Graf Zeppelin found !

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Graf Zeppelin found !

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:59 am

Ciao all,

it is in German,.. but I am sure someboy here in is able to translate it for us ... :D

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,428745,00.html


so we can all know a bit more or the Graf Zeppelin destiny.


Ciao Antonio :D

Olaf
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Graf Zeppelin found !

Post by Olaf » Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:08 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Ciao all,

it is in German,.. but I am sure someboy here in is able to translate it for us ... :D

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,428745,00.html


so we can all know a bit more or the Graf Zeppelin destiny.


Ciao Antonio :D

Hello Antonio ~ no need for a translation, your link is also available in English:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 57,00.html

Cheers ~ Olaf


Edit: Sorry ~ I wasn't aware of Ulrich's translation he provided in a new thread...
Why the Navy? Well,.... I was young and short on money...
http://linerpara.de

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Graf Zeppelin

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:36 am

Ciao all,

@ Olaf,

thanks, .. now the new is also available in Italian on major newpapers.

@ Ulrich,

...always a great job my friend,.... :D

Ciao Antonio :D

User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:24 pm

Ulrich

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:32 pm

Which kind or model of aircraft would the Graf Zeppelin use? Messerchmitt as fighters? Heinkels for bombing? For torpedo...? :think:
The KM didn´t had an Air Arm as the US Navy or the RN, at least not as developed. So, those aircraft would be Luftwaffe or KM? In case of Luftwaffe command, then, who on board the ship would retain tactical control of the Air Group?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Summoner
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:22 am
Location: New England, USA

Post by Summoner » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:42 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:In case of Luftwaffe command, then, who on board the ship would retain tactical control of the Air Group?
Didn't the Bismarck or Tirpitz have a U-boat liaison officer on board, to assist in coordination with the U-boat arm of the KM? If that's true, I would suppose that a similar arrangement with the Luftwaffe would be done, with a liaison officer on board the GZ to coordinate the air strikes and CAP.

Not to add more questions to this thread, but did anyone notice the ship next to GZ in picture 11 of Ulrich's link? :think:

User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:57 pm

Could she be the SEYDLITZ? :think:

As to the carrier's aircraft: Some people say the plan wast to modify JU 87B and ME Bf 109E-3 planes. But there were severe and notorious problems. None were fit to fly off from the carrier, pilots had no training on carriers, and then there was the Kriegsmarine's archenemy Hermann Göring to contend with, who refused to submit "my air force" to Raeder's naval control. It is pretty apparent that the control of naval aircraft by the Luftwaffe caused constant and severe problems, even with ship's aircraft, fighter support, or simply providing target practice aircraft. The latter accounts, in part, for the poor AA performance of the Kriegsmarine in general and coastal batteries, too, I think. Look at the Bismarck's AVKS artillery testing report, for example: lack of adequate air force support for Flak practice.
Ulrich

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:30 pm

Summoner:
Didn't the Bismarck or Tirpitz have a U-boat liaison officer on board, to assist in coordination with the U-boat arm of the KM? If that's true, I would suppose that a similar arrangement with the Luftwaffe would be done, with a liaison officer on board the GZ to coordinate the air strikes and CAP.
One thing is coordinating, like a liaison with some other vessels that may or may not be available to coordinate efforts, but the command in an aircraft carrier must be only one: the skipper of the vessel (who is a naval aviator himself in USN and RN) call the shots and is the inmediate superior of the Commander Air Group (CAG in USN terms). In case there is a naval command for the vessel and one for a separate branch (air in this case) for the aircraft then there is not a solid command and doesn´t have an efficient command system. I heard that some aircraft carriers around the world work this way, I believe (not 100% certain) that France, Brazil and Argentina have this command system. But the real "pros" here are the US Navy and the Royal Navy who had the unifyied command of the vessel and air group together.

On other topic about Graf Zeppelin: haven´t you notice the four cuppolas over the "island". Are these fire directors for anti ship fire or AA fire?

