Graf Zeppelin - The Forgotten German Aircraft Carrier
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 янв 2022
- The colossus Graf Zeppelin was a German aircraft carrier armed with over 60 guns and room for over 1,700 people and 60 aircraft. It was widely regarded as the definitive German vehicle that could have turned the tide of the war.
Impressively enough, most world superpowers had plenty of aircraft carriers participating in the war, but the technologically-advanced Germany didn’t.
Hitler and his Admirals eventually envisioned four aircraft carriers that were going to be built and finished by 1947 as part of the naval expansion of the Kriegsmarine.
However, the early breakout of the war forced the Wehrmacht to focus on more pressing matters, leaving the project to the side.
Graf Zeppelin, the incomplete 33,000-ton lead ship in a class of two carriers, would remain stationed in Poland for almost two years. It wouldn’t be until the war raged on and aircraft carriers from other nations played a pivotal role in winning crucial battles that Hitler ordered the Kriegsmarine to carry on with the project.
It was now a race against time...
I never thought about Germany's lack of aircraft carriers during World War II. This is fascinating!
Neither did they....hence one of their numerous strategic gaffes.
@@Rob774 not really. What were they going to use them for? Germany was primarily a land-based Continental European power. Unlike the Japanese and the U.S. fighting in the Pacific Theater, the Germans didn't need aircraft carriers to deploy its aircraft. It was never going to be able to produce aircraft carriers (and carrier escort vessels) in sufficient numbers to be challenge the Royal Navy in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. The Kriegsmarine's greatest successes were in its U-boat arm, and they should have been concentrating their naval resources towards building even more U-boats. Surface vessels such as the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and Graf Zeppelin were nothing more than vanity projects.
@@OptimusWombat And they have concentrated on U-boats. Trouble was after the development of radar and sonar, they were almost useless. As far as Graf Zeppelin goes: One of the reasons it was never finished is that the Navy and Air Force couldn't settle on who would be in charge, so neither was all too keen on it.
@@StefanHundhammer They had the Heinkel Greif heavy bomber project, with 4 motors sharing to two nacelles, which backfired as the motors were very susceptible to .. fire
@@cuchidesoto2686 But those V1 and V2 rockets were more an instrument of propaganda than actually doing real damage. They were kind of dumbfired and it was a surprise whenever they actually hit something.
Just "having an aircraft carrier" would not be enough to change much. You have to have the support facilities, escorts and supply vessels (and the supplies themselves) to effectively utilize one. If the Graf Zeppelin would have been operational, there is no doubt that the same efforts to sink the other rampaging German capital ships would have been mounted to deal with her as well. Since Germany didn't field a trans-oceanic fleet like the British and Americans did, the GZ would have been limited to areas that could support her - and if she were dogged like the other German capital ships were then she would not have been operational for very long.
Just my two cents worth...
Absolutely! (Just my two PENCE worth!)
@@moosifer3321 Thank you. I also think we tend to forget that Germany of that era had no experience with aircraft carriers, no training vessels for carrier landings like the US and the UK did, and nobody to teach them. Just building the ship, filling it with aircraft, and lining up willing volunteers would not make for an effective weapon!
Tell me this: would a little Combat Air Patrol have saved the Bismark? Probably. A couple veteran 109 pilots would have smoked the Swordfish. That by itself would have been a game changer. That said, 10% of 109 losses were takeoff and landing due to the narrow undercarriage. Add a pitching, rolling deck in the North Atlantic and I don't like their odds. Ju-87s, however, would have been terrifying.
@@marvinthomas9897 Tell me what would have happened to said carrier at the Denmark Straits. While Bismark and Printz Eugen were shooting at the Hood and PoW, the Norfolk and Suffolk would have nipped in and shot up the carrier. Unless, of course, the carrier stuck really close to the other two, meaning it likely would have taken fire from one of the battleships...
I'll grant you, the hefty anti-surface battery the Graf Zeppelin would have shot up the cruisers in return, but it takes way less damage to the carrier to render it incapable of flight operations.
At any rate, the Bf-109 was well known for having it's landing gear fail on rough landings. But on a carrier, there are nothing BUT rough landings...
@@andrewszigeti2174 More like a controlled crash than a normal landing. Plus there would have had to have been adequate aircraft spares to take the place of training accident & combat losses.
The steel "wasted" on the "Ship Going Nowhere" was in fact a very useful weapon for the Allies, because a lot of tanks could have been built using that steel and labour.
say nothing of Uboats, apparently both Bismark and Turpitz used 100 subs worth of steel each, so what the GZ would have , I don't know
exactly........................
Yeah but without trained crews, lots more fuel, and all the resources, logistics, and personal to maintain and repair the notoriously over-engineered German armor, your new panzers would be about as useful as the Graf Z, but without the ability to float…
But more u-boats early in the war, could’ve changed a lot…
@@lawrencek1900 Steel was not really a problem with having own production and access to the vast depots in Sweden via the occupied Norway.
There's so little out there about this vessel... thanks for this!
A note on the flight deck armor, described as 45mm. UK carriers had armored flight decks in anticipation of costal exposure to costal artillery and land based aircraft. US carriers had wooden flight decks, in anticipation of deployment far from land based aircraft. When Kamikaze aircraft hit British carriers they did not exactly bounce off, but the damage was much reduced.
@@Dutch_Uncle The difference was a huge tradeoff. When US and other carriers without armored deck took damage, the damage was often massively greater, but when UK carriers with armor took damage, they remained in fighting shape for far far longer, but every time they took powerful enough damage, the whole hull got twisted and warped, causing more and more problems until the ship became effectively useless.
USA lucked out in most cases, because if more of their carriers had taken the kind of damage that British ones took several times, instead of fighting on, they would have gone down right away, but at the same time, the troubles the British had to deal with in regards to hullwarping was sometimes just insane. Sometimes their carriers had their max speeds drastically cut, spare parts for repairs sometimes had to be deliberately deformed before they could be fitted, screws and bolts often had to be handworked to fit onsite...
Personally i consider the British model the obviously superior one, but there's certainly no doubt that it came with some potential troubles of its own. But then, if the carrier can have those troubles, that means it's still afloat at least, and that's a small win just by itself.
@@DIREWOLFx75 There was also evidently a trade-off considered in the design phase. An armored deck increases the weight of the vessel and thus reduces the number of aircraft that can be accommodated on/in the ship. Is it better to have a more hardened and thus survivable vessel or one that can launch more aircraft, but is more susceptible to damage?
