Ah yes, I've just realised... Somebody must have workd out how to mass-produce Cavourite!
Naval guns on an airship?
- Thread starter Shtudmuffin
- Start date
BlondieBC
Banned
One later WW1 Zeppelin had 65,000 pound payload. An earlier one had 20,000. A 15cm gun weights 15,000 lbs. You also want to have ammo. I can't see more than two of any gun above a machine gun. I have trouble seeing even that except in some experiment. Exactly what do you plan to do with a single 5" gun?
What if the gun was recoiless? OTL we've scaled such designs up to 106mm. No reason it can't go bigger.
Realistically, small bilmps make good long endurance UAVs. They're quiet, cold, and stealthy, can carry missiles can strike ground targets, AWACS radars are easily supported to provide 24/7 capacity, and a small DP cannon could make it almost invaulnerable against missile strikes.
I could also imagine something like a flying Scimiter light-tank, with a rack of brimstones & stormshadows, a millenium gun, and one week cabin for three crew. So a 'fighterbomber blimb' or 'tank blimp'.
Realistically, small bilmps make good long endurance UAVs. They're quiet, cold, and stealthy, can carry missiles can strike ground targets, AWACS radars are easily supported to provide 24/7 capacity, and a small DP cannon could make it almost invaulnerable against missile strikes.
I could also imagine something like a flying Scimiter light-tank, with a rack of brimstones & stormshadows, a millenium gun, and one week cabin for three crew. So a 'fighterbomber blimb' or 'tank blimp'.
whatisinaname
Donor
This does make me think of the film three musketeers (2011) with the "airships" battleing each other and evolving from that 
Highly Improbale Images from the film
http://steampunkchronicle.com/Portals/4/SPCArticles/2011/Emilie Bush/000p10zz.jpg
http://www.storyboards.nl/artistgal\con-threemusk/resize_Cardinals_Ship_ortho_side_colvar_01_12a.jpg
Highly Improbale Images from the film
http://steampunkchronicle.com/Portals/4/SPCArticles/2011/Emilie Bush/000p10zz.jpg
http://www.storyboards.nl/artistgal\con-threemusk/resize_Cardinals_Ship_ortho_side_colvar_01_12a.jpg
BlondieBC
Banned
Glide bombs or missiles are the realistic weapon system. Zeppelin have such low pay loads, and are used in small number; therefore, to be effective, it is precision guided munition. A Zeppelin has a 30-45 ton max capacity. Gunboats went up to 600 tons, cruisers 8,000 tons.
Now yes, they would have made great AWAC platforms if filled with Helium. Pearl Harbor would have been much tougher to attack with 2-3 AWAC Zeppelins. Zeppelins are an effective naval weapon, but would not work so well near enemy land based air.
An with a Zeppelin, altitude is the best armored, followed by many helium filled subcompartments.
What kind of missiles are you thinking of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_bomb
tank blimp?
From memory one of the reasons the Maus gets derided, and rightfully so, is that regardless of how armoured and upgunned it could be it would always be a slow moving target the size of a house. Compared to everything else in the air, isn't an inevitable problem for any combat dirigible/airship be that no matter what technological wonders you develop to get the thing airborne it is always going to be a slow moving target the size of a multistorey block of flats, with a similar level of maneuverability, limited armour and the added attraction of being targetted from every possible angle?
Perhaps the greatest hope for this weapon system is to leave it unarmed, so a good old-fashioned reconnaisance ballon out of range of any enemy fire. As soon as you put any type of gun on it then there will be a temptation to fly it close enough to an enemy to engage them. And as soon as that happens your flying warship becomes a (temporarily) flying coffin.
From memory one of the reasons the Maus gets derided, and rightfully so, is that regardless of how armoured and upgunned it could be it would always be a slow moving target the size of a house. Compared to everything else in the air, isn't an inevitable problem for any combat dirigible/airship be that no matter what technological wonders you develop to get the thing airborne it is always going to be a slow moving target the size of a multistorey block of flats, with a similar level of maneuverability, limited armour and the added attraction of being targetted from every possible angle?
Perhaps the greatest hope for this weapon system is to leave it unarmed, so a good old-fashioned reconnaisance ballon out of range of any enemy fire. As soon as you put any type of gun on it then there will be a temptation to fly it close enough to an enemy to engage them. And as soon as that happens your flying warship becomes a (temporarily) flying coffin.
