Talk:Zeppelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleZeppelin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 12, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 2, 2004, July 2, 2005, July 2, 2006, and July 2, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article

{

Zeppelin or zeppelin?[edit]

I'm curious as to why this article uses a capital Z. --John (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the term is being used in its narrow sense, as in this article, Zeppelin is a proper noun.TheLongTone (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. In any case usage is not even consistent within the article. I started working on copyediting it, but there are major problems with the sourcing and the writing. The capitalisation is one of the problems but maybe not the major one. --John (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there are other internal inconsistencies. Nomenclature for example. Most sources would use eg LZ 55, but there are several other ways eg LZ.55, LZ-55, LZ55. Off-topic, in my opinion there is far too much on the WW1 bombing campaign: the section is headed see main article German Strategic bombing in WW1 (or similar), but this is in fact a woefully underdeveloped article that I sort of have my eye on, & imo much of this article could be moved there. Apart from anything else, it wasn't just Zeppelin ships & being pedantic the exploits of Schutte-Lanz ships belong elsewhere. As for sourcing and writing....this isn't the only article with the problems. I might have a go, since I have reasonable printed sources to hand.TheLongTone (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppelin Bombing Campaign Was Not Just Against Britain[edit]

I think it is odd to have the discussion of WWI labeled "Bombing Campaign Against Britain". The following sections just labeled with years gives a false impression that the entire section about WWI bombing is just about Britain.

The first zeppelin bombings were against Liege and Antwerp, in the summer of 1914. As with the V-weapons attacks in WWII, it everyone forgets about Antwerp and only talks about London. There were also attacks against Paris, which is only mentioned in a photo copied from another article. It reports the destruction of LZ 25 in 1914 as if it was a preemptive tactic, when in fact LZ 25 had been bombing Antwerp, and allied positions in Dunkirk and Calais in the summer of 1914. It also appears to have large parts of the content of German strategic bombing during World War I copied into this general article about Zeppelins. DonPMitchell (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Problem is that there is little written about Zeppelins on other fronts, but the campaign against England is very well documented. The overlap with German strategic bombing during World War I is the other way round: this article was very underdeveloped so I moved a lot of the Zeppelin article to it, & have done some trimming of the content of the Zeppelin article, which imo is still too detailed.TheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work (nobody ever says that enough). I'm writing a biography of someone who witnessed the zeppelin bombing of Antwerp in 1914, so I'm poking around trying to gather up the history of those early raids. I'll put something about this in the article when I've gathered more information and references. There is a similar London-centric view about the V-2 raids, when in fact Antwerp was the most heavily targeted city by V-1 and V-2 weapons. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had a quick look at The Times, not that newspapers are trustworthy even when there's not a war on, & put something in...The Times said something about there being about eight "bombs" (they were actually artillery shells since they had not started manufacturing bombs at that time) dropped on the first raid: the second seems to have been pretty much a washout. I'm actually waiting for my library to get something in from another library which ought to enable me to expand the other front stuff, it's on my to-do list.TheLongTone (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've gone though the NYTimes archive too, and some other books and articles. There are inconsistencies and false reports (like frequent false claims that a bombing zeppelin was shot down). For Antwerp, reports vary on 8 to 10 bombs dropped on August 25 around 1AM, and much confusion about what was hit. Did it hit the royal residence or just come close, it is hard to tell. Second Zeppelin attack on Sep 2 around 3:45, 7 bombs dropped, including on a Red Cross hospital. September 18 a bomb was dropped on Antwerp by an airplane. Oct 1, zeppelin dropped three bombs just outside the city but was driven off. October 8, the day of intense shelling the day before the city surrendered, there were two zeppelin bombing raids at 11AM and 3PM, one of which ignited the oil reservoirs by the river. I've also seen reports that there were airplane bombing raids that day. It would be interesting to know which zeppelins were involved. The first raid was the army airship L-9. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But let me add, view this all skeptically. One thing I notice is that reporters are confused about the concept of zeppelins directing artillery over Antwerp vs. actually bombing. DonPMitchell (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly do! (why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?)TheLongTone (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do German records of zeppelin raids exist? DonPMitchell (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Army records got destroyed in the 39-45 replay but Navy records survived. The two books by Douglas Robinson, both dating from the 1970s, seem to be the best English-language sources. The Zeppelin in Combat concentrates on the Navy operations, and the only military memoir(which is linked to in the List of Zeppelins is by a Navy flier who seems to be prone to exaggeration. As far as other sources go, most general histories of the war have little to say about the airship operations: they may have looked impressive but they had little actual effect.TheLongTone (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the bombing campaigns, I would find it useful for a conversion of the currency then to its value today- is there an easy way to do that? Otherwise the damage estimates seem less than helpful.Chickpecking (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but this is a long-standing problem. There are a number of different ways of converting an old sum into a modern equivalent.13:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Army Career Section: use of title and expedition to source of Mississippi[edit]

