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
Ah, but a surfaced U-boat is cannon-fodder for destroyers, so it's a catch-22 situation for the unlucky German captain.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).
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?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?
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).