Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

The Only Nazi Aircraft Carrier

Article #131 • Written by Greg Bjerg

▼ Scroll to Continue ▼

In no naval action of World War 2 will you find a German aircraft carrier taking part. All the major navies in the war used them extensively, except for Nazi Germany. There were lots of German U-Boats, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, but no flattops. However, the Nazis had plans to build a total of four carriers and almost finished one of them.

Her name was the KMS Graf Zeppelin and though launched in December 1938 she was never over 80% completed. Construction delays, lack of aircraft, and bitter disputes between Air Marshall Herman Goering and the Navy insured that the ship was doomed to become scrap metal.

Hitler had promised the German Navy (The Kriegsmarine) carriers as early as 1935, and the keel was laid for the Graf Zepplin on December 26, 1936. The Graf Zeppelin was 920 feet long and weighed 19,250 tons. Her top speed was to be 33.8 knots. Her crew complement was 1,760 and she was to hangar forty aircraft. By comparison the large American Essex class carriers of WWII could carry 80 to 100 aircraft. The Germans got as far as partly installing the catapults when the ship was then turned into a floating warehouse for u-boat parts.

Hitler's attitude vacillated on the project and it never had his full backing. It also had a major detractor in Goering, who was resentful of any incursion on his authority as head of the country's air power. Goering had been ordered by Hitler to develop aircraft for the ship. His response was to offer redesigned versions of the then-obsolete JU-87 Stuka dive bomber and older versions of the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. Both planes were land-based aircraft never intended to meet the rough requirements for carrier operations. Even after modifications they were hopelessly inferior to Allied types. To insure further delay in the carrier’s completion, Goering informed Hitler that these planes would not be ready until the end of 1944. Goering’s tactics worked and the Graf Zeppelin’s construction was halted in 1943.

By the time work stopped on the ship, the Germany Navy had a submariner as its top naval officer-- Admiral Karl Donitz-- and all ship construction was turned over to building new U-Boats. The Graf Zeppelin stayed at her moorings in Stettin for the rest of the war never to see action.

As the end of the war in Europe neared, the Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water off Stettin (now Szczecin in Poland) on April 25, 1945 just before the Red Army captured the city. But she wasn’t quite ready for the scrap yard yet. According to recently found material in Russian archives, the ship was refloated by the Russians and towed to Leningrad filled with captured booty and military parts for use in the Soviet Union. After unloading her cargo she was named "PO-101" (Floating Base Number 101) by the Soviets. The new owners had hoped to repair and refit the ship as a new carrier but this proved to be impractical so the Graf Zeppelin had one more task to fulfill.

On August 16, 1947 she was towed out to sea and used for target practice by Soviet ships and aircraft. Aerial bombs were placed in her hangers, flight deck and smoke stack. Planes and ships then shot shells and dropped bombs on her to demonstrate how to sink a carrier, presumably American. After twenty-four hits the Graf Zeppelin stayed afloat and had to be finished off by torpedoes.

Details on how the Nazis planned to use the carrier in action have been lost to obscurity. The Germans had none of the experience that the American, British and Japanese navies had gained in the years between the wars. While the Graf Zeppelin had some advanced features she displayed her designers' lack of knowledge about carriers. The heavy surface armament was of little use and accounted for too much weight; the anti-aircraft armament was heavy but badly sited, all on the starboard side. The radius of action was low for a fleet carrier intended to operate with the capital ships on the Atlantic shipping routes.

Had she been commissioned she would have provided a considerable commerce-raiding capability. The carrier could have provided effective support for capital ships and cruisers with air cover, and would have increased their potential for destruction considerably. Such support operations could have changed the outcome of sea battles like the sinking of the Battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz had the Graf Zeppelin been present.

The Germans have never sailed an aircraft carrier since.

Article written by Greg Bjerg, published on 04 March 2006. Greg was born and raised in Iowa and graduated with a degree in Journalism from Drake University. Sadly, he passed away on 20 March 2011.

