German WW2 Aircraft Carrier Projects (obscure)

[YourChair]

I've seen mentions of several more obscure German carrier projects (by which I mean NOT Graf Zeppelin, Weser, De Grasse conversion, Elbe/Jade, Europa, etc.) and I was hoping to learn more.
Specifically, I'm curious about:
The carrier conversion projects for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (the battleships) and Admiral Scheer and Deutschland (the Panzerschiffe), which I believe were from that one Breyer book
The various German hybrid carriers.
Other things from relevant books would be welcome too.
(Thanks in advance!)

Also, from a Russian "Failed Carrier Powers" book, I learned about the following projects that I thought were worth sharing:


If anyone is interested in learning more, I can provide the rest of the details in the book. And if anyone knows more about these projects, by all means share that info!

 

[cattalonX]

 

[Tzoli]

Ask here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/kriegsmarine-central-km-ship-plans-discussion.37568/

But I've never heard of plans to convert the Scharnhorsts and Deutschlands or even the Bismarcks into cartiers. I've only seen such "ideas" in World of Warships which also include carriers based on the H class...

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I have read the one for Deutschland, but I cannot recall where. I was always a fan of the Dlands and their proposed 1938 rebuilds, but the carrier conversion concept for them never quite drew my interest. I do not recall seeing a conversion plan for Bismarck/Tirpitz, but somewhere in the darkest depths in my back corners of my mind, a conversion of one of the Scharnhorst class into a carrier sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it was pitched for Gneisenau? I can see that coming out of RM6. If I can only vaguely remember such, I don't imagine it was getting anywhere.

The Hansadampfer conversion project is my favorite among these unknown projects. I once, months ago, sketched out a very cursed idea of fitting Me 163 Komet (and later, Fl 282 Kolibri) aircraft. I took inspiration from one of the IJA's escort carriers. I could fit 13 Komets inside it without serious cramming or being crazy enough to strap them down on the flight deck, though the idea is certainly not the craziest point.
I deduced that the hangar in the US CVEs (Casablanca was the plan I used) was 100m x 17.5m while that of Hansadampfer was 85m x 17.5m, though that's total length. Due to the designers either not (or being incapable of) plating over a middle section where machinery is located (which causes a gap in hangar space) the total usable hangar space is actually 65.6m.

The purpose of such a thing? Well, not to be too...you know, but given this design would probably not see service until 1944 (as if it would ever see service at all!), and given the aircraft I've suggested, let's just say that the Fuhrer would like to extend his gratitude to the 13 members of "Sonderkommando Hansa" and their sacrifice for the cause. He was particularly favorable of the idea to remove all 30mm cannons and their ammunition and instead replace them with a 500-pound bomb.
I may post this absolute joke of an idea on my main thread when I am able.

 

[Jemiba]

Just out of curiosity ... the only ever built German aircraft carrier had a "conventional" layout, with the island on starboard, but several of those German projects, including the conversion of the Europa, had it on the port side. I only know this from the IJN Akagi and Hiryu, where , IIRC, it was chosen to allow for more separated approaches, when the sister ships were steaming together.
But I cannot imagine, that this was an argument for the Kriegsmarine, too, as it would only make sense, when several carriers would have beeen available for common deployments. Any thoughts ?

 

[YourChair]

I have read the one for Deutschland, but I cannot recall where. I was always a fan of the Dlands and their proposed 1938 rebuilds, but the carrier conversion concept for them never quite drew my interest. I do not recall seeing a conversion plan for Bismarck/Tirpitz, but somewhere in the darkest depths in my back corners of my mind, a conversion of one of the Scharnhorst class into a carrier sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it was pitched for Gneisenau? I can see that coming out of RM6. If I can only vaguely remember such, I don't imagine it was getting anywhere.

I haven't read much on the Deutschlands and I haven't heard about this rebuild proposal, do you by any chance know where I can find more details?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I haven't read much on the Deutschlands and I haven't heard about this rebuild proposal, do you by any chance know where I can find more details?

I would suggest The German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN by Siegfried Breyer, which mentions the Deutschland and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau conversions but there is no other information about them that I am aware of.

 

[Tzoli]

So they would be like slow Independence sized light carriers? Or... knowing the Germans fascination with guns and flight decks, partial conversions so forward part cruiser with the triple 28cm turret and a short aft flight deck and hanger for a few 10-15 planes?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

So they would be like slow Independence sized light carriers? Or... knowing the Germans fascination with guns and flight decks, partial conversions so forward part cruiser with the triple 28cm turret and a short aft flight deck and hanger for a few 10-15 planes?

Even the AII-AIV designs were considered for full flight decks in lieu of their turret batteries (to give you an idea that their retention was tenuous at best); I think the hangar capacity would be too small to consider keeping the forward 28cm turret. Interestingly, the flat lines of the deck make for a rather easy full flight deck and hangar, and even better if the low stern was built up as well, so I figure that is the most likely course of action. I'm thinking more "Weser".

