I'm not so easily sold.
No doubt the 109 was an excellent fighter, but...
Under carriage was weak and prone to failure with all but chioce conditions ? A pitching deck of a Carrier combined with poor visibility (down/front) ?
I have pages of "cracked-up" Corsairs on carrier decks.
Without fighters (good fighters) you are a "Turkey Shoot" to those who do.
The range issue is prominent/significant as well. The ocean is big (duh, obvious).
For sure even one (more than one) Carrier battle group(s) would make a huge difference.
Air protected Capitol Ships, no need to hide in Norway or anywhere.
Strike groups could've wiped out/captured convoys in a combined arms action. U-Boats-Capitol Ships-Airplanes, and brought a mano e mano fight to anyone with no disadvantages.
Search patterns would extend beyond Destroyer (picket lines)/U-Boat (blind groping) and would change everything.
Building them (enough of them), equiping them (with good stuff), training them (to be contenders), and having the "Stones" to use them, are the unanswered questions.
They started too late to play "Catch-up" with another "Wonder Weapon".

Redcoat said it all !

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

Supposedly, the struts were strengthen but that did not resolve the design problem of having the gear coming down inward and providing a very narrow base for landing unlike the FW-190 where the gear comes down outward and provides a wider base with more stability. Like you have said, imagine landing a 109 on a flight deck that is moving up and down with crosswinds. eeek!

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Thanks for posting those, Redcoat. The "training" picture looked gloomy for the Germans. And where or how to train relacements when the carriers were out to sea.

I forgot about what Hawkerace said as well, depending on the time-frame...
With one lone friendly shadowing/calling in location...
A 1,000 plane raid of B-17s could churn the water of any Nazi Battlegroup !
Bravo Yankee, Bravo Yankee

translation = BY BY

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, too expensive and too risky.

__________________

I have to admit that I am pleasantly surprised by the number and thoughtfulness of your replies.

I personally and envisioned this force to allow the invasion of Britain, but convoy hunting would work as well. Assuming that the Germans were even able to field a functional carrier fleet.

On the Me 109, the Spitfire was modified for carrier operations so the former certainly could have been operated from a carrier successfully. But, the Germans could have used the He 112 or later Fw 190 as alternatives so, they had aircraft that could have flown successfully from a carrier. And, there is always the possibility that once a carrier or two was in service they would develop aircraft specifically for carrier operations that were totally new designs.
As for using large bomber raids on carriers:
There are two major problems here. The first is that carriers are mobile. Sending a strike that will take say 3 or 4 hours to arrive will mean that it might find open ocean where the carriers were by the time it gets there. Happened historically with both carrier strikes and land based ones against ships. Having a very large strike miss their target is very expensive and wasteful.
The second problem is cost. Is this an economical means to make a strike against a battle group? Planning will take days or possibly weeks as this was true even with the original 1000 bomber raids against fixed targets. This sort of level of planning is obviously impossible against a mobile target at sea. Also, there are few air force commanders or planners that would be willing to idle that large a force in preparation for such a strike.
The best defense against carrier aircraft at sea is having carriers of your own.

Just "Spoofin" about the thousand bomber raid. I realize what it would take.
If....I was after em, I'd bird dog em with PBYs and sink em all with submarines. Their prowess with U-Boats would come back to haunt them. I doubt it would take much encouragement to talk the Silent Service into some GRT, especially with the lack of expierence/numbers of destroyers at ASW.

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

While they did share a similar type of undercarriage (though the Bf 109's was narrower) the landing and take off characteristics couldn't have been more different. The Spitfire had the take off and landing characteristics of a basic trainer, while the Bf 109, especially during take off, was noted for its ability to catch out the unwary and, unlike the Spitfire, a large number were lost in landing and take off accidents

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Things would probably be worse for Germany as they would have had to put battleships to protect the carriers and this would have provided a bigger target for the bombers. Allied ships and aircraft would have lost less time trying to find hiding places and therefore save time that would have accelerated the end of the battle of the Atlantic and made D-Day possible earlier.

__________________

And to reinforce the issue the engine of the Me-109 was too powerful for the aircraft especially the Me-109G which had the notorious distinction of severe torque and some pilot turned turtle after take-off, but i have seen photo's of Me-109's with inward retracting undercarriages specifically for carrier use.

We should also mention the petrol issue. A carrier + ACs would have needed large quantities of the black gold and after 1942 there would have been no way that Germany could have had sufficient supplies for a carrier fleet.

__________________

Did big bombers sink a carrier in WW2? I cant think of any that did.

I agree with assesments in regards to the use of ME 109s on a carrier. The FW 190, with its smaller amount of torque, and the overall more rugged nature would have been better suited for carrier operations

__________________

I don't even think a big bomber even landed a bomb on a carrier. by big, I assume you mean 4 engine variety.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

The record of high altitude bombers against ships is attrocious. However, B-26, B-25, and A-20 aircraft could do some damage, especially some of the crews that were trained in low level precision bombing. It still remains that the most effective weapon would have been submarines. For all their experience with subs, the Germans did not have the ability or training to be effective against them.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Looking back at the scenario if the Germans had, let's say, just three carriers with 50 - 60 aircraft aboard in 1939 and put these to sea supported by appropriate surface ships in support of their U-boat / guerre de course against British shipping. The British would have been in deep trouble. Their own carriers with small air wings composed of Sea Gladiators, Skua, and Swordfish would have been at a very distinct disadvantage (let's assume the Germans find a useful carrier fighter like a modified He 112 or something if the 109 proves unsuitable).
The RN would have had a real delimma on their hands. Convoys with minimal escorts while reasonably effective against U-boats are concentrated nearly undefended targets against a carrier group. Spreading the ships out to avoid getting found and sunk by the carriers makes them vulnerable to U-boats. The main fleet portion of the RN lacks sufficent means to certainly overcome the German carrier force and risks the possiblity of defeat which they, unlike the Germans, cannot afford.

Maybe while they are at they can get some V-1s, V-2s a bunch of explosives and ammunition, to attach to that carrier and ship it into London's harbor. And dress the carrier up to look friendly than BOOM. Halifax all over xP

Im just kidding, It just appears that if Germany did have Carriers, I really don't think they wouldn't be doing a whole lot.

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

No, they wouldn't !!!!!
If the Germans could have all that, its only fair that the British get a death ray to sink any ship within sixty miles.


After all, its just as likely

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Um okay.. I suppose that you can say that an industrialized nation lacks the ability to build three or more aircraft carriers if they had wanted to. But a death ray... sounds like a great idea for a NEW thread.

I question if GB would have brought more of its carriers back from CIB theater if this German threat was back home, while weakening their colonial holdings perhaps the carries would have been more useful in the Atlantic.