Use of Zepplins in the U-boat war (1 Viewer)

[The Basket]

So the German U-boat campaign was hampered by lack of airpower which could have been met by use of long range Zepplins operating from French bases.

So Zepplins could be used as scouts and recon and carry their own bombs for attacks against shipping.

The main goal would be discovery of convoys and then to act as a radio controller for wolf pack interception.

Of course this window of opportunity would be short and swift.

But did a window exist and if it did, how well would Zepplins do.

 

[Shortround6]

Are you talking about WW I or WW II?

A Zeppelin in WW II was a disaster waiting to happen for a Blenheim with the four gun package underneath, especially with a a high percentage of incendiary ammunition.

with a Max range of around 1400 miles (radius of 500 miles with reserves and an hour at range limit?) Crossing the Bay of Biscay for the Zeppelin would be a hazerdous undertaking indeed.

Please note that in the fall of 1939 the Blenheim "fighter" outnumbered the Spitfire in Fighter Command so the numbers were there even if the tactics/method was not.

I would note that using radar equipped Blenheims as day fighters against Zeppelins would go a long way in solving any issues in "spotting" the Zeppelins in clouds

You probably couldn't design a better radar reflector if you tried. and that is before you put the aluminized paint on it.

 

[The Basket]

Ww2.

One doesn't dispute that Zepplins could be in danger but talking specifically very early 1940-1941 era.

 

[Shortround6]

Blenheim with 4 guns under the belly and one in the wing can fire 100 rounds per second. If even 1/2 are incendiary into a hydrogen filled Zeppelin?

800 ft long and 135 ft in diameter. Hitting it is not going to be a big problem.

Top speed 84mph so even Blackburn Skua's would have a field day.

 

[Glider]

I don't think there is any doubt that it would be a one way trip for the Zeppelin. A slightly more practical idea would be the Allies using a similar balloon to fill the gap in the central Atlantic where the land based aircraft couldn't reach. They wouldn't be able to attack but they would be able to report and co ordinate naval attacks, and their presence would help the U Boats from tracking

 

[fliger747]

USN of course used B-limps for coastal anti sub patrol. They were equipped with depth charges and did sink one or two U Boats.

 

[glennasher]

So the German U-boat campaign was hampered by lack of airpower which could have been met by use of long range Zepplins operating from French bases.

So Zepplins could be used as scouts and recon and carry their own bombs for attacks against shipping.

The main goal would be discovery of convoys and then to act as a radio controller for wolf pack interception.

Of course this window of opportunity would be short and swift.

But did a window exist and if it did, how well would Zepplins do.

I would think that the Condor was a much better choice for such things. At least the Condor crew would have a chance to survive if a catapult-launched Hurricane got off a merchant ship.

 

[The Basket]

Cam hurricanes didn't appear until summer 41.
Not saying the Zepplins would be better than Condors but simply fill the gap for the first few months.

 

[Shortround6]

The US did build 154 Blimps during WW II but did not really start until late 1941/early 1942.
I would note that only the US had the Helium needed for lighter than air ships.
The British did get a fair amount of Helium from the US for barrage balloons but the quantities of helium needed for a number of large airships might be problem.

large rigid airships required an awful lot of aluminium and and awful lot of labor.

some sources are saying 130,000kg empty.

 

[nuuumannn]

Interesting thread, because that's precisely what the German navy used its rigid airships for during the Great War, for naval reconnaissance, although primarily for its surface fleet. The latent threat these airships posed was recognised by the Royal Navy and led to the fitting of high angle guns to its ships and eventually aeroplanes to be flown from gun turrets on capital ships. A Zeppelin, L 23 was shot down by Flt sub Lt Bernard Smart flying a Sopwith Pup launched from the cruiser HMS Yarmouth in August 1917. The superiority of aeroplanes over airships was more than proved during the Great War. If a Sopwith Pup (or even a BE.2c of all things) could shoot down a Zeppelin in 1916 (the year when the first rigid airships were shot down over Britain by BE.2cs), then their use in WW2 would have been entirely wasteful.

large rigid airships required an awful lot of aluminium and and awful lot of labor.

This was the main reason why big rigids were considered a waste militarily even during the Great War. Only the Germans built large numbers of them for military purposes. Although Britain had rigids during the war, it had only a handful and chose to devote its airship effort to non rigids for maritime patrol, at which task they proved relatively successful - as did the US Navy's use of blimps during and after the war in the same role. Militarily, the rigid was a needless waste of money. Non rigids were faster, could respond to submarine threats more quickly from the ground and the air, were easier to handle on the ground and in the air and were significantly cheaper than a rigid airship to build and maintain. For less than the cost of one 23X Class rigid, the British could build three SSZ non rigids, or two bigger, long ranging North Sea Class non rigids.

R29 s

R.29, a 23X Class airship and the only one credited with the destruction of a submarine; the U boat UB 115.

SSZ 59

the Submarine Scout Zero Class SSZ.59 about to land on HMS Furious in 1918.

NS 7 NS 8 sm

The North Sea Class non rigids, NS.7 and NS.8.

The Admiralty calculated that the construction of one airship shed big enough to house a rigid airship cost the same as a dreadnought to build. It wasn't the hydrogen that killed the rigid airship, it was the cost and the logistics of operating them in the face of the cheapness and ease of operating aeroplanes and their ever increasing performance as technology improved.

EF airship facilities

A typical RNAS airship station, with its giant sheds and hydrogen processing plant.

These photos are from my own collection and I have permission to use them from the original source.

