😅

ah, that explains the conditions some of my country's navy ships my country bought many ex-Volksmarine ships from unified germany in early 90s. Here they developed rust faster than other ships (according to late 90s newspaper article) because they were built for baltic conditions, while the new operating zone is warmer and has higher salt levels most of them are still active today, perhaps the navy applied better coating for rust prevention

@@Panzergruppe22 East germany was good at a few things, corrosion resistance in naval vessels wasnt one of them.

The same, those type of "History" shows are full of gobbledygook information, poor speculation and Clickbait dramatization. Skynea does a great job putting out historical correct information, nothing but the truth, good or bad. Thank you Skynea for your hard work!

They are not even comparable. Graf Zeppelin was not built for the jet era, its catapults were not efficient at all.

😂😂😂😂

Ooooohhhh😂

Only when you realise that it other carriers of soviet making kind of worked under the chinise . So might was mostly the people running it at fault .

@@Rohrkrepierer88Russian “maintenance”

Disastrous only if you were trying to project force (like the US Navy) but without the support ships. IMO, sending Graf Zeppelin out commerce raiding would have been no less risky than sending Bismarck, Tirpitz etc and probably less risky simply because the Zeppelin could detect enemy ships far more effectively than the battleships could. Had a completed Graf Zeppelin gone out with Scharnhorst/Gneisenau for instance, that would have been a significant commerce raiding threat. Raeder made the mistake of focusing on completing the Bismarck/Tirpitz instead of finishing Zeppelin.

@@robertdickson9319 The Germans had no experience of naval aviation, Graf Zeppelin's design was out of date, and the planned air group was of converted land based types. This is simply a variant of the 'Sealion Would Have' argument, or 'just think what the mighty Luftwaffe would have done to the Royal Navy in the event of Sealion.' But fantasising on the mighty Graf Zeppelin instead.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Obviously "what if" history has its share of detractors but "just because it didn't happen" does not mean that there are not inherent truths or educated guesses as to how things may have gone. If that is what you consider "fantasizing" then fine. Your particular mileage may vary - you certainly don't appear to be a fan. GZ's design was certainly unique and could have posed some issues with the flight deck handling - we'll never know for sure but the Germans completed extensive exercises using the catapult/trolley system on land and results were promising. How it would have fared (and how the Germans would have adjusted it after trials) is obviously conjecture. The rest of her design was no less out of date than the 5 of 6 aircraft carriers that the Royal Navy started the war with. GZ's planes may have been land based conversions but so what? They still would have been at least as equal to the types fielded by the British in 1939/40. I'd take the Bf-109 over the Gladiator/Roc/Fulmar options the RN had; same with taking the Stuka over the Skua. At worst the Fiesler 167 was on par with the Swordfish/Albacore torpedo planes - at best it was marginally superior. You are correct about the lack of experience with naval aviation - it certainly hindered her construction. But so did the priorities of the Kriegsmarine - Raeder never prioritized the carrier program above the other surface ships being built in the late 30's. If Raeder is more open minded, GZ probably gets completed in 1939/1940 and is operational by late '40/1941. How do the German surface ship sorties in 1941 change if the GZ accompanies the Bismarck or Scharnhorst & Gneisenau? Does it win the war for Germany - no. The point is that an operational carrier in the Kriegsmarine would have given the Germans options they did not have in "real life" against an enemy that was itself learning how to handle aircraft carriers.

@@robertdickson9319 'The rest of her design was no less out of date than the 5 of 6 aircraft carriers that the Royal Navy started the war with.' Correct, largely because the most recent of the five dated from 1930. A more relevant comparison would be Ark Royal or the Illustrious class. Both vastly superior. 'GZ's planes may have been land based conversions but so what?' You are aware of the desperately frail undercarriage of the Bf109, even the modified ones, I suppose. Seafires were never really suited as carrier aircraft, but Bf109s, were far less so. I really wonder how many Atlantic deck landings a typical 109 would survive. 'Fiesler 167?' Who knows? Only 14 were ever built, and none ever used as torpedo aircraft. If your GZ is operational by late 1940/early 1941. then by then British carriers were operating Fulmar IIs and Swordfish. The Fulmar was a fleet defence fighter, certainly capable of dealing with a Ju87. It also had a much greater range than a Bf109. The British had been operating carriers for at least 15 years by early 1941. They had crippled the Italian fleet at Taranto, and were about to bring about the Battle of Matapan, using the Swordfish and Albacore aircraft you describe as inferior to the Fiesler 167. They knew how to operate carriers quite well by then. As I said. 'Graf Zeppelin would have' comments I fear.