 

[YourChair]

Do you have any information on German surface ship (and air) anti-submarine weapons? There seems to be little info available online even on the in-service weapons, let alone the projects.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMGER_ASW.php says

Does anyone know anything further about these?

 

[drwells42]

Even the AII-AIV designs were considered for full flight decks in lieu of their turret batteries (to give you an idea that their retention was tenuous at best);

I'm kind of curious as to where you found that information. From what I've seen, the main source material for discussion of the more obscure German carriers is Hadeler's article from Marine Rundschau. I didn't see anything like that in his article.

I'm asking out of curiosity, not to challenge you. I always thought that the various "Atlantik" hybrids would have been much better as conventional carriers, and I'd like to see any historical support for my view.

DRW

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I'm kind of curious as to where you found that information. From what I've seen, the main source material for discussion of the more obscure German carriers is Hadeler's article from Marine Rundschau. I didn't see anything like that in his article.

I'm asking out of curiosity, not to challenge you. I always thought that the various "Atlantik" hybrids would have been much better as conventional carriers, and I'd like to see any historical support for my view.

DRW

I remember tidbits like this from a huge variety of sources, but recalling what is from where is the most challenging. This particular one stuck out to me because it was something I'd never heard about the hybrids before, and as you said, information on them in general is rather scarce.
I'll see if I can find it again. I don't think it was in a primary source (RM6), and was in English...I'll have to see.

Do you have any information on German surface ship (and air) anti-submarine weapons? There seems to be little info available online even on the in-service weapons, let alone the projects.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMGER_ASW.php says
View attachment 715881
Does anyone know anything further about these?

There were about a billion little projects from 1944 and on which either got to the testing stage...or didn't...but information on these is very obscure. I personally am not particularly aware of ASW mortars or rockets, but it's nothing surprising.
Germans were also working on VT fuse rounds (NavTechEU). I think it was infra-red based rather than doppler like what the US was doing.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

@drwells42 @YourChair
Better late than never.
Source for the full flight deck possibles for AII-AIV are in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, Graf Zeppelin section, Fate subsection. Conversion would, as far as I can ascertain, be similar to Grossflugzeugtrager AI.

 

[drwells42]

@drwells42 @YourChair
Better late than never.
Source for the full flight deck possibles for AII-AIV are in Whitley's German Capital Ships of WWII, Graf Zeppelin section, Fate subsection. Conversion would, as far as I can ascertain, be similar to Grossflugzeugtrager AI.

Interesting. As I say, that makes sense to me. I take it that there were no images available...

DRW

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Interesting. As I say, that makes sense to me. I take it that there were no images available...

DRW

No, but the text does detail that the capacity for aircraft would increase to 38 bombers and 12 fighters (from 12 fighters and 20 bombers in the turreted designs of AIII/AIV.)
Aircraft would be "Me 109 F" and "Ju 87 D".

 

[drwells42]

No, but the text does detail that the capacity for aircraft would increase to 38 bombers and 12 fighters (from 12 fighters and 20 bombers in the turreted designs of AIII/AIV.)
Aircraft would be "Me 109 F" and "Ju 87 D".

While I must admit it seems likely they would have used A-I as a model for the "Atlantik" hybrid conversion into a full carrier, (after all, the A-II hybrid is simply a hybrid version of A-I) one might easily imagine a version with a more enclosed bow, in the manner of the 15,000 ton and 18,000 ton ships.

Is there any chance that you could provide a longer excerpt from Whitley?

DRW

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

While I must admit it seems likely they would have used A-I as a model for the "Atlantik" hybrid conversion into a full carrier, (after all, the A-II hybrid is simply a hybrid version of A-I) one might easily imagine a version with a more enclosed bow, in the manner of the 15,000 ton and 18,000 ton ships.

Is there any chance that you could provide a longer excerpt from Whitley?

DRW

"The design for the 'Grosseflugzeugkreuzer' (project AI and AII) envisaged a 40,000-tonne ship with a three-shaft 210,000hp machinery installation and capable of 34 knots. This incorporated a hangar 160m long and could accommodate 12 fighters and 16 bombers. A gun armament of four 20.3cm, sixteen 15cm and sixteen 10.5cm was provided, which the 15cm still being shipped in casemates. Armoring was fairly extensive, totaling 9,000 tonnes with a 150mm main belt and 60-100mm armored deck. A variation of this project was a modification as a true aircraft-carrier with the 20.3cm guns being omitted and a consequent increase in the aircraft capacity. The hangar length was increased to 210m, allowing the operation of 26 bombers and 12 fighters. The dimensions, engines and hull were to be identical to the Grossflugzeugkreuzer, but with the omission of the heavy guns the weight breakdowns were differently arranged. This design was referred to as the Grossflugzeugtrager.
An even larger project was the 'Atlantikflugzeugkreuzer' (projects AIII and AIV) which displaced about 70,000 tonnes, carrier 38 aircraft and was armed with four or six 28cm guns! With armored deck and flight deck up to 150mm thick and a waterline belt of 250mm, this was indeed a heavily protected vessel. Once again a modification of the sketch design was a true aircraft-carried layout, which, by the omission of the 28cm guns, allowed the aircraft complement to rise to 38 bombers and 12 fighters."

