Feasibility of airships in ww2?

I do not know anything substantial about the technical side of the matter, I'm not even sure airships counts as aircraft, though they are craft in the air, right? Aside from that question about nomenclature, I'd be were happy if for anybody knowledgeable chiming in.

The background for my question is that, as time goes by, I become ever more aware of the problem of fuel for all the axis powers, especially oil. To concentrate on Germany, it is repeatedly suggested that they should have tried ramping up their efforts in one specific potentially war-winning area. Doing proper strategic bombing campaigns is one example, long distance maritime warfare another, and here I do not focus on the operational problems or the question what else dosn't get build. I'm focusing on what else won't be operated.

I take as a premise that the oil situation for the duration of the war was a real problem. while Germany never entirely ran out of oil, the situation was at all times precarious, to differing degrees of course. Both interdiction near a frontline and strategic bombing targeting rail lines, further could make problems in around around fuel to where it was needed, the worst example probably being if it was moved by air instead, using up more fuel in the process.

And then I thought about Zeppelins. I am aware that they are vulnerable in the extreme, but what would be the feasibility in the early war for Germany to use airships for transporting bulk resources over the internal territory, or at any time the territory not endangered by roaming allied fighters? I'm not really suggesting Germany could have sawed enough oil in the first half of the war to win in the second, more relative effectiveness.

Airship transport will be relatively slow, but i assume it will be more fuel effective, correct me if I'm wrong. But how many Ju 52's does it take to build one airship, and related, what size should an airship ideally have? How large an infrastructure is needed to keep them operating, how much upkeep and what are the demands on manpower? On industry? I don't expect helium to be a realistic option? was it maybe done to a small degree? famously one of the early successful bombing raids against strategic targets were against zeppelins in the first war. how vulnerable would the whole system be to strategic bombing in the second?

These are loose questions whose answers will depend on contexts, but they are so many that even a little factual information or tentative suggestions would make me a lot wiser.

A Zeppelin fleet is limited by how many sheds you have to protect them from storms. Their utility cant be compared to the rail system. A Zeppelin had a pay load of about 20 tons. An item on TV said the construction of Zeppelins caused a sausage shortage in Germany because the gas sacks were made of Goldbeater's skin - Wikipedia dunno if that's true, but could be.

Could have been usefull closeing the atlantic gap very soon.

The USN used lighter-than-air aircraft for maritime patrol during WWII. I do know they operated off the US Eastern Seaboard, and over the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico.

I do not think that airships were cost-efficient in cargo transportation ever, in any period of time. I'd like them to be.
Enthusiasts are still trying to find a right niche for them.

Some of the earlier threads:
Why weren't zeppelins/airships used on a large scale during the war?
Use of Zepplins in the U-boat war

Dimlee said:

I do not think that airships were cost-efficient in cargo transportation ever, in any period of time. I'd like them to be.
Enthusiasts are still trying to find a right niche for them.

Some of the earlier threads:
Why weren't zeppelins/airships used on a large scale during the war?
Use of Zepplins in the U-boat war

Click to expand...

Problem is they use fuel and as they use fuel they get lighter. The other problem is their top speed is less than common wind speeds and they don't do "wheels up" landings very well.

pbehn said:

Problem is they use fuel and as they use fuel they get lighter. The other problem is their top speed is less than common wind speeds and they don't do "wheels up" landings very well.

Click to expand...

They're slower than rail transport and barely, if any, faster than road transport, are certainly less fuel-efficient than the former, and are probably more labor intensive than either. Against ships, they have severely limited payloads (a single ship can easily carry tens of thousands of tons of cargo), are more labor intensive, and aren't enough faster. Against airplanes, they're simply too slow.

It must have been something to travel by zeppelin. Looking out the windows, down at earth, while slowly flying by...

