Naval Stuka

After the Graff Spee was scuttled a Royal Naval officer rowed out to her and took photographs of her radar equipment used to aim her guns. When the photographs were sent to the Admiralty in London the senior officers apparently showed no interest. Quite frankly I'm not surprised.
There was an article in the American Rifleman recently about the Argentine Ballister-Molina M-1927 (Colt 1911 style) pistols & a rumor that @ least some were made from steel salvaged from the Graff Spee. Despite a shortage of steel in Argentina during the War some were sold to the British, with many being sent to resistance groups in Occupied Europe as "sterile" weapons. According to the article the wreck was sold by the Germans to an Argentine salvage company that had been secretly purchased by British Intelligence & they supposedly found quite a bit of technical equipment had survived the scuttling. A metallurgical comparison of steel in the frames to known composition of armor used by the KM showed no match, but ships aren't all armor & it wasn't clear if they compared to non-armor steel used by the KM.
 
One thing the German Navy did not have, that for instance the Royal Navy, the Imperial Japanese navy and the U.S. Navy did have.

Was time during the 1930's to refine and explore improvements to each nations perspective carrier doctrine. I am still astounded that Germany did go as far as they did in their carrier program as building the Graf Zepplin.

However Germany is not an Island Nation, nor a nation with Two Coasts, there is little need beyond far flung foreign excursion to have a projected carrier force.

Also , Germany had no laid out doctrine for carrier escort, no practiced protocol for flight operations at sea and no real carrier operational parameters such as Japan's projection of force or even Britain's tasking of the Fleet Air arm in major Naval operations.
 
It was always a fantasy of the German Navy that they would build a fleet that would engage the British Royal Navy in decisive combat leaving Germany the winner with control of the North Sea and English Channel. Admiral Tirpitz was the first to try to sell this fairy tale to the German government. It could never happen because British shipyards could outbuild German shipyards and could build warships faster than the Germans could sink them. Another critical factor was that geography was not on their side, After WWI, Germany had no overseas bases. All operations had to be run out of the Baltic. In order to get into the North Sea they had to come out of the "keyhole" of the Denmark Strait. After December 1941 Germany faced the combined British and U.S Navies. At the end of WWI, Admiral Scheer acknowledged that submarines were the only useful naval weapon for his country. Submarines and mines were the proper naval weapons for a nation in Germany's maritime position.
 
Quite True, the hampering of the Battleship Tirpitz's position during the second WW proved that the Royal Navy alone had enough surface and air units to apprehend any major German Breakout.

As the war drug on a new menace in the Baltic in the Form of Soviet Submarines proved a increasing factor in contending with the German Navy.

Especially as such tragedies as the Wilhelm Gustloff and S.S. General Von Steuben later proved.

A naval air arm at that junction in the war would be bait for Allied Aircraft to destroy on the ground. Any carriers suffering from lack of supplies or Aircraft would prove either bombing targets in port or Submarine bait.
 
The Baltic

Most of Soviet naval personal were dispatched to red army units during the early stages of the war. I don't think we can really speak of the Soviet naval presence as a strong naval power. Many of their ships were outdated. They were able to help protect some lead lease shipping and provide siege support
"Leningrad and Sevastopol". Yes at the end of the war when Germany's naval and air presence was very greatly diminished they had some subs which were used to sink some defenseless passenger liners, I.e.: Wilhelm Gustloff and S.S. General Von Steuben.

A large surface fleet was never really a major item on Hitler's agenda who was happy to return to the submarine solution as in the WW1. Particularly since they had the Atlantic coast of France for their pens.
 
It was always a fantasy of the German Navy that they would build a fleet that would engage the British Royal Navy in decisive combat leaving Germany the winner with control of the North Sea and English Channel. Admiral Tirpitz was the first to try to sell this fairy tale to the German government. It could never happen because British shipyards could outbuild German shipyards and could build warships faster than the Germans could sink them. Another critical factor was that geography was not on their side, After WWI, Germany had no overseas bases. All operations had to be run out of the Baltic. In order to get into the North Sea they had to come out of the "keyhole" of the Denmark Strait. After December 1941 Germany faced the combined British and U.S Navies. At the end of WWI, Admiral Scheer acknowledged that submarines were the only useful naval weapon for his country. Submarines and mines were the proper naval weapons for a nation in Germany's maritime position.
It should be noted that in the War of 1812 the US had a tiny Navy, and a large number of Privateers. The US frigates, few in number but much higher in quality than the typical R.N. Frigate @ the time, scored shocking victories against the R.N., and the Privateers ran insurance rates for merchant shipping to go way higher than when the British were facing a large French fleet just across the Channel. Some things aren't just a math process.
 
Had the Graff Zeppelin been operational & gone with the Bismarck they both probably would have made Port & the Stukas were very effective against ships, so they may have whittled down the persuers a bit. It's speculated that the Italians would have done better if they had finished their Carriers instead of relying on land based Air Force planes.
 
?

It may have been a fantasy of Canarias, but not one of Hitler's who remained a believer in the U-Boat solution. This is plain and simple fact and was his main naval objective for the 2nd WW.

