Zeppelins in war - what could have happened

[Narwhal]

Hello,

The first zeppelin raised above the ground at about the same time as the plane, so in military matters zeppelin was an early competitor to plane - to which it lost except in niche roles [Maritime reconnoissance, *very* long range bombing or exactly 2 supply raids).

Now, as far as I understand, the technology for zeppelins was available as soon as the second part of the 19th. During the Romanian railroad bankrupcy crisis, Bismarck said something along the line of "If I could send the army by ballons to Romania, I would - only I can't". This made my imagination run crazy.

Now let's imagine the second part of the 19th century saw an early rise in "lighter than air" war technology - could those have been used for tactical bombing ? efficient strategical bombing ? Would they have changed maritime warfare ? Could one imagine transporting troops by zeppelin ? What would be the counters [I envision Jule Verne-ish giant steamguns, but that's just me] ?

 

[DoomBunny]

Hydrogen zeppelins? That's gonna be a problem.

Helium you still have issues with speed, bombload, size, and manoeuvrability. You'd need a rather large leap for the things not to be replaced by aircraft.

 

[Kovax]

The airship was limited by some of the same factors as restricted early airplanes, but slightly less so because if their greater lifting capacity. In the late 1800s, it was still impractical to make airships large enough for the kind of military use to which they were put in WWI, due to power, weight, and various other technical issues. By the early 1900s, internal combustion engines offered higher horsepower-to-weight ratios, aluminum alloys were developed with greater strength for their weight, and other technical innovations had occurred or been refined to the point of being practical.

They could still have served in reconnaissance, long-distance communications (before practical wireless radios), and for the transport of small quantities of critical items or individuals at a time when there was no other means besides surface travel. Bombing would have been extremely limited in effect until better detonators were devised, as they were also being developed and improved for naval gun use (which were adapting to the change from mainly solid shot to optional fused HE rounds), and would still have been of only minor overall value until metallurgy and engine technologies allowed for a higher payload. Note that in the ACW, observation balloons were used, and the life expectancy of an observer was usually measured in minutes. The airship offered the opportunity for an even higher observation point (slightly safer), but less detail at that higher altitude. Unlike a balloon, it could scout far behind enemy lines and return.

I think they could have made a "valuable addition" to the militaries of the day, but not caused a fundamental change in the nature of warfare as the heavier-than-air craft began to do only a few decades later. Counter-measures would in all probability have begun with mostly high-angle multi-purpose guns, with ever-increasing muzzle velocities and ranges on more specialized "anti-air" weapons to reach the airships, which in turn would have had to fly higher, making it harder to hit a target, exactly as happened with bomber aircraft. Most likely, a higher emphasis on an aerial component in warfare would have resulted in slightly faster progress on heavier-than-air craft as well, since so much of the technology is similar.

WWI proved that the airship was a viable military tool in some roles, although it was steadily obsoleted in most of those roles by the end of the war, as airplanes became the dominant tool in the air.

Note that Germany broke up its commercial Zeppelin fleet at the outbreak of WWII, in order to use the aluminum alloy for more effective wartime purposes. By that stage, they were impractical for military use, but still highly feared by the British public because of their role in WWI. The US used a sizable fleet of blimps for convoy protection duty, with the highly impressive claim that not a single convoy vessel was ever sunk while airships were on patrol overhead.

[ Note that hydrogen lifting gas had issues with flammability, but NOT as much of a problem as it's made out to be. A tracer round travels through the air at high velocity, and burns in the oxygen available. It strikes and penetrates a gas cell in an airship, and is completely immersed in hydrogen. Without oxygen, it goes out, then re-ignites after it exits the gas cell on the opposite side. Aircraft attempting to shoot down an airship had to either create a line of tracer fire at the same target point for several seconds, while under intense return fire, or to make multiple passes (while under return fire) in the hope of hitting a spot with leaking hydrogen from a previous pass. A few pilots became "good at it", plenty of others became casualties. ]

 

[Herbert West]

Hydrogen zeppelins? That's gonna be a problem.

Not really. While the Hindenburg at its like are very well-publicized incidents, with proper compartmentalization and protection, hydrogen is fine.

 

[Ming]

One lighter than air technology that could have made a big impact on airships would be a small and relatively fast method of compressing the lifting agent on board, adjusting the lift capacity of the craft at will without losing any of it.

This would have smoothed handling and simplified logistics so much that new roles for the things could have been envisioned. They wouldn't have been better than planes at much but niche roles could have been found. Long range convoy escorts with parasite fighters like the USS Macon and Akron seem like likely candidates. In real life, the political will to develop the program in the face of handling and weather accidents just wasn't there.

Of course, if you have such advanced compression technology, you'd probably be synergizing the further development of Dynamite guns. No 20th century zeppelin would become a worthwhile gun platform, but it might at least be better armed against encountering other airships and defense against planes.

 

[Ethan194]

Germany sent an airship to east Africa during the first world war that's pretty good rang compared to aircraft of the time.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Hydrogen zeppelins? That's gonna be a problem.

Helium you still have issues with speed, bombload, size, and manoeuvrability. You'd need a rather large leap for the things not to be replaced by aircraft.

Zeppelins + Incendiary ammunition = Flying torches

Once incendiary ammunition appeared, the reign of Zeppelins was quite soon over. One rule in warfare is that if you have a new weapon then you can be sure that an intelligent enemy will develop countermeasures against that weapon.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Aynthing could have happened, there are no bounds for the sheer coolness of Zeppelins.