@@Dutch_Uncle "An armored deck increases the weight of the vessel and thus reduces the number of aircraft that can be accommodated on/in the ship."
Nope, that had little to nothing to do with the armored deck by itself. That was because of UK having stupid limits for the number of aircraft the fleet air arm could have combined with treaty limits on tonnage. And also because they did not do "deck parks" like USA did. The closest you get to truth from this is that it added somewhat to the ships tonnage, and the fact that the naval treaties active at the time limited said maximum tonnages very harshly. Still, when the Yorktown class was designed it was noted that adding an armored flightdeck to it would have added 1460t to the ship.
A lot, but not so much that it would have been unrealistic. The claim at the time that doing this would somehow remove 2/3 of its aircraft capacity is hilariously badly considered and unsupported, meaning that it was part of the traditional US service infighting rather than having anything to do with facts. The claim is in fact(as much as it can be called "fact" at all) based on doctrinal changes rather than technical, in that using a deck park would negate some of the advantages of having an armored deck and as such should not be used(complete rubbish).
Yes they used a hangar deck that was not as high as USA did, but Japan used the same height BOTH while using nonarmored AND armored decks, clearly showing that it was a design CHOICE, not a design limitation. And a hangar deck internal height difference of 40cm is not a big thing to argue about, the only true advantage this had was that USN carriers could better handle the larger post-WWII aircraft.
Even more damning for the claims that armored deck limits aircraft capacity is the fact that the Midway class DID HAVE it, yet could carry MORE aircrafts than its predecessors.
@@DIREWOLFx75 OK, so Army v. Navy tensions were not limited to Japan. Those interservice squabbles and their results in various countries would be an interesting subject for a future RUclips presentation.
Aircraft carriers were useful to the USA, Britain and Japan because of the nature of nations and warfare. All three were fighting `global wars' often entailing multiple island support and the retaining or building of empires across the seas. Germany was focused upon a land based empire involving indefinite expansion east, overground. They'd have been better off building extras railway networks into Russia in support of their eastern advance; then they could've kept their remote armies supplied at the spearheads of Stalingrad, and the Caucasus...
Yep, the same reason why Russia used the Graf Zeppelin for target practice in 1946, they had absolutely no use for it.
Germany was still facing off against the Royal Navy, so when there is a technology that's been praised highly of their effectiveness by naval powers, they would want to get one themselves to at least be on par with them. That said, carriers were really not useful for the points you said. Britain and Africa were easily in range of land based aircraft from the continent and the major benefits of a carrier group are lost. Building another cruiser and dedicating aircraft near the sea might have been more effective.
Or perhaps a few jeep carriers carrying 24 planes each, light, quick, expendable could've been made so as to do the same thing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen hoped to do: interdict critical British shipping.
Totally agree. But it would've been cool if The Reich Had an "air arm" of they're own, yes?
@@teller1290 Expendable, but not replaceable. Once said ships were sunk, there would be no replacements. Logistically a large navy was never possible for Germany, given its location.
One aircraft carrier might have caused some damage to allied assets where and when it was deployed, however as a single unit it would have been as immediate and necessary a target of opportunity as the battleship Bismark had been. If fleets of Japanese carriers could be defeated and destroyed in the Pacific what chance would a single German aircraft carrier have to both operate and survive in the Atlantic for any significant amount of time.
The WW2 Kriegsmarine never had a surface fleet that would have allowed it even to engage in a sea battle either as off the Spanish coast at Trafalgar in the Napoleonic era or as in the North Sea at the Battle of Jutland in WW1. Considering that Trafalgar saw the defeat of the French Navy, and Jutland proved inconclusive in breaking the Naval Blockade of Germany in WW1, perhaps the lessons of history that Hitler had learned was that a European Continental military power only wasted resources in building and deploying a large surface fleet.
The Nazis has much better aircraft and pilots than the Japanese.
The aircraft carrier made sense at the time ..
If that carrier was commissioned, like Bismark, it would have been a prime target for the Royal Navy.
I read the book written by a Canadian whose family emigrated to Germany (they were from a German enclave in the Ukraine). As a teenager he was trained as an electrician and worked some in the naval yard. He was subsequently drafted into the Panzer Corps because of his training.
With specialists being removed from their work, no wonder war production was slowing down.
Great content with one exclusion.
Poland was not annexed in 1939 but invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union.
Invasion of Poland marks the beginning of WW2.
That was pretty cringeworthy
Great comment with one exclusion.
World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.
The Soviets invaded Poland 17 days later.
The way you wrote indicates that the Germans and the Soviets attacked Poland at the same time and in coordination, which is not true.
You can hate the Soviets as much as you want but WW2 was started by Germans and exclusively by Germans and all the blame goes solely on their account.
Invasion of Poland by its two next-door neighbors Germany and Russia is not a world war. Only when England and France declared war on a Germany at peace with them-but not on Russia!-for invading Poland did WWII begin.
@@jerromedrakejr9332 Read "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov and get educated.
@@jerromedrakejr9332 The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact idiot
Hey, I love your channel and the work you do, but being Polish myself I couldn't ignore you saying that England joined war after Poland was annexed in Septemper 1939. There's two, or possibly three, mistakes in that sentence: we continued fighting well into October, and would have done even better if it wasn't for USSR backstabbing us. We are extremally proud of having fought for as long as French mightiest army in the world. Secondly, France and England joined the war on September 3rd, almost 5 weeks before Poland capitulated. Thirdly, I'm not sure Poland was ever "annexed"; it is not neccesarily the most accurate word to be used here, as: 1. only parts of Poland were incorporated into the Third Reich, but that was never acknowledged neither by Poland's government, nor the Allies.
Hey don't want to puncture your nationalist bubble, but Poland put a fight from 1st Sep. to 6. October. France also was attacked, in June, in an second front by the Italians and the duration of the campaign before the armistice was 10th of May to 25th of June, you do the math about fighting ''way longer''...and don't tell me about ''resistance pockets until...'' the french also have it, some Maginot line positions didn't accepted the armistice until mid july. This is not a game of ''who resisted more days''' as the two campaings are different and the two countries and their allies were obviously not prepared.
