The Germans build carriers, instead of battleships, prior to WW2

[CV12Hornet]

However, the time frame for a fully worked-up carrier and air group had been considerably
underestimated. The theoretical aspects of the project were mastered remarkably
well in a short time, and the design demonstrates a reasonably good degree of
understanding of contemporary carrier development. While war games and plans
alone are insufficient evidence, they too show a reasonably good understanding of the
operational value of naval aviation. The practical side is more problematic. While the
vessel might have been completed in a similar time frame to the Bismarck or Tirpitz,
it would, like all the large combatants, have suffered propulsion problems.167 The
navy did well in developing carrier-specific equipment. For example, the arrester
system functioned very well, with few accidents in the thousands of landings conducted
at shore establishments.168

Counterpoint:

Apologies for the alignment of the pic, but a relevant passage for easier reading:

For their part, the Germans welcomed proposals to lighten and simplify the trolley and, above all, the new arrester hook adopted for the Re 2001. This was a masterstroke of reverse engineering by Pegna on the basis of a study he made in Egypt in 1941 of the wreck of a Fleet Air Arm Grumman Martlet shot down by a Fiat G 50 Near Sollum. Pegna, who was Project Leader for the aviation side of the Italian carriers, had worked using just the holes in the fuselage, as the tailhook had been removed before that aircraft, which belonged to a batch purchased originally by Belgium and later delivered to Britain, left the United States.

Tl;dr the Italians needed to copy an American arrester hook, because the German one didn't work, and even then both the Italians and Americans agreed that the arrester system itself on the carriers didn't work, either. Source is the most recent Warship International.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Tl;dr the Italians needed to copy an American arrester hook, because the German one didn't work, and even then both the Italians and Americans agreed that the arrester system itself on the carriers didn't work, either.

The arresting hook, was dangerous and unreliable, NOT the arresting system.

The same happened with F35C, when it flew off carriers. The hook was redesigned.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The arresting hook, was dangerous and unreliable, NOT the arresting system.

The same happened with F35C, when it flew off carriers. The hook was redesigned.

Note the conclusion at the end; the arrester gear on the carriers was a problem as well.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Note the conclusion at the end; the arrester gear on the carriers was a problem as well.

For the Re2001.....!

Is there a reference for 45 USN study?

 

[CV12Hornet]

For the Re2001.....!

Is there a reference for 45 USN study?

Probably, but I haven't the foggiest idea where to look for it.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Probably, but I haven't the foggiest idea where to look for it.

I take a lot of early post war studies about German equipment with a gain of salt.

By 1950's, the US ended adopting the same technologies. Including the slotted catapult.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

But a handful of semi-modern carriers might be more effective ...

What do you think?

The only way I see it done is....

Build three mid sized 15,000 carriers, and treat them as part of task forces, and not multiple carrier TF.

Use the cuiser hull as a base to speed design. That cruiser needs to be wide beamed, IE 3 triples and hybrid power IE CODAS. Three shafts, diesels on outer, steam on midline. Only one third steam techs and can make high pressure work properly.

<15,000 can't carry 6" by treaty, the whole hybrid gun carrier evaporates.

Launch only the heavier bombers by cat, the rest by deck run. Forget simultaneous ops. Change cats to steam and add extra boiler(s), needed either way to run compressor.

Start first hull as cruiser in '34, and "convert" to carrier in '35 on treaty. The first carrier should be operational by '37. The second by '39 and third rotting on the slipway.

KM buy own He100 variants for carrier before Goring digs in, and get exKM in Luftwaffe as airwing. Get Hans-Ferdinand Geisler as LW/KM FAA head.

 

[Tangles2]

The only way I see it done is....

Build three mid sized 15,000 carriers, and treat them as part of task forces, and not multiple carrier TF.

Use the cuiser hull as a base to speed design. That cruiser needs to be wide beamed, IE 3 triples and hybrid power IE CODAS. Three shafts, diesels on outer, steam on midline. Only one third steam techs and can make high pressure work properly.

<15,000 can't carry 6" by treaty, the whole hybrid gun carrier evaporates.

Launch only the heavier bombers by cat, the rest by deck run. Forget simultaneous ops. Change cats to steam and add extra boiler(s), needed either way to run compressor.

Start first hull as cruiser in '34, and "convert" to carrier in '35 on treaty. The first carrier should be operational by '37. The second by '39 and third rotting on the slipway.

KM buy own He100 variants for carrier before Goring digs in, and get exKM in Luftwaffe as airwing. Get Hans-Ferdinand Geisler as LW/KM FAA head.

Thing is to remember is the massive competition between the services for resources as all were in major expansion mode, with steel being a bottleneck with the army wanting it for tanks. The question too is even if you get aircraft from the Luftwaffe how you can put decks under them in that environment. MY thought would be to use MEFO bills and the like and buy civil platforms as a cheap and nasty way to rapidly get a couple of usable hulls to support your Panzerschiffe etc. My first thought is for the General Stueben, Munchen Link 15,000 tons and a good platform because in 1930 as SS Munchen was burnt and capsized in New York. Salvaged, and rebuilt in Germany it would have been an ideal larger platform to rework in that very period. Others a bit larger at 20,000tons were the Hamburg and Deutschland form the late 20s period, but a bit too noticeable and not having the reconstruction excuse. Alternately copy the IJN and what they did with the SS Scharnhorst Scharnhorst - later IJN CVL making a 20,000-ton, 20+ knots carrier when interned in Japan in 1941. Acquire either her or her sistership Gneisenau (or others), SS Potsdam in 1935 when the Anglo-German Navy treaty is signed. It's a quick down and dirty solution but would get you 1-3 operable carrier decks quickly and would open up tactical options for the Kreigsmarine which otherwise aren't going to happen. The biggest issue for the Kreigsmarine is both Hitler and the other services. With these three you aren't interfering with Hitler's iconic preoccupation with BBs, and you then have to get Goring's collusion to put airframes on these decks. IMHO this would be a workable 2nb-best solution to the conundrum's facing a carrier based Kreigsmarine.. You have three largish platforms, quickly available even if they are not true CVs but also it makes the Luftwaffe put up on providing airframes. Your thoughts? Tangles
Potsdam under construction 1935, Munchen (GS) had to be totally rebuilt after 1930, Ideal!

 

[Gunnarnz]

Not too mention the question of whether extremely large Fleet Carriers is the way to go for Germany and it's position.

A entirely separate & very important discussion. Big decks are more efficient tactically and operationally. But there are those other unpleasant factors. If strategy just covers dominating the North Sea to the Arctic to the Baltic then smaller decks are the thing. three or those for the cost of two big carriers? But, those are less useful and survivable in longer ranged 'Atlantik' operations.

This is where I always get stuck in these discussions: what reason would Germany have for building carriers, much less committing to them instead of battleships? What plausible goal for them is better served by carriers than other ship types, or land-based aircraft? Germany is a continental power - anything they want is on land. Conversely, anything they care about at sea is within range of land-based aircraft, which will typically perform better than comparable carrier-based aircraft because they don't need the extra weight of navalisation strengthening and gear. The fall of France couldn't really have been predicted, and before then there's not much opportunity for carriers (or anything else) to break out into the North Atlantic and start raiding convoys... which leaves aircraft carriers without much of a role. As other people have said, it takes time to not only build the ships but also integrate the air groups and develop plans for their use.

To put another way, what problem that Germany has in the early 1930s are aircraft carriers the preferred solution to?

 

[Gudestein]

The only way I see it done is....

Build three mid sized 15,000 carriers, and treat them as part of task forces, and not multiple carrier TF.

Use the cuiser hull as a base to speed design. That cruiser needs to be wide beamed, IE 3 triples and hybrid power IE CODAS. Three shafts, diesels on outer, steam on midline. Only one third steam techs and can make high pressure work properly.

<15,000 can't carry 6" by treaty, the whole hybrid gun carrier evaporates.

Launch only the heavier bombers by cat, the rest by deck run. Forget simultaneous ops. Change cats to steam and add extra boiler(s), needed either way to run compressor.

Start first hull as cruiser in '34, and "convert" to carrier in '35 on treaty. The first carrier should be operational by '37. The second by '39 and third rotting on the slipway.

KM buy own He100 variants for carrier before Goring digs in, and get exKM in Luftwaffe as airwing. Get Hans-Ferdinand Geisler as LW/KM FAA head.

I really agree on most of this. The German raider task force concept needed firepower, speed and range for their mission to outrun everything they couldn’t outgun. British carriers changed that as they could cripple a ship otherwise doing its job quite fine.
The job of the fast cruiser sized carriers is to add a small cap and a much augmented reconnaissance capability to the task force. To find the convoys AND to stay away of ships hunting the task force. Small ish and fast is the viable solution as the Germans couldn’t afford a large carrier force and the heavy guns.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

.You have three largish platforms, quickly available even if they are not true CVs but also it makes the Luftwaffe put up on providing airframes. Your thoughts? Tangles

Passenger ships are better converted as is to LSIs. Change over life boats to landing craft, and minimum changes ( very little cost ) to gain effective sealift.

Breaking down these ships to carriers would take more time and resources, than new builds.

Most of the proposed vessels are too slow. KM needs 32kt CVL, not a slow CVE.

 

[Cymraeg]

This is where I always get stuck in these discussions: what reason would Germany have for building carriers, much less committing to them instead of battleships? What plausible goal for them is better served by carriers than other ship types, or land-based aircraft? Germany is a continental power - anything they want is on land. Conversely, anything they care about at sea is within range of land-based aircraft, which will typically perform better than comparable carrier-based aircraft because they don't need the extra weight of navalisation strengthening and gear. The fall of France couldn't really have been predicted, and before then there's not much opportunity for carriers (or anything else) to break out into the North Atlantic and start raiding convoys... which leaves aircraft carriers without much of a role. As other people have said, it takes time to not only build the ships but also integrate the air groups and develop plans for their use.

To put another way, what problem that Germany has in the early 1930s are aircraft carriers the preferred solution to?

I can't underline the above more strongly. It's all very well to get all theoretical about what the Germans could have built, what would the political reaction and naval reaction have been in Britain and France? Carriers were not a strike arm of any navy in the early to mid 1930's, they were a reconnaissance unit for the simple reason that the RN, USN and IJN (the only navies with carriers) were still flying biplanes off theirs with piddly little bombs and small torpedoes at best. It wasn't until later that engines became more powerful, along with air frames (complicating what a carrier could have in its hangers), becoming the strike force that we've read so much about.
So, if Germany builds carriers in the 1930's, that's the Anglo-German Naval Treaty shot in the head (unless the RN is once again being run by people who have been slipping lead in their tea) as everyone wonders why they'd build those ships.
Hindsight about carriers is all very well, but is still just that - hindsight.

 

[NoMommsen]

... My first thought is for the General Stueben, Munchen Link 15,000 tons and a good platform because in 1930 as SS Munchen was burnt and capsized in New York. ...

... may it be that you mix up some numbers not comparable?

The Steuben/München was 'measured' for 14660 G R T which as a volume measure has rather few to do with displacemant tonnage - i.e. Washington treaty 'standard' - in which war ships weights were recorded/claimed to be (esp. the japanese, italians and ofc germans are reviled for).

... and as I couldn't find any records of its draft ... (rarly given on merchantmen) I have problem estimating something reaonable regarding said displacement.

 

[Tangles2]

Passenger ships are better converted as is to LSIs. Change over life boats to landing craft, and minimum changes ( very little cost ) to gain effective sealift.

Breaking down these ships to carriers would take more time and resources, than new builds.

Most of the proposed vessels are too slow. KM needs 32kt CVL, not a slow CVE.

View attachment 907252

I understand but he big 'If' is if they decide to proceed with a carrier force. My view is shaped by the realities of the caustic dog eat dog world of pre-war Nazi Germany, then if they do decide they need the carriers then how can they get them is 1st and only priority question.

• Intensely competitive scenario where all are scrambling over each other what can they get, (not to mentions BBs, SS etc.) These conversions offer a low-end option considered only because they aren't going to get top of the range models (or any model at all for that matter), in any realistic numbers or budget, nor more importantly are they likely to raise significant opposition from the other arms, (except Goring and the Luftwaffe providing the needed airframes).
• Secondly is the CV employment going to be our traditional modern model of use? Or are they aiming to employ them for a more limited context. Here no one is going to assume France or Norway will fall in the 1920s or 30s as actually occurs IRL. Options to employ the Kreigsmarine are constrained geographically as such. As a professional Officer body, they are still traumatized by the UK WW1 distant blockade strategy and its effects. How do they get their surface assets out to the Atlantic convoy routes to attack merchant shipping, which is the services only real viable contribution (outside of massive SS forces) to a war against GB.
• Does this mean that with 3-5 20knot 20 AC platforms you could punch a hole in a screen/covering force to get other surface assets into play, Possibly, or possibly not, but why assume they are going to take the carriers all the way out into the Atlantic. After all they put the IRL raiders out into play with only the onboard AC for recon and were happy to conduct anti-commerce operations in the opening years. Once they are in play then just pull the carriers back to preserve them and rebuild AC losses, then possibly sortie them again out from under the umbrella of land-based AC to cover their return. (Again, the KM planners aren't planning on getting them back to Brest or the like, they just want to have a brief window of air superiority for the time to transit the return and North Sea. It's a different jand more limited employment of naval aviation, but if the geographic restictions facing the KM are unchanged, then it might be a way to work within those.
• To get there raiders out into the Atlantic are the carriers going to be used to pry the door open to get the commerce raiders free. Before aviation's true role became recognized, it was largely recon/counter-recon and possibly limited attack. In that context use the limited CVs you have to locate and avoid covering forces, or attack piquet's etc. to get the raiders into the Atlantic, then withdraw. If you have a more limited perspective on their scope of employment and a task specific role, then the need for a 25+knot capable platform, is balanced against your likelihood of ever getting one in the first place given pre-war Germany. The budget end model is both more realistic and attainable given the scenario facing planners.
• Lastly, we still have had our perceptions shaped by the history IOTL. The true flexibility of carrier platforms is not yet widely recognized and the BB lobby dominant. Here there isn't yet the appreciation of its potential, so if you have a more limited perspective and simpler concept of employment, then then speed and other requirements so important in our Modern view of their employment hasn't the impact. If you are unaware, then you will go with what does the job in your narrower world view and accept a lower benchmark.

It might seem limited from our modern perspective and awareness, but IMHO facing the constraints of the time, it's not just trying to get 'more bang for your buck' here, it's trying to get a buck in the first place! T

 

[CaptainCalvert]

What's the smallest carrier-like vessel that might be useful?
Are we looking at a Chitose type vessel, or could you take the concept of merchant cruiser and use it to carry spotters so the cruisers don't have to?
It doesn't have to work from our perspective, just look like good idea in 1933 or thereabouts.
The earlier suggestion of cruiser carriers might fit the bill, or would it be better to have fast fleet oilers with scouting and limited attack capability?

Helicopter ships would be ideal as you could land prize crews directly onto an enemy merchantman. I can see Goering and Hitler thinking "Wow. Awesome - the future is already here" and promoting a three legged dog, but as I said, it only has to make sense at the time

 

[Tangles2]

... may it be that you mix up some numbers not comparable?

The Steuben/München was 'measured' for 14660 G R T which as a volume measure has rather few to do with displacemant tonnage - i.e. Washington treaty 'standard' - in which war ships weights were recorded/claimed to be (esp. the japanese, italians and ofc germans are reviled for).

... and as I couldn't find any records of its draft ... (rarly given on merchantmen) I have problem estimating something reaonable regarding said displacement.

It's the serendipity of its availability IRL that caught my eye, but also its the mid-range size, large enough to do something but not too. Large. You look and see the largest group of hulls such as the fast banana boats are 7-10,000 tons commonly. The major Liners and headline ships for the German shipping lines are all over 25,000+ tons region (eg SS Bremen) and a bit obvious to grab. These are all the mid-range in terms of size, large enough to do something with, but not headline grabbing or going to cost big -bikkies to reconstruct. T

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

any realistic numbers or budget, nor more importantly are they likely to raise significant opposition from the other arms, (except Goring and the Luftwaffe providing the needed airframes).

The article I quoted above note that Bismarck and Graf Zeppelin both (equally) consumed 70 million marks.

How do they get their surface assets out to the Atlantic convoy routes to attack merchant shipping, which is the services only real viable contribution (outside of massive SS forces) to a war against GB.

The theory interwar was the surface fleet was purely to allow the Raiders passage out of the North sea only. Norway coast included.

Here there isn't yet the appreciation of its potential, so if you have a more limited perspective and simpler concept of employment, then then speed and other requirements so important in our Modern view of their employment hasn't the impact

Even using the CVL as an accompaniment, and not a effector, the carrier still needed to speed into the wind and then rejoin the task force. Where as fast carrier groups need fast BB to keep up with their gyro-rations

 

[Tangles2]

What's the smallest carrier-like vessel that might be useful?
Are we looking at a Chitose type vessel, or could you take the concept of merchant cruiser and use it to carry spotters so the cruisers don't have to?
It doesn't have to work from our perspective, just look like good idea in 1933 or thereabouts.
The earlier suggestion of cruiser carriers might fit the bill, or would it be better to have fast fleet oilers with scouting and limited attack capability?

Helicopter ships would be ideal as you could land prize crews directly onto an enemy merchantman. I can see Goering and Hitler thinking "Wow. Awesome - the future is already here" and promoting a three legged dog, but as I said, it only has to make sense at the time

Chitose etc. also faced operational employment in the Pacific, greater range, faster speed far longer transit times for employment. If you have a more limited theatre of operations, the countervailing arguments of less range/less speed are arguable.

 

[Tangles2]

What's the smallest carrier-like vessel that might be useful?
Are we looking at a Chitose type vessel, or could you take the concept of merchant cruiser and use it to carry spotters so the cruisers don't have to?
It doesn't have to work from our perspective, just look like good idea in 1933 or thereabouts.
The earlier suggestion of cruiser carriers might fit the bill, or would it be better to have fast fleet oilers with scouting and limited attack capability?

Helicopter ships would be ideal as you could land prize crews directly onto an enemy merchantman. I can see Goering and Hitler thinking "Wow. Awesome - the future is already here" and promoting a three legged dog, but as I said, it only has to make sense at the time

All valid arguments, but it comes down to what can they get in the way of carriers realistically? If you are going to build a cruiser/carrier hybrid you automatically looking at greater cost in resources, money and perhaps most significantly in the expansionist environment of rearming Germany, political capital to get what you want.

 

[Tangles2]

The article I quoted above note that Bismarck and Graf Zeppelin both (equally) consumed 70 million marks.



The theory interwar was the surface fleet was purely to allow the Raiders passage out of the North sea only. Norway coast included.



Even using the CVL as an accompaniment, and not a effector, the carrier still needed to speed into the wind and then rejoin the task force. Where as fast carrier groups need fast BB to keep up with their gyro-rations

Biplane era? lower takeoff runs and speed, plus already work in hand in various navise of accelorators/catapults. They were watching other developments and sent parties to Japan, which gave them access and info under agreement in the 30s.