Topic: WWII

[Don Karnage]

Hello everyone.

I'm looking for info on WW2 but i can't find answer on the net, books or DVD.

I would like to speak with a historian or someone with knowledge on WW2 like a teacher.

The info I'm looking for are : What kind of ships did the French, England and German have during the war?

Mostly, did the French have aircraft carrier? Did the German have any? I know that England did have one with WW1 fighter, and they use at least one against the German battleship Bismark.

Books only tell about a bid of England, but mostly American and Japaneses

[Lieutenant_Q]

France did have a Carrier, Germany built a single Carrier during the war, but did not complete it in time, it was a nice Carrier, easily the equal of the US Fleet Carriers that were built during the war, but even had they completed it in time, the Germans had virtually no airforce left, and what they did have, was certainly not trained in short take-off and landing procedures that would have been required to make full use of the Carrier.  There's a funny story regarding the Soviets when they claimed the ship as a prize ship.  They loaded it up with everything from that naval yard that wasn't bolted down, and some stuff that was... tried to sail it to Murmansk, and it capsized and sank.

At the onset of the war England had more carriers than the US fleet did, but most of them were aging relics, and when the Japanese hit Singapore, (with a similar attack like the one launched on Pearl) they caught most of the British Carriers there.  That was part of the reason that, when the Pearl Harbor raid didn't bag them a single US carrier, Yamamoto knew the war was lost right there.  He knew there was no way that the Japanese, even with the Current Carrier superiority, couldn't keep up with US production of flat-tops, the only way they were winning the war was to bag one or two of the three US Pacific Fleet Carriers, and push hard on US interests while they were scrambling to rebuild their Carrier fleet.  Other Japanese Admirals, and even the Generals that ran the Army and Marines, thought that the Battleship was still the king of the seas, and were celebrating when almost all the US Battleships were caught and destroyed in the raid, they thought that gave them the Pacific there.

A more interesting thing to note, is the size of the Italian Navy, and a well trained Navy at that, unfortunately, they had a problem getting Oil to run their fleets, so they stayed in port almost the entire war.  Had the Italian fleet been fully supplied, the North African Campaign would have ended very differently, because the Italian Navy was large enough, after the French scuttled their fleet at Marseilles, to control the entire Med, and portions of the Atlantic around the Iberian Peninsula.  (Basing problems for the Italians would have prevented them from getting too far out into the Atlantic, a side effect of Hitler's Vichy arrangement, Italy needed the fleet base at Marseilles to get anywhere into the Atlantic)

[knightstorm]

Hello everyone.

I'm looking for info on WW2 but i can't find answer on the net, books or DVD.

I would like to speak with a historian or someone with knowledge on WW2 like a teacher.

The info I'm looking for are : What kind of ships did the French, England and German have during the war?

Mostly, did the French have aircraft carrier? Did the German have any? I know that England did have one with WW1 fighter, and they use at least one against the German battleship Bismark.

Books only tell about a bid of England, but mostly American and Japaneses

The French had a converted battleship that was too slow to really be effective.  The Germans had a program to build their own carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, but it never came to fruition.  The Royal navy ran into two main problems with its aircraft.  The first was that until 1939 the British government came up with the idea of having an integrated air arm, and put the Fleet Air Arm under the Jurisdiction of the RAF.  Second, when the Royal navy did get the chance to get a new carrier based fighter, they insisted on a two seat design for navigation purposes which resulted in a plane with inferior performance.  However, even with their inferior aircraft the Royal navy was still able to perform tasks like crippling the Bismark, and the raid on Taranto.  Eventually, the RN was able to get a hold of American carrier aircraft as well as navalized versions of RAF aircraft.

[knightstorm]

France did have a Carrier, Germany built a single Carrier during the war, but did not complete it in time, it was a nice Carrier, easily the equal of the US Fleet Carriers that were built during the war, but even had they completed it in time, the Germans had virtually no airforce left, and what they did have, was certainly not trained in short take-off and landing procedures that would have been required to make full use of the Carrier.  There's a funny story regarding the Soviets when they claimed the ship as a prize ship.  They loaded it up with everything from that naval yard that wasn't bolted down, and some stuff that was... tried to sail it to Murmansk, and it capsized and sank.