Article design and artwork by Alan Bellows. Edited by Alan Bellows.
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


55 Comments
Prince
Posted 04 March 2006 at 10:23 pm

Bloody Jerrys, never could build a boat


AKALucifer
Posted 05 March 2006 at 06:35 am

That really is a damn interesting article. Although I don't really see Hitler needing an aircraft carrirer as he dominated most of Europe.


indra c
Posted 05 March 2006 at 06:52 am

Hitler was a bright tactician on land (although you wouldn't guess it from his "invasion" of russia) and a real ass at sea. If he had a little more confidence in his navy, londoners would be eating fish'n'pretzels today. Can anyone spell lederhosen? No? Thank god!


tha_vampyr
Posted 05 March 2006 at 04:58 pm

I think even having 'smaller' aircraft carriers would have made a HUGE difference. As mentioned in the article it could have possibly changed the outcomes of things like the sinking of the Bismark and Tirpitz.

When the Bismark set sail with only the ?Prinz Eugen? as an escort, the Royal Navy sent something like 11 ships after it, and after it sunk the hood, they sent 11 more... Of the 21 ships that hunted down and finished the Bismark, it was ultimately the Brit Aircraft Carriers that were the ones making the critical strikes... so one has to wonder, with Aircraft carrier support how VERY different things would have been.


Pascal Leduc
Posted 05 March 2006 at 07:25 pm

The war would have been much longer had it not been for Herman Georing. His repeated ineptitude not only kept the Luftwaffe from being as strong as it could have been but helped cripple the other branches of the military as well.


Stuart
Posted 06 March 2006 at 02:40 am

Maybe Goering secretly didn't like Hitler and this was his cunning plan to bring down the Reich from within.


SneezeWhiz
Posted 07 March 2006 at 11:19 am

I don't know about Goering secretly disliking Hitler, but the failure to finish and deploy the Graf Zeppelin was symptomatic of the built-in shortcomings of the Nazi regime.

The Germans were never a seafaring race, Hitler's plan for world dominance was based solely on an obsolete concept of a land-based empire, and his power was based on a personality cult with the head surrounded by a bunch of cronies who owed their ascendance purely to their personal relationship with the leader.
I wonder how long it would have taken for Germany to collapse had Hitler been taken out at the height of the war, in January 1942 or so.


THoM
Posted 08 March 2006 at 08:25 pm

i think the people would have lost all hope. he may have been a sick mutherfuk but that guy had motivational skills like the world had never seen.


HenryHSCheng
Posted 20 March 2006 at 05:46 pm

The Fleet Air Arm did not have the best equipment either...if the Germans did manage to put Bf-109s and Stukas on 4 aircraft carriers...I would not want to sit in a swordfish.


rossao
Posted 27 July 2006 at 06:26 pm

I think a carrier, especially 4 of them would have totally tipped the balance of power, especially in the Atlantic and Mediteranean theatres. These ships could work in conjuction with the U-Boats, the planes would do recon for the U-Boats, that would have been devastating for England for supplies coming in. Might have hanged Hitler's idea on invading England and the outcome in North Africa. It's so facinating though, everytime I feel I know so much about WW2, here comes something new the Nazi's we're working on that I never knew, especially recently it seems after all of this time, these stories are finally coming out. How did they have the resources to have all of these projects and be at war on 2 fronts at the same time, even with the slave labor- jeeez! He was his own demise and didn't even know it...


Haywood Jablome
Posted 28 July 2006 at 03:58 pm

This boat was found July 12, 2006 by the Polish navy. Just a FYI........


AntEconomist
Posted 30 November 2006 at 07:56 am

THoM said: "i think the people would have lost all hope...that guy had motivational skills like the world had never seen."

