Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: sirvlad on January 11, 2010, 03:06:09 PM
-
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4380/330390315330101.jpg)
By sirvlad (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/sirvlad) at 2010-01-11
-
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7582/grafzeppelin.jpg)
By sirvlad (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/sirvlad), shot with CanoScan LiDE 25 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=CanoScan+LiDE+25&make=Canon) at 2010-01-11
-
The first one is not German.
-
First one looks like Japanese.
ack-ack
-
lol crap,wrong pic,my comp really acting up.I`m done,putting it in the shop tomorrow morning.Sorry about errors.
-
Yep, Japanese flag on the bow.
-
First one looks like Japanese.
ack-ack
Only fitting given the recent posts about the new JAPANESE bomber...the Germans should get at LEAST a carrier for the trademark violation.
-
lol crap,wrong pic,my comp really acting up.I`m done,putting it in the shop tomorrow morning.Sorry about errors.
I use that excuse to explain the porn to my girlfriend! :aok
-
Yep, Japanese flag on the bow.
:lol And Japanese insignia on plane wings :lol
-
first one is deffinetly jap lol
-
I use that excuse to explain the porn to my girlfriend! :aok
You too?
-
Graf Zeppelin. The most half baked ship of WWII. Never finished
and riddled with more bugs than an Arby's Beefburger joint.
-
Graf Zeppelin. The most half baked ship of WWII. Never finished
and riddled with more bugs than an Arby's Beefburger joint.
Well duh, all knowing hitler did not think a carrier would be useful! So of COURSE we were the idiots to use those pathetic insignificant carriers in the pacific fleet! We COULDN'T possibly be smarter than he was, everyone knows that! :rofl
-
ummm ...
the ETO had a few differences geographically compared to the PTO ...
how many fleet carriers did the USN base in the Atlantic ...
Well duh, all knowing hitler did not think a carrier would be useful! So of COURSE we were the idiots to use those pathetic insignificant carriers in the pacific fleet! We COULDN'T possibly be smarter than he was, everyone knows that! :rofl
-
For sure the Pacific was geographically much different than the Atlantic due due to the
necessity of island hopping. The combatants had to bring their airbases with them each
step of the way. To accomplish that the US built twenty-two U.S. Navy FLEET carriers
(CVs), nine small aircraft carriers (CVLs) and *many* CVE's during WWII. Germany
couldn't build one (half-baked is not "built." they launched a "hull")
As for the Atlantic it was the Royal Navy that had that theater covered with their own
carriers and they had no problem doing it. They killed the Bismark shortly after she tried
to break out and kept the rest of the small German fleet ships cowered and in hiding.
Because of those Royal navy carriers the Germans could not sanely foray outside the
Channel or the southern North Sea due to the lack of air cover. When they did....glub
glub.... down to Davy Jones locker.
So as far as naval things went the Germans could deploy little more than subs,
disguised raiders and the essentially insignificant FW200 patrols for the Battle of the
Atlantic. To combat that all the US needed for the Atlantic were the convoy escort
ships, with their sonar, and the small escort carriers. With the British CVs and fleet
ships covering the remnants of the German naval forces in the Atlantic and the North
Sea there was no need for the US to send their battle carriers to that theater*
After the Germans lost the Battle for the Atlantic by '43 and after D-Day the Royal Navy
spent much of the rest of the war with the Allies in the Pacific or free roaming off of
Norway attacking the German ships hidden away in the fiords.
*(Exceptions being the invasions of Africa,Normandy and southern France).
-
suggesting germany "couldn't" build anything is pretty silly considering the things they did build.
more accurate to say that there were things they did not deem pragmatic to build for a war expected to last 2 years, especially considering the tactical situation as you pointed out, and of course needs they had elsewhere.
so you can call them mistaken or short sighted but being technologically incapable was in no way the problem with Germany in WW-2.
-
I did not say they were not technically capable of it. After studying Japanese designs
they spent years building an "almost carrier."
Begun in '36, stopped in '39, sat rusting till '40, served as a floating warehouse for the
hardwood supply for a while, work resumed in '42 when the value of CVs was ultimately
seen (too late), work halted again in early '43, towed around to various ports till' 45 -
ended up being taken by the Russians and used for target practice. It took them almost
ten years to work on ONE carrier that was wrought with some serous design flaws and
after all that the thing was never finished. "Half-baked" :)
But seriously? They couldn't do it and the facts show it. Just because they were German
and desperation enabled to them to produce some advanced weaponry doesn't give
them a free pass. "Well if..." and "they could have if they really wanted to" are lala land
stuff. there was a need. they saw it. The war was not going to be over in two years and
they extended themselves to where they absolutely neede them (Africa...declaring war
on the US... Atlantic fighting...)