 

[GrauGeist]

The USN did have several airships in service between the wars, however, they proved to be troublesome in adverse weather.
The USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) crashed in Ohio during a thunderstorm with the loss of 14 crewmen.
ZR-2 (former Royal Navy R38) crashed due to catastrophic failure, killing all but 5 crewmen.
The USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) was one of the few Navy airships to see a full career without incident and incidently, was decommissioned and scrapped in 1939.
The USS Akron (ZRS-4) crashed off the coast of New Jersey during a thunderstorm, killing nearly all the crew. The Akron also had the noteriety of being the world's first flying aircraft carrier.
The USS Macon (ZRS-5), also a flying aircraft carrier, crashed off the coast of California during a storm losing only two crewmen.

During the war, however, the USN Blimps (Navy K class and Army TC class) had a much better safety record, operating successfully on the Pacific and Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Gibraltar.

So perhaps the Blimp's ability to flex without harm where a ridgid airship would fail, gave it the advantage?

 

[tyrodtom]

I would be pretty hard for the Germans to built the support facilities in France in the short timeline between the fall of France and the rise of Allied air power in the Bay of Biscay.
And the enormous Zeppelin sheds, occupied or not, would be mighty tempting targets, just like they were in WW1.

 

[Shortround6]

" on 22 September 1914 Tabloids mounted the first raid by British aircraft on German soil; and in their most famous mission two RNAS Tabloids flying from Antwerp on 8 October 1914 attacked the German Zeppelin sheds at Cologne and Düsseldorf. The Cologne target was not located, the railway station being bombed instead, but the Zeppelin shed at Düsseldorf was struck by two 20 lb bombs dropped from 600 ft and Zeppelin Z IX destroyed "
Bruce Flight 8 November 1957, p. 736.

 

[nuuumannn]

Problem with operating airships, any airships on the frontline was their vulnerability to attack. They are practically defenceless. Their sheds made juicy targets and with the USA in control of the production of helium and the ease at which large volumes of hydrogen could be manufactured means lots of fire. The Brits during the Great War had very few hydrogen related incidents by comparison to the Germans and that was put down to quality control. Looking at the numbers, the RNAS operated around 200 non rigids during the war, although not at the same time, with the most at any one time being over 80 around early to mid 1918. Of these only a handful were lost due to hydrogen igniting and the big shed at Howden was damaged by fire, but was continued to be used post-war.

Weather is also a big problem for airships. As has been pointed out, the US Navy lost Shenandoah, Akron and Macon in weather related disasters. Akron was the largest loss of life in an airship related disaster. Britain lost R.101 in bad weather, although poor design and excess weight also contributed. This was Britain's worst airship disaster and its worst peacetime disaster since the loss of Titanic in 1912. Britain lost a number of non rigids through weather related causes on the ground and in the air. A few of them simply disappeared and no trace was ever found.

Anyway, the point is, airships were just too fickle. Long range aeroplanes were definitely the way ahead, despite the airships' usefulness in maritime patrol.

 

[The Basket]

Hydrogen is not as dangerous as people think. Yes it goes bang but only when the air mixture is right.
Heluim is a lot more expensive and only sourced from the US of A if memory serves.

Hydrogen has more lift than helium and obviously cheaper and easier to produce.

I would wager that hydrogen is no more dangerous than avgas.

Based on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that airships would not have worked. There was a window but it was very narrow and involves winter and building sheds and infrastructure and by the time that all was worked out it would have been too late.

I'm learning!

 

[fliger747]

Surprisingly the British 'ad to work for quite a while to develop a lethal ammunition combination to bring down the Zepplins. One would think that one incendiary and bang, but as mentioned above the right fuel air mixture is needed, which is not attained inside a hydrogen "cell". Additionally the cells were under low pressure in a rigid airship and the small holes rather minuscule as to the volume and pressure differential.

Somebody can look this up, my imperfect recollection was that a combination of solid and incendiary rounds were used.

 

[nuuumannn]

Somebody can look this up, my imperfect recollection was that a combination of solid and incendiary rounds were used

Already done. Incendiary rounds were the most effective weapon for bringing down airships. The Royal Aircraft Factory BE.2c bears the distinction of being the aircraft type that brought down more airships than any other type, as innocuous as it was.

0107 Shuttleworth Military Pageant BE.2e
A reproduction RAF BE.2e of identical configuration as the home defence squadrons BE.2cs; hardly worthy of the reputation of most proficient Zepp killer.

Although there were others developed during the war, the main types of phosphorus bullets used by the Home Defence squadrons were the Buckingham, Brock and the Pomeroy incendiary bullets. The former was a flat nosed bullet used over the front for balloon busting, the Brock worked on the mistaken belief that exhaust gases were ducted between the gas cells and the envelope to create a 'layer' of inert gas, of which there wasn't, and the latter was a highly sensitive explosive bullet, developed by New Zealander John Pomeroy and reputedly hand made on the top floor of the Home Defence headquarters in London by Pomeroy and his wife!

The mix carried in magazines aboard aircraft differed between units and applications, but was typically 3 x ordinary, 1 x tracer, 1 x armour piercing, 1 x incendiary in both Vickers and Lewis machine guns.

 

[Jugman]

Hydrogen is not as dangerous as people think. Yes it goes bang but only when the air mixture is right.
Heluim is a lot more expensive and only sourced from the US of A if memory serves.

Hydrogen has more lift than helium and obviously cheaper and easier to produce.

I would wager that hydrogen is no more dangerous than avgas.

Based on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that airships would not have worked. There was a window but it was very narrow and involves winter and building sheds and infrastructure and by the time that all was worked out it would have been too late.

I'm learning!

You would so lose that wager.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And even if it was "no more dangerous than avgas", that would make it bad enough.

I set an aircraft fuel bladder on fire simply by using an electric drill in the vicinity of it. Pulled the trigger, and FOOSH, a 3 foot flame shooting out the bladder opening.

 

[The Basket]

I am very familiar with Hydrogen. Don't need wiki.