombers didn't always get thru
The worst US Carriers, Ranger and Wasp, had no fear going into the Med or North Sea
Assumption that bomber will get trough was basic naval thought of the 20s and 30s and without radar it’s probably a fact. The difference in design comes from threat of ground based aircraft and confined seas. Finding a carrier group in North Sea or Mediterranean and then sending a few hundred land based craft after it is much easier that doing the same in the pacific.
Yet when they designed carriers after having some actual combat experience (Midways) the USN gave them significant amounts of flight deck armour because all to often the bombers got through.
Despite starting with completely different approaches to carrier protection the late war US (Midway) and British (Malta) carrier designs were remarkably similar. Both navies adopted elements of the others approach where experience had shown their own was lacking,
At the Battle of the Java Sea, I believe the Japanese cruisers had float planes in the air.
The IJN also used float planes in the night battles in the Solomons.
During the invasion of Sicily, the US light cruisers used their float planes for gunnery spotting, and maybe bombing. I think the USN and RN float planes were the only ship-based planes available in the early days of the invasion.
I still question the sanity of anyone who thought that the BF-109 would make for a good carrier aircraft what with how its landing gear was arranged and the resulting high accident rate on land let alone the added difficulty of landing on a carrier