@@Balrog2005 "Nationalist bubble"... Really? That's unnecessarily aggresive. Unless you're French of course :) Anyway, France fought for six weeks (the same as Poland), having had what was considered the strongest and most modern army in the world, equalling some 3,5 mln soldiers (to Poland's 1 mln). Some 28,000 Germans and Italians died in that campaign to 20,000 Germans and Soviets who were killed in the Polish campaign. Considering that Poland was taken by surprise by two of the three biggest armies (France having the third) in the world, while France had 9 months to prepare themselves (in the meantime they probably could've ended the war way quicker in 1939 had they continued into Germany in September). Not to mention that Poland fought alone, while France had Dutch, Polish, Belgian and British forces as support. There isn't really anything going for France in this comparison. Having said all that, I'm not trying to diminish France's war effort, I simply stated that people in Poland take pride in having a very similar result to France with considerably worse odds. Peace man! All the best.
I never heard anything about this and I’m going on 70. Thank you for the video
Excellent job as usual! This is fascinating history.
Amazing work as always! Thank you so much!
The German Kriegsmarine needed vastly more submarines and long range bombers. Germany screwed up by failing on these two strategic weapons systems. They also failed to detect their signals were being intercepted, which is a huge strategic failure.
more importantly the general fail to follow hitler order on the eastern front to focus most of the military on army group south and take astrakhan to cut the supply of fuel , instead his general where focusing on taking useless capital and face the Russian military like it was done in the 1800 . if the german succeeded at taking astrakhan the Russian would have run out of fuel to move their tank only after a few month turning their tank into pillbox and forcing the army to walk basically the Russian would have ben powerless .
@@johnsmith-yj2cn You are profoundly correct. The political imperatives were ignored by the generals and that is what bled the army of soldiers.
The Russians also lost around 15,000,000 soldiers in WWII... What a useless war...
@@robertchautardjensen6846 Make that a TRAGIC WAR... like all wars! 😮💨
Well they needed the submarines early on in the war. But when the allies got radar on their ships they where pretty screwed and probably would be even with a lot of submarines.
@@DustDedo I think you are referring to ASDIC which detects objects under the waves.
If the Germans had more submarines at the start of the war, England would have starved and been deprived of fuel for their navy and air force.
2:15
The term Pocket Battleship was purely invented by the british press.
They were called "Panzerschiffe" meaning armored ships to downplay them politically.
Later they were reclassified as heavy cruisers.
With 6 - 11" guns, they might be considered a class of their own, potentially more capable than typical 8" gun cruisers.
I never heard of this story before. Thanks for uploading!
great work thank you
I have always wondered how the Battle for the Atlantic would've been had Bismarck, Tirpitz along with Scharnhorst, Lützow, Admiral Graf Spee and the Graf Zepplin all been operational at the exact same time. Throw in a ton of U-boats and I wonder how far they could've gotten.
Not far, I'm afraid.
You see, there's a BIG shortage in Nazi Germany that puts severe crimps in all their operations. There simply wasn't enough oil to cover their needs. Putting that fleet out as a single mass deployment means the Kriegsmarine does very little else the rest of the war because they're out of gas.
Depends on how deep the ocean was when they were sunk
@@andrewszigeti2174 The whole point of Exercise Rhine was for the KM to go out in force and sink a convoy... thus impressing Hitler and preventing the KM from falling to the bottom of the priority ladder in the midst of Barbarossa, it was a political mission aimed not at the UK, but at Hitler, he was the target.
And when more, and more KM ships became unavailable Raeder persisted, because the operation was married to the Barbarossa date, they had to go before, no matter what.
Even at its peak, the Kriegsmarine was never anything more than a small fraction of the size of the Royal Navy. The Homecfleet had more battleships and aircraft carriers than the entire Kriegsmarine. Then there was Force H, in Gibraltar...
Royal navy would ahve smiled and said "THANK YOU" sent out as many ships as they needed to sink them and then been happy not to have to worry about german large capital ships
I think it would have been a colossal failure. The catapult system took to long to launch planes, the Germans had no experience in carrier tactics, carrier damage control and their opponents had a decade or experience.
The British had their first carrier 20 years before WWII broke out.
@@1chish Weren't the British the first to develop the aircraft carrier?
@@tomt373 Yes, they made the first aircraft carrier, but I am not sure how much later it was after America landed a plane on a small deck placed on top of a warship.
@@dawsonreum8096 Ely flew off USS Birmingham in 1910. More importantly the UK were the first to take off an aircraft on a moving deck in 1912. the UK was also the first to land on a moving ship in 1917. But the question wasn't who did what on flat areas on battleships but who built the first flat top aircraft carrier.
And that was the UK with HMS Argus in 1918 modified from a converted liner. The USS Langley followed experimentally in 1920.
HMS Hermes was the first designed and built carrier and created the now standard 'Island to Starboard' layout in 1918. The Lexingtons would not follow until 1927. HMS Eagle followed the Hermes designs and layout but was a converted battleship
The Japanese carrier Hosho was started in late 1919 but was commissioned in 1922 before Hermes (due to its extended testing and changes in design) and Eagle which commissioned 2 days apart in 1924.
@@tomt373 Yes they were. In fact every major carrier development has come from the Royal Navy. I made a detailed reply above to @Dawson Reum .....
Another fantastic video. Cheers.
Enlightening vid.. Thanks👍
Hi Dark Seas I watch your channel alot and really enjoy your content all the time. I'm actually glad you brought up the Graf Zeppelin as the subject today because I always wondered about it and unfortunately I could never find much information as it was never really operational. However this is actually favorite aircraft carrier to use in world of warships Blitz and the anime content I do for my channel this is also the home ship for Kuromormime Womens Academy in Girls Und Panzer...well except it's only 1000x the size! Lol 🤣🤣
In my honest opinion. The Graf Zeppelin altho a huge ship with lots of potential allowing the Luftwaffe Range to extend was really a complete waste of German resources that sadly was never complete and only later to be scuttled and captured by the soviets only to be used as a target practice for bombs. Whether the ship would've been used or not I don't think it would really matter because I guarantee The Royal Navy or Airforce would've made her a priority target to be sunk anyways and as she was the only one, it wouldn't have much effect in the long run as Germany was starved for money and resources towards the end of the war and could've been used to make hundreds of more U-boats. However If it was used in the very beginning years such as 1939 it could've stood a fighting chance if used properly in German convoys to change the tide of war in Germanys favor to take on Great Britain and raid their supply ships as the United States wasn't officially involved yet. But those are my opinions.
Thanks for the info on my favorite ship and keep up the good content!
The Graff Zepplin would have made a minor difference.
A General was quoted as saying...
Get there the firstest with the mostest.
Held true in 1860...
Holds true today.
