Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "Plan Z - Practical, Effective, or High Seas Fleet Mk2?" video.

  1. Germany could just buy the A6M2 for Graf Zeppelin . . . the Stuka would be good enough for an Intruder, trading slow speed for pinpunkt accuracy. As for Torpedo Bombers, why not just buy those superannuated Fairy Swordfish Great Britain is trying to sell off? They'll have the far superior Albacore, of course, but . . . why are you laughing? World War Two seems to indicate that ships without carrier air support are balls flapping in the wind. The Z Plan was cool and all, but more Carriers and Heavy Cruisers were all that Germany really needed. About twenty of each. The Merchant Raider group . . . pursuing the Guerre du Course, or Handelskrieg . . . was a great idea--for World War One. Once the B24 Bomber was drafted to patrol the "U--Boat gap", however, the paradigm had been ruined. Until then the Armed Merchantman, Merchant Raider/Panzerschiff, or Cruiser Submarine, was still a viable option for a cash strapped nation to examine. Once Air Cover became more or less universal it spoiled everything. You need Carriers to support your convoy raiders. You need heavy cruisers to support your carriers with AAA. You need Fleet Destroyers . . . or whatever the La Fantasque was . . . to physically screen the Carriers and Cruisers (or, for rich nations, battleships) from questing motobomba . . . and, suddenly, you're in a naval race* against Great Britain and the USA. Which you can't win. Back to submarines! *Naval Arms races never mention the most vulnerable factor in the coherent plan of operations at sea: the fleet replenishment train. You can cripple your enemy if you find his before he finds yours. His ships WILL run out of fuel, food, and, especially, ammunition and medical supplies after any regular engagement. If you take out his oilers and ammunition ships, he will soon be a paper tiger. If Bismarck had . . . nothing. Just finding her pre--positioned replenishment ships would have been a dangerous passage, with every supply ship used soon after destroyed on its way back to base. And, once they'd all been sunk, there'd be no second Bismarck sortie from Brest or St Nazair. There is an argument to be made that Imperial Japan ignored our Fleet Replenishment Train with her submarine force. Had her skippers sought out the USN oilers and ammunition ships . . . and hospital ships . . . she might've slowed our expansion into what she considered her personal sphere of influence. Submarine Ninja; Skulkers and Assassins; rather than stealthy Shinobi seeking a favorable advantage against a mighty foe. Oilers are critical weapons of war. We crippled Japan by sinking all of her oilers. The lack of oil paralyzed her fleet. Similarly, our war against Germany was a war against her ability to supply herself with fuel for her Panzerwaffe, Luftwaffe, and U--waffe. lack of oil grounded her fighters, stopped her tanks, and made her ships floating hulks. "Screw that well screened battleship! I'm looking for those vulnerable, juicy, oilers!" --Smart Sub Skipper
    8
  2. The Deutschland (I refer to these as the Panzerschiffe) class ships were a good bet. Sure, they couldn't effectively counter a cruisers division, or trade broadsides with battlecruisers (wait-yes they could), but those were few and far between and panzerschiffe were cheaper. Also, diesel ships didn't need to wait to "build steam'" after being in harbor, and so were far quicker to react to calls to battle. Otherwise, Germany might've needed a class of cheap, standardized, fast tankers, and the fuel to keep them topped off stored at Kiel or Brest. Or an Oil tank farm in Norway with enough crude to amount to a strategic reserve. To allow these far cruising raiders to reach safe harbors when necessary, a U-flotilla would issue forth and meet them in the approaches. PzS had ammo limits, but extraordinary long range. They're big enough to carry Seetakt, or Gufo. I would suggest replacing the mixed secondary batteries with the navalized 12.7cm FlaK40/L56 in singles or twins, depending on space. No torpedoes. Land them all. Replace the tonnage saved with the 4cm Bofors AA Cannon, already in production for the KM. With eight 5" DP (the flak 40 was a very good gun) replacing the secondary battery, and a couple dozen 40mm Bofors (singles and twins) replacing all 37mm and 20mm leFlaK, they'd be better able to defend themselves against a wide range of probable threats. Also, KMS Deutschland aside, it would be easier to lose a PzS to attrition, than it would to lose a Bismarck. I would so want the two Graf Zeppelins (or Peter Strasser or whatever), despite their drawbacks, if I intended to make long distance surface forays against allied convoys. The big rifles would be switched out for 12.8cm sFlaK40 in Doppelafette with significant savings in topweight. Battleships. Tirpitz is a nice ship, but, again, replace the 3.7cmFlaK with the 4cm M28 and reduce secondary battery to rationalize it to a single caliber capable of dual purpose engagement. The what and how of its deployment would be the main consideration of the