Nazi Aircraft Carrier.

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-only-nazi-aircraft-carrier/

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Another case of "what might have been". The Germans biggest impediment to victory was all the political infighting and decisions based on cronyism and ego.

 

They had been working on intermediate caliber weapons in the 1930's, and had it not been for interference they could have launched the war armed with StG-44 rifles instead of the bolt action K-98. Their aircraft designs were years ahead of the Allies. They even developed an anti-aircraft SAM ... The Tomohawk ... that would have devastated the RAF and USAAF bombers but Hitler had no interest in defensive weapons. It's disturbing to consider that had their weapons programs been allowed to proceed unimpeded they could have won the war in Europe by 1941 at the latest.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

If the german navy had been given more time prior to the beginning the war, the german navy would have been much larger.

There were supposed to be 2 battleships bigger than the bismark/tirpitz and IIRC 6 of the bismark class.

There were also supposed to be like 2 - 3 times the number of u-boats.

6 "battlecruisers" like the scharnhorst.

 

(my memory of the numbers is not 100%).

 

But hitler started the war too soon for the navy.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

???

Using an aircraft carrier as a warehouse for submarines does not sound like good military planning.

Of course taking the German nation from the despair of WW I's defeat, the world wide depression, and

crushing debt to a world power in what, six years? By invading the surrounding countries, he was able

to steal the booty from them to finance his war plans. Early on, I suppose that the German people thought

he was doing a good job, because they were being transformed from a third rate country into a world power.

At the expense of their neighbors. At least the party members did. They got the gravy to go with the pork.

 

When the whirlwind came and it was time to pay the piper it was not so good.

 

But I digress. What else is new. Hard for me to hold a thought line for more than a minute or two.

 

I did not know that they (Germany) even had an aircraft carrier. When I was stationed there in 1959/1960 I

did learn that they had bier, brot, wurst, kartoffel, wienerschnitzel, strudel and schnapps.

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953]

The "one service owns all the airplanes" approach was very popular in the post-WWI era. The so-called "prophets of air power" held sway in many countries. Britain formed the RAF and it was a near thing that the Fleet Air Arm did not become part of it. In Germany the Luftwaffe did own everything that flew and that, in the end, caused the German state some grief. Failure to develop designs for the new carrier was only one.

 

In the aftermath of WWII we almost followed the Luftwaffe model when the USAF was created. It was the intent of the Truman Administration that all fixed wing aircraft would be USAF, including the carrier aircraft. This was thwarted by the Revolt of the Admirals.

 

History shows that the two most successful navies of modern times, the USN and the IJN, were wise to keep control of their fixed wing aircraft assets.

 

The Imperial German Navy was built specifically to counter the British RN. The British had a national policy of maintaining the RN at level equal to the combined level of its two nearest competitors (in the early 20th Cen. that would have been the USN and IGN).

 

The destruction of the IGN at Scapa Flow meant the Kriegsmarine had to start from scratch. There is not way a nation can do that with the cost of modern naval armaments.

 

The Russians spent huge sums building up the Soviet Navy in the '60s and '70s, including a hard push to develop viable carriers. It didn't work. Most of those ships are now rusting hulks or razor blades.

 

The Chinese "full court press" for naval development includes a carrier force. It will be interesting to see if they do it successfully. They have a tradition of sea faring but it's mostly a coastal tradition. The last Chinese naval force to leave Chinese waters did so in the 14th Century.

 

In addition to the U.S., France, India, and Brazil have operational carriers. Argentina did have one, but I think it's been retired.

 

In general,nations without a tradition of sea faring have not done well over the long haul. The fates of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union demonstrate this, again. The jury is out on China.

 

SQQ

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Other than association with my two SILs I have little or no knowledge of the US Navy. That said, I watch the military channel on the TV, and they are selling the idea that the carrier is going the way of the battleship, and that the new force is the subsurface vessels. I can see with rockets and underwater platforms that there is a

logic to this idea, but I do not know if it might be flawed or not.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Other than association with my two SILs I have little or no knowledge of the US Navy. That said, I watch the military channel on the TV, and they are selling the idea that the carrier is going the way of the battleship, and that the new force is the subsurface vessels. I can see with rockets and underwater platforms that there is a

logic to this idea, but I do not know if it might be flawed or not.

Nah. Not in our lifetime (course that's not sayin much). The carrier task force is still the biggest tool we have to react to changing situations. You can put some boots on the ground, evacuate US citizens from sticky situations and deny airspace to an opponent. The battleship became outmodxed with the advent of the carrier. I don't see how missles launced from unterseeboats will substitute airpower. No matter how smart they are.

Braniacs predicted that all future wars would be fought with airpower only and that ground troops wouldn't be needed.

 

They predicted that in the 70s.

 

Besides, Admirals all need carrier duty to advance their sterling careers.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Nah. Not in our lifetime (course that's not sayin much). The carrier task force is still the biggest tool we have to react to changing situations. You can put some boots on the ground, evacuate US citizens from sticky situations and deny airspace to an opponent. The battleship became outmodxed with the advent of the carrier. I don't see how missles launced from unterseeboats will substitute airpower. No matter how smart they are.

Braniacs predicted that all future wars would be fought with airpower only and that ground troops wouldn't be needed.

 

They predicted that in the 70s. :rolleyes:/>

 

Besides, Admirals all need carrier duty to advance their sterling careers. <_</>

 

I guess we saw how well that worked out.

