DD today?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Best Carrier in WW2 because never lost any plane ??
 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Of course it never had it's air compliment on board, ever.

 

The Graf Zeppelin would have had a very short career had it ever been operational.  The numbers of Bf109T landing gear failures would have killed more pilots than action against the enemy I'd imagine.

 

[Lusekofte]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Of course it never had it's air compliment on board, ever.

 

The Graf Zeppelin would have had a very short career had it ever been operational.  The numbers of Bf109T landing gear failures would have killed more pilots than action against the enemy I'd imagine.

 

I have a corrupted historical view on this ship. It is totally influenced by old IL 2 mod history.

I know some JU 87 B was already adapted for carrierservice. 

But if it had been operational, would it not be at the same time as a early FW 190?

[Trooper117]

My guess... it would have been a priority target and wouldn't have lasted long. RN surface fleet would have hunted it to extinction, or a sub would have got it.

[Lusekofte]

6 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

My guess... it would have been a priority target and wouldn't have lasted long. RN surface fleet would have hunted it to extinction, or a sub would have got it.

A carrier is for Superpowers. They simply need so much support. Germany where not close. Spreading all its resources. So you are right. It would have hide in a Norwegian fjord together with Tirpitz until its demise 

[cardboard_killer]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

A carrier is for Superpowers. They simply need so much support. Germany where not close.

 

That does not account for Japan, a nation with fewer people and far fewer resources than Germany, managed to produce and support many carriers, which then ranged from the Barents Sea to the Indian Ocean.

[Beebop]

1 hour ago, cardboard_killer said:

That does not account for Japan, a nation with fewer people and far fewer resources than Germany, managed to produce and support many carriers, which then ranged from the Barents Sea to the Indian Ocean.

More water, less land.  Necessity is the mother of invention. 

(don't tell that to Frank Zappa though) ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Japanese understood the value of a true, blue water navy, in a way that post WW1 Germany never did.

 

The fighter aircraft built for the GZ, the 109 T, all ended up in Norway.  I don't think the FW190 was ever considered for that role, which is further proof that they were clueless about how works a carrier.

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Japanese understood the value of a true, blue water navy, in a way that post WW1 Germany never did.

 

Neither pre nor post WW1 Germany needed a blue water navy.

 

Unfortunately, as with nuclear weapons in the later part of the twentieth century, a big gun navy at the turn of the century was seen as a prerequisite for a big swinging dick in international affairs.

 

Historically, you could make a good case for the Kaiser’s desire for a blue water navy being at the root of all the evil that followed in the twentieth century.

 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Germany had precious few resources as it was compared to the first-class imperialist powers, a large navy would have been nice just like Japan could have used another 50 years of accelerated development.

[DD_Arthur]

3 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Germany had precious few resources as it was compared to the first-class imperialist powers, a large navy would have been nice just like Japan could have used another 50 years of accelerated development.

 

The Kaiser’s Germany was a first class imperialist power with access to plenty of coal and iron ore, just like Great Britain, France, Russia and the United States.

 

 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Old Prussian cavalry officers make for bad naval planning, and then throw an Austrian infantry corporal in at the head of the command structure and, well, the results speak for themselves.

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

That does not account for Japan, a nation with fewer people and far fewer resources than Germany, managed to produce and support many carriers, which then ranged from the Barents Sea to the Indian Ocean.

Japan kept it fleet together. For one purpose. Germany had its ships scattered all over

[cardboard_killer]

19 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Japan kept it fleet together. For one purpose. Germany had its ships scattered all over

 

The claim was that Germany didn't have the resources. They obviously did. The fact that Germany in two world wars had no coherent strategy for victory is another issue entirely.

[Zeev]

21 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

The claim was that Germany didn't have the resources. They obviously did. The fact that Germany in two world wars had no coherent strategy for victory is another issue entirely.

I always find it strange when some one calls German WWII lose an "Issue".

No offence against you, its just not the first time some one post this.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Zeev

[CUJO_1970]

On 9/30/2021 at 3:58 PM, Asgar said:

No... not again, we already saw her couple weeks ago. We need to see the 410, it's been months since we had any news! 

Well, add seven more months of waiting it looks like.

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by CUJO_1970

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The fighter aircraft built for the GZ, the 109 T, all ended up in Norway.  I don't think the FW190 was ever considered for that role, which is further proof that they were clueless about how works a carrier.

 

Aside from landing gear issues, the 109 was considered more suitable for a carrier plane than a 190, I'm guessing, because the former had a shorter takeoff and landing run. The 109T was pretty much an E series with a slightly longer wingspan, correct? That would further shorten its already short takeoff and landing distances. The E/T would also lack the more severe torque on takeoff that later 109s had.

 

In terms of stupidly narrow undercarriage widths, the 109 wouldn't be much different than a Wildcat's gear. Obviously the Wildcat was more rugged in general, but it's still fundamentally similar.

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, Zeev said:

I always find it strange when some one calls German WWII lose an "Issue".

 

I don't understand. Did you mean I said Germany losing WWII was an issue? I did not mention Germany losing, let alone that loss being problematical!

