Super Zepplins over London force an Armistice 1917

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by MattII

Fine, here's a link. Remember, this was in the days before oxygen masks, so operations that high took a real toll on the crews.

OTL the crews often suffered frostbite and if they touched any metal without wearing gloves their hands got stuck.

[hairysamarian]

Originally Posted by MattII

Fine, here's a link. Remember, this was in the days before oxygen masks, so operations that high took a real toll on the crews. Another 5,000 feet on top of that is impossible to sustain for hours on end without such equipment.

Ok, good. So it's a series of problems including frozen engines and expanding gas. That article does make the problems seem systemic rather than a result of "why didn't we think of that?" Too bad; it's a cool idea.

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by CharlesMartell

Would it be possible, in say 1915/1916 for the Germans to build a Zeppelin (with all the necessary pressurization equipment) that could fly at 30,000 ft?
Also keep in mind that a Zeppelin has the ability to stop more or less stationery relative to a ground target, allowing the crew to deliver bomb loads with close to pin point accuracy.

If Germany had a fleet of two or three hundred of these Super Z's raiding England and Scotland with impunity what would be the effect on the British involvement in the war?

The jet stream kicks in between 23-30,000 ft and is regularly over 70 mph over London (much higher on occasion and further North in the UK - up to 100 mph over Scotland). With the high altitude zeppelins reducing engine power to save weight they could barely make 80 mph top speed. The idea of them being able to keep "more or less stationary" is silly and wrong.

The necessary cabin pressurisation equipment would not be tested for another five years and was not tested in Germany for another 15 years. Given the difficulty that Zeppelin crews were already having at 21,000 ft if they could have developed a pressurisaed cabin they would have.

Germany had built 50 Zeppelins by 1916 and to build another 300 would require an unrealistic diversion of resources particulalry since the high flying pressurised Zeppelins had not even flown by 1915!

[SAVORYapple]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

Germany had built 50 Zeppelins by 1916 and to build another 300 would require an unrealistic diversion of resources particularly since the high flying pressurized Zeppelins had not even flown by 1915!

Maybe a change of direction pre-war?

Like in BlondieBC’s “Rise of the U-boat”, pre-war planners/military officers/Kaiser Willie himself become enamored with the concept of a high altitude zeppelin that can drop bombs on the enemy while at altitude, or carrying 100 heavily armed troops anywhere at need (early vertical envelopment, anyone?), or, better yet, drop glide bombs to destroy enemy battleships. Germany, let’s say starting in 1910, start pouring resources into zeppelins (neglecting their surface fleet slightly in the process), and by 1914, assuming a build rate of 50 a year (not impossible, with enough attention and resources), has a fleet of 200. Early in the war, while heavier than air aircraft are in their infancy (combat wise), and without the incendiary rounds that will easily set hydrogen alight, such craft could be very useful, especially sinking RN battleships with glide bombs.

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by SAVORYapple

Maybe a change of direction pre-war?

Like in BlondieBC’s “Rise of the U-boat”, pre-war planners/military officers/Kaiser Willie himself become enamored with the concept of a high altitude zeppelin that can drop bombs on the enemy while at altitude, or carrying 100 heavily armed troops anywhere at need (early vertical envelopment, anyone?), or, better yet, drop glide bombs to destroy enemy battleships. Germany, let’s say starting in 1910, start pouring resources into zeppelins (neglecting their surface fleet slightly in the process), and by 1914, assuming a build rate of 50 a year (not impossible, with enough attention and resources), has a fleet of 200. Early in the war, while heavier than air aircraft are in their infancy (combat wise), and without the incendiary rounds that will easily set hydrogen alight, such craft could be very useful, especially sinking RN battleships with glide bombs.

"Glide bombs" here being small biplanes carrying torpedoes controlled by wire from the Zeppelin? They are not going to be launching from 30,000 ft! And despite the development of the wire guided ships, applying this to a vehicle moving in three dimaensions at more than twice the speed was tough and failed to be developed by the end of the war.

The development of the incendiary bullet is much much easier than the invention of the remote controlled torpedo launching drone. Air dropped torpdeoes themselves were in their infancy and as was shown later in WW2 a single torpedo attack was fairly ineffective. Two or three hits would be necessary and a dozen or more launched to guarantee that from much more accurate launch platfroms.

[MattII]

Well you can kiss goodbye to either a good portion of the High Seas Fleet, or most of the U-Boats, both of which were of considerably more use to the Germans than any number of Zeppelins.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

"Glide bombs" here being small biplanes carrying torpedoes controlled by wire from the Zeppelin? They are not going to be launching from 30,000 ft! And despite the development of the wire guided ships, applying this to a vehicle moving in three dimaensions at more than twice the speed was tough and failed to be developed by the end of the war.