Yes the only real dive bomber was the stuka and its pilot were used to non moving targets so they wouldn't be great in dive bombing the bf 109 and FW 190 would have been fine on the carrier but edits to design would have had to been made and the planes were already needed elsewhere
fascinating. carefully made and very exact! Best of the Best!
Awesome video, thank you
There were actually two ships but the other carrier was only finished up to the armored deck and was never launched. It didn’t get a name either like the lead ship Graf zeppelin, but there were some sources that say the name could’ve have been named (Peter Strasser) if the ship had been more near to completion. But who knows? The Graf Z was essentially finished, but the Germans never fully fitted out or commissioned her because war happened, and silly mustache man wanted the resources needed for her completion going towards other things.
That actually happened in this one game about wwii warships being sentient female warships, with many ships that didn't even get past the drawing board in game as actual ships.
@@thunderspark1536 Shikkikan spotted
@@KingdomofNefeisea Victorious, who gave you a youchube account?
@@thunderspark1536 I can explain.
@@KingdomofNefeisea Does the queen know about this?
Great documentary. Without aircraft optimized for carrier use, this AC carrier would not have made much impact IMO. Bf-109 were not suited for AC carrier use and even Stuka dive bombers had limited capability. An AC carrier without suitable aircraft was next to useless.
True
The 109 would have been the worse. Short range ,tight together landing gear and liquid cooled engine.
Not useless if only for spotting enemy ships. But I agree - without a solid navy backing it up this would have ended up sunk like all the other German capital ships.
Leave it to Lardo Goering, the walking Wet Dream.
@@anonydun82fgoog35 they should have concentrated on subs from the outset. If the Type 21 had appeared two years sooner, they would have owned the Atlantic.
What good did any of their surface ships accomplish? Did they ever win a single battle?
@@johncox2865 I think some convoys were hit and the Norway operations had some naval artillery support. That's about it. Any time the ships got far from home and away from friendly land based air cover they were in trouble and sunk.
A most awsome video, i never knew about this before, thanks a million for showing this.
Wonderful and informative. Thank you.
Really an interesting clip. There is one issue not to be forgotton on Graf Zeppelin: They had hughe problems to fit the engines, which actually were never turned on. The catapults were never tested and probably would have had some issues as well (like on other carriers during WWII, where they were dismanteled.
Never the less, a battle group with that carrier and the modern planes it was capable to lift, in combination with a battle ship, a cruiser and two submarines, would have been a terrifying battle group on the atlantic, even though it would not have changed the total outcome of that war by more than a few months.
LOL!!! Look up the pics for those catapults lainching Bf 109s...
It takes what, 10 years to build a new carrier design with current knowledge? Since they started work on it in 1936, they MIGHT have had a finished carrier by 1946 and been ready to actually build a proper carrier by 1956 since they would have learned many things building and presumably operating their first. It's sad to see what happened to it but that thing was never going to see much use even if they hadn't stopped work on it midwar.
@@Havok0159 LOL!!! Wow!!! 10 years!!! That REALLY doesnt sound like a number taken out of your ass!!! 🤣
The air group should of consisted of 42 aircraft: Ten Messerschmitt BF-109T fighters; Twelve Junkers Ju-87C Dive Bombers; and twenty specially designed multi role Fiesler Fi 167 aircraft.
Great video !!! this is complete new for me , well done :)
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
I had no idea that Germany had started building its own aircraft carrier. Thanks for posting this video.
Beautiful ship. Wouldn't have changed much, but beautiful
They had plans for Me 109's with fold up style wings, with arrestor hooks, the same with the Stukas.
@@johnbockelie3899 yep, BF109 T‘s and Ju 87 C‘s :D
I think Himalayan butt yodeling should be an Olympic event.
Thanks, Dark Seas. A Very informative video.
Great video!
As others have said, the practical matter is that training people in naval aviation is a difficult task. One carrier without significant support from a task force probably wouldn't be effective.
The other issue is that Hitler wanted some things because everyone else had them, but he really didn't have a way to use them. Britain had spent centuries projecting sea power. As an island nation, Britain had to be able to project sea power. The same is largely true of Japan. For Germany, the strategy was always to plod forward on land to capture what was needed. Plodding forward on land, Germany could always build airports as it moved forward in order to provide bases for the German air force. In all the places that Germany needed airplanes, the easiest way to get them there was from land-based runways.
Even trying to think outside the box, I can't find a good place for Germany to use an aircraft carrier. My first thought was that an aircraft carrier could have gone into the Gulf of Finland and bombed Leningrad during the early attacks on the Soviet Union. I could even see where sending a carrier into the Black Sea and attacking that part of the Soviet Union might be a different idea. I just get the sense that Germany could always launch their planes more effectively from land-based airfields.
If the Germans had defeated the Soviet Union in the middle part of the war and had held northern Africa, Germany would have had the resources needed to build more industry. Eventually, Hitler would have wanted more, and eventually, he would have built aircraft carriers to project power over the seas. If he had defeated the Soviet Union, he would have stopped spending resources there and would have been able to convert much of Russia's productivity towards supplying his needs. In that case, the Allies couldn't have invaded Europe. Nazi Germany would have survived, and it would have built aircraft carriers in the 50's to threaten the Western Hemisphere.
Or above the surface. Imagine a squadron of Lancs dropping tall boys on that big open deck
I mean, I guess Graf Zeppelin, along with a decently sized squadron, could've been sent into the Atlantic to raid commerce headed to the UK or up north to help harass Arctic convoys headed to Soviet Union.
Edit: Arctic* I can spell I swear
While watching this I wondered what might have happened if the Bismark had of headed into the Atlantic with the Graf Zeppelin? The cruisers that followed the Bismark might not have been such a good idea if they were being bombed along the way, the Swordfish that got that crucial hit on Bismark may not have got close if they had fighters to deal with.
@@primal_guy1526 I think that Graf Zeppelin and a squadron would have been found and sunk the way that Bismarck was if it went into the Atlantic. That would be especially true if the planes were being flown by inexperienced pilots. According to this video, the ship didn't have that much fighter protection assigned. Without fighter protection, this ship would have a hard time staying alive.
@@grogery1570 That's an interesting speculation. I suspect that the Allies would have attacked with multiple ships. According to the video, the Graf Zeppelin didn't have that many fighters to provide cover. Against squadrons of Allied fighters, the Germans would have been worn down quickly. The torpedo planes and bombers wouldn't have been worth much for air defense. Once the fighters had whittled down the German fighters, the German bombers and torpedo planes wouldn't have been effective fighting through Allied fighters to get to Allied ships. That would allow Allied attack planes to go after both the Graf Zeppelin and the Bismarck. I don't pretend to be expert in this area, but that's the impression that I get from what I've heard and what this video said. Germany would have put a huge amount of resources into something that might not have been all that effective or survived all that long.
