heres a german carrier from way back

[Ack-Ack]

'St. Elmo's fire' is an electrical weather phenomenon sometimes observed by pilots, it produces unusual light effects around the aircraft. 

It was also a crappy '80s movie.

ack-ack

[Larry]

'St. Elmo's fire' is an electrical weather phenomenon sometimes observed by pilots, it produces unusual light effects around the aircraft. 

UFOs   

[humble]

If you want to look at the "stupidity" of the german industrial complex look no farther then the Luftwaffe and it's issues relative to the 109. Had the Germans actually adopted production of the G.55 in 1943 (which is what the Luftwaffe actually wanted to do) as a replacement the entire course of the war in the west would have been altered. No question the delay of the 262 was also a major gaffe but even a few hundred G.55's in service by late 1943 would have crippled daylight bombing...especially the proposed 5 x 20mm conversion. Even a C.205 with a K4 or G14 engine would have been a tremendous upgrade....not meaning to hijack the thread here. If the allies had been thrown back do to the inability of the Sherman (original short 75 tube) to sustain combat operations (only made possible by the combination of the 2 "heavy" divisions and recovery capabilities) we'd be typing (in German or Russian) how stupid Patton was to kill the Pershing for so long...

[Masherbrum]

ummm ...

the ETO had a few differences geographically compared to the PTO ...

how many fleet carriers did the USN base in the Atlantic ...

CV-4 USS Ranger until December of 1943
CV-7 USS Wasp until May of 1942

That answer your Question?

[thorsim]

CV-4 USS Ranger until December of 1943
CV-7 USS Wasp until May of 1942

That answer your Question?

tell ya what, since you seem not to be getting my point, why don't you compare the total tonnage of CVs deployed by the USN between the two theaters ...

 

[Masherbrum]

tell ya what, since you seem not to be getting my point, why don't you compare the total tonnage of CVs deployed by the USN between the two theaters ...

 

You've NEVER had a "point" in any post you've put on this BBS.  I really don't care if your vague posts seem to make you an intellect, but it actually shows the Community the opposite.  

Regarding those two CV's that protected the CV's in the North Atlantic Convoys, prior to being deployed in the PTO, they were key elements in the ETO.   If you actually read a couple of books on the subject, you'd know.

[thorsim]

no sir you projected into my point in order to argue with it ...

again ...

the carrier was not the factor in the ETO that it was in the PTO for all kinds of obvious reasons,
and a carrier was even less important for the Axis than it was for the Allies there ...

that was my point, that a carrier was not finished because it was just not a priority for germany "."

i never said the USN did not field any carriers in the ETO, did i?

however carriers were never a priority for the allies in the ETO either, were they?

You've NEVER had a "point" in any post you've put on this BBS.  I really don't care if your vague posts seem to make you an intellect, but it actually shows the Community the opposite.  

Regarding those two CV's that protected the CV's in the North Atlantic Convoys, prior to being deployed in the PTO, they were key elements in the ETO.   If you actually read a couple of books on the subject, you'd know.

[macleod01]

however carriers were never a priority for the allies in the ETO either, were they?

I BELIEVE, correct me if I'm wrong here, that CV's were actually vital in the early part of the war in the ETO to combat the Uboat menace. Isn't that the reason why they converted Merchant ships to primitive cv's?

[thorsim]

pri·or·i·ty    (prī-ôr'ĭ-tē, -ŏr'-)    
n.   pl. pri·or·i·ties
Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency.

I BELIEVE, correct me if I'm wrong here, that CV's were actually vital in the early part of the war in the ETO to combat the Uboat menace. Isn't that the reason why they converted Merchant ships to primitive cv's?

tell ya what, since you seem not to be getting my point, why don't you compare the total tonnage of CVs deployed by the USN between the two theaters ...

[Masherbrum]

no sir you projected into my point in order to argue with it ...

again ...

the carrier was not the factor in the ETO that it was in the PTO for all kinds of obvious reasons,
and a carrier was even less important for the Axis than it was for the Allies there ...

that was my point, that a carrier was not finished because it was just not a priority for germany "."

i never said the USN did not field any carriers in the ETO, did i?

however carriers were never a priority for the allies in the ETO either, were they?

Again, you are wrong.

The USN provided the two CV's to acquire the foothold in the North Atlantic, until the RN's Carriers could get the experience and continue protecting the Convoys and assist in sinking U Boats.  

Since neither the USN or UK "prioritized" CV's in the Atlantic, I guess the respective Navies, used in-flight refueling to participate in the Operation Torch landings?  All CV classes in the UK WWII Fleet from the Furious, Courageous (except the Courageous [50]), Ark Royal, Illustrious and Indomitable (revamped Illustrious class) served in both the North Atlantic and/or the Mediterranean theater.   After Courageous (50) was sunk by a U boat, the RN pulled it's Carriers from "Anti-Submmarine" patrols and guarded the Convoys.

I suggest you read:  Bitter Ocean:  The Battle for the North Atlantic by David Fairbank White.  http://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Ocean-Atlantic-1939-1945-ebook/dp/B000GCFXIG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1263657581&sr=8-2-spell  Because you obviously have shown you know very little about the North Atlantic.    Really, you do.

You keep grasping at straws that are not present in this discussion and ANY DISCUSSION you've had on this BBS.   You are somehow trying to compare "tonnage" sunk in the ETO and PTO by CV's?     More tonnage was sunk in the convoys than possibly the PTO entire.  

So, what is your point in all of this?   Because the way I see it, you're getting massacred again by facts, with ad hominem/vague posts that "allow you an out".  

[Masherbrum]

pri·or·i·ty    (prī-ôr'ĭ-tē, -ŏr'-)    
n.   pl. pri·or·i·ties
Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency.

You're making assumptions that mean nothing.   If you are trying to "imply" that the PTO was "more important" than the ETO, you're nothing short of mad.   

[Masherbrum]

This is an excellent online resource with not too detailed descriptions:  http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/   

[SIK1]

There you go again Karaya, using facts to support your argument. 

When will you learn to play nice?   

[E25280]

Not sure what total tonnage of CVs has to do with anything.  The US was using CVEs to protect convoys and hunt down U-boats from '43 onward.

You simply don't need the large fleet carriers when your opposition is nothing but U-boats.  The slow CVEs carrying a third of the planes are just as capable in that environment, and at a lower cost of resources and manpower.

Any implication that carriers were not important in the Atlantic or "not a priority" is just silly.

[Simba]

"however carriers were never a priority for the allies in the ETO either, were they?"

Thorsim, please read some naval histories. You will then learn that your above speculation is utter nonsense, particularly regarding Royal Navy priorities in WW2.