Is there any evidence Zeppelin was using title "Count/Graf" in 1853? his father lived another 33 years. Also, the "expedition to the source of the Mississippi" did not occur. Zeppelin traveled from the Western end of Lake Superior to the Upper Mississippi by a difficult but well-known canoe-and-portage route in 1863,probably by at least one Russian in addition to Native American guides and perhaps his African-American cook. The trip took an unusually long 3 weeks, perhaps because a drought made the portages longer.My source is an article correcting the record published by MN Historical Society in the 1960s but i want to look at more recent work before correcting Wiki article.68.178.50.46 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added talk section to wrong article[edit]

Sorry. Note about Zeppelin's career inadvertantly placed on wrong article. Too tired to do this now. Probably try again later.68.178.50.46 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs recent history[edit]

The article needs to include information about the recent Zeppelin NT airships instead of giving the impression that the Zeppelin company and it's aviation efforts are extinct.

Rich Acuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.43.44 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum zeppelins[edit]

Instead of filling a zeppelin with hot air, helium or hydrogen the removing of gas has the advantage to increase the ascending force. This is the new principle of vacuum zeppelins with a rigid hull or rigid vacuum chambers. Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.200.95.59 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this original research or have you seen this anywhere? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vacuum airship
It's actually the oldest design, pre-dating the Montgolfiers by a century. However the problem of building one (the vacuum chamber either tends to be crushed by air pressure, or to weigh far more than its buoyancy) means that none have yet been flown. Any vacuum system will act as one - it's not hard to measure the buoyancy gained if you pump a vacuum system down, but they're not lightweight devices with current materials tech. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you do not need an absolute vacuum, just reduced pressure, I described it as "vacuum"; there exist enough materials that can handle reduced pressure; I will search for literature sources; a first guess: carbon fibre hull Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What practical advantage would a partial vacuum be over inflation with helium? This is a impractical idea, unless using unobtanium gas cells. And the word is 'airships' not 'zeppelins'.13:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

With a higher buoyancy you can upload more standard cargo containers and transport them everywhere (preferably over uninhabited land, because in the case of emergency you must eject or separate your propeller-cabin from the containers and the vacuum-hull)--217.186.176.124 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)--Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) some truckers get a pilot licence; .....the evacuated volume of the Hindenburg-vessel could lift 120 metric tons (128 tons at 0°C)[reply]

I don't have the actual calculations, but I don't think a volume of vacuum would offer much greater lift than an equivalent volume of H or He, because neither H2 nor He weighs all that much. And as others have mentioned, the difference in weight between a container that separates H or He on the one hand from air on the other, at more or less the same pressure, and a container that holds a vacuum against the external air pressure, is tremendous. Mcswell (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

