Germany Had A Carrier-Based Plane, But No Carriers: Fieseler Fi 167

[@jeffbangle4710]

Jettisoning the landing gear was to allow ditching at sea without the gear digging into the water and flipping the aircraft on its back.

[@bigblue6917]

The Stuka could also ditch its landing gear for the same reason.

[@allangibson8494]

@@bigblue6917Only the sea going Ju87C Stuka’s could drop their gear.

[@Averagebanger]

I read all Stuka's could ditch their gear. The reason is if one wheel was shot off you could jettison the other so you could make a safer belly landing @@allangibson8494

[@KF99]

⁠​⁠@@allangibson8494 Some Ju-87Cs were used in combat as conventional land-based dive bombers and one of them used this feature to outrun chasing fighter. And a myth was born about new Stuka version with retractable undercarriage.

[@mikeholland1031]

​@@KF99some did have retractable gear

[@dusankac8055]

The Fiesler fi 167 achieved probably the last shooting down by a biplane. On 10. October 1944 one of the Croat Fieslers ,aircraft number 4808,was intercepted by five mustangs mk III from 213 sqn. RAF. The Fiesler was flown by an eight kill ace,nar. Božidar Bartulović and sat.Mate Jurković as the rear gunner. In the following combat Bartulović was hit in the head by a 0,50 cal bullet,shattering his skull and bouncing out his right eye. Severly wounded he managed to crash land the heavily damaged Fiesler. In one of the strafing passes,sat. Jurković managed to hit with his MG15 the Mustang KH554,flown by sgt. W E Mould, which was wrecked in a subsequent crash landing.

[@justsomehaatonpassingby4488]

If I recall, technically, the last documented air kill of a biplane was made by a PO-2 during the Korean War... And it's also the only Biplane with a confirmed jet-kill... Well technically, since the biplane was too slow and too low that it forced a F-94 to go below it's stall speed and subsequently crashed... Still, the downing of the jet was awarded to the biplane

[@vochomurka6]

I thought that last biplane kill was done by Avis-534 during Slovak national uprising

[@bethelhanley5439]

The Fi 167 should of course be compared most of all with the British equivalent, the Fairey Swordfish. If your obvious opponent is fielding a fabric-covered biplane with a metal frame, an all-metal biplane is at least a technological advance.

[@ChristianMcAngus]

The closest British equivalent was the Fairey Albacore. Although the Swordfish saw greater service despite being an earlier aircraft.

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@ChristianMcAngus - You have just reinforced the comparison to the Swordfish.

[@chamberlane2899]

Eh, one had an all metal construction, the other had radar and equipment for night operations. A give and take if you will.

[@bethelhanley5439]

@@chamberlane2899 Indeed, the Swordfish had many good points, not least its ability to be upgraded with things like radar when it became available.

[@charlesc.9012]

In the late 30s, flaps were not a mature technology, so bombers carrying heavy loads are better off as biplanes, because they had a much shorter take-off distance and easy flight profiles for carrier operation in higher sea states. Flaps were also hydraulically operated for most models, any hold-up or damage could cause the loss of a plane or obstructing deck operations when a whole air group is low on fuel and waiting to land. For an attacker/bomber, reliability and survivability were important, so naval biplanes are at least worth it.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

“Germany can be critiqued on how they conducted WW2” Mainly, the fact that they conducted WW2

[@ThorstenKreutzenberger]

Not really IMHO as only Germany going to war would not have triggered a world war. The Germans would have slaughtered Europe in a series of lightning wars and nobody would have cared. What really made it a world war was the Japanese buggering the Chinese which the USA would not tolerate for some reason lost to history. I mean if Japan would invade China now, US wouldnt bother haha.

[@ketiheagen186]

Invading Britain would have required A LOT more carriers. Just look at US fleets in the Pacific needed to take much smaller islands. Also, more recent WW2 histories have pointed out that even while the USSR was on their back foot, they were out producing Germany by a good margin. And if one makes the argument that Germany would have won if it didn't attack the USSR, there is evidence to suggest Stalin was planning to attack Germany at some point, Hitler just beat him to the punch. So, the end result would have been the same.

[@hurricaneace143]

😂

[@danteardenz2670]

British & French Empires declared war on Germany, without threat, or attack , then refused negotiations. The war was complicated , and had many sources.

[@lonelypotato3001]

​@@danteardenz2670Sources like Germany's attack on Poland, who was allied with / guaranteed by France and/or Britian?

[@chilternsroamer872]

The Bristol Beaufort (mention at about 11:46 in the video) is perhaps a poor comparison, because the Beaufort was designed as a LAND-based torpedo bomber, while the Nakajima B5N and the Fieseler Fi 167 were both designed to be CARRIER-based. A better comparison for the Fi 167, especially in the early part of WW2, would perhaps have been the Fairey Swordfish, or some such.

[@adamrodaway1074]

The difference in armour and armament doctrine between British (and potential German) compared to US and Japanese carriers is down to their likely areas of deployment. In the European theatre, most deployment (North Sea, Med.) would be within range of land-based aircraft. So better to have more guns and armour and fewer aircraft. In the pacific, most deployment was out of range of significant numbers of land-based planes. So better to have fewer guns, no deck armour, more aircraft carried.

[@bigblue6917]

This paid dividends when a British carrier was hit by a kamikaze attack in the Pacific. A USN carrier would have been in trouble if it was hit like that but the RN crew just put the fire out, pushed the wreckage over the side and was back fighting within the hour.

[@adamrodaway1074]

@@bigblue6917 true, but I think the US made the right strategic call in going for less protected carriers with more aircraft carried. Getting more planes up to defend your carrier and find theirs makes sense in the Pacific.

[@LucioFercho]

The RN was under the delusion that its AAA would keep them safe and that naval fighters would neveer be able to stop enemy land based bombers... the bomber will always get through. So, the first time they ran into LW bombers they landed their fighters... yeah. The IJN and USN attacked the problem with CAPs, the KM by using catapults, trolleys and feeding warm oil and fuel to the fighters for a quick launch.

[@John_Doe657]

Mot entirely true. Countries like the brittish empire had to project power on a global scale so aircraft carriers was essential. That would have been true for Italy as well as they had african colonies outside the range of mainland based aircrafts. Germany had no colonies so the sea was not a priority except by disrupting allied shipping.

[@julianbrelsford]

3:02 i looked up swathe and swath just out of curiosity. Swath has as one of its definitions, "a space devastated as if by a scythe". One definition of swathe means "to bind, wrap, or swaddle with or as if with a bandage". So, yeah....