A carrier was something that they did not have the means and resources to pull off. They
had no experience building carriers but more importantly they did not have the industrial
might to support building them or any kind of a blue water navy. Perhaps if they had
not started WWII they could have had the means and resources to build one. Then again
we're talking "what if's" and under that type of scenario maybe they could have built a
nuke too. But they couldn't and didn't.
Besides the US only Great Britain and Japan could build CVs (and blue water navies.)
France had but the one CV they built on the 20's (stil more than Germany) and while
Italy gets points for ships with style she is tied with Germany for the "Almost!" award.
-
I did not say they were not technically capable of it. After studying Japanese designs
they spent years building an "almost carrier."
Begun in '36, stopped in '39, sat rusting till '40, served as a floating warehouse for the
hardwood supply for a while, work resumed in '42 when the value of CVs was ultimately
seen (too late), work halted again in early '43, towed around to various ports till' 45 -
ended up being taken by the Russians and used for target practice. It took them almost
ten years to work on ONE carrier that was wrought with some serous design flaws and
after all that the thing was never finished. "Half-baked" :)
But seriously? They couldn't do it and the facts show it. Just because they were German
and desperation enabled to them to produce some advanced weaponry doesn't give
them a free pass. "Well if..." and "they could have if they really wanted to" are lala land
stuff. there was a need. they saw it. The war was not going to be over in two years and
they extended themselves to where they absolutely neede them (Africa...declaring war
on the US... Atlantic fighting...)
A carrier was something that they did not have the means and resources to pull off. They
had no experience building carriers but more importantly they did not have the industrial
might to support building them or any kind of a blue water navy. Perhaps if they had
not started WWII they could have had the means and resources to build one. Then again
we're talking "what if's" and under that type of scenario maybe they could have built a
nuke too. But they couldn't and didn't.
Besides the US only Great Britain and Japan could build CVs (and blue water navies.)
France had but the one CV they built on the 20's (stil more than Germany) and while
Italy gets points for ships with style she is tied with Germany for the "Almost!" award.
That's just foolish. The Graff Zeppelin never sailed because of one thing: Hitler. It is just like the story of the jet program, he killed it by being short-sighted. As you said yourself, work was constantly stopped and started, not because Germany COULDN'T build, but because they chose not to.
-
That's just foolish. The Graff Zeppelin never sailed because of one thing: Hitler. It is just like the story of the jet program, he killed it by being short-sighted. As you said yourself, work was constantly stopped and started, not because Germany COULDN'T build, but because they chose not to.
First, I find it funny how every single decision, particularly those being viewed as "faulty" (justified or not) is being blamed on Hitler. No carriers? Hitlers fault. No heavy bomber fleet? Hitlers fault (Read this many times on CH200). It's ridiculous. The process of decision making, particularly for the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, was much more complex, and without that much influence by Hitler as it's often being claimed.
Second, on being a short-sighted: What benefit would it had been to keep the program running? Would all of those resources had been worth the investment? Considering the strategic situation, what benefit would Germany have had from having a single CV, and a quite weak one too? Only 40 Planes, 16 15cm cannons at the size of a battleship.
No, considering the quite limited resources (often just ignored here) and the geographical realities there was not much to choose at all. Stopping the whole project was quite reasonable.
-
That's just foolish. The Graff Zeppelin never sailed because of one thing: Hitler. It is just like the story of the jet program, he killed it by being short-sighted. As you said yourself, work was constantly stopped and started, not because Germany COULDN'T build, but because they chose not to.
crazy why then did he send his pilots on raming runs just so he could build more jets?
-
crazy why then did he send his pilots on raming runs just so he could build more jets?
huh?
-
huh?
the saint elmo(don't know how it accually spelled) attacks on allied bombers
-
crazy why then did he send his pilots on raming runs just so he could build more jets?
the saint elmo(don't know how it accually spelled) attacks on allied bombers
LOL St. Elmo...you crack me up kid. (http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/41000/Pope-Elmo-----41265.jpg)
I think you mean the Sonderkommando Elbe unit that was tasked to bring down Allied bombers by ramming them. This was done to give some respite from the bombing to allow jet production to get back up to speed after almost being bombed into oblivion.
ack-ack
-
LOL St. Elmo...you crack me up kid. (http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/41000/Pope-Elmo-----41265.jpg)
I think you mean the Sonderkommando Elbe unit that was tasked to bring down Allied bombers by ramming them. This was done to give some respite from the bombing to allow jet production to get back up to speed after almost being bombed into oblivion.
ack-ack
yep like I said I didn't know how to spell it
-
yep like I said I didn't know how to spell it
Do you know about:
1. Google
2. Spell Check
Using them would be good for you, and us.