OKM. Send out the two Bismarcks with the two Scharnhorsts and the two Graf Zeppelins, get them through the allied cordon and free in the Atlantic . . .and what next? Commerce raiding? You're already doing that cheaply with the PzS. All I can think of is guarding your own convoys or invasion fleets. Or seeking out the enemy, looking for Gotterdamurung . . . or his carriers. Yum yum! Germany could underwrite the Italian Regolo type ultralight cruisers and the cheap, modular, Gabbiano convoy ASW escort. German efforts would, instead, be used to beef up its mosquito fleet (gotta love those Benz powered E-100 speedboats) and maritime air patrols. They'd keep the Tommies hopping, keep them honest (heavily escort all coastal traffic) and out of the Bay of Biscay. I'm with you on the Me109T. I think it might've been easy to adapt to the launch cradle (attachment points or something), but the Fw190A, with its radial engine and wide stance, seems made for the carrier fighter role. There were some fine Italian planes, too, that might've lent well to conversion. These would be lighter, but some were excellent performers. Since the stringbag was so successful, early on, the Navalized Stuka would seem like a dream machine for intruder and torpedo bomber pilots. Compare it to the Dauntless. German Destroyers were interesting, but problematic. The new, high pressure (1000psi or something along those lines), superheating, steam powerplant the cause of Prinz Eugen's woes) was not yet mature enough to be altogether dependable. It was the right direction, engineering-wise . The USN used that system very well in the ''60s and 70s. Better to build more cheap escorts and E-boote. My opinion is that the 15cm/149mm gun was a mistake for Destroyers. Any main armament on a tin can should be AA capable. So build the Regolo in large numbers and arm them with the FlaK40 and a bunch of either 3.7cm or 4cm AA autocannon. U-Boote are the "other" fleet, of course. The Typ VIIC is versatile, small of silhouette, and maneuverable, but had so many drawbacks as part of a strategic blockade that it would have to be replaced on the slips with a better idea. Too bad the Walther boat closed cycle system was impractical until the 2000s. Of course, if we're waiting till late '44 or early '45 we can employ large numbers of the Typ XXl. Again, it's not perfect, but it'll do for a while. A possible use for Heavy Destroyers comes to mind. Mining and interdicting Baltic trade and military shipping. A fast DD Flot could dash up and in, drop mines, and back to German ports before dawn. It would not likely work well in restricted waterways or close to large air bases, but, as a stab in the dark, it might world well enough.
    3
  3. Vagaries of wartime exigency. A few thoughts on the perceived missions, and ultimate employments for the various carrier air platform imperatives. The obvious choice for a Km carrier deck fighter/interceptor was the Fw-190, which had both a wide track landing gear AND a radial engine. I say this as a USN man, of course, by no means ignoring the various British expediencies (the liquid cooled Merlins on Sea Hurricane and early iterations of what became the Seafire) and utter cockups* (cough Gloster cough Fairey Albacore cough). Strangely enough, the Dive Bomber was an obsolete idea by 1941, despite the energy both Germany and the USN put into the idea. BTB (SB2C) and Stuka (the only Dive Bomber EVER with its own, rad, theme song) were anachronisms . . . ones Billy Mitchell would've given his eye teeth for two decades earlier. The Torpedo Bomber (whose ultimate expressions; the Martin Mauler and Blackburn Firebrand, were stinkers unrelenting) was really a range battle between the makers of Light and Medium AA and and those responsible for torpedo manufacturer. WW2 seemed to indicate that obtaining a good return for the cost of an aerial torpedo attack required two things seldom assured: absolute local Air Superiority and mass numbers**. Indeed, the USN gradually pared down its specialist aircraft to a comfortable minimum, the process accelerating briefly with the clearance of the F4U for carrier ops (and many thanks to the Royal Navy for that bit of counter intuitive insight). The Corsair could, in a pinch, do it all. With enough production capacity available, only J2F and R4/HOS1 were needed for lesser duties; i.e.: SAR and ASW patrol. Consider that the most useful torpedo bomber of the war wasn't much of a torpedo bomber in the event. The TBF/TBM proved to be most adaptable to every mission not requiring a fighter or VSTOL or aquatic plane. Notes: *The USA had more than its share of these. The P39 losing its supercharger was probably the most egregious . . . except the Mk 14 torpedo and Mk VI exploder combo . . . and the B29 (which had as many engine fires as the He-177) . . . and the world's sexiest Dive Bomber, the A36 Apache . . . ** Repulse and Prince of Wales, and the Pearl Harbor Attack are good examples. * Misty Lagoon Airmen were so successful because of training, tactics, AND numbers. Unfortunately, the war between Flak and Torpedo manufacturers was a losing one for their side.
    1