At the onset of the war England had more carriers than the US fleet did, but most of them were aging relics, and when the Japanese hit Singapore, (with a similar attack like the one launched on Pearl) they caught most of the British Carriers there.  That was part of the reason that, when the Pearl Harbor raid didn't bag them a single US carrier, Yamamoto knew the war was lost right there.  He knew there was no way that the Japanese, even with the Current Carrier superiority, couldn't keep up with US production of flat-tops, the only way they were winning the war was to bag one or two of the three US Pacific Fleet Carriers, and push hard on US interests while they were scrambling to rebuild their Carrier fleet.  Other Japanese Admirals, and even the Generals that ran the Army and Marines, thought that the Battleship was still the king of the seas, and were celebrating when almost all the US Battleships were caught and destroyed in the raid, they thought that gave them the Pacific there.

A more interesting thing to note, is the size of the Italian Navy, and a well trained Navy at that, unfortunately, they had a problem getting Oil to run their fleets, so they stayed in port almost the entire war.  Had the Italian fleet been fully supplied, the North African Campaign would have ended very differently, because the Italian Navy was large enough, after the French scuttled their fleet at Marseilles, to control the entire Med, and portions of the Atlantic around the Iberian Peninsula.  (Basing problems for the Italians would have prevented them from getting too far out into the Atlantic, a side effect of Hitler's Vichy arrangement, Italy needed the fleet base at Marseilles to get anywhere into the Atlantic)

The Graf Zepplin was not equal to allied carrier designs, it was actually inferior.  Also, the German surface fleet lost most of its funding after the defeat at the battle of the Barents sea, and Hitler almost had every surface ship in the Kreigsmarine scrapped which is probably why the carrier was never completed.  At the beginning of the war, the RN, and the USN had an equal tonnage of carriers as was mandated by the naval arms limitations treaties.  The American carriers tended to be purpose built carriers which made better use of their tonnage.  The only conversions which counted towards the US' carrier tonnage allocation were the Lexington class which still had air groups of 100 planes and were capable of 33 knot speed.  There was no major Japanese attack against RN carriers, I think you are referring to the attack on Force Z which took out the Battleship Prince of Wales, and the Battlecruiser Repulse.  Wartime British designs tended to carry smaller airgroups than their American counterparts, but were much more heavily armored granting them better survivability. 

As for the Italian navy, most of their capitol ships were pre WWI.  While they had been modernized with their guns rebored, and new machinery allowing them to get modern speed, they were still lightly armored, and had inferior fire power to the WWI era Queen Elizabeth class battleships.  If given a choice I'd rather be on the modernized QE class HMS Warspite than on the Italian Battleship Caesar.  Especially since the Warspite landed the longest range hit ever scored on a moving target in naval history against the Caesar.  Even with bases the Italian ships wouldn't have been good in the Atlantic.  They were designed for service in the Mediterranean where Italy controlled both its home territory which was a peninsula in the middle of the sea as well as Libya on the opposite coast.  They had poor habitability and I don't think their machinery was well suited for cold weather service.  I remember reading an article a while back about the woes the Soviets went through converting Caesar for service in their navy when they received it as a war prize.

[Age]

The French may have had a Carrier but they lost the war to Germany.The Roylal Navy had more than 1 Carrier with WW2 fighters even we Canadians has 2 or 3 going with WW2 fighter/dive bombers The Warrior Cv20 was one on the east coast.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/search?location=header&q=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

http://www.index.forces.gc.ca/Srch.aspx?UsrQue=history+&Action=Search&ParamSources=Navy__Marine&lang=en-CA
wasn't worth it to go back to royal after Trudeau gutted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Canada
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_AircraftCarriers.PDF

Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_aircraft_carriers_of_Germany

[knightstorm]

The French may have had a Carrier but they lost the war to Germany.The Roylal Navy had more than 1 Carrier with WW2 fighters even we Canadians has 2 or 3 going with WW2 fighter/dive bombers The Warrior Cv20 was one on the east coast.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/search?location=header&q=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

http://www.index.forces.gc.ca/Srch.aspx?UsrQue=history+&Action=Search&ParamSources=Navy__Marine&lang=en-CA
wasn't worth it to go back to royal after Trudeau gutted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Canada
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_AircraftCarriers.PDF

Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_aircraft_carriers_of_Germany

Canada didn't have carriers during the war.  They bought British Carriers which were built for the war, but weren't needed post war.  I know the US sold off a number of its Independence class CVLs, as well as some of its CVEs after they weren't needed anymore.

[Age]

The French may have had a Carrier but they lost the war to Germany.The Roylal Navy had more than 1 Carrier with WW2 fighters even we Canadians has 2 or 3 going with WW2 fighter/dive bombers The Warrior Cv20 was one on the east coast.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/search?location=header&q=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

http://www.index.forces.gc.ca/Srch.aspx?UsrQue=history+&Action=Search&ParamSources=Navy__Marine&lang=en-CA
wasn't worth it to go back to royal after Trudeau gutted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Canada
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_AircraftCarriers.PDF

Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_aircraft_carriers_of_Germany

Canada didn't have carriers during the war.  They bought British Carriers which were built for the war, but weren't needed post war.  I know the US sold off a number of its Independence class CVLs, as well as some of its CVEs after they weren't needed anymore.

Yes we did as I said HMCS WARRIOR served on the East Coast.It is even in my sig.
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/military-history-f49/canadian-aircraft-carrier-t23868.html

[knightstorm]

Yes we did as I said HMCS WARRIOR served on the East Coast.It is even in my sig.
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/military-history-f49/canadian-aircraft-carrier-t23868.html

Look at the dates in the link you posted.  Canada didn't have Warrior until 1946.  The war ended in 1945.

[Age]

Yes we did as I said HMCS WARRIOR served on the East Coast.It is even in my sig.
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/military-history-f49/canadian-aircraft-carrier-t23868.html

Look at the dates in the link you posted.  Canada didn't have Warrior until 1946.  The war ended in 1945.

We did to have a carrier during the war as I read my my History books of the RCN and I trust printed history over the net any day.

[Don Karnage]

I know that Canadians where volunteer to I think train or deliver airplanes to England during WW2, we have a few I think destroyer to escort convoy, but I didn't know that we have aircraft carrier during WW2.

I know that we get the crap from England, like the submarine that is rusty and useless, the boat that was a fiasco because all the control where on the same side, have to add a useless water thank to compensated. Just to name a few.

I will check the links you gave me and see if it answer my questions.

I remember something from WW2, well I remember a part that the French boat where fire at whit peoples still on board to prevent the German to acquired more boat. Not sure if I'm right and I don't know why the French surrender to the German.

[knightstorm]

Yes we did as I said HMCS WARRIOR served on the East Coast.It is even in my sig.
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/military-history-f49/canadian-aircraft-carrier-t23868.html

Look at the dates in the link you posted.  Canada didn't have Warrior until 1946.  The war ended in 1945.

We did to have a carrier during the war as I read my my History books of the RCN and I trust printed history over the net any day.

I'm trying to find my copy of "Fleets of World War II."  It should have  a listing of the ships of the Canadian navy at the time.

I remember something from WW2, well I remember a part that the French boat where fire at whit peoples still on board to prevent the German to acquired more boat. Not sure if I'm right and I don't know why the French surrender to the German.

You're thinking about Metz al Kebir.  The British couldn't risk the French Navy falling into German hands so they gave the French ships there three options.  Sail off to the West Indies and sit out the war, sign on to fight with the British, or be destroyed.  The French chose to fight the British and lost.  There is some speculation that Churchill chose to do it that way to prove something to FDR.  Joseph Kennedy, the US ambassador to the UK was advising Roosevelt not to provide support for the British because they wouldn't be able to win, and anything the US gave them would eventually fall into German hands and be used against us.  Churchill needed to prove to Roosevelt that he was in it for the long haul and was willing to make the tough decisions.  As for why the French surrendered, its because they got completely outmaneuvered during the ground war.

BTW. To answer your original question, I recommend reading Fleets of World War II.  It gives a brief overview of all of the belligerent navies as well as descriptions of all of the ships in service, under construction, or in development at the time of the war.

[Don Karnage]

Public library don't have it and if I look at Indigo here what I have: http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/Books/search/?keywords=Fleets+of+World+War+II&langtype=4105&facetIds=category%3a%3a528242|

So I will need more info on who made that book, so I can find it.

Thanks for the help 

I should also ask the minister of defense and ask him about the ships of WW2.

[knightstorm]

The author is Richard Worth.  Here's a google books preview to give you an idea of what its like.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yfpi2qctZN8C&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=fleets+of+world+war+II+richard+worth&source=bl&ots=GvwCEnVDCR&sig=3EexWBcr7MGZ4ibZnSZbNTz1h3k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7ZacUsuuHoTxkQe_y4CoCQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ

[Age]

Then explain to me this and I kow for Fact the RCN dates back to WW1 untill Trudeau ended it in 1969 after that it became the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command wearing green uniforms.That inc;uded the RCAF as well as Air Command.Canada had naval Aviation before WW2.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev2/1901-2000/rev1927-mg48049/00.shtm

[knightstorm]

Then explain to me this and I kow for Fact the RCN dates back to WW1 untill Trudeau ended it in 1969 after that it became the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command wearing green uniforms.That inc;uded the RCAF as well as Air Command.Canada had naval Aviation before WW2.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev2/1901-2000/rev1927-mg48049/00.shtm

You don't need a carrier to have naval aviation.  Maritime patrols launched from shore count as naval aviation.  Flying boats count as naval aviation.  Float planes launched off of a cruiser count as naval aviation.

Look.  I have a book in print which lists the composition of every WWII navy.  Unfortunately being the walking disaster that I am, I have no idea where I put it.  When I find it we can lay this controversy to rest once and for all.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

HMS NABOB

Laid down as the merchant vessel Edisto, but converted to an aircraft carrier while building, she was commissioned HMS NABOB in Tacoma, Wash., on September 7, 1943. After working up, she entered Burrard drydock at Vancouver on November 1 for modification to RN standards, completing January 12, 1944. About this time it was arranged that she and a near-sister Puncher, should be manned largely by Canadians while remaining RN ships. In February she embarked 852 Squadron (FAA) of Avengers at San Francisco and sailed for the U.K. via New York, where she took aboard a flight-deck cargo of Mustangs for the RAF. She joined the British Home Fleet at Scapa Flow on August 1, and that month took part in two operations off the Norwegian coast, the second being an attack on the Tirpitz. On August 22 Nabob was torpedoed by U 354 in the Barents Sea, resulting in a hole some 32 feet square abaft the engine room and below the waterline. Amazingly, she made Scapa under her own power on August 27, but was not considered worth repairing and was paid off at Rosyth on October 10. She left there in 1947 to be broken up in Holland, but was resold and converted for merchant service, emerging in 1952 as the German MV Nabob. Sold Panamanian in 1967 and renamed GLORY, she was broken up in Taiwan in 1978.

HMS PUNCHER

Begun as MV Willapa, she was commissioned HMS Puncher at Tacoma, Wash., on February 5, 1944, and arrived at Vancouver on March 15 for modification to RN standards. She left Esquimalt in June for Norfolk, Va., enroute ferrying motor launches from New Orleans to New York. In July she left Norfolk for Casablanca with a cargo of 40 USAAF aircraft, returning to Norfolk to load the Corsairs of 845 (RN) Squadron and a deckload of U.S. aircraft for the U.K. On February 1, 1945, she joined the Home Fleet, and following VE-Day was used for several months for deck landing training. In September she was partially converted to serve as a troop carrier and employed the rest of the year repatriating Canadian troops from Britain. In 1946 she left Halifax for Norfolk and was paid off there January 16 for return to the USN. Converted for merchant service, she became the British Muncaster Castle in 1949, later to be renamed Bardic in 1954 and Bennevis in 1959. She was broken up in Taiwan in 1973.

I'd think a naval museum site would be accurate.

[knightstorm]

British Aircraft Carriers crewed by Canadians aren't the same thing as Canadian aircraft carriers.

[Nemesis]

I didn't say they were.  I was in fact supporting you with that link.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.