Very best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
foeth
Supporter
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by foeth » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:22 pm

On other topic about Graf Zeppelin: haven´t you notice the four cuppolas over the "island". Are these fire directors for anti ship fire or AA fire?
Those are the wobblypots (wackletopfe) used for AAA fire. Tripple stabilzied. BIsmarck had 4 planned, but only 2 were placed. The other capital ships all have 4 each.

User avatar
Summoner
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:22 am
Location: New England, USA

Post by Summoner » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:21 pm

Ulrich: From what I can gather, the Seydlitz was built in Bremen, not Kiel where GZ was. I thought it might be the first M-Class cruiser from the "Z Plan", but the info I found states that work on those ships was not started until November 1938. At best, the shipyard workers would have only had a month to lay down the hull of what we see in the photo -- not likely, IMHO.

Here's my off-the-wall guess: it's the Franken, an auxiliary ship. It's the only ship I could find that was laid down in Deutsche Werks Kiel (in 1937), launched after GZ, (March 8th, 1939), and has a similar bow shape to the one we see in the picture. Sadly, I was unable to find any photos of Franken, so I cannot be 100% certain.

Karl: You raise a good point about C2 of the aircraft on GZ. I was simply suggesting how coordination and command of said aircraft could be done. Given Ulrich's mention of Göring's complete control of the Luftwaffe, I think the first "step" in a possible evolution of a KM air arm would have been some sort of liaison officer from the Luftwaffe to control (yes, I said control) the aircraft on the GZ. As you stated, it probably wouldn't have been too efficient (maybe even disastrous!), and if given enough time to evolve, perhaps the KM would have adopted the approach the USN and RN developed.

Of course, if Göring refused to allow "his aircraft" onto the GZ, perhaps the KM would have considered using the GZ as a "floating decoy". I can imagine cardboard airplanes and such like the Allies did with D-Day and Patton's "army" :think: I'm not saying it would accomplish anything. Seems to me that the GZ was destined to fail unless it could sortie with more than one carrier as part of a battle group. Had the KM not stopped construction of her, perhaps she could have sailed with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen as part of Operation Rheinübung.

Sorry, didn't mean to conjecture so much, just wondering what could have happened.... :oops:

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:27 pm

See this specifications for Graf Zeppelin:

Operational Displacement: 33,550 tons
Speed: 33.8 knots
Overall Length: 262.50m
Flight Deck Length: 244.00m
Power plant HP: 200,000 SHP
Shafts: 4
Boilers: 16
Heating Oil Capacity: 5.187cub.meters
Crew: 1720 with 317 aircraft technicians
Range: 8000 nautical miles @ 19 knots
Supplies and Provisions: 8 weeks
Oil Consumption: 15,200kg/hr @ 19 knots


It´s quite curious, now that we are talking again about the "four against three shafts" in Bismarck in other thread, to note that Graf Zeppelin had FOUR shafts. And she had 200K hp. Quite a ship, isn´t it?
But only 19 knots? :think: Was that it? With 200k hp? And all that fuss about lenght against width ratio to achieve more speed and wave resistance?
Anyway, it seems that the evolution in ship design in the KM tend to withdraw from the three shaft premise and asume a more conventional four shaft arragement (as in all other capital ships of the USN and RN except the Nelson Class).
Any particular reason for this? :think:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
foeth
Supporter
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by foeth » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:35 pm

You just wrote nearly 34 kts :D But seriously, 200000shp? That's insane...

As The GZ isn't a battleship, perhaps she was designed by another team with different preferences. Or perhaps if 200,000 shp is correct, they couldn't get in on 3 shafts.

User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:01 pm

How close did ships actually get to their designed speed; GZ never sailed under her own power. There must be a fair amount of literature on the GZ. Marineoberbaurat Wilhem Hadeler, the designer of GZ, was still publishing in the 1960, but he says very little about GZ in "Kriegsschiffbau" vol. A & B.
Ulrich

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:43 pm

The Iowa class battleships had 212,000 shp, so 200,000 for GZ is probably not unreasonable.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu » Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:40 am

GZ had two bow propellers, but these were not intended for propulsion.

Post Reply