[@lancerevell5979]

Fieseler is pronounced "feez-ler". Long 'e' sound, not long 'i'. And the final 's' in "Versailles" is silent.

[@brittakriep2938]

There is a german pot and pan company Fissler.

[@FortuneZer0]

Just no.

[@alexandergutfeldt1144]

@@FortuneZer0 ? what are you talking about ?

[@FortuneZer0]

@@alexandergutfeldt1144 Its Fie se ler

[@alexandergutfeldt1144]

@@FortuneZer0 Indeed ... aber warum sagst Du das nicht sofort?

[@The_armed_Whale]

Thanks for constantly showing me things I never have heard of befor. Really makes my day

[@allandoyle5733]

Yes, me too. I always thought that the big problem of the Graf Zep was no aircraft. The undercarrage of the Bf109 was too narrow (they had more losses due to landing accidents when using French fields than over England in the Battle of Britian), the torpedo carrier was never fully developed and the Stuka was too slow needing fighter escorts).

[@FirstDagger]

11:21 STOL (Short-Takeoff and Landing) exists as an acronym for that. No need to shoehorn VTOL in.

[@Deridus]

Have you ever seen a bi-plane take off into a strong headwind? It may as well be VTOL at that point. Used to watch planes take off all the time when I was a kid and watching a plane take off whilst flying backwards is possible but incredibly dangerous.

[@andrewcomerford9411]

Apart from the type 21 (folding wingtips to increase lift clearance) the Mitsubishi A6M (Zero) didn't have folding wings either. The Ju 87C also had a jetisonable landing-gear. The Bf109Ts saw service in Norway, due to their short-field performance.

[@LucioFercho]

Neither did the SBD, D4Y, D3A and F4F... at least initially.

[@colinmartin9797]

"Today we'll be talking about poor decision-making" I feel attacked.

[@jacinthorvath1962]

Bro is replacing sum history channels with this one 🎉🎉🎉🎉🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@ROBERTNABORNEY]

Germany never got the memo that a carrier's main battery is its air group. Compare Graf Zeppelin = 42 aircraft (so it could carry more guns) vs Yorktown = 100 aircaft

[@danbendix1398]

Wings on the Bf109 were easily removed. That's probably why they didn't see the need to also make them fold.

[@bigblue6917]

True but have to remove the wings from each Bf109 and put them back on again would take time. Whereas folding wings would have taken a matter of moments.

[@anm10wolvorinenotapanther32]

Ah, leave it to the Germans to choose the more time-consuming option than simply engineering their way to common-sense.

[@delvinal5583]

didn't need too. small enough, like a zero. nd no added weight.

[@LucioFercho]

There is evidence the 109 was designed with folding wings, but later the LW decided it wasnt needed, so those were welded over.

[@LucioFercho]

Btw, the Bf 108, the 109s little sporting brother had folding wings... there is a video on YT of the folding process.

[@iemandnogwat814]

The Bf 109 T did not need folding wings because every 109 can have their wings disassembled with the aircraft standing on its own landing gear.

[@ButcherBird-FW190D]

At the 12:30 point.... The option to blow the landing gear off in preparation for a water landing was NOT to help the plane float better in the water. It was so the plane could land in the water better. If they landed with fixed gear, the plane would invariably flip. With a smooth under-carriage; it was vastly easier to land in the water.

[@elennapointer701]

The planned Bf-109 carrier variant has "Seafire" written all over it, in terms of fragility, narrow-track undercarriage and landing accidents. The Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe both dodged a bullet there.

[@LucioFercho]

The F4F gear was even narrower... The 109 had better range than the Spitfire and the Bf was actually navalized, stronger and wider gear, longer span wings, bigger flaps and a wing spoiler. The Ts were produced and operated in Norway, were its better handling qualities were much appreciated. Also out of Helgoland, which is basically a small sand bank.

[@luvr381]

Why do you bounce back and forth between Imperial and metric measurements?

[@SoloRenegade]

why not? keeps you on your toes.

[@kewlwarez]

To annoy both Yanks and Eurowussies.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@kewlwarez doesn't other me, As a "Yank" engineer, I seamlessly work both units at teh same time. It's always fun seeing ht look on someone's face when they see me doing it. It's usually a look of amazement and interest, "how does he do that?", sort of look. It's not different than speaking multiple languages. Funny thing is most people I've met in Europe are not multilingual, yet they complain the most about others not being multilingual.

[@Deridus]

I switch between 'em because I've need to use 'em for everything from auto-repair to trip planning, range-finding and ammo reloading, and annoying my fellow Burger-Uniteers. I despise SAE because it's irrational, but metric units aren't intuitive to me quite yet because it's a 90/10 split between usage.

[@MisterOcclusion]

Did the German navy develop any sort of carrier doctrine, or have a use case for the things, or was this a ticking of a checkbox on a list of what a modern navy should have? Because to me, with no overseas assets and a strategy focused on commerce raiding, it seems pointless to have carriers, or super battleships either, for that matter. Nazis did like to swing their tackle though....

[@LucioFercho]

What do you think a carreir would have done to a convoy?

[@Deridus]

​@@LucioFerchoBeen hunted and destroyed like Bismarck?

[@LucioFercho]

@@Deridus The RN wasnt very good at it... which is why the hyped Bismarck so much, so people wont notice that prior to that the KM raided at will... provided their ships didnt break down by themselves. And even then, only Lutjens silly mistake allowed the RN to find the ship.

[@alanpennie]

​@@Deridus Indeed. Not deploying carriers was a sensible decision by Germany.

[@Deridus]

@@alanpennie I've noticed something about carriers. They're much like the Immitation Legions fielded by the foes of Rome; nations who build or buy them without building up institutional knoledge and experience with them don't use them very well. Just look at the Thai carrier, for example. Sure, it's a carrier, but can't operate as one.

[@womble321]

British carriers were armed as cruisers and carried cruiser armour including the decks. The stuka also had undercarriage that could be dumped.

[@bigblue6917]

HMS Victorious was briefly part of a battleline of battleships when facing the Italians in the Mediterranean in WW2 until ordered away. Unofficially she did fire her guns which makes her the only carrier to ever to do so. During the Korean War another Royal Navy carrier took part on a shore bombardment. Again the only carrier ever to do so.

[@LucioFercho]

@@bigblue6917 HMS Glorious didnt even shoot back then?

[@jefferyindorf699]

​@@LucioFercho The Glorious was hopelessly out ranged, she never had a chance to use her cannons.

[@LucioFercho]

@@jefferyindorf699 TRue. Have you read on Operation Paul?

