Why weren't zeppelins/airships used on a large scale during the war?

[DerGiLLster]

Okay, this may sound like a dumb question, so I need someone to explain this to me.

Why didn't Germany utilize Zeppelins as part of it's logistics during the war. It's not to deal with front line service. I know the obvious shortcomings of that. It'd be easy meat for fighters. I'm talking of some behind the lines like 40-50 miles. I figure that would be safe. The LZ 129 Hindenburg had a load of 224,000 pounds or 112 tons at its max. It could carry this figure a few hundred miles, enough for being close to the front lines of Russia.

Is there something I don't realize when asking this? I know that of the 2 zeppelins Germany had pre-war, one was destroyed in an infamous accident, which needs no introduction, the LZ 129. The other was scrapped in April 1940, LZ 130, for aircraft parts. Were there any resource constraints on the Zeppelin to begin with when transporting goods near the front? I don't believe steel was an issue at all. 150 tons of steel was needed to build a zeppelin. A regular locomotive needed 2/3 of that demand to be built.

Was gasoline an issue? 4 Daimler Benz engines were used to power the ship. That fuel was equal to a few Ju 52s. Was hydrogen an issue? Any industrialized nation could produce hydrogen in a large supply, so I know Germany it wasn't a hurdle. Both zeppelins of Germany used around 70 tons of hydrogen. How often did hydrogen need to be refilled in the zeppelin? Any zeppelin historians know of the technicalities facing these machines and their flight?

On another note, why couldn't the United States utilize zeppelins/airships for transporting goods to Britain? Resources of no issue to the US. The airships could carry supplies many times faster than ships could, and were basically immune to interception, as obviously U-Boats could do no good, and no German plane would have the range to go east of Britain. The cargo would be much more limited (10 vs. 10,000 tons), but the higher speed and easier construction costs would make transporting goods much safer. I see the US having the industrial capacity to build a couple thousand airships to transport goods to Britain, without the need for transport ships and escorts, further reducing steel use for transporting goods. British fighters could escort such airships once they were few hundred miles away from Britain.

So why weren't airships put into use serving the field of logistics? What prevented them from delivering supplies?

 

[GrauGeist]

We just had an in-depth discussion about this:

Use of Zepplins in the U-boat war

 

[swampyankee]

Okay, this may sound like a dumb question, so I need someone to explain this to me.

Why didn't Germany utilize Zeppelins as part of it's logistics during the war. It's not to deal with front line service. I know the obvious shortcomings of that. It'd be easy meat for fighters. I'm talking of some behind the lines like 40-50 miles. I figure that would be safe. The LZ 129 Hindenburg had a load of 224,000 pounds or 112 tons at its max. It could carry this figure a few hundred miles, enough for being close to the front lines of Russia.

Is there something I don't realize when asking this? I know that of the 2 zeppelins Germany had pre-war, one was destroyed in an infamous accident, which needs no introduction, the LZ 129. The other was scrapped in April 1940, LZ 130, for aircraft parts. Were there any resource constraints on the Zeppelin to begin with when transporting goods near the front? I don't believe steel was an issue at all. 150 tons of steel was needed to build a zeppelin. A regular locomotive needed 2/3 of that demand to be built.

Was gasoline an issue? 4 Daimler Benz engines were used to power the ship. That fuel was equal to a few Ju 52s. Was hydrogen an issue? Any industrialized nation could produce hydrogen in a large supply, so I know Germany it wasn't a hurdle. Both zeppelins of Germany used around 70 tons of hydrogen. How often did hydrogen need to be refilled in the zeppelin? Any zeppelin historians know of the technicalities facing these machines and their flight?

On another note, why couldn't the United States utilize zeppelins/airships for transporting goods to Britain? Resources of no issue to the US. The airships could carry supplies many times faster than ships could, and were basically immune to interception, as obviously U-Boats could do no good, and no German plane would have the range to go east of Britain. The cargo would be much more limited (10 vs. 10,000 tons), but the higher speed and easier construction costs would make transporting goods much safer. I see the US having the industrial capacity to build a couple thousand airships to transport goods to Britain, without the need for transport ships and escorts, further reducing steel use for transporting goods. British fighters could escort such airships once they were few hundred miles away from Britain.

So why weren't airships put into use serving the field of logistics? What prevented them from delivering supplies?

There are some technical issues -- neither the US nor the UK had significant experience in building rigid airships (aka "zeppelins") -- but here goes with some more.

