How would you build a Steampunk aerial warship?

[SpaceMarine93]

Okay, assuming that a certain setting's economic / geographic / scientific background renders military airships a feasible, even effective, vehicle of war and aerial naval battles a possibility, how would one build an aerial warship?

Assuming late 19th Century technology, what would be the main threats facing a military airship in the sky and how would they be addressed? How would the engineers deal with problems of fuel, ammunition storage, weapons recoil, effects of weather, etc. ?

What kind of weapons would be best to be fitted into these military airships? What kind of armor and ammunition? How should the ship be designed to provide best protection for structure and crew without compromising other important things like speed and firepower?

[Esquire]

The reason airships weren't used in direct combat after WWI was that it's simply not possible for one to carry any significant amount of armor and still get off the ground. Some sort of hybrid airship might have a better chance, with some sort of helicopter-like assembly helping the gas keep the airship flying, but at that point one has to ask why use an airship design in the first place.

The only real applications of military airships in WWI and II were scouting, antisubmarine warfare, and convoy organization - duties where the ability to maintain position for a significant length of time is valuable. The quality of radios available in the 19th Century render the convoy organization mission either difficult or impossible, depending on circumstances. Similarly, submarines did not become effective or common until the 20th Century, which leaves scouting as the only (historical) mission that airships could fulfill. For that, firepower and armor are entirely secondary concerns, which is fortunate because the entire airship concept isn't very friendly to them. While I suppose it isn't impossible that an airship might be pressed into service as a bomber or carrier, the fact of the matter is that both of these ideas were tried and failed miserably for very good reasons.

It isn't enough to simply say that "a certain setting's economic / geographic / scientific background renders military airships a feasible, even effective, vehicle of war," when the very nature of the airship is what kept it from being such historically.

[Simon_Jester]

Armoring a blimp is pretty well impossible; by nature anything big enough to have significant lift when you fill it with lighter than air gas is going to be big enough that putting enough armor on it to even stop small arms fire would weigh hundreds and hundreds of tons.

[fgalkin]

Okay, assuming that a certain setting's economic / geographic / scientific background renders military airships a feasible, even effective, vehicle of war and aerial naval battles a possibility, how would one build an aerial warship?

That would depend entirely on what makes airships an effective vehicle of war in said setting.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Serafina]

Since armoring the gasbag is all but impossible, it has to feature a LOT of redundancy, so that, when it ruptures due to being shot, only a small amount of gas leaks out.

Multiple small cells made out of lightweight yet sturdy cloth, filled with either helium or a hydrogen/helium mixture (if you have access to non-flammable cloth, pure hydrogen might be feasible). Essentially you're going to have partition bulkheads like in ships, except that instead of preventing water from leaking in, you're going to prevent gas from leaking out.

Get engines that provide as much lift as possible without using too much fuel, and while using lightweight fuel. Using Hydrogen-powered engines would actually be an ingenious solution, since the hydrogen can provide buoyancy.
Vectored propellers would be ideal.


Armament depends entirely on whats available of course, and on the intended mission. Against other airships, cannons using shot or rapid-fire guns would be ideal, since you want a large amount of tiny holes in the enemies gasbag - incendiary ammunition might work as well, depending on the construction of the airships.
Against ground-based or naval targets, gravity bombs are probably your best shot.


A possible usage is against sailing ships, who wouldn't feature weapons capable of countering the airship. Of course that begs the question why people are still using such ships if they have the capability of build airships, but really BAD metallurgy might prevent ironclads from being feasible.

[jollyreaper]

Combat airships are a non-starter. Crimson Skies did a great job of trying to make it feel real but it's pretty much complete pulp like James Bond or the Green Hornet or Batman.

I'd find it less implausible if you just run with pure fantasy and have steam punk antigravity. Might look a little like the Last Exile which was a gorgeous and artistic but brainless anime. Wonderful airships though. The meta-plot was the worst kind of J-stupid.

[Starglider]

Look at Great War Zeppelin bombers. Armament consisted of some machine guns at various positions around the hull and a rack of relatively small bombs.

If you want steampunk style airships your best bet is a fantasy world with some sort of antigravity gas, so that you still need a large envelope but you can carry a useful military payload with it.

Get engines that provide as much lift as possible without using too much fuel, and while using lightweight fuel. Using Hydrogen-powered engines would actually be an ingenious solution, since the hydrogen can provide buoyancy.

Using lifting gas in the engines just means you have to carry extra ballast which you steadily drop as the lifting gas is consumed, for no net gain. A few airships (LZ 127 is the most famous) used blau gas to power the engines, which is the same density as air and avoids the need to vent lifting gas (as with the usual diesel engines) or drop ballast.

[Sea Skimmer]

Redundancy could have some effect against .303 machine gun fire, provided its filled with helium, as the leaks would be very slow given the low pressure of the gas bags. Zeppelins made it home with hundreds of .303 holes. The problem is nothing is going to help you against anything heavier, a 50cal round would pass through dozens of partitions and exploding shells even from a 3pdr will make huge gaps. Towards the later stages of WW1 recoilless rifles were being experimented with that allowed even the weak single engine interceptors of the day to pack that kind of firepower and more. The only reason such weapons were not invented earlier was a complete lack of need; the technology would have worked back in the US Civil War.

[spartasman]

There's a book in S.M. Stirling The General series, The Chosen, which had a late 19th century equivalent power who use military airships. I suppose you could draw inspiration from there, if you care to read it. Essentially, they were used for combat air-drops and bombing, and later on as mid-air refueling stations for airplanes.