Several points to ponder:
First is the ship's vulnerability to weather. Many of the air disasters suffered by the military airships of Britain and the U.S. in the interwar period were due to bad weather.
Secondly, the volatility of the lifting gas (being Hydrogen) saw many mishaps and since the U.S. was the sole supplier of Helium, Germany would not be able to eliminate the potential of more disasters like the Hindenburg.
And then the issue of steel for the Zepplin's framework. They required a considerable amount of steel for their framework unlike the K-ships of the USN, which were blimps with a gondola.

The only value I could see is a ultra high altitude recon platform or a one way high altitude unmanned strategic bomber. Not sure either one would offer more benefit than it costs. I could see Japan using them in place of their balloon bombs to the US/Canada Northwest. I would think 20 tons of small incendiaries dropped at the same time could cause some serious fires in those forests.

The Japanese were on the right track with the FuGo balloons, their one mistake was that they weren't sending them over between June and September, which is when the West Coast is tinder dry.
Had they done that, than the program would have been far more successful.

Sort of like a hot-air balloon ride without the worry about where the wind is blowing from.

There were the aircraft carrier airships.

GrauGeist said:

The Japanese were on the right track with the FuGo balloons, their one mistake was that they weren't sending them over between June and September, which is when the West Coast is tinder dry.
Had they done that, than the program would have been far more successful.

Click to expand...

Huh, like the Japanese, I never thought of that either, good call.

swampyankee said:

The USN used lighter-than-air aircraft for maritime patrol during WWII. I do know they operated off the US Eastern Seaboard, and over the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Click to expand...

Also operated out of North Africa for Atlantic approaches to the Gib straits and also into the Med as well.

Vulnerability in an area where there was any possibility of enemy aircraft has to be considered. That makes their deployment or use in much of western Europe and the Atlantic problematic.

During the late August phase of the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe adopted huge fighter escorts for relatively few bombers, which had to be intercepted in an attempt to get at the bombers, but also fighter sweeps ahead of raids in an effort to confuse British RDF and draw of British fighters. These were usually ignored and one such raid, just six Bf 109s shot down all 23 balloons of the Dover barrage in a few minutes.

Obviously, barrage balloons are not airships, but it does illustrate how vulnerable airships or any other aircraft lifted by flammable gas, would have been to modern fighters with modern weapons and ammunition.

GrauGeist said:

The Japanese were on the right track with the FuGo balloons, their one mistake was that they weren't sending them over between June and September, which is when the West Coast is tinder dry.
Had they done that, than the program would have been far more successful.

Click to expand...

I agree, imagine what would happen with an airship carrying 3,500 11lb incendiaries slowly dropping them over a wide area. That would start a serious fire storms!

stona said:

Vulnerability in an area where there was any possibility of enemy aircraft has to be considered. That makes their deployment or use in much of western Europe and the Atlantic problematic.

During the late August phase of the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe adopted huge fighter escorts for relatively few bombers, which had to be intercepted in an attempt to get at the bombers, but also fighter sweeps ahead of raids in an effort to confuse British RDF and draw of British fighters. These were usually ignored and one such raid, just six Bf 109s shot down all 23 balloons of the Dover barrage in a few minutes.

Obviously, barrage balloons are not airships, but it does illustrate how vulnerable airships or any other aircraft lifted by flammable gas, would have been to modern fighters with modern weapons and ammunition.

Click to expand...

US airships, at least, would use helium. Obviously, Axis ones wouldn't.

I think the Germans surveyed the Chain Home system with airships in peace time, one of the few things I can think it would be better than a plane at.

Capt. Vick said:

It must have been something to travel by zeppelin. Looking out the windows, down at earth, while slowly flying by...

Click to expand...

The British had an imperial airship scheme in the works.

Imperial Airship Scheme - Wikipedia

This included a 1936 route from Britain to Australia, a journey of 10,500 miles / 16 898 km / 9,200 nmi. I believe that was to be non-stop, but not sure. With a top airspeed of 60 knots, and assuming the right winds were used, that would take about 160 fight hours, or about seven days.