• I believe the gas bags were made by piecing together large numbers of pieces of the intestinal membranes of cattle.
• They required very large crews for ground handling, in the dozens, at each end of a journey.
• Easier construction is highly unlikely; these were large, lightweight structures. Their construction would be much more similar to aircraft than to ships
• Ten tons cargo capacity is pretty minuscule. To put that into perspective, a single Merlin weighed 1,640 pounds. An outfit of shells for a cruiser, like the HMS Sheffield, weighed about 250 tons. Rather obviously, armored vehicles, railroad rolling stock, and heavy trucks have unit weights over 10 tons, and won't be zeppelin-mobile. (two asides: during the Yom Kippur War, in 1973, the US resupplied Israel with M-60 tanks. The tanks carried by C-5s were beaten by tanks carried by general cargo ships that sailed from Israel, to the US and back, arriving before the aircraft. A second is that during one of the convoy battles, a ship carrying bulk sugar was sunk. Its cargo was three weeks sugar ration for the entire UK. Ships can carry a lot more than aircraft.
• Helium was available, but was also a finite resource.

Economically, do note that LTA transport was pretty exclusive to Germany, and the zeppelins were not seen as particularly cost-effective. Certainly, Lufthansa wasn't ordering any. The Hindenburg and its kin were not intended to be cost-effective transport; they were intended to be propaganda pieces.

 

[DerGiLLster]

We just had an in-depth discussion about this:

Use of Zepplins in the U-boat war

Thanks for the link. I appreciate it. Did go into detail regarding the flammable aluminum skin for the Hindenburg. Though, I am looking for the use of zeppelins on the eastern front, or alternately the use of them to transport goods by the United States.

 

[DerGiLLster]

There are some technical issues -- neither the US nor the UK had significant experience in building rigid airships (aka "zeppelins") -- but here goes with some more.

• Ten tons cargo capacity is pretty minuscule. To put that into perspective, a single Merlin weighed 1,640 pounds. An outfit of shells for a cruiser, like the HMS Sheffield, weighed about 250 tons. Rather obviously, armored vehicles, railroad rolling stock, and heavy trucks have unit weights over 10 tons, and won't be zeppelin-mobile. (two asides: during the Yom Kippur War, in 1973, the US resupplied Israel with M-60 tanks. The tanks carried by C-5s were beaten by tanks carried by general cargo ships that sailed from Israel, to the US and back, arriving before the aircraft. A second is that during one of the convoy battles, a ship carrying bulk sugar was sunk. Its cargo was three weeks sugar ration for the entire UK. Ships can carry a lot more than aircraft

Economically, do note that LTA transport was pretty exclusive to Germany, and the zeppelins were not seen as particularly cost-effective. Certainly, Lufthansa wasn't ordering any. The Hindenburg and its kin were not intended to be cost-effective transport; they were intended to be propaganda pieces.

I chose 10 tons as I recall reading somewhere that the cargo capacity for a zeppelin doing a round trip, was around that range. I never postulated they would replace ships entirely but for certain goods they could work. Food, gasoline, exotic metals and cotton, along with a couple jeeps could do fine on ten ton transports for airships. The rest as you put forward are good points for why ships would be needed, anything exceeding ten tons.

Though for short ranges, being a few hundred miles, they could carry much more, 112 tons, so they might be helpful for the eastern front, where they would be invulnerable to partisans for rail sabotage. Germany did have complete air superiority in the first year of the war, I thought that dropping supplies behind the front lines would make it safe for them.

Sorry for repeating the Germany part, I just thought that the part concerning cost effectiveness would not matter as their syn. fuel program cost at least a dozen times per gallon regarding regular gasoline, but they went forward with it, as it was the only option they had for them.

Sorry! I'm still learning. I just feel like more questions have opened for me

 

[Greg Boeser]

From what I have read about early airship operations, they were very susceptible to weather. High winds would make them impossible to handle.

 

[DerGiLLster]

From what I have read about early airship operations, they were very susceptible to weather. High winds would make them impossible to handle.

Are we talking about the eastern front or the atlantic?

 

[GrauGeist]

Thanks for the link. I appreciate it. Did go into detail regarding the flammable aluminum skin for the Hindenburg. Though, I am looking for the use of zeppelins on the eastern front, or alternately the use of them to transport goods by the United States.

We also covered why airships (not blimps) were impractical: they were subject to violent storms, which caused the demise of the majority of the US Navy's airship fleet prior to WWII and were the demise of quite a few of the Royal Navy's airships as well.
While the US airships (and blimps) used Helium, Hydrogen was only available to the Axis, which was (as you already know) highly volatile in a combat situation and their bases proved to be a prime target for Allied forces in WWI, and would have been a prime target for the Allies in WWII, too.

 

[GrauGeist]

Are we talking about the eastern front or the atlantic?

Anywhere.
Airships were (and are) fair weather aircraft. They are also incapable of outrunning a fast moving storm front.

The Atlantic is know for it's sudden and violent storms, but on the Eastern Front, you have storms that develop in spring and fall along with harsh winters, creating a short window of favorable weather between spring and fall, which is not really practical, to be honest. The expense of building, manning and operating airships for such a short operating period is not really cost effective - add to that, the vulnerability from enemy aircraft and it becomes more of a liability than an asset.