This is interesting. We typically laud the powerful (corporate, military, etc.) as having the impressive motivational skills. However, I'd argue that -- hands down -- Jesus and Mohammad had far more motivational skill. Forget about theological issues (as well as the direction of motivation) and just look at the men as historical figures for a moment. Their motivational powers are still strongly felt thousands of years after their deaths. Hitler, by comparison, wouldn't even be considered a rookie.


jam22bball
Posted 30 November 2006 at 08:26 am

Please ingore the last idiot


justjim1
Posted 30 November 2006 at 09:41 am

Please ingore the last idiot ... Don't we all have the right to comment and say as we wish?


thatdude
Posted 30 November 2006 at 09:52 am

I think the Nazis having functional aircraft carriers would've only made a difference if he decided to attack America and even then it is dubious to think it would've been a material difference as they were already stretched to thin in Europe.


viking62
Posted 30 November 2006 at 10:09 am

Just think of the psychological effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. How much worse would that have been if there had been a simultaneous German attack on New York, Philadelphia, or Norfolk? Granted, it would have been REALLY hard to pull off.


AntEconomist
Posted 30 November 2006 at 10:10 am

justjim1 said: "Please ingore the last idiot … Don't we all have the right to comment and say as we wish?"

In all truth, given that I don't own this site, my ability to comment on the site is a privilege, not a right. Meanwhile, jam22bball's ability to ignore me actually is a right.


James
Posted 30 November 2006 at 10:50 am

That is a nice sentiment. There is no question Hitler was extremely skilled at motivating. The lasting effects are not for lack of His skill but for lack of sanity in his message. If you think about it this way Jesus and Mohammed only had to get people to treat other people “right” in return for great earthly and heavenly rewards. Hitler on the other hand had to convince a down trodden economy depressed group of people that they could take-over the world and that the Jews were the root of all evil and should be eliminated along with every other so called deviant. He was able to motivate them to build up a military support the idea of world domination. By comparison today political leaders have a hard time convincing there countrymen to stop an ongoing genocide i.e. Rwanda, Darfur… I’d say he was a powerful motivator/manipulator. Unraveled only by his own insanity and some of the world’s greatest fighting men and woman on earth. The internal politics of his own inner circle as you can see can make a big difference as well. People in high positions of power so worried about there own power that they won’t look at the bigger picture. As for the old adage that we would all be speaking German if this would have happened or that would have happened I consider that mostly BS. If this would have happened we would have reacted differently. I think that the Nazi Party could not have held power over that world for long before it crumbled from within whether or not they had a few substandard aircraft carriers or not. I doubt that these things would have been a float long against the Brits or the US anyway. But that is just my humble option I have been known to be wrong.

AntEconomist said: "This is interesting. We typically laud the powerful (corporate, military, etc.) as having the impressive motivational skills. However, I'd argue that — hands down — Jesus and Mohammad had far more motivational skill. Forget about theological issues (as well as the direction of motivation) and just look at the men as historical figures for a moment. Their motivational powers are still strongly felt thousands of years after their deaths. Hitler, by comparison, wouldn't even be considered a rookie."

That is a nice sentiment. There is no question Hitler was extremely skilled at motivating. The lasting effects are not for lack of His skill but for lack of sanity in his message. If you think about it this way Jesus and Mohammed only had to get people to treat other people “right” in return for great earthly and heavenly rewards. Hitler on the other hand had to convince a down trodden economy depressed group of people that they could take-over the world and that the Jews were the root of all evil and should be eliminated along with every other so called deviant. He was able to motivate them to build up a military support the idea of world domination. By comparison today political leaders have a hard time convincing there countrymen to stop an ongoing genocide i.e. Rwanda, Darfur… I’d say he was a powerful motivator/manipulator. Unraveled only by his own insanity and some of the world’s greatest fighting men and woman on earth. The internal politics of his own inner circle as you can see can make a big difference as well. People in high positions of power so worried about there own power that they won’t look at the bigger picture. As for the old adage that we would all be speaking German if this would have happened or that would have happened I consider that mostly BS. If this would have happened we would have reacted differently. I think that the Nazi Party could not have held power over that world for long before it crumbled from within whether or not they had a few substandard aircraft carriers or not. I doubt that these things would have been a float long against the Brits or the US anyway. But that is just my humble option I have been known to be wrong.