“Graf Zeppelin” was a very interesting project with many tortuous twists in its development. For additional viewing, I recommend the Drachinifel overview of the ship.
ruclips.net/video/W3sPe_3Nak8/видео.html
Fascinating story. Thank you!
Outstanding work.
Great video! I think it's obvious that a single carrier would have had little impact on the course of the war, but if Hitler would have delayed his invasion of Poland for another year or two and built up the German navy a bit more it might have. Building a few carriers and tripling construction of subs would have given him a potent force.
His navy still didn't have the support vessels to escort the carriers and run interference for allied submarines.
In the war in the Pacific the USA was down to a single aircraft carrier the USS Enterprise and it definitely had a impact on the course of the war. Just sayin.
@@squatchpnw2331 Wasn't that when the USN used the British loaned HMS Victorious under the pseudo-name "U.S.S. Robin"?
@@tomt373 LOL!!! Do you think the RN had its subs scattered all over the Atlantic? Hilarious...
@@trauko1388 To sink an aircraft carrier, they would not need to have subs scattered all over the Atlantic, any more then the USN did in the Pacific.
Having broken the German Enigma code, all they would need to do is send one to sink it like the USN did when they dispatched the Archerfish to sink the IJN Shinano.
The flight-deck of a carrier during air operations is a very dangerous place.
Little-bitty boo-boos can snow-ball into into a giant O.M.G. situation in seconds.
The American, British, and Japanese navies had 20 years of peacetime practice on the right and wrong ways of carrier operation.
The Kriegsmarine had zero experience - and there was a war in progress.
Also remember a new skill the German pilots to get right :
Land-based pilots - took off, flew the mission, went back and landed at base.
Carrier-based pilots - took off, flew the mission, went back and had to find where the base had moved to - in a big, empty, ocean.
...wchich is why the KM went to the IJN for help...
And still the Niponese navy got it wrong at Midway
@@peterweller8583 LOL!!! Read on Midway and learn what a shit show the USN was... XD
@@trauko1388 I did. I am aware that if one does not learn from one's mistakes, well you know.
Great information thank you
We can always rely on Dark Seas to give us a History Lesson about The Ocean Going Vessels of WWII and although I'm a very old Man I don't ever remember knowing about The German Aircraft Carrier Graf Zepplin and was really surprised that they didn't have one because all we see are stories about their Battleships and U-Boats. Thanks so much for your work on this video and of course I'm subscribed and liked the show~!!!!
In 1943 Stettin was not in Poland, it was a German town for almost 700 hundreds years. Stettin was only annexed by Poland after 1945.
Thank you for the Video.
No way annexed by Poland, Stalin had Poland moved some 200 miles West, Kaliningrad or Konigsberg then indeed was annexed by the Soviets, while Eastern Prussia was taken into Belarus. You can't blame Poland for that, it was essentially Stalin who won the Jalta talks, and did in Eastern Europe as he liked. Roosevelt wasn't interested enough (and taken ill by then) Churchill represented a junior partner. And after all, Germany started the war and lost it.
Putin is now trying to turn back to that situation, using Ukraine and Belarus as forcing tools to get the West to stand back from Poland and Baltic countries.
Very good and important point.
@@reuireuiop0 "...And after all, Germany started the war ..." Read "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov. If hard to obtain, "Germany's War" by John Wear.
@@BasementEngineer icebreaker, the book that doesn't even have a bibliography or index of sources. Suvorov does often cite where a few quotes come from but many of them can't be traced to their source, unverifiable.
Using Suvorovs methodology, grabbing a bit if information here and adding some fake information there, one could make it sound plausible that Norway started the war.
Sensationalism sells books, bullshit baffles brains, that is something Suvorov does know.
@@bw6524 You can read "Germany's War".
There are at least a dozen easily obtained books in which similar themes were addressed.
With long-range heavy bombers no aircraft carrier was safe. Even today the effectiveness of aircraft carriers in a world war is in serious doubt. Hypersonic missiles are unstoppable.
"Hypersonic missiles are unstoppable."
Reminds me of the phrase "The bombers will always get through."
And probably about as true.
Those missiles are not capable of making carriers obsolete, China who has made many hypersonic missiles is still making carriers. So if the missiles were as game changing as China says they are they would have no need for carriers.
@@Chris-vs4wt The AIP submarines of Norway and Germany have proven conclusively, during naval exercises, that the US aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in a serious, kinetic, war.
Outstanding video and presentation.
Forgot about this ship . Thanks
I cannot see how this ship would have changed much even if it had become operational. It has the same problem that ships like the Bismark had in that it was being built with naval technology and engineering methods that were a bit behind the curve. It also would have been hunted down and sunk because it's a huge and very obvious target.
If it was in the Med, it would have been sunk
Has a great documentary thank you for sharing it. But in all honesty I don't think the Graf Zeppelin would have lasted very long. And reason being as the Germans didn't have enough surface Fleet to protect her. Look at any carrier battle throughout WWII carriers had plenty of anti-aircraft and anti-submarine warfare protection and the Germans had nothing that would have prevented anything from really doing significant damage to the Graf Zeppelin
Prob my favorite carrier..
Looks so cool
Thanks; interesting as usual.
If completed, it may or may not have prolonged the conflict in whatever region it would have operated. It would have become a prioritized target, therefore it's effect would be shortened as it was too little, too late.
Number one, there was two German Carries, The Grarf Zeppelin and the Peter Strasser. Number two, The Me Bf 109 E-1, which had by this time had a reinforced landing gear, was reengineered to the, (Traeger) a carrier fighter, Me Bf 109 T-1, Number three, 60 of these aircraft were built and used in the war.
Very Nice! JJ
There are a number of critical points. First, just because you complete this warship you need to train the crew, train pilots to land out on a moving platform. Germany had no background to establish the effectiveness of a carrier. No logistical supply ships or submarines assigned an
To few lighter surface craft in sufficient numbers to create a task force after the Norwegian campaign losses.
Hitler simply started the war four years too soon that if he survived the numerous assassin's on his life. Plus he was suffering from a STD and at his age it would destroy his brain. So great documentary but in truth this vessel becomes another " what if" in history of mankind.