 

[Calad]

Well zeppeling troop ships are technically possible but the problem is that they are so vulnerable. Technology developed so fast during that time that there would have been a small tech gab before heavier than air machines were fuctional so during that small period zeppelins could have been decisive factor on war. But because of zeppelins are so vulnerable to fire and accidents anything that could have shot them would have destoyed them immeaditely. Thats why there are no zeppelins today.

 

[DoomBunny]

Zeppelins + Incendiary ammunition = Flying torches

Once incendiary ammunition appeared, the reign of Zeppelins was quite soon over. One rule in warfare is that if you have a new weapon then you can be sure that an intelligent enemy will develop countermeasures against that weapon.

Hence the helium comment, though that still leaves you with a bunch of problems inherent in Zeppelins.

 

[Amallric]

Zeppelins + Incendiary ammunition = Flying torches

Once incendiary ammunition appeared, the reign of Zeppelins was quite soon over. One rule in warfare is that if you have a new weapon then you can be sure that an intelligent enemy will develop countermeasures against that weapon.

Well zeppeling troop ships are technically possible but the problem is that they are so vulnerable. Technology developed so fast during that time that there would have been a small tech gab before heavier than air machines were fuctional so during that small period zeppelins could have been decisive factor on war. But because of zeppelins are so vulnerable to fire and accidents anything that could have shot them would have destoyed them immeaditely. Thats why there are no zeppelins today.

You guys haven't read any single post in the thread, have you? Zeppelins were NOT suicidal, exploding flying torches. They could take one hit or two just alright; in fact, I'm pretty sure they could handle that much better than an airplane hit by the same shell at the same distance.Still I don't think they could have ever replaced airplaines as a weapon, but as a means of transportation they could have competed with them if circumstances went differently.

 

[th3freakie]

What about Zeppelins as Revengeweapons? Fill a couple with the most combustible gas/materials you can muster, send them over the Louvre, ignite flying fiery ball of death.

 

[Herbert West]

What about Zeppelins as Revengeweapons? Fill a couple with the most combustible gas/materials you can muster, send them over the Louvre, ignite flying fiery ball of death.

That mostly files upward via buoyancy, harmlessly illuminating the night sky.

 

[th3freakie]

That mostly files upward via buoyancy, harmlessly illuminating the night sky.

I'm pretty sure the Hindenburg crashed. Are we exclusively talking about lighter models?

 

[Kovax]

Zeppelins could indeed take more than one "hit". I read about one case during WWI (I don't recall the source) where a Zeppelin was hit by a 105mm artillery round while bombing London. The shell entered at an angle and punctured several gas cells, but missed the internal framework which might have been sufficient to detonate the round. The airship crew didn't notice any problem until they were nearing the Channel, and simply pumped in a bit more gas from an auxiliary tank. By the time they crossed France and reached German lines, they were starting to drop uncomfortably close to rifle range. Once home, repairs took a matter of minutes.

Note that an airship develops "aerodynamic" lift, as well as buoyancy. Moving at cruising speed, the Hindenburg was capable of lifting some tens of tons of additional payload. A "hook" arrangement was devised to allow it to "snag" intercontinental mail after it had achieved some speed, and additional water ballast was often taken on by flying over a lake. Rather than add gas, they either dropped water ballast or tilted the nose up to increase lift.

A case listed in the US Congressional Record (during the '60s) describes an incident during the 1950s in which a blimp accidentally "picked up" a tree while attempting to land at night for directions (they were lost), which punctured the envelope, and which was uprooted and carried along when they attempted to abort the landing. They didn't notice the tree until morning. Earlier, they had attempted to land in a farmer's field, which resulted in a loud cracking sound and a lot of sparks, and which caused distant city lights on the horizon to suddenly go out. After daylight, they were able to figure out where they were, and made it safely to an airfield.

The reason why at least 1 of the 3 US dirigible were lost in storms was due to them being used to obtain meteorological data in conditions which would demolish a heavier-than-air craft of the time. Rather than run from storms, they sometimes flew into them. The Shenandoah broke up into 3 pieces in violent wind shear conditions, but aside from one crewman who fell from the structure, most of the remaining crew rode the individual sections to the ground safely. The Akron and Macon were destroyed by being slammed against the ground or water by violent winds, conditions which would have destroyed any regular airplane that wasn't heavily tied down or inside a hanger. "Fragile" is not a word I would use for them; "vulnerable" in wartime, yes.

 

[krieger11b]

A big problem with using Zeppelins was that they were really slow and simply could not easily add speed light a heavier than air plane would, the cross section is so big that aerodynamic drag is a far worse problem. Not mention a big slow target is a wet dream for anyone with some anti aircraft artillery.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Nonsense.

 

[BrunoDerKaiser]

Nonsense.

Blimey, just imagine the awesome ramming air battles. The possibilities are endless!

 

[eleinvisible]

Zeppelins are perfect and a more potent form of aerial warfare will never be conceived. It is impossible, many companies and nations have tried. All with no success.

They were extremely competent in reconnaissance, along with balloons. But then they figured to fire bigger guns at the nearly stationary objects from afar and so it was that the era of slow recon was at an end. Except at very far distances, such as naval. It could still be used in air transit, but the shear cost of the gas, metal and fabric necessary was far more than equivalent passenger count of heavier than aircraft. Lack of speed didn't help much at all.

As a heavy bomber it was not so useful. They could be taken off course by heavy winds and were literally so slow as to be bombed (by an airplane) mid-flight! They were certainly frightful during night attacks but they did Germany more harm than good. The propaganda about the dastardly Zeppelin baby-killers was effective.

 

[Jorlaan]

Did anyone else read: The Nomad of Time? That book had some pretty awesome airship action going on.