@@dovetonsturdee7033 I guess the point I was trying to make regarding GZ's design was that the USN, IJN & the RN all used designs that were considered "outdated" during the war - usefull & often times with success. I would agree that Ark Royal & the Illustrious class were better pure carriers, but even then Ark Royal's loss showed that she herself had design faults. You are correct that the Bf 109 had suspect landing gear - I would assume that, just like the British did with the Seafires, trials & experience would probably have necessitated improvements in the landing gear to be made. While the Fulmar's may have been good against Italian aircraft in the Med, I doubt they would fare well against a Bf 109, regardless of how much farther they could fly. Fi 167 - all of the trials with the 14 built showed the plane to have much better flying and performance characteristics than the Swordfish. Would it have been the best torpedo plane in 1941 - no. But it would have been better than the Germans main opponent. Yes, the RN had much more experience with carriers than the Germans but lost Glorious & Courageous (and almost Ark Royal) rather quickly by questionable tactical decision making; as with the other major navies I would assume that tactics & doctrine would have changed for the Germans as events/experience transpired - certainly, the attack on Taranto was noticed by the Japanese, Italian & German navies. My initial point to the OP was that it would not have been "disastrous" for the Kriegsmarine to have operated GZ. She would never have been operated like the USN carriers with the fleet train necessary for massive carrier operations. She would never have been a war-winning weapon, but if she had been operational at the outset of the war she had a narrow window of opportunity (like all the German surface raiders) to have influenced the Battle of the Atlantic in German favor. She might have been sunk on her initial sortie like Bismarck or sat around in port like Tirpitz, but if she had a career somewhere in between (like the rest of the German surface fleet) she would have given the Germans flexibility & options that they lacked in the historical outcome. Having a carrier would have benefitted the Kriegsmarine in the first half of the war much more so, IMO, than the Bismarck did &, again IMO, Raeder erred in not embracing the potential of naval aviation.

My understanding is that Graf Zeppelin was built with 2 catapults - one on each side of the forward part of the flight deck. The sonar image only shows the port system - the starboard one is in the shadow due probably to the lean of the ship on the bottom.

I for one am glad he spoils us with his "hard" as you say lol

So true

Looking at the angle of the rusticles makes me agree that this is looking up from below.

ahaha,)) Britain can’t even complete its own aircraft carriers

There are videos about raising the kursk. Not as long, but heavier.

Many different ways can be used. Cranes on barges, compressed air into sealed compartments to push out water, depends on the condition of each vessel

​@pastorofmuppets2349 who tf cares about the kursk? Nobody. Bc ruZZia is evil.

Are you related to Erich Mielke, East German Stasi chief? You certainly lie like he did.

@@Вивсівідстій Not as far as I know, and the Gustlof was 'clean' of human remains by the Soviet navy. Perhaps you are a Russian troll ?

Yes, and it's for that reason that the surviving high ranking WW2-era German kriegsmarine officers were surprised that the Graf Zeppelin was positioned at tier 8 in World of Warships. For years, they'd predicted that it would make it no higher than tier 6 or tier 7 in the game...... Some think there was a quid pro quo of some sort.

@@HighlanderNorth1 I doubt any kriegsmarine officers still alive has either the time or interest for some crummy videogame.

@@juslitor It was a joke.

I always assumed that's what happened to this ship with wartime resource scarcity.

Think of how busy the scrap metal business was with the clean up of WW2. Easy small stuff first. I can imagine the gas to cut up big things was probably in shorter supply. 🤔

That Lutzow was a Hipper class cruiser.

​@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Lutzow was the Deutschland when she got renamed. the Lutzow your talking about was never finished

@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Deutschland was renamed Lutzow after she was torpedoed. The Hipper class Lutzow was sold to the USSR incomplete and never finished.

@@woofdogmeow She was sold to the Soviet Union in May, 1940, towed to Leningrad, renamed Petropavlovsk and, by May, 1941 was around 70% complete. In September, 1941, she fired around 700 rounds at besieging German forces. She was refitted in January/February, 1943, and a year later fired over 1000 rounds at German positions. Work continued on her is summer, 1945, and by 1949 she had been reclassified as a light cruiser, and was to have received a main armament of twelve x 5.9 inch guns. The maximum size of the ship was projected to be 19395 tons. But the time and money to be spent on this project - equal to the construction of an additional Severdlov cruiser - was considered too great, and the project was cancelled. The only tests done on the wreck that had been Deutschland/Lutzow were for two days in July, 1947, after which she was sunk.,

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Hence my original question has anyone found the wreck of the Deutschland/Lutzow class Pocket battleship?

