[cowofzot]

No yours is, so? Not 1 military expert in a thousand would concur with you.


Battleship had it's day. Japanese demostrated that early against the British.

The growing range of engagement led to the battleship's replacement as the leading type of warship by the aircraft carrier during World War II.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Battleship.htm


Not to mention airpower sending the RN off at central Norway 1940. Carriers would only add to that.

[cowofzot]

The sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse was a World War II naval engagement which illustrated the effectiveness of aerial attacks against naval forces that were not protected by air cover and the resulting importance of including an aircraft carrier in any major fleet action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of ... nd_Repulse

[MB.]

I've got an WW2 engagement for you.

Not 1 military expert in a thousand would concur with you

That's an interesting claim, I'm curious which 'experts' you're referring to.

It's illuminating that you attempt to compare the naval operations of the pacific theater with those that took place or could have taken place in the north Atlantic.

I've got a question for you: if the carrier 'replaced' the battleship as you believe during WW2, why was the Japanese surrender arranged on the deck of a battleship?

[Smilin' Dave]

Germans had no desert warfare experience either, but did fairly well at it.

Strategically they did fairly poorly at it but that is a discussion of another thread. Going from one form of land warfare to another isn't comperable to going from (in comparative terms) no fleet battle experience with carriers to having a carrier fleet. Carrier fleet is an important term, since tooling down the German naval program too far will leave you with a carrier with insufficient escorts.

War footing? British were leagues bigger than German Navy, no such thing as being on a war footing with Germany.

Germany building a bigger fleet will mean that interwar Churchill and his warnings about German re-armament will be heeded. It's not like you can hide an aircraft carrier. Not only will the Royal Navy enjoy a further expansion of its construction program, all sectors of the British Army will be 'rewarded'.

British fleet didn't walk over German surface vessels, no reason to think the outcome would somehow be different vs carriers.

The German 'fleet' stayed in port (or close to home) as much as possible, because they didn't want to lose it to the superior British fleet. The Chanal Dash, for all the propaganda, was essentially warships runnings and hiding. Send a fleet to Iceland, and the Germans won't be able to retreat to safety as after Jutland, their naval will be defeated by superior numbers. Carrier or no carrier.

German navy would've done well to have a couple carriers for Norway invasion.

German naval losses in that campaign weren't because of a lack of airpower, were they?

They had a level of organization to have JU 52's built in France, trucks would be easier.

In terms of scale, apples and oranges. They were also using French factories to build French equipment for a long time too. See how confused Nazi war production gets?

ME 210's built in Hungary.

Probably built under licence, which will be nothing like the situation in France or Poland. Tell me, so all these foreign factories have the skilled workers needed to man them and turn out adequete product.

[cowofzot]

After airbases established, Iceland would be no different than Norway where ships protected by Luftwaffe.

France more modernized as regards machine tools etc than Hungary, easier to produce there than Hungary. yes, workers available as evidenced by the ME 210 being built there.


Strategically they did quite well at Desert warfare, British weren't able to win any decisive battles against em for 18 months.


German naval losses WERE due to lack of airpower far north at Narvik.





Quote;
Germany building a bigger fleet will mean that interwar Churchill and his warnings about German re-armament will be heeded. It's not like you can hide an aircraft carrier. Not only will the Royal Navy enjoy a further expansion of its construction program, all sectors of the British Army will be 'rewarded'.



False since Battleships WERE the main worry between wars. Building few carriers would get less British attn than building Bismarck & Tirpitz. Seydlitz displacement was 14.200 vs
41.700 for Bismarck.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/seydli_f.htm

German surface fleet DID NOT stay close to home in early phase of war. Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Admiral Hipper, Graf Spee & Admiral Scheer all went out into Atlantic & Indian oceans on sorties.

[MB.]

German naval losses WERE due to lack of airpower far north at Narvik.

Are talking about the naval engagements of april 1940? Do you think these operations were of a decisive nature in the naval war against Nazi Germany? Why do you care if the germans had *a fully operational aircraft carrier* at this period in history? What you are really talking about is German naval policy and this was determined by the Nazi leadership and honestly it wouldn't have mattered anyway because one aircraft carrier means nothing when the United States could build 22 (141 escort) aircraft carriers in the same period of time? So even if the German had one single carrier would it have mattered? did it matter?

The Germans and Nazi germans were not invited to the Washington and London naval conferences because no one cared about their nonexistant navy after Versailles. Even violating the Versailles restrictions completely the nazi navy was never a match for the alliance, or even the Royal Navy.

Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Admiral Hipper, Graf Spee & Admiral Scheer all went out into Atlantic & Indian oceans on sorties.

And this was a terrible naval policy and it failed spectacularly.

[cowofzot]

Yes as previously mentioned at Norway. Which was 1940. Atlantic raiding patrols also could have been done with these prior to US entry into the war.

[MB.]

Do you think airpower or the presence of a magic German carrier at the operations around Narvik would have significantly altered the course or events of WW2 as they otherwise were resolved?

[cowofzot]

Dunno about "magic" carriers, but the Germans mentioned how carriers would have been a valuable asset to operation Weserubung.



A Luftwaffe officer, a naval officer and a constructor visited Japan in the autumn of 1935 to obtain flight deck equipment blueprints and inspect the Japanese aircraft carrier AkagiJapanese aircraft carrier Akagi
Akagi was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy, originally begun as an . She participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s...
. The keel of Graf Zeppelin was laid down the next year.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... f_Zeppelin

[MB.]

They sure would have been because that operation was a total success without a carrier so a carrier there would have been decisive in World War Two?

Yes! Now spam information about the Graf Zeppelin and the Akagi! if only!??

[cowofzot]

cowofzot wrote:
Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Admiral Hipper, Graf Spee & Admiral Scheer all went out into Atlantic & Indian oceans on sorties.


And this was a terrible naval policy and it failed spectacularly.


No it was quite a success in reality. Bismarck being the only exception. The rest did quite well.

[MB.]

No it was quite a success in reality.

The entire Kriegsmarine was destroyed and the nazis lost the war so I don't understand the incredible success you speak of.

If the nazis had won you wouldn't be here going on and on about the magic equipment if only they had....!!

[cowofzot]

You would have to read up on these sorties to learn of the success they achieved.

A carrier there would have been decisive in world war 2? No one has made such a statement as yet. Certainly not I.

Perhaps re-reading the statement about carriers being useful at Norway in 1940 would help you understand with more clarity. & as Atlantic raiders.

[MB.]

Yes, you would. Why do you ignore my questions and continue to troll this nonsense about the nazi technology?

[cowofzot]

No, you troll & ask silly questions while I patiently try & answer them. I troll? that's cute.

& make nonsense arguments about Battleships being equal to carriers.

[cowofzot]

If the nazis had won you wouldn't be here going on and on about the magic equipment if only they had....!!

No Guff Einstein. Give that man a 6th grade diploma!!

[MB.]

nonsense arguments about Battleships being equal to carriers.

Which battleships and which carriers in what condition and at what time?

Do you know what my signature says? Who was Julian Corbett?

[cowofzot]

It was your statement. & we are talking WW 2. So carriers & Battleships of WW 2. You work on that while we go forwards with the thread. Not much interested in arguing/discussing your previously entered not so bright posits.


Here's what happened at Norway Dave.

the commander of the French troops in Norway, a man with the confusing name of Mittelhauser, admitted later:


At any rate, when the Stuka was revealed to us, when we saw the British fleet giving up before Trondheim (because of it), we had the feeling that we were face to face with something quite new, and of a technical surprise whose employment to be decisive.

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin ... stuka.html



Folding wing Stuka & FW 190 would've made decent carrier planes. 109 T model, I'm not so sure.

The Ju 87E-1 was the planned carrier-based torpedo bomber version of the Ju 87D-1

[MB.]

I presume you want to fantasize about an engagement between a battle group including the Graf Zeppelin flying squadrons of Ju-87Es and Bf 109-Ts and Me262 naval attack fighters at Narvik in April 1940 blowing the shit out of allied warships trying to land soldiers dieing at the beach-heads trying to disrupt the epic land battles between airborne nazi stormtroopers and Norwegian base defense?

This would be difficult because "Hitler consented to the stop work order, allowing Raeder to have Graf Zeppelin’s 15 cm guns removed and transferred to Norway"

[cowofzot]

I presume you'd like a Spiderman comic book & a Big Wheel for X-mas this year to go with these low forehead waste of board space comments you routinely posit.

Yes we know about the guns. These are alternative scenarios, guns weren't neccessary to send for what it's worth, & more than 1 carrier could've been built. This really ain't your cup of tea. Try another area where your level of knowledge isn't quite so poor might be a good idea. 262's in 1940? Great stuff man. Hee hee. A good chuckle before bed if nothing else.

& again, this marks what? your 15th unsuccessful denigration attempt. There are rules here like any other forum.