The development of the incendiary bullet is much much easier than the invention of the remote controlled torpedo launching drone. Air dropped torpdeoes themselves were in their infancy and as was shown later in WW2 a single torpedo attack was fairly ineffective. Two or three hits would be necessary and a dozen or more launched to guarantee that from much more accurate launch platfroms.

The Germans did a lot of test, but I can't find the exact details. The idea was under 10,000 feet up and five miles away. The best I can tell from the information available is that both glide bombs and glide torpedoes were tested, but glide torpedoes were preferred since you only need a 2-D, not 3-D solution. Once near the ship, the wings will fall off and you will get a normal torpedo run.

The time period the Germans did most of the research, Zeppelins were often immune from counter attack. The 10K feet and 5 miles put them outside of the gun envelop, and the UK did not get its first Zeppelin kill from sea based aviation until 1917. After this, the attack would require careful scouting to reduce the risk of enemy carriers being in the area. And trading Zeppelins for dreadnoughts is a good trade, so one can take losses. Almost any fair weather day of WW1, Zeppelins were over the North Sea and Baltic Sea with few losses.

Zeppelins would have likely carried submarine, not airplane size torpedoes. So the Zeppelins will need 1-3 hits to sink a capital ship. And since the concept was likely to use with a fleet engagement (think Jutland type), a wounded ship will be difficult to make it home. It can be loss to gunfire or the U-boats. It is far, far from a perfect weapon. But it had potential, as the Fritz-X showed in WW2. You analogy to WW2 airplanes is not a good data set to use because of changes to technology in the interwar years. And even without sinking or follow up, the taking on of water has benefits. A ship with heavy flooding will lose speed and likely have to fall out of the battle line. A mission kill.

[zoomar]

As one of this board's chief Zeppelin apologists, I can't overemphasize how bad an idea this would be, even if the hypothetical "superzeppelins" were technically feasible.

(1) OTL "Height climbers" acheived their ceilings by being as lightly constructed as possible. Their offensive payload was miniscule

(2) As others have noted, the altitudes height climbers operated OTL were already placing men and equipment at their limits regarding temperature and pressure. No way you could push that up to 30,000 feet without cabin pressurization. Even assuming this could have been done, the added weight of the pressurized compartments or high altitude pressure suits for crew, whould further limite the weapons that could be carried.

(3) Navigation. Even OTL, zeppelins rarely knew where they were without obvious landmarks, and even then they often got it wrong. Also in the few times the Germans attempted to mount coordinated raids, the "formations" (I use the term advisedly) were ususally scattered by high winds, poor visibility, and the individual ships' inability to navigate effectively even during the day in good visibility, let alone at night with cloud cover. If you presume raids consisting of 100's of zeps operating at 25,000 feet or higher, you'd end up with 100's of individual ships wandering over southenm england. About half would not even find their targets and return home, some would reduce altitude to get their bearings and perhaps get shot down, others would drop their bombs at the first target of opportunity. Maybe 1/4 of the force would actually reach London (say) and drop their bombs in the general area of their targets.

Simple fact. Unrestricted submarine warfare was the only way (short of a clear military victory in France) that Germany could have "brought Britain to it's knees". Rather than invest of more zeps, Germany should probably have put all its effort in a u-boat force that could have strangled England and attacked troop convoys before the inevitable US declaration of war and the AEF reached Europe.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by SAVORYapple

Maybe a change of direction pre-war?

Like in BlondieBC’s “Rise of the U-boat”, pre-war planners/military officers/Kaiser Willie himself become enamored with the concept of a high altitude zeppelin that can drop bombs on the enemy while at altitude, or carrying 100 heavily armed troops anywhere at need (early vertical envelopment, anyone?), or, better yet, drop glide bombs to destroy enemy battleships. Germany, let’s say starting in 1910, start pouring resources into zeppelins (neglecting their surface fleet slightly in the process), and by 1914, assuming a build rate of 50 a year (not impossible, with enough attention and resources), has a fleet of 200. Early in the war, while heavier than air aircraft are in their infancy (combat wise), and without the incendiary rounds that will easily set hydrogen alight, such craft could be very useful, especially sinking RN battleships with glide bombs.