 

I'll rephrase my point: Germany was not forced from building carriers by circumstances, but chose to put resources in other areas rather than building carriers.

 

I'll add, building or not building carriers was meaningless to the war's result. I'll add, Germany went to war in 1914 and in 1939 with little more strategy than rape and pillage. I'll add it was a great thing they lost both wars, but especially the second. I'll add, it is to Europe and the USA's great shame he was not stopped sooner, caught and hanged along with his henchmen.

[Zeev]

42 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I don't understand. Did you mean I said Germany losing WWII was an issue? I did not mention Germany losing, let alone that loss being problematical!

 

I'll rephrase my point: Germany was not forced from building carriers by circumstances, but chose to put resources in other areas rather than building carriers.

 

I'll add, building or not building carriers was meaningless to the war's result. I'll add, Germany went to war in 1914 and in 1939 with little more strategy than rape and pillage. I'll add it was a great thing they lost both wars, but especially the second. I'll add, it is to Europe and the USA's great shame he was not stopped sooner, caught and hanged along with his henchmen.

I see, I have misunderstood you, sorry.

[cardboard_killer]

4 minutes ago, Zeev said:

I see, I have misunderstood you, sorry.

No worries.

I should have been clearer.

[Pict]

3 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

They obviously did. The fact that Germany in two world wars had no coherent strategy for victory is another issue entirely.

 

I think you make a very good point here and I would like to add to that a little.

 

If we step back a little and include the 1870 war where Germany took Paris we can see a pattern. Back in those days and for a very long time before, countries in europe waged war and the winner took the gold and went home. That's what happened in 1870.

 

By 1914 the Germans realized that France had rebuilt it's wealth and strenght significantly and opted to repeat the earlier performance...ultimately as we know this failed, but the interesting bit is the plan of attack.

 

Many people see the 1940 attack plan in the west as almost the same as the 1914 attack plan, and it pretty much was. But the 1914 plan was almost the same as the 1870 plan, so the 3 can be seen as one success and two rinse and repeats regardless of the massive shift in technology that brought thes small european wars for gold to the global stage.

 

Just my thoughts on it  

[Asgar]

41 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

I think you make a very good point here and I would like to add to that a little.

 

If we step back a little and include the 1870 war where Germany took Paris we can see a pattern. Back in those days and for a very long time before, countries in europe waged war and the winner took the gold and went home. That's what happened in 1870.

 

By 1914 the Germans realized that France had rebuilt it's wealth and strenght significantly and opted to repeat the earlier performance...ultimately as we know this failed, but the interesting bit is the plan of attack.

 

Many people see the 1940 attack plan in the west as almost the same as the 1914 attack plan, and it pretty much was. But the 1914 plan was almost the same as the 1870 plan, so the 3 can be seen as one success and two rinse and repeats regardless of the massive shift in technology that brought thes small european wars for gold to the global stage.

 

Just my thoughts on it  

Except Germany did nothing but support its ally (Austria) in 1914.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The last war fought for Kings.

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The fighter aircraft built for the GZ, the 109 T, all ended up in Norway.  I don't think the FW190 was ever considered for that role, which is further proof that they were clueless about how works a carrier.

 

Looks like there's some confusion with my previous statement. Let me rephrase:

 

If you're going to say the Germans were stupid for using the 109 on a carrier instead of the 190, then the British were equally stupid for navalizing the Spitfire (which was every bit as ill-suited to carrier operations as the 109), and the Americans were stupid for giving the Wildcat hand-cranked narrow-tracked landing gear for carrier operations. The Japanese were the only ones to make a dedicated carrier fighter that was more or less perfectly engineered for carrier ops (given its low weight, easy handling, generous lift properties, and wide landing gear).

 

Since we know the Germans were especially fond of making pointless variations of all their planes, if they didn't even try to make a navalized 190 circa '41, that implies to me it was deemed more unsuitable for carrier duty than the 109. The most likely reason for this would be takeoff and landing run lengths. Even increasing the 190's wingspan like the 109T's wouldn't give it the 109's slats.

[Denum]

The 109s difficulty on landing and takeoff was due to the geometry as well as the aircraft torque. The wildcat also had a reputation for groundlooping, but not quite as bad as the 109s.

 

When the BF109 settles down with the rear wheel touching, the main wheels are trying to push away from one another, so if one wheel had more weight on it, it would pull the aircraft quite violently if you weren't prepared to counter act it. As a carrier based aircraft it likely would have been a disastrous choice.

 

 

At the time of GZs development the 190 wasn't available yet. When they binned and revived project the 109Ts were extremely outdated so they ventured into producing different aircraft. I think Messerschmitt had a 150 or 155 as a proposal but that got binned also. 

 

The Seafires didn't have a spectacular record as a carrier fighter. The landing gear wasn't strong enough. The aircraft was physically bending and wrinkling the skin which grounded them. During the invasion of Italy half of the deployed Seafires were inoperative within a few days, mostly due to landing accidents. 

