Why weren't zeppelins/airships used on a large scale during the war? (1 Viewer)

[GrauGeist]

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

Actually, Helium's lifting capacity is only 8% less than that of Hydrogen. Helium gas is also slightly denser than Hydrogen and will not "seep" through the gas-bag material like Hydrogen does. Plus, Helium is not volatile and was the lifting gas of choice by the USN for their airships.

 

[pbehn]

Actually, Helium's lifting capacity is only 8% less than that of Hydrogen. Helium gas is also slightly denser than Hydrogen and will not "seep" through the gas-bag material like Hydrogen does. Plus, Helium is not volatile and was the lifting gas of choice by the USN for their airships.

It was on a discussion of modern versions, maybe they meant in terms of the minimum structural weight. even the lightest structure weighs something with engines fuel and crew.

 

[DerGiLLster]

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

My thread was talking about for the Atlantic crossing or the early stages of Barbarossa. Definitely not that stage of the war.

 

[wuzak]

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

It does sound like you're saying only Axis powers had hydrogen.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My thread was talking about for the Atlantic crossing or the early stages of Barbarossa. Definitely not that stage of the war.

Ok thanks for carifying. My response was to this post of yours...

"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."

 

[GrauGeist]

My thread was talking about for the Atlantic crossing or the early stages of Barbarossa. Definitely not that stage of the war.

Here's some examples of airships versus storms:
Imperial Germany Navy LZ-14: crashed during storm off Heligoland, 9 September 1913. 14 dead, 6 survivors.
US Navy Shenandoah ZR-1: crashed during storm over Ohio, 3 September 1925. 14 dead, 29 survivors.
Royal Air Force R101: crashed during storm over France, 5 October 1930. 48 dead, 6 survivors.
US Navy Akron ZRS-4: crashed off New Jersey during storm, 4 April 1933. 73 dead, 3 survivors.
US Navy Macon ZRS-5: crashed off California during high winds, 12 February 1935. 2 dead, 81 survivors.
US Navy K-133: lost over Gulf of Mexico during storm, 19 April 1944. 12 dead, 1 survivor.

 

[swampyankee]

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

Aah.. he meant "only hydrogen was available to the Axis." Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DerGiLLster]

Ok thanks for carifying. My response was to this post of yours...

"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."

Oh okay, thanks for pointing that out. My fault, should have picked a year for Germany.

informative snip

Thanks, though I already have been convinced that for the Atlantic it would be near useless due to the storms. A shame really. Would be nice to dodge those U-Boats. Though, there is the Hercules aircraft, but that's another thread...

 

[GrauGeist]

Thanks, though I already have been convinced that for the Atlantic it would be near useless due to the storms. A shame really.../QUOTE]
Note the times of the disasters - spring and fall. That would also apply to the eastern front, which had spring and fall storms that would build up quickly in the afternoons and evenings. That would leave the summer months for a relatively safe window of operating.

The Hindenburg had four seperate weather report sources that it used to extrapolate a safe course when crossing the Atlantic, but it's voyages were planned within relatively calm weather cycles. They had the luxury of peacetime for these passages but in wartime, ships & aircraft have to get through, no matter the conditions or time of year.

 

[swampyankee]

Actually, Helium's lifting capacity is only 8% less than that of Hydrogen. Helium gas is also slightly denser than Hydrogen and will not "seep" through the gas-bag material like Hydrogen does. Plus, Helium is not volatile and was the lifting gas of choice by the USN for their airships.

The molecular mass of helium is 4; that of hydrogen is 2. At sea level, a cubic meter of air has a mass of about 1.22 kg; a cubic meter of hydrogen, 0.09 kg, and a cubic meter of helium, 0.17 kg. This means that lifting 1,000 kg of mass requires about 885 cubic meters of hydrogen vs 955 cubic meters of helium, which is a spherical hydrogen balloon of 11.9 meters vs a spherical helium balloon of about 12.2 meters.

Helium actually "seeps" through membranes more easily than hydrogen, as the helium molecule (He) is smaller than the hydrogen molecule (H2); helium is actually the smallest atom.

 

[Shortround6]

While 112 tons sounds impressive vs what a Ju 52 carried it is only about 4-6 of those 4 wheeled train freight cars. Yes the Zeppelin is faster but it is a lot more expensive to buy and operate.

Zeppelins don't land in open fields very well. You need some sort of mooring mast (well anchored) even for minor winds and a clear radius of the length of the Zeppelin plus safety margin.

 

[The Basket]

A Zeppelin offers marginal performance in a very narrow window of opportunity which doesn't equal the sheer costs involved to get that value.

Again, Hydrogen is not as dangerous as people think and no worse than avgas. Yes it goes bang but so does the petrol I put in my Rolls Royce (I call my Kia a Rolls Royce) and still alive.

The radar return on a Zeppelin is brighter than a diamond and its performance is so poor that even a Swordfish would fancy its chances.

If you want to kill aircrew, it is far easier to put them in front of a firing squad and far cheaper than flying Zeppelins for the same result

 

[Barrett]

The one instance of Zepps in a logistic role (that I know of) was a doozy: 1917 effort to supply German forces in East Africa. But about halfway there L.59 received an abort message (whether from Germany or a UK spoof may be uncertain) so no go. But it was a daring, innovative plan.

 

[Dimlee]

Just to add few bits.
1. Eastern Front weather. This is huge front, from Arctic down to Caucasus. Even summer is not safe period everywhere. Areas in the North and close to Baltic and Black Sea have cyclonic weather, November - March period can be very rough.
2. Costs effectiveness - very poor. Airships are still struggling to find their niche. Too slow compared to aircraft. Too little payload compared to ground/water transport. Dozens of various designs, new materials and other improvements since 1930s - but nothing practical (yet).
I just do not see any "niche" for airships on Eastern Front even in the situation of total LW domination. Too much efforts for carrying the payload compared (or less) than of the Gigant.
The only place I see for them - in some "alternate history" scenario where Germany pushes USSR deep in Siberia where absence of rail network requires some unorthodox measures.