It is a very writeable TL. I think 200 is a bit too high, but we can boost up the fleet by another 20-30 at start of war, and more importantly have bigger industrial capacity for the war. The big boost I gave the Germans was not so much more ship at the start of the war, but more industrial U-boat building capacity combined with a good doctrine to use them. I think this would give you a good TL for Zeppelins. We add a few more Zeppelins, and we have the precision weapons ready, but in very limited quantities. Then in the first days of the war, we send out a few Zeppelins (3-5) who probably can carry 3-4 weapons each. If we say sink 3 or more capital ships, we can then get resource to the Zeppelins with priority. By say 12-18 months into the war, we might get 200 or so you are looking for. The would run amuck for a while, then the counter measures would be developed. Then life gets tough.

In my TL, I used the glide bombs in Africa where there was literally no air defense and against Russia which had weak defenses. The Zeppelins have to be used extremely carefully, or things will end badly for the German Zeppelin command.

And the idea of the commando is possible since there is a glaring need to cut RR bridges in Russia to slow mobilization. I was going to write a mini-TL, but did not because I can find no examples of the concept of a Special Forces command prewar. In fact, it is probably easier just to send Cavalry units to cut the bridges. Full division can move 65 miles per day per German logistical schedules. I am sure a company or BN size unit can move much faster for a few days. And many critical Russian bridges are within couple hundred miles of the border. Or for that matter to use just regular bi-planes. They did cut bridges with single bi-plane commando raid in 1916.

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The Germans did a lot of test, but I can't find the exact details. The idea was under 10,000 feet up and five miles away. The best I can tell from the information available is that both glide bombs and glide torpedoes were tested, but glide torpedoes were preferred since you only need a 2-D, not 3-D solution. Once near the ship, the wings will fall off and you will get a normal torpedo run.

The time period the Germans did most of the research, Zeppelins were often immune from counter attack. The 10K feet and 5 miles put them outside of the gun envelop, and the UK did not get its first Zeppelin kill from sea based aviation until 1917. After this, the attack would require careful scouting to reduce the risk of enemy carriers being in the area. And trading Zeppelins for dreadnoughts is a good trade, so one can take losses. Almost any fair weather day of WW1, Zeppelins were over the North Sea and Baltic Sea with few losses.

Zeppelins would have likely carried submarine, not airplane size torpedoes. So the Zeppelins will need 1-3 hits to sink a capital ship. And since the concept was likely to use with a fleet engagement (think Jutland type), a wounded ship will be difficult to make it home. It can be loss to gunfire or the U-boats. It is far, far from a perfect weapon. But it had potential, as the Fritz-X showed in WW2. You analogy to WW2 airplanes is not a good data set to use because of changes to technology in the interwar years. And even without sinking or follow up, the taking on of water has benefits. A ship with heavy flooding will lose speed and likely have to fall out of the battle line. A mission kill.

I'm not sure that the return would be good enough. How many torpedoes to score a hit against a fast moving warship?

Where I will concede the point is in the role of the FW-200 in WW2. The airships could spot for the U-boats and launch an attack against the convoys or lone merchantmen

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

I'm not sure that the return would be good enough. How many torpedoes to score a hit against a fast moving warship?

Where I will concede the point is in the role of the FW-200 in WW2. The airships could spot for the U-boats and launch an attack against the convoys or lone merchantmen

Yea, it would not be within my top 35 things to do to help Germany win WW1. Anything from more trucks to more 155mm artillery to a food planning command has a better return. Outside of building a few more dreadnoughts, few things have lower return on investment.

On the effectiveness, I don't really have data from the tests. It most likely was lost in the interwar years or the great losses in WW2, but it might also simply be only in German. So for a TL, I had to take guess. It looks like to me the weapons to be used likely weighed 2500 to 5000 pounds, and based on Zeppelins spare lifting capacity (normally under 40,000 pounds), I would figure about 4 weapons per Zeppelin. And looking at the Fritz-X, about 1/3 hitting seems right, even though it could be higher or much, much lower. Due to they can't steer too well, five is probably about as big a squadron as you would have attack. So somewhere from 2 to 7 hits looks about right to me for a max effort. I dodge the issue in my TL by only attacking stationary targets.