SparkyTWP
Posted 30 November 2006 at 10:54 am

jam22bball said: "Please ingore the last idiot"

Now wait a minute, how is what he said factually incorrect? Is it just because they happen to be religious figures that you disagree?


freightgod
Posted 30 November 2006 at 11:19 am

Going back to the article for just a minute...I'm not aware of aircraft carriers playing any significant role in the Atlantic theater during WWII...please correct me if I'm wrong. I probably am as I can see them being useful in a submarine hunt.

I wonder also did the Soviet Union have any aircraft carriers during WWII?


drewd
Posted 30 November 2006 at 12:56 pm

The British Navy operated aircraft carriers in the Atlantic during the war, primarily as an anti-ship platform. Aircraft weren't tremendously useful in hunting subs, which were really more like ships that could operate underwater for a short period of time, compared to today's subs. Generally speaking, subs were either discovered steaming on the surface or after launching torpedoes.

The Soviet Union didn't have much of a blue water navy until after WWII. Virtually everything that they had was for coastal defense.


smokefoot
Posted 30 November 2006 at 01:29 pm

There was a original Star Trek episode where some people recreate Nazi Germany, and Spock mentions that the Nazis were very efficient. They were in many ways hideously inefficient. The infighting at the top described here is just one example.


Radiatidon
Posted 30 November 2006 at 01:33 pm

tha_vampyr said: When the Bismark set sail with only the ?Prinz Eugen? as an escort,

On the Prinz Eugen (pronounced prinz oygen), she was the last heavy cruiser commissioned by the Kriegsmarine. As noted she was with the Bismarck during the sortie with the ill-fated Hood in May 1941. Ironically for all her intimidation the Eugne’s big guns never sturck an enemy warship. Involved in various campaigns and even surviving a British torpedo off the coast of Trondheim. Due to her being the only German major surface warship to survive the war intact, her crew fondly dubbed her “the lucky ship”. She was surrendered to the British in May 1945 and given to the Americans. After she survived two nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, it was decided to return her to America and moored as a museum ship.

Unfortunately during the transit a tropical storm broke-out and she moored off Kwajalein to weather the storm. Her moorings broke during the storm and divers placed pin charges along the hull in hopes of scuttling her in shallow water. The plan was to help her weather the savage storm and then bilge her later. Without time or specs of the superstructure the plan was serious flawed and she rolled. It seems “the lucky ship’s” had turned. That was December 1946. The Stern with screws can still be see today jutting out of the lagoon between Calson and Kwajalein islands. To fully appreciate this marvel, one needs to stand on the stern which rises from the water over 9 meters (30 feet) while her bow over 199 meters (654 feet) is under 31 meters (100 feet) of water.


Byrden
Posted 30 November 2006 at 03:12 pm

>> Their motivational powers are still strongly felt thousands of years after their deaths.

I'm not sure that anybody feels the motivational powers of Jesus. Of the three men listed, he is the only one who did not write a book. Perhaps we're feeling the motivational power of his biographers.


1c3d0g
Posted 30 November 2006 at 03:43 pm

AntEconomist: well fucking said. That's how it is.


Prince
Posted 30 November 2006 at 06:47 pm

Going back to the article for just a minute... Now thats fucking well said. Even if the Nazis got a few aircraft carriers actually up and running, there is no reason they couldnt have been sunk or immobilised or whatever before they did any real damage.

By the way, stop and think about how the comments managed to deteriorate into a debate about religion YET AGAIN. You should all be ashamed.