I can see the encased fore ends for the lighter ships, but wonder about the bigger ones. Either way, I suspect the AII-AIVs would not have had it, given AI did not either.

 

[IJN Yamato BB17]

The only attempt I've seen to put picture to words for the Scharnhorst Class Carrier Conversion is Karle94.

Its funny that both Germany and Japan proposed to convert their capital ships into carriers. Japan it was the Kongos, Fuso's and Ise's Germany it was the Deutschland's and Scharnhorst's. However these conversions would only be a hinder to both.

Chasing down ever possible/blueprint German Aircraft Carrier design is exhausting as I have yet to see anyone bring everything together in one place.

 

[drwells42]

I would suggest The German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN by Siegfried Breyer, which mentions the Deutschland and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau conversions but there is no other information about them that I am aware of.

My reading of Breyer (pg 34) is that the conversions of Lützow/Scheer and Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were only briefly considered before being rejected. I certainly haven't seen these elsewhere.

DRW

 

[drwells42]

An even larger project was the 'Atlantikflugzeugkreuzer' (projects AIII and AIV) which displaced about 70,000 tonnes, carrier 38 aircraft and was armed with four or six 28cm guns! With armored deck and flight deck up to 150mm thick and a waterline belt of 250mm, this was indeed a heavily protected vessel. Once again a modification of the sketch design was a true aircraft-carried layout, which, by the omission of the 28cm guns, allowed the aircraft complement to rise to 38 bombers and 12 fighters."

I can see the encased fore ends for the lighter ships, but wonder about the bigger ones. Either way, I suspect the AII-AIVs would not have had it, given AI did not either.

Interesting. That suggests that the drawings for the "full carrier" version exist somewhere.

As mentioned above, I do think that it is likely that the "full carrier" version of A-III/A-IV would be a larger analog of A-I, at least as regards the flight deck at the bow. They seem to have liked the idea of a bridge at the bow for this series, and that precludes the sort of enclosed bow that we saw on the 15,000 and 18,000 ton ships.

In my opinion, these German designs had too little hangar and flight deck space for their size, and that is reflected in their small air wing. Anything they could do to increase the size of the hangar and flight decks would have been an improvement.

DRW

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

In my opinion, these German designs had too little hangar and flight deck space for their size, and that is reflected in their small air wing. Anything they could do to increase the size of the hangar and flight decks would have been an improvement.

DRW

This is a very annoying inaccuracy that tends to float about for German carrier aviation in general. Hangar volume is not the issue - the aircraft used are. "Plane Tetris" with Graf Zeppelin utilizing to-scale foreign aircraft shows the absolute inadequacy of converted BF-109 and Ju-87 aircraft in this context (with the exception of the Ju-87D). Even net hangar volume (actual usable area) is often in excess of foreign contemporaries.
For AIII and AIV, one could certainly make the argument that the capacity is lacking. This may be due to the fact that while GZ has two hangars, AI-AIV only have one. A careful comparison would have to be made. Interestingly, though, despite being nearly 40,000 tons heavier, AIII/IV is not much larger than GZ. This is almost certainly due to the extensive armoring, which is significantly greater than that of their predecessor.
I suspect this may have something to do with the perceived inability of Atlantic employment for Graf Zeppelin, possibly due to her height, which was the cause of this particular reaction.

I would not mind finding those full-carrier plans, should they exist.

 

[Force Lord]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

The initially converted aircraft did not. This is largely due to the attempt to convert land-based variants, but there was success with the Ju-87 D, which would fold extremely nicely. None of the fighters would be of a folded-wing design, possibly a limitation of the BF-109 fuselage, which was used in the BF-109T and Me-155.
As far as aircraft arrangement in hangars, I see no issues - they play just as much tetris as any other nation, as far as comparisons reveal. Maybe there's some sort of uber-efficient arrangement I'm missing here?

There is a 1942 carrier plan that actually has Me-155s hanging from the hangar ceiling, just as in USN practice.

 

[YourChair]

I've seen it been claimed on the WoWs forums that, besides German carrier aircraft lacking folding wings and the general reluctance of the Luftwaffe to provide aircraft for purposes they had little use for (especially when the Kriegsmarine couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted its carriers to do), part of the problem was that the spacing between aircraft was inefficient and made poor use of space, reflecting the general inexperience in carrier aircraft management and the Luftwaffe transplanting airfield and land hangar practice on to ship hangars.

EDIT: Also I doubt the Germans were aware of American practice of stowing aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar.

Germans usually did not need to store aircraft on the roof of the carrier hangar because their carriers (at least Graf Zeppelin) were designed on the Japanese model, with a double hangar.