Kriegsmarine - KM, Aircraft Carrier Projects

lukasgrul

lukasgrul

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
15 May 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
112
Hello , do somebody have any more info about project of rebuilding ocean liner SS Europa into aircraft carrier. I found some info on german naval history and wows forum german almost carriers part 2 Europa , and there isn´t much about it.
 
Only what Erich Gröner told us in "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945, Bd 1".

Principally it would have been the most capable design of all the planned conversions. but from the start it
became clear, that there would be problems with strength and stability. The hangar would have to be set into
a cutout in the main strength deck, and stability would have been insufficient, even after adding bulges. Additionally by keeping the original powerplant, fuel consumption was very high. So the project was abandoned and the burned
out ship should be converted into a troup- and tank transport for "Operation Seelöwe", which much less changes to
the original design.

Intended armament were 12 x 10,5cm AA (6 twin mountings), 20 x 3,7cmAA (10 twin mountings), 28 to 36 2cm AA
(quadruple mountings), 18 Ju 87D and 24 Me 109G
 

Attachments

  • Europa_01.jpg
    Europa_01.jpg
    158.2 KB · Views: 286
Yes, the story of Europa as a carrier conversion is pretty open-and-close. A 1972 copy of Marine-Rundschau on German Carrier projects repeats a lot of what is eventually said by Groner, but also makes an obvious connection to the smaller conversion of SS Roma - which most people don't bat an eye at, though it might take someone like Phoenix_jz to properly explain all the possible troubles Aquila's conversion might have faced. My personal opinion is not that Europa was a poor prospect for conversion, but rather that the planned conversion was not as ambitious as some others, namely Aquila, and the half-measures led to problems with the existing structure they were trying to work around.
Aside from that, the ship was a giant risk simply because of its size, and rather than being excessively fuel-hungry by nature, just required too much fuel to move around. Even a revised plan for Graf Zeppelin included a partial diesel drive (as did essentially every plan from 1942 onwards) (There even appears to be a very simple sketch on the Betonschutz plan pages depicting a 6-engine 3-shaft diesel drive). I can't make much note on the ship's stability, but it seems a logical as it is an issue faced by other conversions as well and were usually, as stated, rectified through the use of bulges...though the problem is likely inherent due to a lack of weight below the waterline - inherent ballast, such as machinery - to offset the new ambitious upper works.
It's interesting to see one of the most initial variants of Europa. It seems originally, in 1942, she had been planned to have only five twin 10.5cm guns, 10 3.7cm twins, and 5 2cm Flakvierlings with a complement of 30 Ju-87's and 18 BF-109's. It also includes concrete placed in the same manner as Aquila, behind the bulges, at and below the waterline. The blocks appear to be hollow, 500mm in overall width, but 60mm-empty space-60mm (120mm) of actual concrete protecting the hull with 8 (waterline) to 12 (below the water) millimeters of steel covering the concrete. If I'm reading this math page right, the weight of this is 3,620t of Betonschutz, possibly 4,700t overall. Aside from that, and other minor changes, everything is the same as the later drawings.
Maybe if not for time constraints and had this conversion been begun at the start of the war, such as Aquila had, things might have been very different.
 
Were there any other possible aircraft options? I saw photo of Focke-wulf Fw 190 with tirpedo attached to it , I think that the Fw 190 would be much better than Bf 109 as a fighter. And if it could carry a torpedo it would be very versatile plane. Were there any problems with Fw 190 or why germans didn´t make navalised version of Fw 190 rather than making Bf 109 T of Me 155.
 
lukasgrul said:
Were there any other possible aircraft options? I saw photo of Focke-wulf Fw 190 with tirpedo attached to it , I think that the Fw 190 would be much better than Bf 109 as a fighter. And if it could carry a torpedo it would be very versatile plane. Were there any problems with Fw 190 or why germans didn´t make navalised version of Fw 190 rather than making Bf 109 T of Me 155.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Germany had a solid idea of what its carriers were for or how they would be used. The consequent lack of clear requirements naturally affected the selection of ships, equipment--and aircraft.

Before, during, and after WW1, the US, Britain, and Japan operated combined fleets world-wide. Each had a continuously evolving idea of the types of ships it needed and how they would cooperate in action. Carriers were one such type. So, by WW2, the US, Britain, and Japan had all been operating shipboard aircraft for some 20 years. The necessary techniques and equipment were well developed and clearly defined the characteristics of dedicated shipboard aircraft.

Germany lacked this kind of naval experience. The German surface fleet had always functioned essentially as a coastal force that could, when necessary, show the flag or carry out commerce raiding using individual ships. It was used to catapulted spotter airplanes and relying on the support of shore-based aircraft. So the practical requirements of carrier aviation were a mystery,. The resulting equipment selections showed it. Extra wing-area seemed like it might be good to have. So Germany looked at biplanes like the Avia B-534, Arado Ar195 and Ar197, and Fiesler Fi167 even as the other carrier operators were phasing them out. When it did give up the biplane, Germany chose its mainstay, land-based fighter and extended the wing span, first as the Bf109T and then as the Me155.