Wasa but pronounced Vasa!

A Swedish warship that sank moments after its launch. An extra number of cannons were added during construction. The ship was top-heavy. Raised and restored and now a museum display in Sweden.

Lutzow is paved over in a former drydock in Germany that’s now a parking lot

@@matthewcaughey8898 As far as I know it was Admiral Scheer. Almost sure. Lützow was sunk on Baltic as target

It's not uncommon in weapons testings on ships. If a navy wants to know how a bomb impacting a specific spot will affect it, dropping it from an aeroplane runs a very high chance of not putting munitions where they want them.

No

@@benmiland5245 It has to be the brittish government stopping the wreck from being filmed. We have footage of the sinking we know whare she went down. It has to be some one with some pull said no

​@@robertstone9988Not necessarily , its just hunting for shipwrecks is an expensive hobby an at the monent the main focus to these people are the shipwrecks of the Pacific War not so much the Atlantic or Mediterranean.

@@hardcasekara6409 it's not like they don't know whare to start looking. I imagine hms Barham is broken in 2 but still large enough to catch nets and show up on local fishing sonar. The brittish are vary protective about there wrecks. I imagine they know whare it is but see no good from allowing its location to be known. Can't really blame them look what happend to pow's and repulse

HMS Barham like so many other British warship is regarded as a war grave since unlike British Soldiers who can be laid out in neat rows each marked with a grave stone, the sailors are lost to the ocean. We are prohibited from diving on or at least interfering with numerous wrecks around the British coast without special permission, that protection is extended to know German war graves in British waters & there is a German military cemetery on land. I know of at least one German individual grave of a Luftwaffe serviceman which whilst empty because the body was moved to the cemetery is still maintained & treated with respect in the coastal village were it lies!

Unlikely. The German government wouldn't be interested, as with most of their WW2 history, the Soviets left it too late and the rest of the world likely considers it something akin to a wargrave, even if no one was aboard when it was sunk.

please stop raping the german airplane names.

Considering the abilities of the British Navy and superior Naval forces, I think Graf Zeppelin would have still suffered the same fate. Just a different location.

@@Peace2U-ec6es very true facts

@@Peace2U-ec6es This being hyperbole, I can concur to a point, ..the British Navy was quite busy escorting convoys and chasing wolf packs. Also, taking any fighting ships away from their already assigned tasks, to go after a carrier group, ..should have created a different scenario against the Bismark. Perhaps even to where she gets away to include if she herself had a carrier escort to fend off the infamous Swordfish. Also, the Goring's Luftwaffe should of had lighter resistance for the Channel crossing during the Battle of Britain. Another scenario to consider is how Sharnhorst, Graf Spee and/or Bismark would have faired or been used in a carrier group.

@@Normandy1944 I admire your thoughts; and your handle (@normandy1944). It would be nice to sit and talk over a pint (or a pitcher) or two, depending on which side of "the pond" you're from and share thoughts and stories. Yes, it's hard to say with certainty what a carrier strike group would have done for the kriegsmarine. I'm certain however, that Adolph Hitlers Naval forces were not favored as much as the land and air forces in the early phase of the war. Hitlers favorite Generals (Goering and Rommel) were winning glorious battles on the ground and in the air, and a navy that could project German military force wasn't needed to win a war in Europe- only to win a war against England. I don't believe the mission of the kriegsmarine was ever going to be more than commerce raiding, but it was ironic that both of the "favored" Generals ended up dead, while Karl Doenitz would succeed Hitler and live out his life until he passed away on Christmas eve, 1980.

You think Jerry could sneak a carrier round to the west without us knowing? He parked-up his battleships in Norwegian fjords because he daredn't move them out to sea.

Yes, that was the story I also read. It's in Purnell's History of the World Wars Special, "Submarines since 1919," Page 47. I read it 40 years ago, and I still have my copy!

Why?

After bomb testing and then being on the borrom for 80 years - IF you could get her to float she'd likely collapse under her own weight.

Pourquoi?

Still the u-boat manage to sunk 3 4 carriers and other ships of the RN

@@loonowolf2160the U Boats were most effective early in the war but didn’t deter anything

@@loonowolf2160 However, just over 800 U-boats were sunk, of course.