Bolens
Posted 30 November 2006 at 08:40 pm

Those without decorum should be ashamed.


justapeon
Posted 30 November 2006 at 11:26 pm

drewd said: "The British Navy operated aircraft carriers in the Atlantic during the war, primarily as an anti-ship platform. Aircraft weren't tremendously useful in hunting subs, which were really more like ships that could operate underwater for a short period of time, compared to today's subs. Generally speaking, subs were either discovered steaming on the surface or after launching torpedoes.

"

Most torpedoes were launched while surfaced. Huff Duff, or High Frequency Direction Finding, was used to pin point most U-boats (triangulated by 2 ships reception) well before they even had a chance to attack a convoy.

Aircraft were extremely useful in locating U-boats, the Germans even designed 2 Flak U-boats in an effort to counter the British air threat in the Bay of Biscay. Read "Black May"

The US and UK were leaps and bounds ahead of Germany in Aircraft Carrier development. Graf Zeppelin would've never stood a chance. I am sure the Brit's were well aware of its state of completion and would've taken the proper steps if they thought it would be completed.


Hoekstes
Posted 01 December 2006 at 03:41 am

Where can I buy a really big boat? So Brain, gnarf, what're we going to do tonight?


Dave Group
Posted 01 December 2006 at 06:33 am

Thank God for the infighting among the Nazi high command. To take another example, what if more faith had been put in the V-2 rockets and they had been developed to a much greater extent than they had been? Though the V-2 attacks on London caused little damage and loss of life, the psychological impact was considerable.


James
Posted 01 December 2006 at 10:57 am

I hate to be the one to go against the “what if” Nazi alarmists. The fact of the matter is they had very little infrastructure on manufacturing capacity left and were spread far to thin to hold any territory for long even with the “what if” Jet fighter or the aircraft carrier or the V-2 rockets or the what ever what if weapon. The only weapon that could have made a long term difference for the Axis would have been the Nuke but oops the US was already on that and again ahead of the game. The true is you it was really Germany against the rest of the industrialized world (I know Italy, Hungry…) had the UK fell and the US not gotten involved in Europe and Russia had not gotten involved then there is a “What if” that could really made a long term difference in the war. True a lot of “what if’s” could have made temporary difference and killed a lot more people but as for We’d all be specking German thing is really just ridiculous. But it’s always interesting to learn about the nuances of the war and peel back the layers of the strategies and lack there of.


airship
Posted 01 December 2006 at 12:29 pm

Mistakes made by the Axis that lost them WWII:

(1) Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
(2) German attacks on Britain.
(3) German attacks on Russia
(4) German excursions into Africa.

If Japan had left the U.S. alone, isolationists in the U.S. were probably strong enough to have kept us out of the war. Likewise, if Germany had not attacked our strong ally Britain, we would have been nervous about their takeover of the rest of Europe, but would probably have treated these incursions as 'more of the same' imperial fighting that had given rise to WWI. If Germany had stayed out of Russia and Africa, Hitler could have concentrated his forces and resources on consolidating his gains in Europe, while Japan took over China and SE Asia. Germany could have then taken over sub-Saharan Africa, as most of the countries there were territories of conquered European nations, anyway. From there, it's a short step to the Sarahan countries, Arabia, and Persia. Russia could have been attacked simultaneously by Germany on the West and Japan on the East. Over the course of 20 years, Germany and Japan could have controlled the entire 'Old World'.

Hindsight is 20/20.


SparkyTWP
Posted 01 December 2006 at 12:45 pm

James is correct. I'm reminded of something I heard once (Sorry, don't remember exactly where, but it was about Stalingrad) that compared the industrial capacity of Germany to the Soviets. As the soviets were retreating, they would leave a lot of their tanks and equipment behind and just move the production lines farther back. During one retreat, the russians left behind more equipment than what Germany could produce in a year, and that was just one retreat. The production capacity of Germany didn't even come close.


Floj
Posted 01 December 2006 at 01:24 pm

Check out the related article. I heard that Hitler actually didn't have much interest in the A-bomb. He didn't believe that it would be as powerful as it turned out to be when we used it in Japan; therefore, he didn't fund the research near as heavily as the US. Just imagine if Hitler had managed to get his hands on something so destructive! It'd be like burning a pie in the oven!


Xoebe
Posted 01 December 2006 at 02:49 pm

I have a pet theory in development, that megalomaniacs simply like to push their luck until everything just falls apart. It's not the accomplishment they are after, it's the sadistic joy of pushing people around. Hitler would never have been satisfied with Afro-Asian-European domination, nor would he have been happy with global domination had he succeeded somehow in securing it.

You can see this pattern in other sociopaths as well, such as serial killers who get progressively "sloppier" or more outlandish until they get caught. Or cult leaders who continually develop wackier and wackier dogma.

The people around Hitler took advantage of his popularity for their own ends, just as the entourages of any political figure do. Some of them were true believers, some were just opportunists, but they all had their own axes to grind.

While I would never complain about the Nazis losing the war, it's rather pathetic to see an otherwise brilliant war machine humbled in this endeavor by mere pettiness. How lucky for us!


Nonesuch
Posted 01 December 2006 at 03:16 pm

jam22bball said: "Please ingore the last idiot"

I am unable to ignore one thing and I'd probably be unable to ingore it too, if I knew what that meant or how to apply it...

AntEconomist said: "just look at the men as historical figures for a moment."

a fair historical comparison could only be done in time frames of a closer length... 50 or even a hundred years ago for Hitler is nowhere close to the time span passed to reflect the "motivational" effect of figures, Jesus and Mohammad ,as well as historical facts are sketchy to nonexistant about many details there....whereas Hitlers time has provided and continues to provide details about many aspects, horrible tho they may be to contemplate.... and these things could well contribute to motivational perceptions or not only time will tell... at any rate, presenting current unequal measures or projecting them without any other regard is poor historical judgement in my view.


DInterested
Posted 01 December 2006 at 05:59 pm

I agree with James (and Sparky too).

airship said: "... Over the course of 20 years, Germany and Japan could have controlled the entire 'Old World'."

Even if this scenario were to have become true, I doubt if the two nations (or three for that matter, if you include Italy) could have dealt with the underground resistance of three continents filled with people treated as 'inferior races' for long.


hualin1988la
Posted 04 December 2006 at 02:25 am

(Comment deleted as SPAM)


hualin1988la
Posted 05 December 2006 at 01:30 am

(Comment deleted as SPAM)


portsmouth101
Posted 06 December 2006 at 03:20 pm

I wonder what would happen if they DID finish the 5 Aircraft Carriers.....


viking62
Posted 07 December 2006 at 02:02 pm

The Italians were working on at least two, also. I'd like to wargame a combined German/Italian carrier strike on the East coast of the US or Canada.


Wargamer
Posted 12 February 2007 at 08:19 pm

Pasted after this is a comment from the webpage of Miller Systems WW2 Campaign(a correspondence global simulation). It is part of a larger article mentioning how the Nazi system actually prevented many superior designs from being employed.

I think this blog is fantastic and will recommend it to players.
http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/index.html

Graf Zeppelin was an aircraft carrier that was never completed by Hitler who had no interest in naval matters beyond the Uboat blockade and Goering who blocked a naval air program. It could've easily been completed by 1940. Aircraft successfully tested for use from it included Me109s, Fw190s and Ju87 Stukas not to mention the Bv155s that the Nazi's prevented. The Bv or He155s in particular were large but fast and very long ranged. Send out the Graf Zeppelin with the Bismark, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and evenatually Tirpitz every so often as a taskforce instead of fruitless individual convoy raiders and you force the British and Americans to bring in dozens more battleships and carriers etc from other theatres. This surface taskforce would've been fast and powerful enough to tie down an indordinate number of Allied capital ships trying to scour the endless Atlantic Oceans. If the first and last sortie of the Bismark tied down umpteen British capital ships in defense of convoys and the Tirpitz scattered even heavily escorted convoys later in the war, think of what a carrier-centered task group could do.

So in summary it is obvious that if the German General Staff had their way instead of the Nazi Leadership we very well might not have won the war.


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 March 2007 at 11:15 am

I love how we're comparing Jesus to Hitler. Lovely!

As far as being a leader or having great 'motiviational' skills. Look at the time frame here. When Jesus was born he was said to be the 'son of God'. I don't believe Hitler had the same going for him.

Hitler rallied a country around a ridiculous idea and kept them motivated. Similar to what Bush did after 9/11, although his staying power is proving to be less.

Hitler took over a nation and rallied them to support his actions, it truly is remarkable what that man accomplished. A lot of dispicable things are on his resume, but simply being able to have them carried out by willing people shows just how powerful he was. He had people convinced of whatever he wanted.

The great J.C. on the other hand, that is faith. People BELIEVE Jesus did the things he did. Being Agnostic I am not totally opposed to believing Jesus existed. However, I don't buy every story hook, line and sinker. Jesus existed...and he was a super cool great guy. Great speaker...and he did a lot good. Anything beyond that can't be proven, actually...I don't even think that can be proven. We don't even know he existed. How can you use him as a comparison to a well documented person that lived in a 'modern-era' over 1,900 years later?

More than figuring out the comparison of who is better at motivating people....I wonder, why would you want to compare Jesus to Hitler in the first place?
(I'm leaving out Mohammed because I'm not well informed about him)


Baragla
Posted 06 December 2007 at 04:49 am

One other reason why the nazis lost the war is that, to the best of my knowledge, they have refused sharing their weapon designs for production in other Axis countries. Furthermore, the "quest for the ultimate weapon" mindset was proven fatally wrong by simple and mass-produced Allied designs such as the T-34, the Sherman or the B-17. Ozervize, ze vorld vould be ourz!


Sealman4
Posted 24 August 2008 at 10:46 pm

I have aerial photos taken in 1944 of the Graf Zepplin in dock inNorway along wih the Tripitz, Admiral SCHEER, Prince Eugen and Hipper. These Photo were taken by the 325th Reconnaissance of the R.A.F. classified restricted. These photos wereapproved by Prominister Benson Whitehall HQBC 8th Air Force. My dad was intelligence officer during the war in the pacific but later was stationed in England in 1951-54 and came across theses photos, and the history.The germans almost did it. To bad the Russians have to steal information to get ahead.


Admirial
Posted 04 October 2008 at 02:20 pm

portsmouth101 said: "I wonder what would happen if they DID finish the 5 Aircraft Carriers….."

If the germans had finished the 5 aircraft carriers, before the outbreak of WWII. The germans could have sent them with battleships like the Bismarck, Tipitz, Dutchsland, and many more. The British royal navy couldn't ever hold out long against them. With the British navy gone the germans wouldn't have any oposition against allied shipping. Within a year or two Britian would have fallen, and the germans would have taken over Europe, and would now be focused on Russia or United States.


Kolorado
Posted 14 June 2009 at 10:49 am

Wait,I think that this about these aircraft carriers is BS.If Hitler even planned to build them he would have built them early on, in 1940 or eventually 1941 because that years were the best years for wermacht.And they were very expensive to build and Hitler was giving all his "credits" to heer (german army) to be able to vage a full-scale war.And I think also that Germans werent good in seafearing and that these 4-5 carriers wouldnt do much help to the Kriegsmarine.


JAMES FASSINGER
Posted 03 July 2009 at 10:07 pm

Prince said: "Bloody Jerrys, never could build a boat"

I have arierl Photo p this Aircraft Carrier taken in STETTIN in 1944 Feb,21 by the R.A.F. She is not sunk she is dock side intact. Construction on her deck can be seen. If he had built just one the outcome would be totally different.He could o bombed USA coast,his E-Boats would let it know where th convoys were and send fighters to attak it. You people just don't know History. READ MORE.


JAMES FASSINGER
Posted 03 July 2009 at 10:16 pm

Oh by the way, He was going to build 4 but ifyou read about this carrier and the others goeing told Hitler that his Air Force cold take care of the problem. Wrong! They went to Japan for the plans and came back and started building. 4 were drawn up but only two were being built but because of money only one was almost finished. There were to many problems and Hitler listened to Goeing and quit. These are the Photos I have of her in STETTIN and they are the only prints taken and saved.


JAMES FASSINGER
Posted 03 July 2009 at 10:34 pm

freightgod said: "Going back to the article for just a minute…I'm not aware of aircraft carriers playing any significant role in the Atlantic theater during WWII…please correct me if I'm wrong. I probably am as I can see them being useful in a submarine hunt.

I wonder also did the Soviet Union have any aircraft carriers during WWII?"

No the Russians did not! They like to steal from others and use it and then like they did to the GRAF ZEPPELIN SINK IT!!!! STUPID people.


JAMES FASSINGER
Posted 03 July 2009 at 10:40 pm

1c3d0g said: "AntEconomist: well fucking said. That's how it is."

What does this have to do with AIRCRAFT CARRIERS! Stick to the subject or go to your room ANTIECONOMIST who don't know what he is talking about . He probably sat in sat in back of the class and listened to SHIT MUSIC.


viking62
Posted 30 March 2011 at 02:03 pm

There was a paln to convert the cruiser Seydlitz into a light carrier, so that would make 5...


viking62
Posted 30 March 2011 at 02:05 pm

viking62 said: "There was a paln to convert the cruiser Seydlitz into a light carrier, so that would make 5…"

Should be "plan"


Tony Alvarez
Posted 06 November 2014 at 06:31 pm

Had Germany completed five carriers, she merely would have been diverting valuable resources from somewhere else so even had the carriers been successful there would have been greater Allied opportunity elsewhere.

Additionally, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Kriegsmarine could have mastered the art/science of carrier warfare and logistics to the same degree that the UK, Japan and USA had.

Not to mention that by 1944-45, the USN had plenty of carriers, planes and pilots to spare. They could have easily transferred overwhelming force from the Pacific to the Atlantic...and even then only if the Brits actually needed help to deal with what probably would have been a haphazard and comically inept use of carrier power by the Germans.

Also, only Japan and the USA had any true carrier vs carrier battle experience. Any US carrier task force comprising of at least 2 fleet carriers and the proper escorts and support ships would have made short work of even all five KSM carriers. The quantity of aircraft would be roughly equal and the quality of aircraft and pilot experience would have been off the chart in favor of the US.

Oh...and in the last couple of years of the war, the USN had a large excess of submarines in the Pacific with no targets to hit that also could have transferred to the Atlantic. U-boats get all the ink but the US subs were successful in prosecuting their warplan to the finish. A claim that cannot be made by the German underwater service.


Captain Catfish
Posted 11 January 2015 at 01:43 pm

Hitler was not brilliant on land. His tactics were simple and borderline retarded. He was such an ego-idiot refusing skilled advice and so on. He was such a poor tactician that assassination attempts were halted because the longer he remained in power, the easier it would be to end the war. He was so incompetent they thought it would be better to watch him fumble around rather than let the numerous skilled staff and still very potent army drag it out, gain concessions, etc. Not brilliant.said: "Hitler was a bright tactician on land (although you wouldn't guess it from his "invasion" of russia) and a real ass at sea. If he had a little more confidence in his navy, londoners would be eating fish'n'pretzels today. Can anyone spell lederhosen? No? Thank god!"


END OF COMMENTS
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.