So I imagine that, given Germany's selection criteria (or lack thereof), the Fw190 would not have had any obvious advantages over the Bf109, even had it been available when the initial selection was made. Thereafter, interest in alternatives would have diminished as the completion and use of the carriers became ever less likely.
 
Iverson hits a lot of the pertinent points on your question, lukasgrul. It would take some amount of research to determine exactly why they chose the BF 109, but I imagine it's a combination of factors primarily focusing on the ability of the carrier to launch the aircraft - this including aircraft weight, engine power, structural integrity, etc, as well as combat factors such as ordnance capacity, maneuverability, range, and speed. I imagine the BF 109 was chosen due to its greater power-to-weight ratio, lighter and smaller construction, and increased maneuverability (and greater wing-span, as stated) compared to the FW 190 which was more of a fast flying minigun.
I suppose you can think of it like Japanese naval versus land-based fighters.
FW 190 launching from an airstrip on the coast armed with a torpedo isn't a terrible idea, but I don't think it would be better on a carrier.
 
Do you have any blueprints or info about Flugzeugtrager B of Graf Zeppelin class.
 
Are there any blueprints of Flugzeugtrager C or D? I read somewhere that they would be a bit different than Graf Zeppelin.
 
lukasgrul said:
Are there any blueprints of Flugzeugtrager C or D? I read somewhere that they would be a bit different than Graf Zeppelin.
Click to expand...
Both have never developed far and only speculative to smaller than "A" and "B", due to Germany carrier developments have shifted from fleet carriers to mass produce light carriers, main propulsion would be diesels and no 15cm casemate guns.
Am still waiting carrier "B" plans to be digitalize on invenio.
 
Do we know about camouflages that would Graf Zeppelin receive if he would be finished?
 
Do you know why are there two versions of Europas superstructure? One looks really similar to Graf Zeppelins and other I don´t know. I think that Zeppelins is more reasonable because it has more rangefinders.
 

Attachments

  • Europa bl 1.jpg
    Europa bl 1.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 301
  • Europa bl 4.jpg
    Europa bl 4.jpg
    4.8 MB · Views: 267
lukasgrul said:
Do you know why are there two versions of Europas superstructure? One looks really similar to Graf Zeppelins and other I don´t know. I think that Zeppelins is more reasonable because it has more rangefinders.
Click to expand...
I believe it's a first and second draft. Some minor improvements were implemented in the second. I believe there's a comment here which discusses this.
 
Do you have this blueprint of Europa in one photo or without the right pillow? I want to make model of Europa and I need to print the blueprint.
 

Attachments

  • Europa bl 3.jpg
    Europa bl 3.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 164
lukasgrul said:
Do you have this blueprint of Europa in one photo or without the right pillow? I want to make model of Europa and I need to print the blueprint.
Click to expand...
The top one is an extension of the 'A' deck that forms the roof above the aircraft hangar. The second looks like the beginnings of a B deck - but that would run through the hangar bay, and it isn't included in the line drawings depicting the final plan. Instead, the extension of the A deck outside the rear of the hangar bay forms the covering for a small boat - possibly 2, side-by-side.
1685985870749.png
 
Thank you, but on picture I send those extensions of deck are covering whole aft or are they only gallery?
 
I am going to have to assume they cover the whole deck if they are an extension of the A deck, which also likely covers the entire width. I cannot say with any certainty, but it would only make sense.

Also note that the flight deck supports do not come all the way down, meaning it must be pretty wide overall.
1686052179779.png
 
Is there any reason why some German Carrier designs had the superstructure and funnel on the Port side and not the starboard side? I haven't really seen a vivid reason to this.
 
Likely the same reason as on Hiryu and Soryu and Akagi and Kaga to be used side by side with aircraft recovery from opposite rotations.
 
Last edited:
MrMemerMan said:
Is there any reason why some German Carrier designs had the superstructure and funnel on the Port side and not the starboard side? I haven't really seen a vivid reason to this.
Click to expand...
Influenced from Japanese carriers designs, there's one booklet on invenio in "naval attaché" sections (Japan) mentioned "commissioned study on Japanese carriers", they pointed out what German learned from Akagi, Soryou, Hiryou and Ryujou, i haven't bother to translated nor read far enough yet.
 
lukasgrul said:
Do you have blueprint of Europa´s armor scheme?
Click to expand...
Europa doesn't have any armor planned for conversion, she does retain original ocean liner multiple watertight compartments and additional bulges added to improve ship stability, there's one deck plan of her and sisters on google (also include machinery and engine hull).
 