Another fool who doesnt know the KM invented the AOE...
I don't think the carrier would have made a tinkers damn difference for Germany, but I do believe the Stuka would have made one hell of a torpedo bomber, with the inverted gull wings, it was like it was made for that, Corsair should have had a torpedo slung under it's belly as well was pretty close to the multi role aircraft the Navy was looking for in the Skyraider and Mauler, just needed dive brakes of some sort.
There were torpedo versions planned, look up the Ju87E...
The Stuka had air brakes. They’re how they didn’t fly their wings off in a bombing dive.
@@nigethesassenach3614 did I say it didn't? I said the corsair could have filled the multi role requirement of the skyraider and Mauler if it had been fitted with dive brakes, maybe read then respond
@@trauko1388 you are absolutely correct, for use with the aircraft carrier, seems like it would have been a decent land based torpedo bombet in the Mediterranean where range wouldn't be such an issue.
@@300guy Yes, but the post was already well covered by He 111s and Ju 88s which carried 2 torpedos and were faster with longer legs, so no need.
Amazing video :3
Very nice! Never knew about this.
"It was widely regarded as the definitive German vehicle that could have turned the tide of the war. " No one EVERY thought this.
If it was they would have built it as a priority not as a afterthought
Winston Churchill coined the phrase "Pocket Battleship" which infuriated the Germans and of course the name stuck.
I love your vids. I did find the use of the circular fade transition a little distracting. Looking forward to more!
The incompetence of the German military about this aircraft carrier is stunning. It could have done so much damage, maybe kept the Bismark from being sunk. Astounding.
Doubt Germany had the steel to complete these grandiose projects. Shockingly, 1/3 of all German steel production was used for cartridge cases..... And 8mm steel case ammo didn't work exceptionally well in MG-42 machine guns.
I have a handful of German 8mm shells that have steel bullets.
He means steel case. Steel case is way harder then brass. If the steel links and steel case don't have rust issues causing problems it's will be the extractor not being able to "bite" the case to remove it. This can cause the extractor to break. Opposite some G3s or Fals hate brass and will rip the case in half because they were designed to deal with com bloc steel 7.62x51. If you want a weapon that can more than likely do both get adjustable gas. Turn it up for more gas to help extraction down to help deed.
@Minong Maniac are your 8mm the black ap ones? I had an old man gun guy who was also a marine machine gunner during Korea give me about 20 Egyptian ones and damn the recoil out of my Mauser was insane with that steel butt plate
Steel was not the problem. Priorities in an overambitious and reckless bid for restoration of the German Empire was.
@@username-tv6uw What??? Com block 7,62mm? You mean their RIMMED ammo? The FAL used brass ammo kid...
I always wondered what the plan was when they wanted to continue finishing it. I mean, without an escort it would be vulnerable, the amount of planes they had planned for it would have been rather low seeing it couldnt be resupplied easily. The guns would have been useless vs warships.
Not to mention that ME-109 and Stuka's were not long range aircraft. IF Graff Zepplin had engaged a carrier from any other major navy it would be sunk before it's aircraft were in range.
I never knew this. Great documentary. 👍
Thank you
Hitler's problem was his focus on large, unwieldy weapons. One could say he was overcompensating for something 🤔
Rejected from Art School lol.
His delayed project would imply the opposite. Look at the jets and v weapons.
@@1986tessie Well those could be considered unwieldy as well. The one thing Hitler never got was logistics. If one cannot build the super-weapon, one cannot use the super-weapon. Had Hitler stepped aside in military matters we'd all be speaking German right now.
@@sid2112 that's not true, with or without Hitler, allies win. There is no possible way they could have won. The main problem was oil, they did absolutely suck with logistics true but the main reason was the lack of oil. They did not even have the oil to power the planes and tanks they had so have more of this weapon or that would have just made things worse.
@@1986tessie the issue was Hitler's reckless insistence on multiple Eastern front offensives. After the failure of the Barbarossa campaign to gain Soviet surrender they were never going to be successful on that front. Had the Germans dug in and focused on defense they might have eventually consolidated their gains enough to increase focus on the West. Happily for the rest of the world, Hitler was an ideologue fool who believed the soviets inferior humans just waiting to be conquered with enough Aryan tenacity. Had the German military been in charge of these decisions Europe may well have had their Nazi overlords much longer.
As far as i know , there has never been an Aircraft carrier used as an Raider of shiping lanes!🤔 Would have been interessting to see how effektiv that would have been!
Considering Britain's experience of U Boat warfare in WW1, her lack of any substantial counter measures in WW2", was incomprehensible!
11:00 thats the theme from Sprocket, I see someone's been having fun designing tanks
If Germany had launched this carrier, the Royal Navy would have gone after it 100 time harder than they did the Bismarck
They did launch it but never completed it. Further the planned airgroup of ME109s and Stuka divebombers were not really suitable carrier aircraft in terms of range or performance.
@@tomdolan9761 I bet you have no clue on either... XD
@@trauko1388 I am very sorry that your life is such a miserable one that you feel the urge to literally comment under every controversial comment with dump trolling stuff. At least present your point… Some people are just a single embarrassment.
And yes, I agree to the original comment. Even if the ship would have been technically fine, there was no capacity for strong guiding formations which would have made it an extremely vulnerable target for the allies.
They would have been on that ship like stink on a monkey
Carriers have much less utility in the Atlantic compared to the Pacific due to the greater amount of foul weather which makes carrier operations more difficult. There were some escort carriers operating during the war but were limited to convoy protection.
Agreed the Atlantic was very much still battleship territory till the end of the war
OMG, get a clue...
Ridiculous. British Fleet carriers operated effectively throughout the war in the Atlantic and in the Med. Bismarck had her rudders disabled by British Swordfish. The Italian surface fleet suffered severe losses at Taranto from a British carrier attack.
@@tomdolan9761 thank you for pointing out the obvious to the slow kids.
@@wstavis3135 We live to serve...lol
Definitely an amazing quote don't know for what to change the war
Legend has it that Graf Zeppelin never got received her own planes because Herr Goering ate all of it
Believe it or not, in the 1930's, due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of carrier designs, Nazi officers attempted to examine the British carrier - HMS Furious, in the effort to gain carrier design insights, unfortunately for them, British officials knew better and rebuffed the nefarious curiosity of the German officers. Sure, Hitler sent a few Nazi officers and engineers to study Japanese carrier designs in exchange for the latest German dive-bombing designs, but if Hitler could get a small peek into British carrier designs, no doubt that Germany could've found some weak spots and possibly take advantage of it. Sad that Graf Zeppelin was never completed, but in hindsight, she was a waste of resources, carrier operations was not Germany's strong point.