[@Deridus]

Heard that the armored flightdecks were especially useful in the Pacific once Europe was pacified. If memory serves, the Brits just pushed the burning remains off into the drink.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Dropping the landing-gear is more a matter of not cartwheeling when landing on water.

[@GlitchSystem-xf7jb]

On the Lottery scratch off here's and old saying. "The house always wins"

[@Jegcy]

This is basically the "Why? Why not?" kinda thing

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

During the Battle of Britain the RAF kept their fighter squadron reserves in the north of England and Scotland. Squadrons in the south would be sent there to rest and re-equip. These areas also had Coastal and Bomber Command squadrons plus the Fleet Air Arm and would prove to be a difficult operational area for a carrier. The Graf Zeppelin was so badly damaged on her first sorte that she almost sank before reaching German waters where she hit a sea mine and lost within sight of Wilhelmshavn.

[@mammerman5678]

I always wonder about the possibilities the Graf could of had. Maybe 262’s as the fighter and dive bomber and FW-190’s as the torpedo bombers. The FW-190 acts as a backup fighter. There are some interesting “what-if” models online of hypothetical German carrier based aircraft and the Graf Zeppelin itself.

[@Red_Star_robin]

Even if the Germans had the materials to spare to finish it it would have most definitely either been attacked as soon as it got out of port or sunk by aircraft or torpedoed by 1943

[@mammerman5678]

@@Red_Star_robin yeah, it’s a miracle that it made it as far as it did.

[@np4029]

Hopefully at some point the correlation between bad ideologies and making bad decisions will be more widely understood.

[@Deridus]

Correlation isn't causation, though. Seen plenty of bad ideologies have factually correct proponents achiee their goals whereas the opposite isn't nearly as capable...

[@oktc68]

That looks like a Stuka or Ju 87 with a bodged biplane wing nailed on.

[@Bodneyblue]

I have a model of the Graf Zeppelin...Brought it many years ago..never bulit it...Just wanted to own it....I have a number of models I have brought over the years and never built..mainly P-51's.

[@GazzaLDN]

I managed to build 85% of mine but uncle Hermann took away all my aircraft. I cried and cried and cried as all the other boys had Carriers as well as Battleships.

[@gaz2251]

Penguins in the northern hemisphere ? Great video btw

[@lancerevell5979]

They are escaping the polar bears in the Antarctic. 😅

[@bigblue6917]

The fly north for the summer.😃

[@LucioFercho]

At least in the Galapagos Islands... XD

[@LucioFercho]

The Galápagos penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus) is a penguin endemic to the Galápagos Islands and Ecuador. It is the only penguin found north of the equator.

[@arno-luyendijk4798]

Just one thing about the pronunciation of the brand name Fieseler: I recognize the fact that in Anglo-Saxon speaking territories, the FIE- is automatically seen as pronounced FY as in 'defy', but the German FIE is in fact the English FEE as in SEEN, so FEE-SAH-LER.

[@ThorstenKreutzenberger]

Great explanation, grietings from Germany.

[@arno-luyendijk4798]

@@ThorstenKreutzenberger and I , deer sir, gryte you in return 😁.

[@HarryPrimate]

Considering that Hitler served as a soldier, not a sailor, it’s fairly easy to understand why he didn’t fully appreciate the need to naval power.

[@richmorg8196]

This biplane was faster than the Swordfish of a similar design and the Albacore

[@bethelhanley5439]

While it's unlikely that a couple of carriers could have had much effect on the Battle of Britain, jusst one carrier could have made all the difference with the Bismarck. Had there been a carrier based on the French west coast able to sail out to provide air cover for Bismarck's retreat, and to carry out torpedo bombing attacks on the British fleet, in which some of the heavy units were practically running on fumes, it's very likely that the German battleship would have been able to return to port, rather than being sunk with extreme prejudice as happened. Bismarck would then have been able to be refitted for a potential further commerce raiding mission. What's morre, without the loss of Bismarck, Hitler might have been less cautious with the rest of the German surface fleet as well, which of course might have led to more losses (sending German light cruisers of the period on commerce raiding sorties would have been amusing more than anything else, given how lightly built they were), but would also have meant the Royal Navy having to deploy ships differently. As it was, Hitler ordered such cauttion with the surface fleet that they were pretty much hamstrung in their operations.

[@lancerevell5979]

Which from the Allied point of view was quite a good thing! 😎👍

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

There is a major flaw in that idea. They lack Oilers to refuel fleet units. And Destroyers to escort those ships. And Germans never had good sea access.

[@bigblue6917]

@@WALTERBROADDUS The German Navy had lost a number of destroyers with the invasion of Norway. That campaign cost them half their surface fleet.

[@jeffie8696]

Have often wondered the same thing , I think these planes would have trashed the Swordfish torpedo planes

[@LucioFercho]

@@WALTERBROADDUS The Germans were actually ahead on resupply ships, they invented the fast AOR concept most navies use today. Google Dithmarschem class

[@womble321]

The Me109 carrier version was superb its strange they didn't build them all with longer wings

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

Landing a Me109T on a pitching deck would be pretty difficult

[@lancerevell5979]

With it's fragile narrow landing gear, the Bf-109 would have a high accident rate on carriers, as the British Seafires learned. 😮

[@bigblue6917]

@@lancerevell5979 The Bf-109 had enough problems landing on solid ground never mind a pitching deck.

[@LucioFercho]

The Germans actually bothered to navalize and modify the 109, the RN put a hook on the spit and sent them to crash land on carriers.

[@StartledPancake]

The 109 had enough problems taking off, due to the deadly prop wash, never mind landing. Its a shame the Germans didn't proceed with their carrier plans, as it would have been a disaster for them.@@bigblue6917

[@billdurham8477]

When y'all watch these almost made it vids, bear in mind that no one thought Hitler would start the war when he did. All the senior military staff expected the war to start in '44 or '45. To put it another way, they expected to go to war with the next gen technology, not muddle through with '30's tech without the industrial resources needed for long term r&d.

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

While pointless its one of my favorite aircraft haha! so thanks for giving it some attention!

[@darkiee69]

With two carriers Germany could've made Scapa Flow a British Pearl Harbour.

[@Deridus]

Doubt it. Unless the Kriegsmarine managed to surpise them, which is doubtful, they'd never pull it off. Even if they did some major damage, I truly doubt that the task force would make it back to port intact.

[@LucioFercho]

Scapa Flow is not that far, had fatso bothered to follow LW strategy there would have been heavy bombers capable of doing the trip with a 4t payload against the Home Fleet. Specially considering the initial air defenses there were a joke. The RN lived in a constant fear of a massed LW raid against Scapa, they left the base several times due to false alarms, but the 800 bomber raid never materialized.