[Grumman]

My first thought is that military airships might be best protected simply by flying higher than ground-based cannons can shoot - the U-2 approach to defense. That way, you only need to worry about the guns on other airships and during low altitude operations.

[spartasman]

My first thought is that military airships might be best protected simply by flying higher than ground-based cannons can shoot - the U-2 approach to defense. That way, you only need to worry about the guns on other airships and during low altitude operations.

That was attempted during WW1. The problem is, the higher the altitude, the lower the temperature. Aside from the inherent mechanical failures, freezing ballast loads, and weakening of the structural frame of the airship itself, the crew would freeze to death without space-age body-suits.

[Sea Skimmer]

The best the Germans got was about 23,000 feet, which did offer some protection but only because nobody was that serious about purpose designing dedicated anti aircraft guns. Most were simply field guns modified for high angle fire. Even the 3-inch Gun M1918, one of the more powerful of the early anti aircraft guns had an effective ceiling of about 30,000 feet, and was a AA adaption of a 1898 coastal defense gun.

In the late 19th century you'd have vastly inferior engine technology to what was possible in WW1, to the point that far from flying above anti aircraft fire, you'll be at serious risk from rifles and even pistols. A big airship would basically have to be steam powered or else have dozens of engines, either of which will be immensely heavy. I can’t help but think of the Onion page talking about the US considering a wall of pointed spikes to defend against the new Zeppelins from which riflemen cannot flee on foot. Steampunk works much better with some elements of maigc.

[Batman]

People have climbed mountains far higher than airships typically ventured before the space age started. The crew freezing is a complete nonissue even if heating hasn't been invented.
Doesn't help much of course because while the airships are invulnerable, they're also essentially useless. They can't see worth a damn and forget about bombing any more precise than hitting the right county.
Of course it's not like the 19th century had much in the way of dedicated AAA (what with nobody having an air force) so are we going by what they actually had, or by what they would have had if airships had been a major or at the very last significant part of the military?

[Sea Skimmer]

People have climbed mountains far higher than airships typically ventured before the space age started. The crew freezing is a complete nonissue even if heating hasn't been invented.

A lot of people also died climbing such mountains and more ended up with fingers and toes frozen off, people still die to this day and mainly from bad weather. Remember the airship also involves a vast amount of wind compounded by the speed of the ship. Try reading some actual accounts of German airship crews in WW1, the height climbers were very harsh duty. They did try heated suits, they didn't work well. That's with 15+ year more advanced technology too and a period of very rapid advances.

Of course it's not like the 19th century had much in the way of dedicated AAA (what with nobody having an air force) so are we going by what they actually had, or by what they would have had if airships had been a major or at the very last significant part of the military?

It would be rather dumb to go by anything but what they would have. The Prussians after all were able to build anti aircraft guns during the run of the Siege of Paris and get them into action. Building new guns will be quicker then airship and hanger construction.

[Norseman]

The best way to make steampunk airships viable is to give them some sort of energy shields. That would also let them compete against airplanes, if said shields are very bulky in size. If you want to make airships uniquely effective you could claim that the energy shields discharge if they touch the ground, so ground vehicles are unable to (effectively) use them. Toss in some effective wireless system (perhaps a telegraph that's operated by sympathetic transfer of energy, so you can communicate only with a set number of stations) and you're in business.

[fordlltwm]

The Warhammer books Daemon Slayer and Dragon Slayer have nice descriptions of the way they did it in that universe, might not be quite what you're looking for, but it may give you a start.

[gamer]

Did someone say steam airship?




Oh yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah!!

Physics just sit down, shut up, and take a seat.

[Jedi Commisar]

Did someone say steam airship?




Oh yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah!!

Physics just sit down, shut up, and take a seat.

Coolest picture on the internet of all time

[Simon_Jester]

The ships in the larger picture acually manage to make large size a disadvantage, by not having any large-caliber belly guns- the best way to wreck one would be to get within a mile or two and a thousand feet below it, elevate your guns, and chew the hull to pieces. They can't depress their own heavy weapons enough to return fire effectively.

[Nephtys]

I did some design work for a game called Leviathans, where that was explicitly one weakness. If you were at high altitude, your flying antigravity pre-dreadnaught ironclad had an energy advantage for maneuver and sighting, but if you were below within close range, underbellies were vulnerable targets.

Really, for any airship to be practical, your setting must have a substantial deficiency in some counter (small aircraft, AA artillery) or the airships themselves must be whimsical with magic parts (Antigravity Ironclads, S1899 Liftwood, etc)

[Isolder74]

Ah the wonders of Cavorite!

Lets just say that with the right mindset we can come up with ways to justify those flying battleships.

[jollyreaper]

Battleships have to worry about shellfire from 180 degrees and the guns are on top, not bottom.

An aircraft fights with fixed guns, at least fighters do. Destroyer aircraft with turrets were attempted as well as bomber escorts that were bombers with more guns. Both ideas failed. All big guns won out for battleships.

I would suspect that aerial warships would have smaller guns but their targets would not be as heavy as navy ships. Would the turrets require the same mobility as aa guns? Smaller warships mount fixed guns like a tank destroyer and pray speed is armor? Is there any chance an aerial torpedo gives a small airship the punch of a heavy ship or is the only way to defeat a heavy with another heavy?

[spaceviking]

How about rather than armoring up an airship, relying on small interceptors for protection? The airship itself avoids anti aircraft guns at all cost, and serves as a long range platform for fighters and bombers

[Batman]

Except that would probably require something the approximate size of a CVN if not a freaking Star Destroyer, and far as I know the 'late 19th century technology' bit hasn't been chucked yet so no carrier airships.

[gamer]

there is a flying aircraft carrier in the pic.