Flyng Carriers

it all comes down to ladle-able weight, (how much can it carry), a ship can obvious carry more ordnance and fuel to support a flight group than a dirigible, and given the rapid pace of development in aviation and ship borne aircraft at the time period of the dirigibles, ship based aircraft carriers make more sense and easier to build, use, and operate also costs would be less
BTW several of the airship disasters had survivors
 
well the idea behind the airships was more of reconaisance and patroling in which they were very sucesfull and much cheaper then navy ships. and they would be great at anti sub operations in ww2 especially if outfited with radar. with these there would be no mid atlantic gap
 
well the idea behind the airships was more of reconaisance and patroling in which they were very sucesfull and much cheaper then navy ships. and they would be great at anti sub operations in ww2 especially if outfited with radar. with these there would be no mid atlantic gap

If the US Navy rigid airship program had been more successful, they would have been extensively deployed as platforms to follow transatlantic convoys and watch for U-boat activities. Mind you, the U-boats would have tried to retaliate by putting in more powerful antiaircraft guns on deck, and that would have make the big airships potentially quite vulnerable to a direct hit from a U-boat AA gun (airships, unlike airplanes, don't fly that fast).
 
So mount powerful guns (or rockets, or recoiless rifles) on the blimp. Shooting down is usually easier than shooting up. OR better yet, give the blimp radar, so it can spot the sub hundreds of miles away and give itself and the convoy hours to either prepair to engage it or take avoiding action. Early AWACS anyone?
 
Mind you, the U-boats would have tried to retaliate by putting in more powerful antiaircraft guns on deck, and that would have make the big airships potentially quite vulnerable to a direct hit from a U-boat AA gun (airships, unlike airplanes, don't fly that fast).
Ah, but a surfaced U-boat is cannon-fodder for destroyers, so it's a catch-22 situation for the unlucky German captain.
 
So mount powerful guns (or rockets, or recoiless rifles) on the blimp. Shooting down is usually easier than shooting up. OR better yet, give the blimp radar, so it can spot the sub hundreds of miles away and give itself and the convoy hours to either prepair to engage it or take avoiding action. Early AWACS anyone?
shooting down like that with out computer control is harder than you think, and by the time the dirigible gets into gun range (@ 60 to 80 mph) and starts firing ranging shots the sub is long gone under water even aircraft had a hard time getting close to subs during daylight when they could see them coming, radar wasn't around yet when the dirigibles or blimps were in this intended use, if you're going to take that step why not give them weapons grade lasers or rail guns?
 

Hoist40

Banned
The last destroyed US Navy airship was the USS Macon which only lost 2 out of 76 on board

The next airship design proposed was the ZRCV. It was going to be much larger, 897 feet long with a gross lift of 592,000 pounds. it was suppose to carry 9 aircraft located along her keel. They were suppose to be BT-1 bombers the early version of the later SBD dive bombers, though some reports say that a mixed fighter and bomber force would be used.

If such a airship would have been built it would have used its aircraft for scouting, bombing and also anti-submarine work and so would not get in range of enemy AA guns.
 
If the US Navy rigid airship program had been more successful, they would have been extensively deployed as platforms to follow transatlantic convoys and watch for U-boat activities. Mind you, the U-boats would have tried to retaliate by putting in more powerful antiaircraft guns on deck, and that would have make the big airships potentially quite vulnerable to a direct hit from a U-boat AA gun (airships, unlike airplanes, don't fly that fast).

The large riged airship was an evolutionary dead end. They were just too fragile and with too little carrying capacity. Ironically the far cheaper non rigid airships were far more robust and the larger ones could perform the long range patrols more effectively.

In the First World War the British North Sea type non rigid airships matched the performance of the German Navy's rigid airships for less cost in time to build, manpower and strategic resources. Sadly the post war RAF wasn't interested in Airships and the US Navy ignored the NS Class's record prefering the more expensive, and impressive looking Zeppelins.
 
Top