BlondieBC
Banned
A lot depends on the year, and if filled with helium. There is about a 10 year window where Zeppelins have a major payload advantage on airplanes, and over 50 where they have endurance. If hydrogen filled, they are vulnerable to light fire, if helium, it takes a more sustained attack.
Your armor statement misses the point. A Zeppelins defenses are altitude, helium, and its size.
It makes sense to have the appropriate light AA guns once planes can reach the altitude the Zeppelin flies at.
As to using it for weapons, it the period of greater payload lift (1910-1920), it can do anything a WW2 high payload, long range aircraft can do, at least until airplanes can reach its payload. It can drop bombs from high altitude with all the associated problems, deploy troops behind enemy lines, supply isolated units. But it does each role poorly and is only justified if the objective is very, very high value and their is no other practical way to do it.
After about 1920, it role is simply an AWAC well behind the front lines with lots of ground base air support, or a naval AWAC where it stays away from strong enemy air power.
"After about 1920, it role is simply an AWAC well behind the front lines with lots of ground base air support, or a naval AWAC where it stays away from strong enemy air power."
Well that's my point. I know that altitude is an airship's only defence, and helium increases survivability. My comment relates to earlier posts on this thread suggesting arming the airships, whether it be with a 15" naval gun, missiles, PGMs, or other tactical weaponry to generate some form of aerial tank or weapons platform. All such ideas are inherently flawed because of the unavoidable design features of an airship - they are large, slow, light and way up in the sky where they can be seen miles away.
Now I agree that if the idea is to use them for noncombat roles then there is some merit in the idea, that's why I said that the only prospect is to use them as unarmed recon plattforms. Or for transport of course, which of course is being done even today. But those roles are outside the remit of the OP - armed airships. As you point out BC they had a role in WWI as bombers, and as you correctly state they were inaccurate as they needed height to avoid being shot down. Today (or any date after 1918) even that limited combat role is closed off because aircraft can easily get to them, even infantry have weapons that can damage or down an airship regardless of whatever it's armed or armoured with. So the whole concept of an armed airship becomes self-defeating, the only roles that it has usefulness in are performed well away from the enemy, so arming it is pointless in those cases. The only reason to arm an airship is to have it perform some role in a combat environment, any of which will see it quickly destroyed. So why arm an airship?
Well that's my point. I know that altitude is an airship's only defence, and helium increases survivability. My comment relates to earlier posts on this thread suggesting arming the airships, whether it be with a 15" naval gun, missiles, PGMs, or other tactical weaponry to generate some form of aerial tank or weapons platform. All such ideas are inherently flawed because of the unavoidable design features of an airship - they are large, slow, light and way up in the sky where they can be seen miles away.
Now I agree that if the idea is to use them for noncombat roles then there is some merit in the idea, that's why I said that the only prospect is to use them as unarmed recon plattforms. Or for transport of course, which of course is being done even today. But those roles are outside the remit of the OP - armed airships. As you point out BC they had a role in WWI as bombers, and as you correctly state they were inaccurate as they needed height to avoid being shot down. Today (or any date after 1918) even that limited combat role is closed off because aircraft can easily get to them, even infantry have weapons that can damage or down an airship regardless of whatever it's armed or armoured with. So the whole concept of an armed airship becomes self-defeating, the only roles that it has usefulness in are performed well away from the enemy, so arming it is pointless in those cases. The only reason to arm an airship is to have it perform some role in a combat environment, any of which will see it quickly destroyed. So why arm an airship?
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Maybe if you had a Zeppelin fitted out for ASW a small naval gun for targeting submarines on the surface might be justified say 75-105mm
The US had great success in WWII with ASW blimps, this could be an earlier, larger cousin
The US had great success in WWII with ASW blimps, this could be an earlier, larger cousin
The best weapon for such a blimp is not a gun; it's a radio. Follow the target around continuously broadcasting its location to your friendly aricraft and naval vessels and then sit back and watch the show.
Foregoing the gun means carrying more fuel, which means you can stay up there longer and be even more of a nuisance (or menace, depending on your POV). And if the target tries shooting at you, so much the worse for him; more time for the hounds to show up.
Heated hydrogen?
I see no benefit in possessing a fleet of armed airship, be it at sea or on land, as said early: They generally work best as spotters.
Heated hydrogen?
Well, you could try it if you really want to.
I'll just stand over...
... here.
True, although equipping it with a Fritz-X might help since it would mean you could open a gap in the destroyer net and/or cause some serious confusion among the rest of the escorts.
