|
Post by christian on May 14, 2019 12:24:26 GMT -6
depends on how you look at it carriers would be better for fleet action while what they did was a heavy raider fleet This was not possible for Germany build so much carriers. They cannot even build one. Even if they focus on surface fleet they cannot outproduced UK and they need resources from somewhere, so there would be in no possition streamroll Poland and France. And they carriers would be ineffective. Much larger Graf Zeppelin was worse than Ark Royal and German Navy lacks experience which is not something easy to gain. And their issue is same with large capital ship, without support they cannot do much damage. Last thing is that North sea and North Atlantic is not well suited for carrier warfare like Pacific. Germany has nothing like UK fighter direction. There are a lot of other things Germany lack. mostly saying that in the game perspective they focused on their pocket battleships and wanted battleship raiders which would be hard to intercept in game a fleet of carriers and some battleships is probably the best way
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 14, 2019 12:24:39 GMT -6
I think possibly the U-boat menace may have been greater if the Germans had any air power out of range of France. However, given the British blockade, the only ships that could get out were big, heavy raiders. An aircraft carrier would more than likely have been stuck in a fjord much like the Tirpiz waiting to be blown to kingdom come. In the unlikely event that one was already out in the Atlantic when the war began, I envisage a similar outcome to that of the Graf Spee. No German vessel could operate for long without a base and the Germans had none. the good thing with carriers is they have airdefence up which allows them to attack the bombers for better defence but yes carriers are better suited for amassed action a fleet of 4-5 graf spees and 2 capital ships could basically nuke strike any british fleet unless the british had even more ships/carriers its also worth nothing british carriers had GARBAGE carrying capacity There's an entire thread on your last point! Without reopening it here, I will say that when you have limited shipbuilding capacity and a very large naval commitment, it may be better to err on the side of caution with armour than trying to keep a full Pacific-style balsa wood construction from being sunk. It's better to have a small, constant capability than a risky leviathan, at least in the British position.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 14, 2019 12:30:56 GMT -6
This was not possible for Germany build so much carriers. They cannot even build one. Even if they focus on surface fleet they cannot outproduced UK and they need resources from somewhere, so there would be in no possition streamroll Poland and France. And they carriers would be ineffective. Much larger Graf Zeppelin was worse than Ark Royal and German Navy lacks experience which is not something easy to gain. And their issue is same with large capital ship, without support they cannot do much damage. Last thing is that North sea and North Atlantic is not well suited for carrier warfare like Pacific. Germany has nothing like UK fighter direction. There are a lot of other things Germany lack. mostly saying that in the game perspective they focused on their pocket battleships and wanted battleship raiders which would be hard to intercept in game a fleet of carriers and some battleships is probably the best way In game point of view, we can see, but you are probably right and carrier would be necessity.
In history, eliminating German raiders was not so difficult as much as needs large commitment of forces to find raider and than to hunt him down. But they cannot do a lot of damage as large convoys were defended by old battleships. They were old, weak but main point was no German ship can attack them as any damage (even minor in normal circumstances) could be fatal for raider.
eg. fate of Admiral Graf Spee - after destroed fuel processing plant, the ship was doomed no mater other damage
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 14, 2019 12:35:20 GMT -6
the good thing with carriers is they have airdefence up which allows them to attack the bombers for better defence but yes carriers are better suited for amassed action a fleet of 4-5 graf spees and 2 capital ships could basically nuke strike any british fleet unless the british had even more ships/carriers its also worth nothing british carriers had GARBAGE carrying capacity There's an entire thread on your last point! Without reopening it here, I will say that when you have limited shipbuilding capacity and a very large naval commitment, it may be better to err on the side of caution with armour than trying to keep a full Pacific-style balsa wood construction from being sunk. It's better to have a small, constant capability than a risky leviathan, at least in the British position. indeed the atlantik also dosent allow for open carry on the deck planes due to the weather but the combination of bad or EH british divebombers and torpedo bombers makes them questionable in strike capability also yeah i know the swordfish actually did decent for what it was and it also had stupid luck it would still get clobbered by anything considered decent anti aircraft and fighter
|
|