I can only imagine how disasterous trying to land a Bf 109 on an aircraft carrier would be. They had comically fragile landing gear as it was.
Yes, the ship's captain would probably make "ace in a day" from landing accidents - for the Allied side.
Another ignorant with no clue about the carrier variant, LOL!!!
@@trauko1388 you mean the -T version that was never produced, and whose prototypes did not include strengthened landing gear? 😉
@@paulheitkemper1559 LOL!!! So dumb...
MOST of the T model PRODUCTION (70) was de-navalized on the production line, but SEVEN were kept for trials and further carrier fighter development
The other 63 served in Norway and Helgoland, they even shot down a B-17... until reclaimed by the KM in 1942 and RE-navalized, but hey, if you say they didnt exist, then they didnt exist...
🤣🤣🤣
@@trauko1388 and yet, you're not speaking to the landing gear statement which was the whole crux of the matter in the first place.
Yeay finnaly this video ive been waiting for it for a long time, and i have a aircraft carrier.
Narration is fantastic. Great voice, tempo, inflection. I could listen to these tales for hours. Oh, wait, I already do…
Mr Zeig did it ever occur to you listening to the narration that this guy was making every excuse for why the Germans didnt win. Some might think he was German in fact.
@@michaelbrett3749 Oh grow up. Just listen to all of the Dark Seas, you’ll see how far off the mark you are. And btw, “i” before “e” -even after “z!”
The tempo and inflections are mere affectations of this narrator. He seems to think it adds a 'military' tone . . .
@@markzieg3593 yes Mr Heil .....zieg zieg zieg
The BF109 with it's fragile landing gear would have needed much modification. However this ship appeared to be a good offensive weapon but with the AC readily at hand it would have been been a sitting duck. Short range of it's fighters hobbled its offensive capabilities.
Unlike the brits who simply put a hook on their fighters and hoped for the best (losing a lot of aircraft and pilots in the process), the LW spent 2 years modifying the 109 in order to create the T variant, with longer wingspan, strengthened and widened landing gear, larger and bigger angles for the control surfaces, and wing spoilers.
Plus it had an inverted V engine, which offered better visibility, and the 109 was famously easy to control on the approach.
They at the very least did the job and used them in northern Norway and Helgoland, where the winds made landings dangerous.
Oh yeah, and they had drop tanks too...
@@trauko1388 now show me a 109T preforming successful carrier operations, oh wait.
@@stsuts5914 LOL!!! Typical butthurt answer... XD
@@trauko1388 i have the strange feeling you're either a Wehraboo or a troll.
I'm having difficulty coming up with any scenario whereby this aircraft carrier would have made any difference in the outcome of the war, let alone change the scope or dynamics. Assuming this aircraft carrier was operational with the start of hostilities, it's still had to get out into the Atlantic for it to have any chance of being a threat. I'm sure Great Britain would have made every effort to prevent that from happening. Assuming the carrier did make its way into the open ocean, there would still be the issue of supply and escort. Aircraft carriers rarely travel alone. If somehow this ship were based in a German colony in Africa or on the Atlantic, it might have had an impact on transatlantic or Mediterranean convoys.
Now that I think about it, about the only difference I could see it making was if this ship deployed with the Bismarck on her one and only journey. I think the two of them combined would have gone toe to toe with the British task force and sunk a number of ships.
The original plan was to form a fleet comprising Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhost and Gneiseneau with Graf Zeppelin to break out into the commerce lanes. This force would've proven a considerable threat to the Royal navy as the ME109 carrier fighter would've rendered the FAA aircraft obsolete.
Ultimately only a few vessels were ready at outbreak of war and each unit was ultimately frittered away on lone sorties.
If it had been finished before the start of the war and put to see along a flotilla of Panzerschiffes and other heavy cruiser types available by 1939 could have sent a lot of enemy merchant ships to the bottom as Graf Spee demonstrated. Regardless of when she might have been put to sea and begun active service when that moment came to pass I've not doubt about the alarm this would have caused the Royal Navy who would have trained every gun of the navy on sinking.
Post one of two.
Post two of twelve.
Post three of twelve.
Sl EG
Never knew!! Cheers DS x
Fascinating.
"Could have, would have, should have", "if pigs could fly..."
Unlike the U.S. and Royal Navy, they still would not have benefited from the specialized and advanced naval aircraft developed for the U.S. Navy that both Allied navies used on their carriers.
Germany had nothing to touch the F4U Corsairs that the British initially used, and even the Grumman Martlets could easily take on an adapted Bf-109, with superior firepower and armor as well as not being strapped to a liquid cooled engine.
And just where would the destroyers come from to escort them and prevent them from being sunk by an Allied submarine?
Not even the mighty Bismarck or the Graf Spee had the benefit of a decent escort.
It would have easily wound up like the Japanese super-carrier IJN Shinano, sunk by the USN submarine Archerfish in 1944.
LOL!!!! Yeah, so advanced those Swordfish and Fulmars...
@@trauko1388 Funny thing how they used TBF Avengers and SB2C Helldivers, but didn't like to talk about it much. And it was a Fleet Command Consolidated Catalina flying boat that spotted the Bismarck, flown by an "on-loan" American pilot.
@@tomt373 No, Bismarck was "spotted" by Admiral Lütjens, who decided to have a 30 minute radio call after the RN had turned the other way...
Later on they used those, but since you were talking about early war German aircraft it made no sense to include late war aircraft, did it?
In addition to the poor Wildcat being a piece of cake for a 109...
Actually the FW190 sea variant would have sent shivers down the spine of any adversary, including the F4U Corsair, but hey it never came to be.
@@oveidasinclair982 I doubt it.
The Corsairs were not about trying to out-maneuver the other guy like the Spitfires.
They were "zoom-and-boom" fighter-bombers with six .50 cal guns and the most powerful piston engine ever made pulling them along easily at over 400 mph.
Whenever they had a Zero on their tails, they simply opened up the throttle and left it behind.
Another forgotten nugget. Problem with great big ships with great big crews is not that they turn into great big targets but that they suck up resources to make smaller more effective ships like submarines, e-boats, and commerce raiders that can exact a much greater toll and, due to their larger numbers overall, are both more survivable and more destructive.
No, you cant beat a carrier for convoy warfare, they would simply attack the convoy and the defenders would never new from where the attack came from.