[@onkelmicke9670]

Still a really cool plane.

[@wormyboot]

If you let me proofread your scripts before you made your videos, I'd do it for free. You're so close to being a thousand times better.

[@bigblue6917]

The German Navy's viewed the French Navy as the main opposition and not the Royal Navy, as Hitler did not believe Britain would go the war with Germany. So once France was defeated there was little need for carriers. The German carriers would have faced a great many difficulties in being used against Britain. For one thing they would easily be within range of British land based aircraft which would be able to use much heavier bombs than any ship based aircraft would have. This is why Royal Navy carriers had armoured decks as they knew they would be withing range of land based aircraft. Especially in the Mediterranean. So any involvement in attacks on Britain would have been very short lived. The problem the German Navy had was getting any aircraft at all as they needed the approval of Goring and as he saw the navy as a rival he was in no mood to help. Goring only begrudgingly used his Fw-200s aircraft to help with patrols used to track Allied convoys.

[@LucioFercho]

The mid Atlantic was out of range of RAF bombers, and horizontal bombers never hit anything moving anyway. Convoys are a far better and important target than the UK. Nazis were always the problem in WW2

[@bigblue6917]

@@LucioFercho Sorry I'm a bit late to your comment. The video mentions about using German carriers against British land targets, so that puts them within ranger of British medium bombers and torpedo bombers which could hit any Germany carrier foolish enough to come within range. The other thing to remember is that unlike Britain Germany had absolutely no experience in the use of carriers. So the idea that German carriers would suddenly become a threat to Britain is completely nonsensical.

[@LucioFercho]

@@bigblue6917 Yeah, but this video wasnt very good.... The RN was quite concerned about KM carriers, they expected them to be a much worse threat than a surface raider or BB, and they were not wrong. A CV would have butchered any convoy with impunity. The KM actually turned down closer cooperation with the IJN, as it was there were a few KM pilots training on IJN carriers IRL.

[@MattnessLP]

So, by your conclusion of the video, I'd say the Fi 167 would have been replaced by the Ju 87 sooner or later, no matter what. That one proved its versatility over the war and earned its spot of being used over the entire duration of it

[@LucioFercho]

There was even a torpedo version tested, the Ju 87E.

[@captnsharkhorse]

how does yt not demonetize ur stuff for the swastikas on the tail of the plane? i thought they were kinda crazy when it comes to that stuff

[@lancerevell5979]

It'd be impossible to show any meaningful WWII history if they totally banned the showing of one side's markings. 😮

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

He's probably not big enough yet because I remember forgotten weapons got hit with that years ago when his channel reached like 500k or something KZbin basically said "nah fam you can't show anything like that bruh"

[@Deridus]

Don't worry; KZbin censors the living hell out of comments.

[@patrickporter6536]

Also Bf 109T.

[@kurtpena5462]

An 800 foot ocean-going vessel is not a BOAT. Nice video, thanks!

[@LucioFercho]

I AM ON A BOAT!

[@kurtpena5462]

Are you sure?@@LucioFercho

[@kevanhubbard9673]

Looks like a biplane Stuka.

[@kevindolin4315]

An FYI on German pronunciation: "ie" is pronounced like the English letter 'e', i.e. 'FEE-zeh-ler', don't forget the second 'e'; "ei" sounds like the letter 'i', i.e. Heinkel. Somewhat confusing, but you sound more professional when you pronounce names correctly. Other things to look out for: 'w' = English 'v'; 'v' = English 'f'. You did get the 's' = 'z' right as it's in front of a vowel.

[@Ryzard]

19:55 - lmao, I'm just imagining a ship forming up with its "allies" and the fog parting for a minute to have some kid on deck just go completely pale That or hit the kazoo kid "waaaiiit a minute, who ARE you?" What should I be searching to learn more about this, or the fake torpedo attack?

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Sorry, I tried to respond but my posts keep getting deleted -=YT...

[@Deridus]

Same here

[@Siddich]

would love to have one for private use…or a fieseler atorch 😍

[@immikeurnot]

Carrier ops in the North Sea, with your very first carrier ever, all while dodging counter attacks from RAF and the Royal Navy? It sure sounds like it could have shortened the war a bit, just because the cost of that blunder would be really high.

[@duckydarrick7460]

I believe that all the what ifs are a moot point. I think that the axis powers were in over their heads before the war even started and that the Disparity in access to resources Doom them right from the start. If you look at it an extremely comprehensive list of what countries and territories were affiliated with the axis versus the allies It's not even competitive.

[@mencken8]

“-carrier based planes, but no carriers.” Sorta like the relationship between EVs and charging stations.

[@Generic_Name_1-1]

Charging stations = aircraft carrier i guess

[@firstcynic92]

Which is worse, building carrier planes with no carrier or building carriers with no planes to put on them?

[@patrickstewart3446]

Building the carrier. You can still use the planes from land bases. 😁

[@rbilleaud]

Yeah, I can see a 109 landing on a carrier with that gear.

[@mandoprince1]

Not ideal, but the Seafire managed with a similar undercarriage🤔

[@jefferyindorf699]

​@@mandoprince1managed, but not well. The Hawker Sea Hurricane was much better, but it was a low bar.

[@patricklandfarth1182]

How about Carrier Graf Zeppelin!

[@korbendallas5318]

What about it?

[@Hadubrand1965]

Well - my opinion on this is, that - lacking air or naval superiority - German carriers would pretty soon have followed the fate of the Japanese in the "Philipine Sea Turkey Shoot"...

[@markgarin6355]

Well at least they didn't waste money improving the biplane design.

[@nurbsivonsirup1416]

tbf, I reckon it's better to have carrier based aircraft designs but no carrier to use them, rather than have carriers but no aircraft, so you end up trying to force entirely unsuitable airframes into this specialised role *cough* seafire *cough*

[@korbendallas5318]

Let's start at the end: Apparently it would hurt a plane`s feeling if it is eventually replaced by a newer, better plane. This is literally what has happened, happens and will happen to every single plane in every airforce in the history of mankind. In particular, only very few planes were operational both before WWII began and after it ended, and most of them in airforces at the end of a long string of losses (eg. Ju 87). Would a big surface fleet have been useful to Germany? Sure, if a Nazifairy would just let them pop into existence. In the real world, Germany was not even close to having the capacity to build a fleet to rival the RN. Even Raeder's very optimistic plan Z was meant to run into the late 40s before completion. A couple of German battleships more would probably just mean they would treat ships like they treated planes: Pull everything they had across the world to defend the homeland. Now, with carriers the situation is even worse. Operating a carrier is _hard._ At the start of the war, only the IJN (and to an extent the RN) knew what they were doing. Look at Midway: US forces used 360 planes with the single goal of sinking Japanese carriers. They made at most 10 hits, probably less. The IJN used 40 planes in their counterattack and made 7 hits. At this point, the USN had two decades of experience with carriers. Germany, on the other hand, never operated any kind of carrier, they would have to learn everything from scratch. Worse, Göring claimed everything that flew, and the Graf Zeppelin was meant to carry Luftwaffe planes, adding a lot of inter-departmental struggle to all the other problems. Sure, the Germans could ask the IJN for an experienced naval aviation officer to help them get started. Knowing what I know about the IJN however, it would be highly unlikely to be anything but a very inexperienced and/or stupid person. A request for advice on shipbuilding would also be not very useful: The IJN carriers probably were the worst of those used in the war. Next: Why would they even bother? The Luftwaffe could reach almost anything they wanted to reach, including most parts of ocean of interest. The invasion of the UK was not called off after the Kriegsmarine was sunk, but after the Luftwaffe was shot down. So, in conclusion, calling of any extension of the surface fleet was a very good call. In fact, they should have melted down the Bismarck and all the other capital ships to bult more uboats. The UK was very close to being starved to death (both in terms of war material and in actual foodstuff) a couple of times over a number of years. A serious effort in the production of uboats and their support systems could have ended the war. Graf Zeppelin could not.

[@tuzonthume]

200 mph in a 5 ton biplane? that straight six must have been screaming.

[@jeffbybee5207]

I thought the 601 engine was an inverted v 12?

[@LucioFercho]

V12, same model as used in the Bf 110

[@bryangeake5826]

A few, or at least two carriers in the Med would have have helped protect Rommel's supply lines and he might have then taken Egypt in 1941/42! That would have had a consequence on the Russain front as German forces would have moved up from the South with other Axis forces and cause the Russians to fight on two fronts in the critical 1943/44 period!!

[@Thumpalumpacus]

Get a carrier from a German port through the North Sea. Good luck.

[@kiereluurs1243]

To.

[@scootergeorge7089]

Under the economic theory of alternate cost, a stronger German navy would come at the cost of less funding for armor and artillery as well as land based aircraft. It is also doubtful that the larger navy would have been sufficient for Operation Sea Lion, the cross channel invasion.

[@LucioFercho]

The GZ was almost complete, Sea Lion was a bluff.

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@LucioFercho - Preparations were well underway shortly after the fall of France. Hundreds of landing craft, mostly modified river barges were being assembled in French ports. But without air superiority over the channel and southern England, a successful invasion was impossible.

[@LucioFercho]

@rgeorge7089 Is a bluff or fake threat credible if the other side can see you are doing nothing to carry it on? The KM told everyone it couldnt be done, air superiority or not, they simply couldnt ferry the troops, much less supply them afterwards, the RN would simply ram the barges if it had to. Which is why the 7th Armored Division was sent to Egypt just as the Germans were supposed to invade, it was a bluff, the Germans knew it and so did the British. But dont let facts get in the way of good propaganda...

[@LucioFercho]

Is a bluff credible if the other side can see you doing nothing? The KM knew and said it could NOT be done, the brits felt so threatened that they sent a bunch of tanks and troops to Egypt just as the Germans were supposed to invade. The RN would have even rammed the poor barges, air superiority or not.

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@LucioFercho - Hitler believed that once France capitulated, England would sign a compromise peace treaty. When that didn't happen, Admiral Raider reluctantly began preparations for Sea Lion but insisted upon Luftwaffe having aerial superiority. But this was a delaying tactic. Goering seemed to think his Luftwaffe could force England to surrender. But there is no pat answer. There was serious consideration and planning for a cross channel invasion. When the Luftwaffe failed and it became apparent the Kriegsmarine could not pull Sea Lion off, it became a cover for Barbarossa. Make Stalin believe Hitler was still concentrating on total victory in the West.

[@noneofyourbusiness2997]

Combination of aircraft carriers and a light cruiser, not a battleship.

[@jaanikaapa6925]

With Tirpitz and Bismarck being hunted like they were and Britain being the largest navy in the area there wasn't any real chance for Germany to have a large or comparable navy. Not enough resources.

[@Deridus]

I did the math and deduced that the Bismarck was worth roughly an entire Panzer Divisions' worth of Panzer III's. The irony being that the steel would have been better used as IV's is not lost on me. There's only a couple tonnes difference between the hulls, and yes, I know that all steel isn't the same. I can't help but wish that hypethetical division were created instead; it's entirely possible that it would have hastened their own defeat.

[@LucioFercho]

@@Deridus You would have to account the extra machinery needed and the fact the Pz IV was only available since 1938. They would have been better off simply abandoning the Pz III and going full Pz IV. The BBs were still a waste though... a 2nd pair of BCs would have been better and faster, likely available in 1939-40.

[@Deridus]

@@LucioFercho Oh, I factored that in, too. The steel alone is actualy enough for almost four armored regiments of P3's, but a not insignificant amount of weight is other alloys, ammo, fuel, oil/grease, et cetera. All things being equal, the 50k tonnes of the Bismarck, if all used up with zero waste, would have significant amounts of vital materials missing for the construction of that hypothetical panzer division. Kinda like late-war airframes. I don't have the calculations on hand (did this years ago, mind) but I am confident that the numbers were mostly correct.

[@LucioFercho]

@@Deridus Yeah, but Pz IIIs only become available in 1939, unless they go for Nibelungenwerk early AND with PZ IVs, cant be done since B was built 1936-40. Besides, they needed SPGs more, APCs too.

[@Deridus]

@@LucioFercho Fair point, as well. Again, it was a hypothetical, not a realistic use of resources. Personally, I'd have put those 50k tonnes of steel and 2500 men towards U-Boats, mine-layers, and frigates, or done as you suggested and built a couple more cruisers instead.

[@AlephTroll]

Nowadays everyone just turns their suffering into a competition for attention 😔

[@picklerick8785]

The Kreigsmarine having carriers probably would have made little to no difference, simply because the German Navy was too far behind in the learning curve to operate even a modern surface squadron effectively, much less a single carrier task force. Certainly fleet operations were out of their reach until the 1950s, even without a war stopping naval development in its tracks. Putting together a IJN style Kido Butai with all the complexity that entails both technically and operationally, which really is the only meaningful way to use carriers open to Germany in 1933-1942, would have been impossible. So even had they managed to launch a few carriers, they probably wouldn't be able to mass them, or use them in any kind of operationally useful manner due to not having the experience the IJN, USN or RN had in carrier warfare due to their uninterrupted development in those navies from 1914 to the outbreak of WWII. The Germans, due to Versailles, were kneecapped from the start and could never catch up. A German carrier would have been just like the rest of the German Navy-single ships or small squadrons unable to do much more than what the Bismarck or Tirpitz accomplished.