Last edited:
Do you think Europa and Graf zeppelin would make huge difference in war if they would finish/convert them?
 
lukasgrul said:
Do you think Europa and Graf zeppelin would make huge difference in war if they would finish/convert them?
Click to expand...
It's super difficult to say. I want to say yes, at least for Graf Zeppelin. GZ was designed as a breakthrough ship from the outset, having armor on-par or greater than heavy cruisers with the armament of a light cruiser per side. Despite what those with lesser knowledge (or intelligence) might say about hangar capacity, the deck space of her hangars is at least comparable to other large fleet carriers - though the aviation fuel capacity (not known for her 1942 configuration) and plane types used are certainly something worthy of scrutiny. She is also incredibly fast. Speed and power are not something the Kriegsmarine's ships and steam plants are known for lacking, but the expected range has always been wildly overestimated. This was partially offset by the inclusion of fuel in the bulges added in 1942.
All these factors combine to make her quite the threat on her own, yet still very useful in conjunction with other raiders in many respects. She would be an asset to any KM force attempting to break into the Atlantic, and could very well be a sole survivor even in the event the force is destroyed. One might believe she'd be simply countered by the introduction of more carriers into the Atlantic - but that's exactly the point, isn't it?
As for Europa...well, she's not exactly what you'd call ripe for Atlantic deployment. She's much more dependent on others for protection, and although she's pretty fast at her top speed (capable of keeping up at most fleet speeds), she would not escape either CLs or CAs, both of which pose a serious risk. I would worry that in the event that the raiding force needs to retreat from a larger Allied force, all Europa would become is the next Blucher. A very nice target for heavy British guns.
It's hard to find a place for Europa within the KMs stratagems. She was such an ersatz idea, brought about by desperation more than anything. I feel as though that she would be quite the waste of time and resources comparative to a dedicated carrier with a tonnage as low as 15,000.
 
_Sarcasticat_ said:
lukasgrul said:
Do you think Europa and Graf zeppelin would make huge difference in war if they would finish/convert them?
Click to expand...
It's super difficult to say. I want to say yes, at least for Graf Zeppelin. GZ was designed as a breakthrough ship from the outset, having armor on-par or greater than heavy cruisers with the armament of a light cruiser per side. Despite what those with lesser knowledge (or intelligence) might say about hangar capacity, the deck space of her hangars is at least comparable to other large fleet carriers - though the aviation fuel capacity (not known for her 1942 configuration) and plane types used are certainly something worthy of scrutiny. She is also incredibly fast. Speed and power are not something the Kriegsmarine's ships and steam plants are known for lacking, but the expected range has always been wildly overestimated. This was partially offset by the inclusion of fuel in the bulges added in 1942.
All these factors combine to make her quite the threat on her own, yet still very useful in conjunction with other raiders in many respects. She would be an asset to any KM force attempting to break into the Atlantic, and could very well be a sole survivor even in the event the force is destroyed. One might believe she'd be simply countered by the introduction of more carriers into the Atlantic - but that's exactly the point, isn't it?
As for Europa...well, she's not exactly what you'd call ripe for Atlantic deployment. She's much more dependent on others for protection, and although she's pretty fast at her top speed (capable of keeping up at most fleet speeds), she would not escape either CLs or CAs, both of which pose a serious risk. I would worry that in the event that the raiding force needs to retreat from a larger Allied force, all Europa would become is the next Blucher. A very nice target for heavy British guns.
It's hard to find a place for Europa within the KMs stratagems. She was such an ersatz idea, brought about by desperation more than anything. I feel as though that she would be quite the waste of time and resources comparative to a dedicated carrier with a tonnage as low as 15,000.
Click to expand...
Had Graf Zeppelin and her sister ship or just Graf Zeppelin and any converted carrier been actually used in the war, they probably would have most likely been used as floating flat tops in Norway. That's also another possibility.
 
Last edited:
A related discussion on Graf Zeppelin which I was involved in on another forum.
The consensus seems to be that the pause in armament production following the Blitzkrieg of 1940 crippled any hopes for Graf Zeppelin. The ship wasn't ready and her aircraft weren't in production either and her air group had been used to fill in losses during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain.
There is no discernible push from the RLM post 1941 for new carrier-based aircraft - yes there were some projects like the Me 155 etc. but no drive to see them get to prototype stage let alone production. Like most parts of Nazi Germany the RLM and OKM were following different trajectories and timings when it came to aircraft and ship projects, even with Graf Zeppelin the timings didn't really align.

www.tapatalk.com

All the World's Battlecruisers-Replace Bismarck with Graf Zeppelin

Exercise Rhine, a subject that has been covered probably too much, however, something I’m not familiar with in the realm of “what-if”, replace
www.tapatalk.com www.tapatalk.com
 
Do you know if there are any other 3D models or renders of Europa than those that are in wows forum about almost german Cv´s?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom