5 ms·

Also what looks like insane scope creep. "The full-sized ship would also need to have a range of 7,000 miles, support heavy bombers and be torpedo-proof. It wa

by hnbear 2y ago

Also what looks like insane scope creep. "The full-sized ship would also need to have a range of 7,000 miles, support heavy bombers and be torpedo-proof. It was to be over a mile in length, weigh as much as 2.2 million tons and require as many as 26 electric motors to move and steer across the ocean." That's a crazy target growing out of "cheap to produce aircraft carrier"

jamiek88 2y ago
Yeah it’s like a mobile midway pacific war at that point! Sailing midway all the way!
bruce511 2y ago
I'd add in that ot would have been difficult to operate as well. For starters aircraft carriers face into the wind for takeoff and landing. So that means either engines for maneuvering (noted in the article) or support vessels. Presumably support vessels are vulnerable so not in the picture. It would sail like a pig ‐ with 90% underwater it'll pretty much go where the current goes. And very slowly. I imagine the engines would either be small (slow maneuvering) or large (need fuel etc). Once you need significant fuel you need to store it. Plus of course all the men, and their stores. And a lot of this doesn't like freezing temperatures. To be useful the thing presumably has to be far from land, presumably closer to the enemy. So the enemy deploys a bunch of anti-aircraft ships to basically follow the thing. Returning aircraft are sitting ducks. I'm no mechanical engineer, but none of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm even less an admiral or air marshall but I dont see any tactical or strategic advantage here either.
- TylerE 2y ago
  If your runway is a mile long you can tolerate a lot more crosswind component (or, more precisely, aren't so desperate for every know of apparent headwind).
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  > I'm even less an admiral or air marshall but I dont see any tactical or strategic advantage here either. Not disagreeing with your main points at all, but from a strat/tac point of view, up until later in the war, there was an air gap in the Atlantic where German U-Boats didn't have to worry about a significant air threat from the Allies. A large airfield parked mid-Atlantic might have significantly improved Allied air coverage, and helped reduce the stunningly bad shipping losses they were experiencing.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Ultimately, the US made something like 122 escort carriers, which enabled all convoys to have air cover.
    - KineticLensman 2y ago
      Exactly, and we also developed longer range aircraft and better anti-U-Boat weaponry. Hence my observation regarding the air gap that existed earlier in the war (not that the bergship would have been ready then)

by hnbear 2y ago

jamiek88 2y ago

Yeah it’s like a mobile midway pacific war at that point! Sailing midway all the way!

bruce511 2y ago

I'd add in that ot would have been difficult to operate as well. For starters aircraft carriers face into the wind for takeoff and landing. So that means either engines for maneuvering (noted in the article) or support vessels. Presumably support vessels are vulnerable so not in the picture. It would sail like a pig ‐ with 90% underwater it'll pretty much go where the current goes. And very slowly. I imagine the engines would either be small (slow maneuvering) or large (need fuel etc). Once you need significant fuel you need to store it. Plus of course all the men, and their stores. And a lot of this doesn't like freezing temperatures. To be useful the thing presumably has to be far from land, presumably closer to the enemy. So the enemy deploys a bunch of anti-aircraft ships to basically follow the thing. Returning aircraft are sitting ducks. I'm no mechanical engineer, but none of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm even less an admiral or air marshall but I dont see any tactical or strategic advantage here either.

TylerE 2y ago
If your runway is a mile long you can tolerate a lot more crosswind component (or, more precisely, aren't so desperate for every know of apparent headwind).
KineticLensman 2y ago
> I'm even less an admiral or air marshall but I dont see any tactical or strategic advantage here either. Not disagreeing with your main points at all, but from a strat/tac point of view, up until later in the war, there was an air gap in the Atlantic where German U-Boats didn't have to worry about a significant air threat from the Allies. A large airfield parked mid-Atlantic might have significantly improved Allied air coverage, and helped reduce the stunningly bad shipping losses they were experiencing.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Ultimately, the US made something like 122 escort carriers, which enabled all convoys to have air cover.
  - KineticLensman 2y ago
    Exactly, and we also developed longer range aircraft and better anti-U-Boat weaponry. Hence my observation regarding the air gap that existed earlier in the war (not that the bergship would have been ready then)