[@LucioFercho]

A KM raider carrier would have been a disaster for the UK, and the were very aware of it, want the quote?

[@picklerick8785]

@@LucioFercho Go ahead, but I doubt that it would have been a "disaster" any more that the other panics over the potential threats of German surface raiders, or bombers, or the V weapons that turned out not to be. A carrier raider would have not been able to cruise for months, independently. It would have burned through its own fuel and the aircraft fuel very, very, quickly. American and Japanese carriers could operate for about two weeks before fuel became an issue. Since the German Navy was incapable of underway replenishment for capital ships, that means the "raider carrier" concept would have been tied to land bases even more securely than the surface raiders like Graf Spee or Bismarck. Basically, a raider carrier could have broken out into the Atlantic shipping lanes, done some damage, and then been sunk like Bismarck, without accomplishing much more than a spectacular, but very brief, life and death.

[@LucioFercho]

No, the KM pretty much invented underway replenishment and the AOE, just google Dithmarschen class. You are aware that the KM sent several raiders into the oceans and the Bismarck was the only one they managed to chase down, right? [ADM 1/10617] 29 January 1940 Threat posed by Bismarck and Graf Zeppelin ... 6. In D. of P's opinion, it is the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin which is likely to provide our most disagreeable problem. If this ship, accompanied by Bismarck or one of the Scharnhorsts, were to break out we should have to be prepared for very serious depredations on our trade. In good weather the aircraft carrier could reconnoitre some 20,000 square miles in one day and could hardly fail to locate some of our large convoys. Her reconaissance would serve equally to defend the attackers from our hunting groups. This power of evasion might enable raids to be pressed into the Western Approaches, our most vulnerable area. 7. The conclusion is that the Bismarck herself is not likely to prove the menace that would at first seem likely. It is the aircraft carrier which is going to turn the scales in favour of any raider. The enemy's best course of action would probably be to retain the Bismarck at home to contain the maximum of our forces and to send a Scharnhorst with a carrier to the North Atlantic. To meet such a combination, and possibly a Deutschland in the South Atlantic, we ourselves should need every aircraft carrier we could make available...

[@anm10wolvorinenotapanther32]

Leave it to the Germans to design and produce carrier-based aircraft for a confused aircraft carrier/heavy cruiser, Hermann Meyer would totally provide aircraft for... A carrier-based 109 sure is an interesting concept though. Nothing screams "carrier-based fighter" than an aircraft with comically narrow landing gear that is notoriously difficult to land, being put to service aboard a carrier.

[@LucioFercho]

The Wildcat's gear was NARROWER...

[@patrickstewart3446]

Now the Fw-190. THAT looks like a carrier plane. 😁

[@LucioFercho]

@@patrickstewart3446 Indeed it does, sadly the aircraft had a high landing speed and horrible cockpit view.

[@Deridus]

Herr Marshal Meyer really stepped in it that time, didn't he?

[@robertsolomielke5134]

Later....The design was correct about surface weapons, 2 British carriers were lost to gunfire. More likely in Europe's waters.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Talking about poor german decision making in less then thousand years is a challenge

[@briancavanagh7048]

Germany trying to create an aircraft carrier or group of carriers sounds like a good idea but totally impractical. Either for the Battle of Britain or later in the war. The carrier itself needs other support vessels for supplies, and protection. Germany had limited resources so an aircraft carrier and other support surface vessels would better be used in building submarines. Britain had a large surface fleet and relied on supply vessel convoys across the Atlantic. Building more long range, twin engined torpedo land based attack aircraft would be a worthwhile and more economical exercise. The Ju 88A-4 Torp was already built & used for this purpose.

[@Deridus]

The Bismarck was worth almost a full Panzer Division in steel tonnage alone, and barring the support troops, the panzer crews as well. Had this hypethetical division existed, I have no doubt that it's shear resource usage would have been a greater detriment to the OKW than the loss of one boat. Besides, German tanks had a K/D ratio better than 1. The Bismarck, had she made it to the open sea, would have been hunted the entire time. I doubt she'd have made it worth it.

[@LucioFercho]

Look up the Dithmarschen class, GZ was 85% complete when the war began, the RN had a bad record finding and sinking KM raiders. The He 111J was the first one, and pre war.

[@Deridus]

@@LucioFercho That's an interesting selection. I may have heard 'bout it before, but I doubt it. Heck,I'd not even learned about Arado airframes until just a couple years back, and I've been reading history books since the '90s. So many details, I've probably forgotten more than most people learn at this point. Tl;dr: Thank you. It's always nice to learn something new. Cheers!

[@LucioFercho]

@@Deridus My pleasure, same thing happened to me with GZ, after years of reading... the KM built WHAT??? Since then, I assume nothing. Yeah, the KM wanted torpedo bombers, the He 111 looked nice but it was judged too expensive... so the LW swooped in to snatch the role and ordered 60 Js... and as soon as the KM was out of the picture, scratched the program and made them regular bombers... until they found out they actually needed them... that and a working torpedo. Only the Japanese were more dysfunctional.

[@Deridus]

@@LucioFercho Nice! Hey, you know what? Have a great day. You made mine a bit better, so this one goes out to you. Cheers!

[@josephglatz25]

I think Germany would have had a really hard time finishing Graf Zeppelin before 1941, and then I think she'd get bombed over and over and over again by RAF bomber command like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Tirpitz did, likely getting damaged, and repaired just in time to be damaged again by the next raid. It might convince the Fleet Air Arm to get its hands on some real fighters a bit earlier, but I don't see it changing much. All in all, the Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carriers were just poorly designed. Comparable in size with an Essex class, but with only 42 aircraft per air wing, with likely an abysmally slow sortie rate, they just kind of sucked. They probably would have had some impressive durability, but there's not much else nice I could say, and I don't see how Germany could have managed to build more than one, maybe two before the war ends, unless you're willing to sacrifice the battle of the Atlantic, at which point, Britain has more resources to spare. Then, factor in the United States Navy maybe tossing an extra fleet carrier into the Atlantic as Graf Zeppelin insurance, and I just don't see much changing.

