The ZPK blimp

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: margeorg

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.

Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.

Yes, but the Flak-Falle boats were a failed experiment in a handful of Type IXs if memory suits. Mid-late war armament on the vast majority of Type VIIs was a significant upgrade from early war. So much so that thin-skinned patrol aircraft were generally ill advised to initiate a slow, low level drop over a U-boat 'fighting it out' on the surface. Many instances of such attacks going dreadfully awry for the bomber and the bomber crew.

The idea of a programmatic routine wherein a dirigible attacks into the teeth of an upgunned U-boat is laughable. In a tragic sort of way.

@AW1Steve-were there *any* instances of dirigibles getting even a partial credit for a u-boat kill? Here's one that went "the wrong way" for the dirigible crew against a type VIIC.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... vs-u-boat/

Other than great loitering time, there were much better airborne ASW platforms out there.

[Chickenboy]

Interesting Appendix here...

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol2/Appen3.pdf

The RAF lost some 700 [X(] aircraft in encounters with U-boat AAA. The US lost some 57 from the U-boats alone. So the fight was most decidedly not one-way.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.

Well equipped for going around in circles.

I wonder if it was a USN "political" thing? IOW, they were "half an aviator" to the carrier guys.

Half aviator, half sailor. At least that's my take on it. A blimp may be closer to a ship than a plane.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: margeorg

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.

Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.

Yes, but the Flak-Falle boats were a failed experiment in a handful of Type IXs if memory suits. Mid-late war armament on the vast majority of Type VIIs was a significant upgrade from early war. So much so that thin-skinned patrol aircraft were generally ill advised to initiate a slow, low level drop over a U-boat 'fighting it out' on the surface. Many instances of such attacks going dreadfully awry for the bomber and the bomber crew.

The idea of a programmatic routine wherein a dirigible attacks into the teeth of an upgunned U-boat is laughable. In a tragic sort of way.

@AW1Steve-were there *any* instances of dirigibles getting even a partial credit for a u-boat kill? Here's one that went "the wrong way" for the dirigible crew against a type VIIC.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... vs-u-boat/

Other than great loitering time, there were much better airborne ASW platforms out there.

I have NO IDEA. And frankly , don't really care. WW2 ASW for aircraft was not really about killing U-boats. And aircraft might carry 4-8 depth charges. A destroyer 80-200. There's just not much killing power there. If they killed a sub , great. That's gravy. Their mission was to SUPPRESS sub attacks. In CORD-OPS they assisted surface ships and provided a great force multiplier. They patrolled ahead of the convoys , sighted the subs and held them down while warning the convoy to go around. In the case of area defense, they were superb.An example was the STRAB (Straights of Gibraltar). Once aircraft had MAD , the patrolled the STRAB , in a boring , difficult way , requiring several aircraft to cover each other when turning (and MAD becomes useless). Blimps could leisurely patrol back and forth. The STRAUB was thereafter closed to U-boats.

And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]

[tocaff]

That record of never losing one of your charges is the highest level of accomplishment.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]

Meh. If their coverage was so limited as to restrict their long-range escort value, this statistic is almost meaningless.

I also dispute your suggestion that historically airborne ASW was to suppress U-boats exclusively. They turned into damn efficient predators in the mid-late war against the U-boats. Particularly in the Bay of Biscay air ASW offensives.

The fact that they only carried 4-8 DCs was irrelevant. Their ability to place them astride a surfaced U-boat was more important than a destroyer's ability to chuck hundreds of 'em into the water at a submerged U-boat. In other words, they hunted by a very different methodology wherein their limited armament (DCs) was still sufficient for them to exact a terrible toll.

Also the CVE tactics of Wildcat/Avenger tandem hunting was designed to kill the U-boats, not just suppress them. If they wanted to suppress them exclusively, they would not have the tandem H/K tactical default.

[geofflambert]

I believe that is a longstanding joke. One of you doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it's your transspecies self, Chickenboy [:'(]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]

Meh. If their coverage was so limited as to restrict their long-range escort value, this statistic is almost meaningless.

I also dispute your suggestion that historically airborne ASW was to suppress U-boats exclusively. They turned into damn efficient predators in the mid-late war against the U-boats. Particularly in the Bay of Biscay air ASW offensives.

The fact that they only carried 4-8 DCs was irrelevant. Their ability to place them astride a surfaced U-boat was more important than a destroyer's ability to chuck hundreds of 'em into the water at a submerged U-boat. In other words, they hunted by a very different methodology wherein their limited armament (DCs) was still sufficient for them to exact a terrible toll.

Also the CVE tactics of Wildcat/Avenger tandem hunting was designed to kill the U-boats, not just suppress them. If they wanted to suppress them exclusively, they would not have the tandem H/K tactical default.

IN THE GAME the range is meaningless. I was discussing real life. Dispute away. You want to find SUBS , send your CV's out. And keep them on the same square for a week. You'll find them. [:D] But seriously. BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.

Wildcat/Avenger teams were a "1st strike". They almost always were followed up by surface warships . Read some of the after action reports.

And lastly , I NEVER said that the only purpose of asw forces was to suppress subs. I said ESCORT forces were to support subs. HUNTER/KILLER forces were/are independent of convoys. Blimps were used for convoy protection , not hunter/killer. They attacked if they could , but there primary job was patrol. Hence ZP. Like VP. Only for lighter than air. Patrol aircraft are NOT dedicated ASW aircraft. They are multipurpose aircraft that also hunt subs. The USN did not have a truly dedicated ASW platform at that time. In the 1950's the VS designation , formerly "Fixed wing scouting" became "Fixed wing ASW". Since the TBM was no longer considered a torpedo plane , it became a dedicated ASW platform till replaced by the Grumman Guardian(S) , the S-2 Tracker and eventually the S-3 Viking (the USN's last ASW aircraft.) But in ww2 the TBF/TBM was still a multipurpose aircraft. The doctrine of hunting down and killing submarines with aircraft had still not been worked out. And really wouldn't be till the 1950's.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.

I'll be you $10USD that air-delivered depth charges / depth bombs killed more subs in the Bay of Biscay offensives than air-delivered rockets or guns from above.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I believe that is a longstanding joke. One of you doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it's your transspecies self, Chickenboy [:'(]

Don't you have a nice hot rock that needs sitting on, lizard? [:'(]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.

I'll be you $10USD that air-delivered depth charges / depth bombs killed more subs in the Bay of Biscay offensives than air-delivered rockets or guns from above.

I'll take that bet. Of course you do know that a "air-delivered depth charge" is simply a bomb that has a hydro-static fuse? Planes (and blimps) don't drop the "ash-cans" that you see rolled off the sterns of ships in movies. Now if you said more subs were sank with bombs , then I might agree with you. [:D]

[msieving1]

For what it's worth, here's an extract from United States Fleet Anti-Submarine Instructions, FTP 223A.

2600 AIRSHIPS

2610. The necessary deviations from standard instructions for aircraft and special instructions applicable only to airships are contained in this section.

2620. Attacks against submarines shall be conducted in accordance with the following instructions:

2621. The possibility that an airship can deliver a successful daylight bombing attack on a surfaced submarine that fights back is low. Under these conditions the airship shall summon support and maintain contact with the submarine. The airship should approach to just outside the effective gun range of the submarine and by feints attempt to keep the submarine's attention engaged and the submarine surfaced. The submarine shall be closely observed and on first indications of submergence the attack shall be launched. [emphasis added]
2622. Due to present lack of suitable illumination equipment for a night attack the airship must usually approach within a few hundred yards to identify the surface object. Normally the airship will be in such a position that it is better to attack than to attempt to withdraw if the craft proves to be an enemy. The airship, therefore, must make every approach on an unidentified surface craft with the intention to attack.
2623. After the submarine has been submerged for 30 seconds or more the attack shall be withheld and M.A.D. tracking procedure instituted, and contact maintained until support arrives or until a well developed M.A.D. attack is possible. Airships shall not normally attempt gambit tactics.
2624. In delivering an M.A.D. attack the airship should proceed along the estimated track of the submarine and when signature is received, release a marker. Course should be continued and six seconds later another marker released followed by a tight turn to the right of 330°. Head for the last marker dropped and release stick of bombs, straddling the last marker.
2625. If the initial contact is made with the submarine submerged, hydrostatically fuzed bombs shall be withheld in expectation that the submarine may show its periscope or surface, when a more profitable attack can be made.

The job of an airship in daytime was not to attack a surfaced sub, but to keep the sub under observation until other forces arrive. Only if the sub submerges would an attack be made.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.

I'll be you $10USD that air-delivered depth charges / depth bombs killed more subs in the Bay of Biscay offensives than air-delivered rockets or guns from above.

I'll take that bet. Of course you do know that a "air-delivered depth charge" is simply a bomb that has a hydro-static fuse? Planes (and blimps) don't drop the "ash-cans" that you see rolled off the sterns of ships in movies. Now if you said more subs were sank with bombs , then I might agree with you. [:D]

Yes. I know that about air-delivered depth charges. That's why I wrote the "depth charges / depth bombs" bit.

Okey dokey. I'll have to roll out my copy of Blair's Hitler's U-boat War and go to town.