The carrier would cover a huge area, detect the convoy, attack and move off while relaying the position to the Uboats to finish the job.
Carriers as we have seen throughout the war became more and more the most important sea vessel a navy could have.
Love ur videos man and I never really thought about the fact Germany had no carriers
lack of heavy bombers, lack of carriers, lack of long range fighters, basically lack of war machines
Don't think it would have changed much if at all. It would have been a prime target like other major Kriegsmarine ships were once completed.
I have little doubt that had Germany pursued the completion of the Graf Von Zeppelin carrier, as well as the other 3 planned carriers, it would have been a very different naval war in the Atlantic and The North Sea.
The other aspect of the air war was Germany’s lack of heavy, 4-engine bombers. Goering couldn’t get past his glory days as a member of Richthofen’s Circus in WWI, where the fighter plane ruled the skies. 4-engined bombers could have made the blitzkrieg even more potent in Europe, not to mention absolutely destroying England over the summer of 1940 during the Battle of Britain. As has been amply proven, the self-styled military “genius” of Hitler proved to be his downfall. Goering, Raeder, and Doenitz were constantly bickering for war materiel, and scheming to make their respective services out to be to savior of the Reich.
2 years. Had Hitler held off until 1941, we all might very well be speaking German today.
The results of the war in Spain led them to their direction of plane use.
Had Hitler held off until 1941, Germany would have collapsed under him while the US, Czechoslovakia, Russia, France and Britain would have all had that little bit of time to organize into far more potent forces.
They still wouldn't have had the oil. While they were building so was GB, Russia and the other allies.
what about heligoland bite and ruhr valley oh and the nkvd
Except your're assuming the allies would have done nothing different. And you can be sure, delay war two year and the British would have had many more ships of their own to counter anything Germany would have built.
For example, the Lions had been laid down, but construction was discontinued to free up resources for other work in 1939/40. By 1941/2 at least two would have been launched, and two more close enough to launching to justify finishing. There were also plans to retire R class battleships to build more Vanguards.
Carrier construction also got paused in '39. It's likely there would have been two or three more carriers built, had Germany been completing GZ.
Awesome
Bravo!
The lone aircraft carrier wouldn’t have done anything to change the tide of the war. By 1944 45 the US Navy had approximately 150 aircraft carriers of various types.
Not quite. A few dozen of these were supplied to the RN and some USN carriers had been sunk. The USN operated about 100(MAX) when the war ended.
But imagine if the Bismarck had been protected by a carrier ... no sword fishes to damage her, plus Sea Stukas to attack British war ships.
All it would have been would be a Bismark type target and would have suffered the same fate as the Bismark
@@oveidasinclair982 errr what happened to the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, without proper air cover. Fairey Fulmars would not have been proper cover, Sea 109s would have eaten them up.
@binaway That is very interesting! I had no idea.
I live in the US, and I realize that the carriers we use today are much more capable, and the carrier groups that they sail with make them even more robust.
However, there must have been some major change in our strategy, because I think that we have only 11 or 12 carrier groups today.
Do you know why this is?
I don't think it would have changed much for Germany to have the aircraft carrier. If operating air operations anywhere near Britain, it would likely have been picked up by radar and attacked by land-based planes. Maybe if they had it in 1939, but even then. The Tirpitz and Bismarck show that if the British feared a ship, they'd go after it relentlessly.
very true.probably the best use for it would have been convoy interdiction above norway where tirpitz and u-boats were having trouble locating convoys supplying the soviets.
The Germans had radar first and theirs was better for a good while...
It's a knee slapper what they did to Tirpitz.
You mean like ALL German raiders which were ALWAYS sunk... right? 🤣
@@danielslocum7169 : Ah, even now aircraft carriers don't like operating that far north. Back then? A suicide mission for the pilots involved.
outstanding story...
Thank you for this info video. I never knew Germany even attempted to build a carrier. Great video footage.
Same problem the Germans had with all their navel forces. In the event it ever put to sea it would have been the primary target of the Royal navy and would have been overwhelmed by superior numbers. Or would have been bottled up in Port somewhere unable to move for fear of being overwhelmed and destroyed.
Yes, like ALL the KM ships, it would have NEVER left por... wait....
@@trauko1388 ALL KM ships were either bottled up in port or overwhelmed so what he said was 100% accurate.
@@krashd LOL!!! You do know what Barbarossa is, right?
Or that prior to that the KM raided with almost impunity?
Hilarious people...
@Paulsters OMG so much stupid...
Ok, genius, in 1941 Germany invaded the USSR beginning the largest land war in history against its main oil supplier... so the Germans had to cut down oil consumption in order to keep trucks, aircraft and tanks moving. KM surface units were thereafter dead last on the priority list, so no fuel for them... and that was predictable.
So after war cancelled the KM's priority on resources and construction plans, Raeder NEEDED a big win in order to convince Hitler not to simply leave his fleet rusting in port, so he sent a NOT fully worked up Bismarck on a mission TARGETING HITLER, just prior to Barbarossa... and even then it was just the incompetence of Lútjens what doomed the ship, the RN was just as incompetent and had lost Bismarcks track...
If I have time I will answer the rest, it is very tedious.
10:15-ish “Germany lost supremacy of the seas” - other than posing a danger to convoys I would suggest that the Germans did not ever achieve supremacy. At best they were briefly on par with the available British tonnage (excluding units in the Pacific) after the Fall of France neutralised the French fleet.
the german surface fleet was a spent force after norway
Hermoso portaviones Graff Zeppelin y su hermano Peter estrasser gran orgullo tener esto 2 portaviones junto
Thanks
I think if the carrier's were completed before the war the would have been near Bismarck level targets due to the fact that nobody would really expect attacking aircraft in the middle of the Atlantic
Photo reco flights would have revealed the presence of Graf Zeppelin and the Royal Navy had carriers.
... The Royal Navy had the second largest carrier force during the war. 2 Carriers would join in the chase
@@1993Crag - I'm pretty sure the Japanese Navy, IJN had a larger carrier force than than the Royal Navy. They hit Pearl Harbor with six fleet carriers.
@@scootergeorge9576 They were roughly equivalent. The trick being the Japanese could afford to concentrate since they were strictly a Pacific power, where Britain had interests all over the world to cover.
If Germany had possessed an operational aircraft carrier, then the answer would be YES, attacking aircraft would have been a known threat.
Might have been interesting to see if a couple escort carriers could fight off an air raid from such a small air group as was carried by the GZ.