[@LucioFercho]

The KM intended to have 3 carriers at first, then 2 larger GZs to be laid down in 1935... but Raeder wanted his beloved battleships, so one was laid down in 1936 and the other in 1938, and were always at the bottom of steel priorities so they were never finished. Bismarck sunk GZ. The Germans could have very well began WW2 with 2 operational CVs.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Those merchant vessels didn't 'sail'. Please use a sensible word.

[@Deridus]

'Course they sailed. What other term would you use? Mind, I despise naval terminology and traditions as much as anyone, but what else is there?

[@ChristianMcAngus]

The bf109 would have been a terrible carrier fighter. Narrow landing gear, poor take off and landing characteristics, poor range, poor pilot visibility.

[@LucioFercho]

The Wildcat's gear was NARROWER... The 109 had EXCELLENT low speed handling, and once you hit the deck the cable brakes the aircraft. Visibility could have been fixed with a different sliding canopy as the Avia S199 had

[@KevinSmith-vv2jd]

The 109T version had a special higher lifting wing for better takeoff and landing performance.

[@DaveGIS123]

How would a German aircraft carrier affected WW2? Germany could have attacked convoys at sea, for one thing.

[@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372]

I expect that the 5.9" guns were intended to sink cargo ships, after the bombers and torpedo planes had eliminated all the escorts. No sane carrier captain would allow his ship to come within range of any surface ship that could shoot back.

[@LucioFercho]

They were just for self defense

[@LucioFercho]

And they tried to get rid of them mid-build, but they wanted them replaced with heavy flak, when they couldnt, they kept them

[@littlejohnny47]

Would the completion of one or two German carriers have made any overall impact on WWII? I doubt it. Germany lost the war in 1939/1940 due to grossly insufficient resources. Hitler’s grand plans were launched without real knowledge of logistics and the sever limitations this imposed. That his grossly inflated plans of conquest got as far as they did was more a product of unpreparedness of his opponents and their political desire to avoid another war at almost any cost in my opinion.

[@Deridus]

An argument has been made that had the NSDAP not risen to power but kept on rearming as they had been before 1933, they'd have been better able but still unlikely to have won.

[@ROBERTNABORNEY]

Germany had lousy aerial torpedoes - they had to use fish provided by the Italians

[@markbowles2382]

No matter what decision one makes as a belligerent in war it is then automatically countered by the opposite belligerent - but everybody picks on Germanys so called "mistakes" - war is not entered into because of a whim - it is forced onto nations regardless of type of govt. or political bias because of a lack of options. Still, much enjoyed the info about the storchs cousin and liked your video.

[@kidmohair8151]

I get how the what-ifs appeal, but. we must *all* be thankful that the big h *didn't* win... right?

[@Deridus]

I can't help but wonder what the world would look like now if they'd won. After all, most big invasions and conquests break down a few decades after the conqueror passes. Even the Mongols didn't really last that long.

[@richardknott2021]

Love German aircraft especially this one..

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

part of the problem was germany was always land based. they had no need for carriers. in truth if they "wanted" a carrier chey likely could have made a few... in many cases countries including the UK and USA made cheep escort carriers simply slapping a flight deck on a cargo ship. But germany never really operated blue water other then their subs.

[@StartledPancake]

As stronger Kriegsmarine would still have been savaged by the RN and would have significantly affected supplies to their other armed forces. Hence many civilian and allied lives would have been saved, a win-win it would seem. If the USN gets involved with their 250 plus flat tops in service over the course of the war (yes, two hundred and fifty plus), a couple of badly designed German carriers wouldn't have lasted an afternoon.

[@ReisskIaue]

If Germany had a stronger Navy, what would be the effects for the other branches of Wehrmacht? The ressources needed for a stronger fleet could not be produced out of thin air but would have been allocated (back) from Heer and Luftwaffe. Big question is: Would Germany have even been able to overrun France (without this, there wouldn't have been any need for plans to invade Great Britain at all). Heck, Wehrmacht even struggled with overrunning Poland in 1939 until Soviet Union joined in. Or if they had finished Graf Zeppelin as planned in 1940 (and had it battleready in 1941), it would have been hunted down by the Royal like the Bismarck (and later Tirpitz that nearly couldn't operate at all - but I admit that it took the British plenty ressources they could not use otherwise), when trying to leave into Atlantic Ocean (inside Baltic Sea there was no need for a carrier because Luftwaffe was able to reach most of it from its bases in Germany, occupied Poland, occupied Norway and allied Finland). Another issue would have been: Kriegsmarine had no own planes and crews (the ones for the board aircrafts on battle ships and cruisers were property of Luftwaffe) and there was a serious conflict about command (Göring was stated as being in charge of all airplanes). A carrier does need its own flottilla consisting of destroyers and cruisers. Who would be in charge of them? How would a combined strike of Graf Zeppelin and surface ships would be coordinated with all the animosities?

[@LucioFercho]

Ok, play it out, if GZ was with Bismarck then the RN CAs get sunk at dawn and the damaged PoW that afternoon, and there is no one to follow them. The KM is in the clear and with aircover... good look finding them. GZ was 85% complete when the war began. Escorts for a raider are a hindrance instead of help...

[@RichardGoth]

The German Albacore...

[@emdenny10]

If Germany had the industrial might it had available for the time strategic ability may have been more successful. But the problem was always command and forward thinking. Doctrine, command advancement and party affiliation was more important. Look at Loyd Austin. Just like Germany they made military people politicians. Ludendorf and hindenburg were adored and loved during ww1 and see how that went. Beautiful planes and plans but people fail . Unfortunately humans are fallible and should learn from this . Ww1 and ww2 should have ended this foolery. But we are afflicted to this day.

[@nigeldunkley2986]

pronounced "Feeezler" not Feyezler"

[@martindice5424]

Germany is fundamentally a continental power. It’s geo strategic position will ALWAYS put it at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the British. Just look at a map. The only reason the Germans attempted a blue water navy was Kaiser Wilhiem the second’s fixation which resulted with the pre WW1 Naval Race which Germany (of course) abjectly lost. However, this did creat a ‘blue water’ mentality within the Kriegsmarine which was not suitable for German strategic needs. Should’ve spent their resources on U Boats. A carrier was just another target for the RN to ‘burn, take or destroy’. Nazis, eh? Bloody idiots. Thank the Almighty….

[@kiereluurs1243]

Check pronunciation of names before you use them. Particularly of your MAIN TOPIC. No, it's NOT simplistic 'Fiseler'. Try Forvo. Remember it's GERMAN.