 

Carrier based aircraft was quite the teething pain for the European theatre. The Brits really didn't get it down until the Sea Fury. 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The FAA's best carrier fighter was the Corsair, by far.  The Seafires also broke a lot of props as well.

 

I do rather like the Firefly though.  It just looks so good to me.

 

In the Wildcat's defense, it was designed from the beginning as a carrier fighter, and it didn't do bad considering the design started out as a biplane.

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

Honestly I'm not very sanguine about the Fw 190 for carrier roles. The issue with the Seafire wasn't the narrow track, it was the extremely springy landing gear which flung the aircraft off the wires and into the barrier if you put it down too hard. A quick shufti at the 190's gear says that even though it's nicely wide set, it's long and spindly. Compare to the stocky F4U and F4F, or the big double cylinder arrangement on Sea Fury, or in extremis the highly industrial Fairey Barracuda. I suppose at least the Kraftei arrangement should make it easier for the maintainers to swap out the smashed engines produced by a 190T.

[Lusekofte]

13 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

The claim was that Germany didn't have the resources. They obviously did. The fact that Germany in two world wars had no coherent strategy for victory is another issue entirely.

Neither Japan nor Germany had resources enough. They could not replace lost carriers nor increase supplyships. When supplying Islands everything else stopped.

While USA had D DAY size operations on two parts of the world. And in Pacific on a monthly basis. Germany had not people enough doing what they did from 1942 and onwards. Same problem Japanese. 

[Robli]

16 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

The fact that Germany in two world wars had no coherent strategy for victory is another issue entirely.

 

 That is not a fact, but just a wild and unjustified statement, especially when it comes to WWI. 

The alliance situation in Europe before WWI looked like that:

Spoiler

 

The plan was that Austria-Hungary handles of Serbia and Montenegro while Germany (and Italy) take quick care of France, then turn their focus to Russia together. Does not sound too wild and uncoherent, when remembering that Prussia had been able to take care of France before. Now, Italy had a secret pact with France and many other things did not quite work as planned and it escalated into World War instead of being European continental war, but you can't say that there was no coherent strategy. Even in spring 1918 Germany was able to put up a good offensive, but by that time, after four years of depleting their strength, resources and morale, while Allies got 10,000 fresh troops from USA every day, it was too late already. 

 

WWII was indeed more of a gambler's strategy than a coherent strategy, hoping for right cards to fall in hand, but even then the plan did not fall completely far off initially. The plan was not to end up at war with the west and take on USSR one-on-one, with maybe Japan also joining in. Once it ended up in war with the west, the plan was to achieve peace and return to original plan and Germany was actually able to force peace with France and apparently was not very far from making peace with UK. Overall, it was of course more of a gambler's plan rather than a coherent plan and should have been aborted, when Germany did not get peace from UK, but the original plan was not as crazy as it appears afterwards, after Germany ended up at war with several major industrial powers, especially USA.

[Diggun]

Yo guys, take this to 'Free Subject' maybe? Be an awful shame to get this thread locked after 266 pages of silliness...

 

I know, I know. I am a riot at parties.

[sevenless]

Back on topic. That will be some very nice updates within the next 4-8 weeks mentioned by Jason here:

 

Quote

First, we have an update scheduled for later in October that should include the new AQM and the Breguet 14.B2 bomber aka “The Baguette” for FC2. It’s just easier to call it the Baguette as an American who failed French class in High School. Then we plan to have an update in mid-November that includes the P-51B/C. The birdcage P-51 has taken far longer than anticipated unfortunately. However, our recent lack of details on the Malcolm Hood seems to have been solved thanks to someone in the community.  

 

 

[Diggun]

Super impressed with th ecommunity always seeming to manage to come through with details the devs need....nerdpower!

[JG4_Moltke1871]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

Back on topic. That will be some very nice updates within the next 4-8 weeks mentioned by Jason here:

 

 

 

I miss any information about Ar 234 there.

 

?

[Diggun]

5 minutes ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Ar 234 there

Not a gambling man, but I would put money on the 234 being the very last thing released, along with the map, maybe late q2 next year?

[Trooper117]

24 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Yo guys, take this to 'Free Subject' maybe? Be an awful shame to get this thread locked after 266 pages of silliness...

 

I know, I know. I am a riot at parties.

 

You is right!!!... better just get these posts deleted, the thread has been hijacked by a load of sea salty librarians!

[Jade_Monkey]

Guesses for the two tanks?

 

I'd say Stug and T34-85 but I don't know if the latter was available at that point of the war.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Jade_Monkey

[BlitzPig_EL]

Stug and Churchill would be my guess.

 

If you are going strictly by the numbers at Kursk, then substitute the T70 for the Churchill.   The T70 would give the German tankers the easy kills they seem to crave.

[Luftschiff]

The StuG is pretty much a given, aye

[JG4_Moltke1871]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

Not a gambling man, but I would put money on the 234 being the very last thing released, along with the map, maybe late q2 next year?

Yes, maybe.

All these content in the queue shows me my patience not so big as I think ?

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

You is right!!!... better just get these posts deleted, the thread has been hijacked by a load of sea salty librarians!