As to cost effective, the glide weapons should be workable. And Zeppelins were close to DD in cost, so they are cost effective against capital ships even with losses. If the Germans lost 10 more GrossTorpedoBoats for 1 sunk dread, one severely wounded dread, it would be a good trade. So the same for Zeppelins for capital ships. So handwavium, we have the mechanics of the glide weapons worked out in 1914, and 10 trained Zeppelins crews, how would I expect it to go? Well, the Germany Navy took months to really get its bearing, so not much in 1914. By early 1915, we probably are up to 15 Zeppelins trained plenty of weapons. Probably first be used in something like joint action with Scarbourgh raid. We can debate what they would do, but I would expect the RN to lose a couple more ships. There would be a few more precision raids on England in 1915 going for ships in ports, dry docks or other stationary high profile targets. Depending on what you hit, maybe some war impact. Mostly a PR impact. The UK overreacts, and spends huge resource responding above OTL. By Jutland time frame, UK has carriers that can shoot down Zeppelins. Germans lose at least 10 Zeppelins here, and maybe they sink a few dreadnoughts. All depends on commanders skill. For example, if Beatty outruns the aircover, he might lose his command (the QE's), but it could also be the carrier finds the Zeppelins first. Then they will fade from history, but the glide weapon use will be moved up at least a decade from OTL. Zeppelins are mainly remember for bringing in the age of precision guide naval weapons, that will be from airplanes only by 1919 or later. Much like if Hunley had sunk 4-5 Union ships with his submarines. It moves the age of submarines up by a decade or two, mainly due to different funding decisions by navies.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

I'm not sure that the return would be good enough. How many torpedoes to score a hit against a fast moving warship?

Where I will concede the point is in the role of the FW-200 in WW2. The airships could spot for the U-boats and launch an attack against the convoys or lone merchantmen

I agree. Also, hook on airplanes with bombs or torps could be far more reliable than radio guided aerial torpedos...and I suspect it would not take any longer to develop the technology for that than effective guide bombs. With serious research and experiment, Germany could certainly have been able to launch and retreive planes from its zeps before the end of the 1914-18 war. Also, naval recon airships could be ruggedly built low level ships with a much bigger useful lift than height climbing bombers

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Simple fact. Unrestricted submarine warfare was the only way (short of a clear military victory in France) that Germany could have "brought Britain to it's knees". Rather than invest of more zeps, Germany should probably have put all its effort in a u-boat force that could have strangled England and attacked troop convoys before the inevitable US declaration of war and the AEF reached Europe.

Agreed if you want any type of POD to break the British, especially with Naval or air based POD. The unrestricted part of USW did not really help, but that is a long discussion. The optimal strategy once you get into September 1914 or later is to cancel all dreadnought building that is not near completion. Use the men to build U-boats and modify AMC. Maybe even a few custom built cruisers for raiding, if it can be done fast. Use remaining labor to build larger torpedo boats. You can't win the war while France is still fighting, but you do get benefits. Fewer supplies means worse Entente performance in Italy and France. Fewer luxuries in England will lower morale, and begin the process of getting the UK to think about peace. And once you have knock France out of war, you can begin process of really applying pressure to UK. If by some miracle, Germany is still in shape to fight on a few more years.

[Herzen's love-child]

Even if the POD were possible, it will not only make the British mad, it will make them more inventive. Innovations in defense during WW1 were pretty level with innovations in offensive tech. It wouldn't in the best of circumstances have been a game-changer and certainly wouldn't of have led to CP victory.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

And Zeppelins were close to DD in cost, so they are cost effective...

You had me up to here. Unit and crew cost is one thing. Deployment and infrastructure cost is another. Several squadrons of new DD's or u-boats could be built by existing shipyards and based at existing facilities or deployed temporarily to more distant stations with little additional cost.

Building a fleet of 100 airships the size of battlecruisers would require a huge investment in additional fabricating sheds, bases/hangars, hydrogen supplies, etc that would make the program extremely costly. While the Germans actually built almost 100 zeppelin airships during WW1, rarely were more than a relative handful in service at any one time due to attrition.

[Alex1guy]

The whole thing is going to become such a HUGE waste of money once aircraft capable of climbing to meet the Zep's are built. The first aircraft capable to getting to over 30k feet were around as early as 1920 (granted this was tests in the USA). If the Germans are bombing with Zeppelins, you can guarantee the British are going to put resources into stopping such a threat and we might see this earlier. Once they have aircraft capable to climbing to meet the Zep's, it's all over. Huge waste of money.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

Even if the POD were possible, it will not only make the British mad, it will make them more inventive. Innovations in defense during WW1 were pretty level with innovations in offensive tech. It wouldn't in the best of circumstances have been a game-changer and certainly wouldn't of have led to CP victory.

Well, yes. This is the problem with the whole German Naval strategy. Prewar and during the war. The RN had a huge number of ships. Sinking a few more capital ships or a few dozen more cruisers doesn't really do much. I sank 26 RN predreads and 6 dreads from my TL, and the RN still had naval superiority in all areas. Maybe a small lead, but still a lead. And Germany failed to win the war on land, not the sea. So naval POD are only relevant to a win based on influence land actions and influence on morale and decision making. So for these POD, it is mainly relevant if it changes the USW decision, which is possible. As far as winning the war, Zeppelins sinking 20 merchant ships (100,000 tons or so) has a lot more impact than sinking 4 QE dreadnoughts.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by zoomar

You had me up to here. Unit and crew cost is one thing. Deployment and infrastructure cost is another. Several squadrons of new DD's or u-boats could be built by existing shipyards and based at existing facilities or deployed temporarily to more distant stations with little additional cost.