[@West_Coast_Mainline]

LMAO

[@steveclarke6257]

#IHYLS Ok, I want to be supportive of what you are doing so don't take this the wrong way please. I think your conclusions are quite wide of the target here on why Germany has a carrier aircraft but no aircraft carrier. The true reason comes in 2 parts- The first one is in short just two words "Herman" and "Goring"- I'll expand on this for you. Goring , the high ranking Nazi party member and clueless fat idiot of WWII believed that if Germany had anything that "took to the air", that his national socialist Luftwaffe should be in control of it and the "Airfield" infrastructure that operated and defended it. however when it came to how to run an operate a ship and the equipment that was needed, he was about as useless as as we British say "a chocolate fireguard". Now at the best of times Goring and his Airforce, were never on good terms with the Kriegsmarine or its commander Admiral Raeder- because they were just not Nazi enough for "Fatso" Goring (it should be no surprise that it was the least Nazi-fied of all the German armed forces in WWII). So the Whilst the Navy tried to put over the sensible PoV that they should build and operate ships with the very unfunny Charlie Chaplain impersonator, and in this he (Chaplain that is) dragged his feet in making a decision ultimately backing his mate fatso Goring in 1940... So part of the truth is that the Navy just dragged its feet over building the ship to spite Fatso Goring. Secondly it was the design of the ship, which also comes in two parts . Firstly, it was a ship based on certain ideas originated in that well known hub of Carrier Aviation expertise that was the "Marine Nationale" of FRANCE. In truth French carrier aviation was a joke. Their first attempt of building a carrier was called the "Bearn", which was a converted battleship. It was barely capable of 22 knots, had a system of hangar management that was obtuse and an elevator system that was glacial in its performance. Their follow on design, the MN had been observing the RN and been taking advice them, but "Joffre" was only laid down in 1938 and was scrapped once France was defeated in 1940. Secondly, the continuing belief in 1920's/30's Germany of "perfection". Now you Identified quite accurately one factor....the huge number of irrelevant guns on the ship- You don't but Cruiser guns on your carrier , have you learnt nothing from watching Japan or the US with their carriers ...which removed as far as possible any gun larger than 5" or 127mm which does not have a primary AA defense use. Then there is the ships "Pneumatic" catapult and its 20 minute recharge time, rather than what the RN, USN and Japan did of using steam. What do I mean you ask- It has a large air storage reservoir, which did allow for rapid sortie time for about 16 aircraft, but then you had two wait 20 minutes for it to recharge. So its not good for forming up rapid strikes or defence efforts is it. So you have a flawed ship design hampered by "German Doctrines", which the German navy is desperate to not give its overall control over to, once it is completed, to a fat clueless megalomaniac - an that is the reason why the Germans had a carrier aircraft but no functional carrier

[@LucioFercho]

Oh god... you are going to make me defend Goering... Raeder was not free of fault, he was the one that went all crazy for BBs and CAs after the AGNA and sidelined the CVs, the ones that were supposed to be laid down in 1935 adn ended up delayed to 1937 and 1938. Raeder wanted his toys... To this day, no one knows what the CAs or the BBs for that matter, were intended for, Raeder built them because the AGNA allowed him to and made the KM look equal to the others, but they had no military purpose, there is no document stating what they were intended for. The USN only removed the large guns after the start of the war, the IJN only changed turrets for casemates adn went to the bottom with them. The Germans operated compressed air catapults for their transcontinental mail service, they kept a catapult ship between Africa and South America to recover, refuel and launch the mail planes. They kept using them for their patrol seaplanes in Norway. On the compressed air reservoir for the catapults, it was enough to launch 4xBf109T and 12xJu87C overloaded... the Fieseler biplanes did not need the catapult and would launch normally, so they could launch a full strike while keeping a 4 plane CAP. No one had more experience with catapults than the Germans. But... Göring actually did something worse than steal planes form the CV... he stole the KM pilots... and used them as observers or gave them desk jobs. Now that is petty.

[@steveclarke6257]

​@@LucioFercho to points of reply 1- if your primary source of naval history is KZbin; I would refer you to videos by Dr Alex Clarke and Drachinifel on the subject of just how bad the German ideas of carrier aviation were in the period. 2- I never said that the German KM were not at fault in any way. I was pointing out that it's bad interaction with the KM and the "Fat Clown's" Luftwaffe that stalls progress and development of carrier production and development. Germany is 20 years behind those with the most experience with carrier aviation; the RN, USN and IJN were the ones who are the "gold standard", so copying the French route is a bad decision - and that is all on the navy. I would point out that they were working towards a mid-1940's timetable, so the events of September 1939 did somewhat mess up their timetable. As for defending the Fat clown..... that is all on you own conscience. Goring was an idiot, a man proving the Peter principle has validation. He may have been a good pilot but he is a useless administrator He has no clue about global logistics, nor has he any idea on how to create a strategic doctrine. This airforce he created, is created as a "battlefield support tool", that is all it can really do well. He consistently over promises LW capability and then under delivers on that. It is his incompetence which fails to understand that his air force is not capable of an effective strategic bombing campaign nor can it do logistic support with the equipment it has. So I wouldn't go where you are with that particular point of contention between the KM & LW on who was right... historical facts don't back up your PoV.

[@Deridus]

Hey, now I feel the need to defend both of them. Herman Meyer was like many of his contemporaries; tacticians, not strategists. Without a general staff or naval equivilent for as long as they did, the OKW simply never had the time nor personnel to iron out or practice their doctrine except in secret, or in the case of the Russians, teach their opponents at the same time. Idiologie didn't help them, as all that overlap and conflicting, spiteful backbiting was the result of non-professionals putting idiology ahead of merit. Just look at the ME262, for example; pick a focus and run with it rather than waste the potential. Raeder, too had his faults, but he learned the wrong lessons and again, would likely not have made them had a naval staff been at least able to wargame and refine their tactics, something the IJN was really good at even if they didn't pay much attention to subs.

[@LucioFercho]

@@Deridus Well, fatso wasnt even that, he was just a junior officer that did kinda good in the air during WW1. Actually German air doctrine was very good... until they guy who wrote it died, then the LW lost its north. The KM did wargame... problem is, they focused on France and the USSR, kinda understandable at first since they had no real navy. The real issue was the AGNA, Raeder felt his dream came true and decided to build BBs and CAs, showing everyone Germany again had a "real" navy. There is no document indicating what the BBs and CAs were for, what was the strategy their construction was serving. That and falling for the high pressure steam lies.

[@Deridus]

@@LucioFercho Fatso was also the epitome of everything wrong with their regime: too many roles for idiots to play. General Thomas, I believe, was trying to formulate sone kind of budget or ecomonic plan, but Meyer shut him down. I seriously don't have much good to say about them at all.

[@danmcdonald9117]

Most irritating but interesting narrator