-
"Using them would be good for you, and us."
If he did his homework instead of spamming the boards all day long that would help
us all too.
And a big +1 for Lusche!
-
Back to the first picture in this thread: it's of the Imperial Japanese Navy's Akagi, as originally built; the aircraft on deck are Mitsubishi Type 87 torpedo-bombers. The carrier was reconstructed, the work starting in October 1935, so the pic was taken before that date.
:cool:
-
US Fleet CV's . USS Ranger ring any bells ?
-
USS Ranger was designated CV-4, a one-off design laid down in 1931, launched 1933 and first commissioned in July 1934. The ship had many shortcomings and was mainly used in the Atlantic, where she was employed as an aircraft transport and attack carrier against Vichy French targets in North Africa. She was decommissioned in 1946 and scrapped in 1947.
:cool:
-
'St. Elmo's fire' is an electrical weather phenomenon sometimes observed by pilots, it produces unusual light effects around the aircraft. :)
-
'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
-
'St. Elmo's fire' is an electrical weather phenomenon sometimes observed by pilots, it produces unusual light effects around the aircraft. :)
UFOs :noid
-
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...
-
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?
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ...
-
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 (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? :huh 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".
-
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.
-
This is an excellent online resource with not too detailed descriptions: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/)
-
There you go again Karaya, using facts to support your argument. :devil
When will you learn to play nice? :rock
-
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.
-
"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.
:cool:
-
The reason Germany didn't build CV's isn't because of Hitler or incompetence or incorrect priorities, it's because they would have been virtually useless. Germany's naval mission was sea-denial while the Allies' was sea-control and these are very different missions requiring very different mixes of capabilities.
The Treat of Versailles severely limited Germany's ability to build capital ships and most of the WWI BBs they did have at the end of the war were scuttled at Scapa Flow or given to the victorious Allies as war reparations. Much of what Germany did during the interwar period was to develop capabilities that could be easily hidden and relatively quickly produced such as submarines and aircraft. Pretty tough to hide a battleship under construction though and it took much longer to build plus they had no real strategic reason for one. Germany didn't need the sea (particularly since Hitler was focused more on Eastward expansion for materials, fuel and food) but Britain (as an island) and, to a lesser degree France (with its long coast and overseas possessions) did so denying its use was of paramount importance to the German strategy. They knew they would never be able to develop a surface fleet large enough to defeat the combined Brit and French navies but it could deny the use of the sea to others. Yes, Germany did build some pocket battleships and battle cruisers (in small numbers) but if you look at their missions even they served as a means of sea-denial. This is also the strategy we used immediately after Pearl Harbor. We deployed our fleet subs well to the West to deny use of the sea to the Japanese while we built up sufficient CV and support ships to begin our sea-control mission.
Sea-denial is the purpose of the submarine, it serves no other purpose as well, while a CV is much more suited and necessary for sea-control. Also, CV's are not independant operators, they require a fleet to support it and the Germans would never have one. So, it's only logical that Germany build U-boats vice carriers.
-
exactly ...
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.
my first statement ...
ummm ...
the ETO had a few differences geographically compared to the PTO ...
how many fleet carriers did the USN base in the Atlantic ...
as far as what was a priority, how much of the resources of the atlantic shipyards were put towards building CVs destined for atlantic patrolling vs. say cargo sips or DDs.
allocation of resources is how you determine priorities, i am sure you will find that for the atlantic those resources went many other places before they went to CV building for the Atlantic Fleet ...
once again i never said they were not used, or totally useless, or any such thing, however they were not our priority in the atlantic ...
-
Excellent explanation of the two major sea-warfare strategies, Mace. :aok
The U-boat was of course the WW2 equivalent of the USA's War of Independence privateers: if you can't seriously hurt the powerful battle-fleet of the enemy, go for his merchant ships instead. Which is why the Royal Navy placed such high priority on aircraft carriers, using them to escort the Atlantic and Mediterranean convoys so vital to the Allied war effort.
The Royal Navy misused its Fleet carriers in the first months of the war by employing them as the core of hunter-killer groups to combat submarines; HMS Courageous was consequently sunk by a U-boat just two weeks after the outbreak of war, and Ark Royal was narrowly missed. Following that debacle, the fleet carriers were mainly used for specific strikes against enemy targets - the best examples being Taranto and Bismarck - and to provide air cover for convoys, the most famous action being Operation Pedestal to relieve Malta in August 1942. Subsequently, escort carriers (CVEs) and Merchant Aircraft Carriers (MAC-ships) took over the convoy escort role (and also provided the sole air cover for the opening phase of the Allied landing at Salerno in 1943), thus freeing the fleet carriers for duty elsewhere.
:cool: