MilitaryForums.co.uk

Considering the importance aircraft carriers played in WWII I was curious if the Germans ever build or planned to build any of their own as I've never seen any mention of one?

I have read that they where going to or had started to build one but the war kicked of before they were really ready for it.

They built one can't remember the name though. Think the allies might have sunk it.

This link should answer all your questions.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/ ... rrier.html

But should the 'pentagon' deny access, just go to Google and search German Aircraft Carrier.

Rover

They had a third Bismarck/Tirpitz class battleship under construction which was apparently undergoing conversion to a carrier but never got completed. If my memory serves me correctly it was going to be called the Graf Zeppelin.

I nearly typed Led Zeppelin.

KMS Graf Zeppelin.

Germanys first aircraft carrier, launched in 1938.
Problems getting aircraft as Hermann Goring was not happy having his "empire" encroached upon, also problems over other equipment.
Construction stopped in 1943 and the vessel was scuttled in Stettin in 1945.
Raised by the Russians and later used as a training target and as such finally sank off Swinemunde in 1947.

KMS Peter Strasser.

Germanys second aircraft carrier was ordered in 1936 but canceled in 1940, to release shipyards for more urgent work.

KMS Seydlitz.

In 1942 it was decided that the hull of the half-finished heavy cruiser KMS Seydiltz should be converted to an aircraft carrier.
In 1942 at the Battle of the Barents Sea a superior German naval force was turned away by a smaller British naval force.
Hitler was not a happy bunny and ordered all work on capital ships to be abandoned.
The KMS Seydlitz was scuttled in Konigsberg in April 1945 to prevent capture by the Russians.
The Russians had plans to rebuild her and renamed her the Poltava, although the plans were canceled and the hull scraped in 1951.

Rover

The Germans didn't need a carrier, they had France. Their sub's were their real money makers. No one could compete with the British surface fleet anyway. Royal Navy has always held the upper hand. Germans made good Infantry, Artillery and Subs. I think the Luftwaffa was over rated compared to the RAF and USAF. Germans had good tanks too, but they lacked manueverability and were gas hogs. Wonder why we followed their foot steps on tanks? Gas milage on armor sucks anyway. Oh well we can manuever well though.
Question is how quickly did the RN take to destry the German surface fleet? According to the History channel the UK sunk the german navy quickly. I don't know?

they abandonde it when they realised that submarines were going to be more effective at locking off britain from supplies

Whitey wrote:The Germans didn't need a carrier, they had France. Their sub's were their real money makers. No one could compete with the British surface fleet anyway. Royal Navy has always held the upper hand. Germans made good Infantry, Artillery and Subs. I think the Luftwaffa was over rated compared to the RAF and USAF. Germans had good tanks too, but they lacked manueverability and were gas hogs. Wonder why we followed their foot steps on tanks? Gas milage on armor sucks anyway. Oh well we can manuever well though.
Question is how quickly did the RN take to destry the German surface fleet? According to the History channel the UK sunk the german navy quickly. I don't know?

Both the Panther Series and Tiger Series models were vastly superior to anything the allies could muster. I would rather sit in a gas hog than a comparitively speaking match box. The only tanks that competed were the Soviet T series and it's arguable that the British Matilda's (Per. North Africa) were equal if not better than the panzer III'S and a few IV's.

But it wasn't so much the quality of equipment (though the german equipment WAS the finest) but the tactics used employing the equipment.

The allies loved to use their tanks in 'penny packets'...which essentially rendered them obsolete to stiff AT opposition. Tanks were designed as modern cavalry and were meant to be used on mass (or atleast most effectively), thus blitzkreig invented by J.F.C. Fuller...and englishman no less!! Tactically the allies simply didn't know what hit them...simple.

Anyway im waaay off topic...sorry.

The biggest problem with the British tanks of this period was the lack of a decent gun in them. When the British convert the Sherman into the model known as The Firefly the it was equeal terms with the Tiger, The Americans did not take this on board as it was a British 17 pounder gun installed in the Sherman and they wanted their own gun but did not have one that they could use, so the Shermans carried on cooking.

hehe yes...the 'ronsons' as they were known. Also Tab, while the 17pdr may of had equal penetration, the firefly did not have the armor the Tigers did.

It appeared throughout the North African Campaign that the British constantly learned from their mistakes, somethings the inexperienced Americans didn't seem to.

I think if major full out tank battles occured later in the war between germany and britain, britain would of had a good shot. But like i said...leadership was always the overriding german advantage.

Redhand

The American idea was to swamp the enemy with numbers, by changing designs they would slow the production lines, so the Sherman stayed much the same for the the whole war. When came to production you had to hand to the Americans they did out produce every one.

Indeed...true enough.

But I'm not sure if i consider producing a piece of junk (as you, I, and anyone honest will say) en masse worthy of commendation.

Besides, it was never American Infantry or Tank Power that was their decided advantage. It was the airpower. The massive air-coverage enabled it so that german tank movements were strictly 'forbotten' during the day (end of war).