 

[wuzak]

While the US airships (and blimps) used Helium, Hydrogen was only available to the Axis, which was (as you already know) highly volatile in a combat situation and their bases proved to be a prime target for Allied forces in WWI, and would have been a prime target for the Allies in WWII, too.

Do you mean that the Axis did not have access to helium?

 

[fliger747]

Yes, the USA had a monopoly on Helium.

 

[GrauGeist]

Do you mean that the Axis did not have access to helium?

Yes, I mean the Axis did not.
The U.S. is, and has been, the primary source of Helium.

 

[DerGiLLster]

informative snip

Hey thank you for the post. Was not aware of the storms for the atlantic. Best to look into a bit of meterology for WW2, before, during and after. Would the use of hydrogen not be a concern for the Eastern Front since the Germans had air superiority? I wanted to ask since in your next post:

... on the Eastern Front, you have storms that develop in spring and fall along with harsh winters, creating a short window of favorable weather between spring and fall, which is not really practical, to be honest. The expense of building, manning and operating airships for such a short operating period is not really cost effective - add to that, the vulnerability from enemy aircraft and it becomes more of a liability than an asset.

Would the cost matter to the Germans? If for June through August, the Germans could use the Zeppelin to carry troops just behind the front line, away from risk of strafing fighters, but close for horses to retreat supplies, it would add to the logistical situation.

For your concern on fighters, how often were Soviet fighters strafing behind German lines? Were the Germans at complete air superiority or were there Soviet fighters that often strafed behind the lines? Only example that comes to my mind during the war, were the Night Witches that flew Po-2s for psychological warfare. I don't know how far they flew behind the lines. I only know their range was just touching 400 miles total and their max speed seems at the same as a Zeppelin.

 

[GrauGeist]

The German's air superiority was constantly challenged in the early years of the eastern front.

The VVS had the Pe-2 and Tu-2, which were fast and heavily armed and performed deep bombing and ground attack as well as enemy bomber interception.

Rigid airships not only were at the mercy of the elements, they were slow. Painfully slow.

The Hindenburg (LZ 129) had a top speed of 84 mph. The USS Akron had a top speed of 79 mph, USS Shenandoa had a top speed of 69 mph and the Royal Navy's R38 class airships were capable of 71 mph.

So even the Polikarpov U-2 could catch an airship with it's top speed of 94 mph...

 

[DerGiLLster]

The German's air superiority was constantly challenged in the early years of the eastern front.

The VVS had the Pe-2 and Tu-2, which were fast and heavily armed and performed deep bombing and ground attack as well as enemy bomber interception.

Rigid airships not only were at the mercy of the elements, they were slow. Painfully slow.

The Hindenburg (LZ 129) had a top speed of 84 mph. The USS Akron had a top speed of 79 mph, USS Shenandoa had a top speed of 69 mph and the Royal Navy's R38 class airships were capable of 71 mph.

So even the Polikarpov U-2 could catch an airship with it's top speed of 94 mph...

Thanks for the post. Seems that had Germany had more fuel for interceptors, it may have helped.

Woah, just reading about the Pe-2 and its raid on the Ploesti oil fields is impressive. It destroyed about a weeks worth fuel for a mechanized division. Just six of them.

Though to be fair the Po-2 did have weak armament ans was made of wood, so MG mounts on the zeppelin would have provided good protection(unless the soviets use rockets, which were out of the range of MGs, though not sure how reliable they were 1941).

But wow, that Pe-2 just from reading would have been a killer.

 

[pbehn]

Zeppelins were actually quite difficult to take down until incendiary rounds were invented. So big they were hard to hit without flying into them or the resulting fire and wreckage.

 

[swampyankee]

We also covered why airships (not blimps) were impractical: they were subject to violent storms, which caused the demise of the majority of the US Navy's airship fleet prior to WWII and were the demise of quite a few of the Royal Navy's airships as well.
While the US airships (and blimps) used Helium, Hydrogen was only available to the Axis, which was (as you already know) highly volatile in a combat situation and their bases proved to be a prime target for Allied forces in WWI, and would have been a prime target for the Allies in WWII, too.

Hydrogen was available to everyone; it was produced by passing superheated stem over coal, with the reaction C + H2O(g) => CO + H2. It was how town gas was produced.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

50 to 60 miles behind the lines is still not safe. Allied fighters were all over Germany by 1943 - 1944.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hydrogen was available to everyone; it was produced by passing superheated stem over coal, with the reaction C + H2O(g) => CO + H2. It was how town gas was produced.

"Hydrogen was only available to the Axis" meant that they were not able to get Helium from the U.S.

 

[pbehn]

Helium reduces the lifting capacity by half which would mean almost no lifting capacity on many designs.