Beside the Germans did have an initial carrier.The construction was stopped, the half completed ship was broken down. The Graf Zeppelin left shipyard, but its armament and engines never where completed, left the shipyard in Dec. 1938.It should have carried 42 planes (30 Ju-87D dive-bombers and 12 Me-109T fighters).
You may be right about the Italians who had a descent Mediterranean fleet. It seems the countries without "appreciable carrier strength" whether full sized or not fared poorly at sea, discounting U-bout activity up until ~ 43.

The 3 main players the US, Britain and Japanese in the carrier war ended up replacing the "battleship - cruiser - destroyer" in importance. Everyone else lagged behind in carrier warfare. Not that battleships - cruisers - destroyers didn't play an important role in seaborne artillery. The axis destroyed some allied shipping early on with their "pocket" battleships however the overall amount were minimal compared to the tonnage sunk by the U-Boats.

Again Germany never seriously intended to compete with Britain in the Atlantic as far as a surface Naval warfare went. They had no colonies, no overseas ports. And they had the U-Boat to cause considerable carnage to allied shipping at least through 43. After Britain's withdraw at Dunkirk Hitler considered Britain out of the way, so he could move on to the main agenda in the east.
 
Last edited:
The big problem for the Germans was England. The island became a giant stationary aircraft carrier. Every German ship building and maintenance facility was within their range. In order to get a strong naval presence in the atlantic the Germans would have to occupy England and that was next to impossible.

Even if the Germans would have put the Graf Zeppelin into service it wouldn't have sailed long. It would have been a prime target. Also, the Stuka's are slow and very vulnerable to AA gun fire. (8 Stukas attacked the bridge at Remagen, all of them were destroyed mostly with machine gun fire)
 
I basically said that

The big problem for the Germans was England. The island became a giant stationary aircraft carrier. Every German ship building and maintenance facility was within their range. In order to get a strong naval presence in the atlantic the Germans would have to occupy England and that was next to impossible.

Even if the Germans would have put the Graf Zeppelin into service it wouldn't have sailed long. It would have been a prime target. Also, the Stuka's are slow and very vulnerable to AA gun fire. (8 Stukas attacked the bridge at Remagen, all of them were destroyed mostly with machine gun fire)

Although I wouldn't use the aircraft carrier analogy since as far as bombers in quantity (Lancaster's and B-17's) Britain had to wait until ~ 42 to start the real bombing campaign.

I think you could draw the same conclusion from my last several post as well about the strength of the British Atlantic naval presence being a major deterrent to the Germans surface fleet. "which did well considering the size of the Kriegsmarine"

Also the main point "again" is aircraft carriers simple weren't bullet on Hitler's agenda. The one they did have was decommissioned.

BTW did they also use a few of the remaining ME-262's at Remagen?
 
Last edited:
BTW did they also use a few of the remaining ME-262's at Remagen?

I did a little search and yes they did. From the article:

"The American figher groups had no available base within operating range of the bridge and so the RAF was called in. Based to the north in Holland, 274 Squadron's Tempest Vs had the range to cover Remagen and these powerful, low-level ground-attack fighter-bombers were soon taking on the German ME-262 jets in low-level air combat.

Fast as they were, the Tempest did not have the speed of the '262, so they attacked the jets in head-on passes, a favored Luftwaffe tactic used against American bombers. With closing speeds of up to 1,000 MPH, the Tempests had little chance of shooting the '262s down, but the dangerous tactic was successful in breaking up the attack. Every antiaircraft gun on the ground was simultaneously firing, and bombs were exploding around the bridge: the scene was one of total conflagration."​

Clashremagen.jpg
 
As I said earlier had Graff Zeppelin been available for the Bismarck sortie we'd probably read how both made it to France, perhaps with some R.N. ships sunk by G.Z.'s Stukas, only for the Bismarck to be sunk by RAF with Tall Boy bombs in Norway, and most likely Graff Zeppelin would have been sunk or scuttled somewhere in the Baltic
 
As I said earlier had Graff Zeppelin been available for the Bismarck sortie we'd probably read how both made it to France, perhaps with some R.N. ships sunk by G.Z.'s Stukas, only for the Bismarck to be sunk by RAF with Tall Boy bombs in Norway, and most likely Graff Zeppelin would have been sunk or scuttled somewhere in the Baltic

George it was the Tirpitz that was sunk by 617 (Dambuster Squadron).

As the battleship lay at anchor in Norway's Tromso Fjord, 32 British Lancaster bombers, taking off from Scotland, attacked. Each bomber dropped a 12,000-pound Tallboy bomb and two hit their target, causing the Tirpitz to capsize, and killing almost 1,000 crewmen.
 
George it was the Tirpitz that was sunk by 617 (Dambuster Squadron).

As the battleship lay at anchor in Norway's Tromso Fjord, 32 British Lancaster bombers, taking off from Scotland, attacked. Each bomber dropped a 12,000-pound Tallboy bomb and two hit their target, causing the Tirpitz to capsize, and killing almost 1,000 crewmen.
Yeah that's the actual history. I was saying if Graff Zeppelin had accompanied Bismarck and both reached France instead of Bismarck being sunk we'd probably be reading about both battleships being sunk in Norway.
 
Yeah that's the actual history. I was saying if Graff Zeppelin had accompanied Bismarck and both reached France instead of Bismarck being sunk we'd probably be reading about both battleships being sunk in Norway.

Sorry mate, I misread you. But yes you are right.

The Royal Navy learned that lesson when the Prince of Wales and the Repulse was sank off of Malaya by the Japanese.
 
Back
Top