Building a fleet of 100 airships the size of battlecruisers would require a huge investment in additional fabricating sheds, bases/hangars, hydrogen supplies, etc that would make the program extremely costly. While the Germans actually built almost 100 zeppelin airships during WW1, rarely were more than a relative handful in service at any one time due to attrition.

Do you happen to have these numbers for building the support structure. I looked at the prewar German Naval budgets, and I could not find any itemized numbers, so I think you are overestimating how much it costs for the sheds and the like. After all, a mid war dreadnought is getting close to 12 million USD which is 1.2 billion adjusted for inflation and 12 billion adjusted for size of economy. This would mean each building would need to cost 12 million (USD today), which seems high for a simple shed to me. So yes it is a big cost, but it is not backbreaking costs. I would have to look again, but I am pretty sure the active Zeppelin numbers was often in the 20's or 30's during the war.

Now to write a good TL, I would go with a slower ramp up. And unlike the dreadnoughts, these are likely dual use ships than can bring in passenger revenue. I think in a TL, these cost get hidden in non-military budget prewar. If you build say 8 Zeppelin Airports with 5 hangers each, there is plenty of room for the extra 20-30 airships to dock prewar. With the Great range of these ships and 150mph speed, you don't have to be right on coast to be effective. Essen to Scapa Flow raid is quite doable, it is just a few more hours round trip each way. Same for Berlin to Scapa Flow.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Alex1guy

The whole thing is going to become such a HUGE waste of money once aircraft capable of climbing to meet the Zep's are built. The first aircraft capable to getting to over 30k feet were around as early as 1920 (granted this was tests in the USA). If the Germans are bombing with Zeppelins, you can guarantee the British are going to put resources into stopping such a threat and we might see this earlier. Once they have aircraft capable to climbing to meet the Zep's, it's all over. Huge waste of money.

Not exactly how it plays out. It is just one of these projects that goes over budget. But then again, most WW1 BB needed armor adjustment to deal with plunging fire and torpedo defense modification. All WW1 subs will be showing their age by the end of the war - too shallow dive, too small torpedo. Planes had less than a year of service before largely useless. I am doing TL with Zeppelins in it, and the upgrade issue are a fairly minor budget issue compared to all the other budget issues. You just have to go to Helium, which is quite doable in a CP win. Posen currently supplies 10% of the worlds Helium supply, so it is just a matter of funding. Once you have helium in the ships, then they become hard to shoot down items. It depends on how many sub bags you put the Helium in.

Now Zeppelins are a niche weapon in all circumstances, and they are vulnerable. But a helium Zeppelins is no more vulnerable to the weapons of its day than AWAC, C-130's, or tanker planes to modern weapons. And you will have to use them with the same care you use these type of planes. The thing that ends in WW1 is attacks on land. And I think you are a bit optimistic on naval aviation. If we look at altitudes, many carrier sea planes in 1935 would struggle with 30K feet, much less 40K or 50K. The test you site on are unarmed land base planes. It is much harder to build a carrier based fighter that can meet the stressful needs of a carrier life style and can yet engage a target at 150 miles range at 45k feet moving at 50-250 mph complete with fighter aircraft being vector in. Yes, an undefended Zeppelin is an easy target in some case. But an USA AWAC can probably be shot down by a 1950 eras MiG. The Humvee I drove could be killed by a WW1 era weapon, quite a few different weapons really.

And final note, it is clear to me in any ATL where glide weapons are developed and the CP wins that by 1920, the glide weapons will only be used on planes. If a Zeppelin carries a glide torpedo or some early version of a Fritz-X, it will only be a last ditch self defense weapon much like modern ships carry torpedoes to deal with close in submarines. It will be a weapon to use when for some reason you did not see the destroyer sneaking up on you and you are flying low for some reason. By the late 1920's, Zeppelins can only be visual AWAC type aircraft (height climber role) or the more Macon type role, which I am not entirely sold on, but others on this board are more enthusiatic for.

[ModernKiwi]

How good was RN intelligence on German naval/airship development? Because if this development in high altitude airships (and the increase in the number of airships in the fleet) is noticed at all, they're likely to start development of high angle AA weapons a lot earlier too.

One flak fragment puncture of a pressurised cabin at 30,000 feet is going to ruin your whole day.