I think that somewhere along the line, some jenus in War Department decided that the jet aircraft, namely fighter aircraft, didn't need machine guns but only rockets. That didn't seem to fly too well either.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I guess we saw how well that worked out.

I think that somewhere along the line, some jenus in War Department decided that the jet aircraft, namely fighter aircraft, didn't need machine guns but only rockets. That didn't seem to fly too well either.

:rolleyes:/>

Made the Mig pilots happy for awhile.

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953]

Naval warfare has two goals:

 

1. Deny the use of the seas to an enemy.

2. Control it for the use of friends.

 

Submarines are superb for accomplishing Task No. 1. They are about useless for Task No. 2.

 

A mission that is new for the sub is engaging tactical or low level strategic targets with cruise missiles. It's actually quite good at this as long as somebody provides targeting info and BDA ("bomb damage assessment"). We should use the sub for this when the tactical/strategic mission calls for it.

 

A third naval mission is power projection. This can be something as basic as taking out some important target (nuclear facility, air field, etc.) or as complex as landing a Marine Expeditionary Force to occupy an area. The sub can take out targets; it can't land and support a bunch of Gyrenes.

 

The theory that surface ships were obsolete came about shortly after Billy Mitchell sank a bunch of old German ships at anchor. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

 

If the U.S. decides to go back to its isolationist roots then, yes, we can reduce the Navy to a bunch of subs and a couple of destroyers for ceremonial purposes. That's a short road to perdition, however.

 

SQQ

[Subdeacon Joe]

I love the conversations we get here in the Saloon. Pretty danged erudite for a bunch of mangy cowpokes.

[Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795]

Guess maybe we should consider ourselves pretty dang lucky the Der Fuhrer was a closed minded on some things. wouldn't listen to his advisor's. Sounds almost familiar don't it?

[Utah Bob #35998]

I love the conversations we get here in the Saloon. Pretty danged erudite for a bunch of mangy cowpokes.

That's the airline I'm starting as soon as I hit the lottery.

Air Udite

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Guess maybe we should consider ourselves pretty dang lucky the Der Fuhrer was a closed minded on some things. wouldn't listen to his advisor's. Sounds almost familiar don't it? :rolleyes:/> :blush:/>

 

I remember watching a show on assassination attempts on AH and at one point they had a possible plan, and decided not to execute because ah was doing such a great job for the allies as a moron in chief that it was not worth killing him.

[Harvey Mushman]

Naval warfare has two goals:

 

1. Deny the use of the seas to an enemy.

2. Control it for the use of friends.

 

Submarines are superb for accomplishing Task No. 1. They are about useless for Task No. 2.

 

A mission that is new for the sub is engaging tactical or low level strategic targets with cruise missiles. It's actually quite good at this as long as somebody provides targeting info and BDA ("bomb damage assessment"). We should use the sub for this when the tactical/strategic mission calls for it.

 

A third naval mission is power projection. This can be something as basic as taking out some important target (nuclear facility, air field, etc.) or as complex as landing a Marine Expeditionary Force to occupy an area. The sub can take out targets; it can't land and support a bunch of Gyrenes.

 

The theory that surface ships were obsolete came about shortly after Billy Mitchell sank a bunch of old German ships at anchor. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

 

If the U.S. decides to go back to its isolationist roots then, yes, we can reduce the Navy to a bunch of subs and a couple of destroyers for ceremonial purposes. That's a short road to perdition, however.

 

SQQ

 

 

90%+ of the worlds commerce travels by sea and over 70% of it's population lives within 200 miles of the coastlines. In addition to the military offensive and defensive applications of Naval Power in our modern world, free commerce upon the international waters is key, as a nation's viability is inextricably tied to free commerce across the oceans, and more importantly, the few choke points (straits, canals, etc) which could severely impact the free movement of goods for us and others.

 

Thus, freedom of navigation and international trade is a primary goal of our Navy (and actually higher in priority -we are truly a maritime nation). This requires presence in the seas around the globe and we (with the Brits, till recently) have been the ones to enforce this concept. It takes actual "PRESENCE" with authority, and our carrier battle groups have provided that for over 60 years. Those who do not understand the "world policeman" role we play very much shortchange this economic aspect of our prosperity and security. They do not have a clue what this has meant to their life style.

 

That is exactly why the Chinese have undertaken carrier development and just this year flew their first flights from their modified carrier (Purchased from Russia under the guise of a floating :casino:) - they have sequential designs on controlling the South China Sea (declared the entire SC Sea as theirs this year, with no real US response, then expanding to worldwide- they have publicly stated this!

 

Carrier battle groups provide actual "PRESENCE" in any global issue and have long been the first instrument of our foreign policy when they showed up off the coast of a troubled area.

 

Our Surface Action Groups and Subs (and other options) provide highly important and complementary capability, and our US Carrier Battle Groups provide actual, sovereign presence of US seagoing airbases and sea control around the globe to enforce peaceful commerce, and that is neither understood nor credited by our naive and biased media.

 

Cheers,

 

Harvey :FlagAm:/>/>

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953]

Well said, Sir.

 

SQQ

[Foard County News, SASS #77236]

...Another case of "what might have been". The Germans biggest impediment to victory was all the political infighting and decisions based on cronyism and ego...

The two big reasons for WWII and Germany loss is Hitler. Hitler got them into it, and was responsible for its defeat.

 

Ultimately people need to remember that wars are frequently the result of failed foreign policies.