First off, any large weapons and magazines would have to be situated at the bottom of the airship, or at least located in keels in the lower half (such as in the lateral keels of ZRS-4 and ZRS-5 (Akron and Macon). "Superstructures" containing guns and conning towers above the hull are completely impossible.
Second, a turret or platform capable of mounting anything larger than a 3-5 inch gun together with the mechanisms to move it, the magazines, ammo and ammo handling equipment would be far too heavy to be safely carried by the light aluminum framework of a rigid airship. Strengthening the framework to carry several msuch weapons would create a ship that might not have sufficient useful lift to function or even fly.
The localized weight would severely stress the overall structure. Forget about 15 inch guns.
Third, any large calibre guns carried by an airship would have to be recoilless. You'd either need a recoilless rifle or an extremely complex (and heavy) mounting system that would soak up all the energy. There is no way the light structure of a rigid airship could withstand the shock of recoil, and even the muzzle blast from a 3-5 inch gun could wreak havoc on the fabric surface of the hull if fired in any direction other than directly away from the ship.
Fourth. Armoring gun mountings or turrets is impossible because of weight issues. Magazines would be completely unprotected.
Fifth, even if the above problems were solved or ignored, an OTL airship could probably carry at most 2-5 such guns, with only a small amout of ammo.
Finally, what purpose does this serve? If the enemy were other airships, spotting and adjusting for the "fall" of shot would be hard because gunlayers would have no splashes or explosions to see. Even direct hits from shells might pass right thru the airship and not explode if they didn't hit a resistant part of the structure. Ships would almost have to close to point blank range like 18th century sailing ships to reliably hit each other.
If the targets were on sea or land, the airship would be incomparably less powerful and less resistant to damage than their likely enemies. Land forces would find them somewhat harder to hit because of their relatively high speed and the fact that they are flying, but armored ships (even light crusiers) and a couple of tanks tanks would have little trouble destroying or crippling any airship that attempted to tangle with them using guns alone.
Nope. If you want airships to have useful warmaking capability, think of them as flying aircraft carriers or possibly glide-bomb launchers, not flying battleships.
Second, a turret or platform capable of mounting anything larger than a 3-5 inch gun together with the mechanisms to move it, the magazines, ammo and ammo handling equipment would be far too heavy to be safely carried by the light aluminum framework of a rigid airship. Strengthening the framework to carry several msuch weapons would create a ship that might not have sufficient useful lift to function or even fly.
The localized weight would severely stress the overall structure. Forget about 15 inch guns.
Third, any large calibre guns carried by an airship would have to be recoilless. You'd either need a recoilless rifle or an extremely complex (and heavy) mounting system that would soak up all the energy. There is no way the light structure of a rigid airship could withstand the shock of recoil, and even the muzzle blast from a 3-5 inch gun could wreak havoc on the fabric surface of the hull if fired in any direction other than directly away from the ship.
Fourth. Armoring gun mountings or turrets is impossible because of weight issues. Magazines would be completely unprotected.
Fifth, even if the above problems were solved or ignored, an OTL airship could probably carry at most 2-5 such guns, with only a small amout of ammo.
Finally, what purpose does this serve? If the enemy were other airships, spotting and adjusting for the "fall" of shot would be hard because gunlayers would have no splashes or explosions to see. Even direct hits from shells might pass right thru the airship and not explode if they didn't hit a resistant part of the structure. Ships would almost have to close to point blank range like 18th century sailing ships to reliably hit each other.
If the targets were on sea or land, the airship would be incomparably less powerful and less resistant to damage than their likely enemies. Land forces would find them somewhat harder to hit because of their relatively high speed and the fact that they are flying, but armored ships (even light crusiers) and a couple of tanks tanks would have little trouble destroying or crippling any airship that attempted to tangle with them using guns alone.
Nope. If you want airships to have useful warmaking capability, think of them as flying aircraft carriers or possibly glide-bomb launchers, not flying battleships.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
True, but who says you can't have both
Keep broadcasting, and shoot at it at the same time, the quicker the engagement starts the less likely that the sub gets away, it is going to be trying to get away as soon as possible once it knows it has been seen anyways
As for time up there well that's a trade off, less time and less chance of escape versus more time and more chance of escape
It all depends on the POV of the procurement committee, it could really go either way
I wonder if perhaps smaller "escort airships" could be armed w/ small weaponry and AA armament (or maybe even a small aircraft wing) and act as escort vessels in a convoy?