CLOSED
Old discussion, closed as No merge. (non-admin closure) BilCat (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'd like to propose that Rigid airship be merged into Zeppelin. They do not appear to have any substantive difference in meaning, and the two articles cover the same ground. While we could easily have merger going the other way around, I think that "Zeppelin" is the more-commonly used term (even though it is German) and that this should therefore be the target article for the concept. KDS4444Talk 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We should no more merge this than we should merge Goodyear Blimp into blimp. Both Zeppelin and Goodyear have a substantial history s commercial organisations that is notable and deserves its own article. Much would be lost in a merged article.
We might clarify these distinctions, we might need to clarify these distinctions better than at present, but there is still a distinction and we should preserve it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Well, there is also Schütte-Lanz, a major competitor in Germany, the British R-33 class and R100 and R101 resp., the American Akron-class, not to forget USS Shenandoah. So the concept and the manufacturer are two different kettles of fish. 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not all rigid airships are Zeppelins. This is an absurd proposal which is an encouragement to sloppy thinking.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone: There is no reason to be insulting, very poor community involvement. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was my comment insulting??? It is an absurd proposal whickh promotes sloppy thinking.TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are many rigid airships that aren't Zeppelins and there are Zeppelin airships that aren't rigid like the modern Zeppelin NT which is semi-rigid.--Countakeshi (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With respect, pre-WW2 Zeppelins are a subset of Dirigibles, which are a subset of Lighter Than Air Ships. The NT Zeppelins appear to be the subset of semi-rigids, a subset of Lighter Than Air Ships. The Zeppelin subject therefore crosses more than one line of inquiry. I do appreciate your wish to consolidate the subjects, but the data is far to extensive to be so en-closeted (just observe how long this one article is). I do not, however, consider you suggestion absurd. Keep thinking, WP needs it. ;^) Jopower (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason that we have articles for Roly-poly toy (generic) and Weebles (brand name), or car (generic) and Ford (brand name). --Damian Yerrick (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Indeed, in Dutch we have 2 pages; one for airships in general and one for rigid airships. Since the term "zeppelin" is the name given to rigid airships because they were invented by Graf von Zeppelin, there CANNOT be a difference between the two. That they later evolved does not mean we are talking about different things. It's like the Baily bridge or the Kalashnikov; they are objects that have a proper name (sometimes a bit complex) but are also known by the name of the inventor. See other examples.
  • All Zeppelins are airships but not all airships are Zeppelins.TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest A Proper Zeppelin Inclusive Films Section[edit]

Beyond a couple mentions there is no inclusive list of the world of films starring or including Zeppelins in this article. I suggest we compile a number here and when they reach 20 include them in the main article. Periodically update the article as new ones are recommended and screened to be sure that non-rigids are excluded (unless both appear of course). I'll start the list going with these:

The Great Love (1918)

Hell's Angels (1930) won Academy Awards, the flaming Zeppelin crash is still impressive

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

Fly Away Baby (1937)

Charlie Chan at the Olympics (1937)

British Intelligence (1940)

The Assassination Bureau (1969)

Island at the Top of the World (1974) may not be a true rigid

Master of the World (1961) ditto

Sky Bandits (1986)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

The Rocketeer (1991)

The Airship (1994)

Jopower (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest A Section Naming (at the least) Those Books and Magazine Articles Of Some Importance Concerning Zeppelins Or Their Impact[edit]

This for books that with some accuracy described the (then) current state of the Zeppelin art or profacied the future or ariel warfare. I'd start with "The War in the Air" by H. G. Wells 1908). Mr Wells also used his later experiences seeing Zeppelins in action, observing their effects on a populous under their bombs and writing against them as a senior officer in Britain's propaganda service in WW1 in his post war works.

I also recall the Billy Mitchell wrote a book and many articles concerning the use of Dirigibles from the late 1910's and into 1930's as part of his campaign to awaken American's to the uses of Air Power. Need to find them, too. Jopower (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

Text and refernces copied from Goldbeater's skin and Zeppelin to Carl Edgar Myers. See former's contribution history for names of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fly or drive?[edit]

Does the zeppelin fly or drive? Answer with explanation please.2A02:1205:34E8:63D0:896D:8EDE:610A:813F (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)kottanermitteltdauernd[reply]

It floats.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jones, Jr.[edit]

The article mentions that Indy and his father escape from Germany in a Zeppelin. Unmentioned is the fact that they flee from the Zeppelin in a heavier-than-air airplane stored below the Zeppelin. I know that the US Navy experimented with airplanes-in-dirigibles, but did the Germans? Or was this idea made up for the movie? Mcswell (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the British and the Germans tried the idea out during the Great War.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeppelin raids in WWI should be in its own article[edit]

There is far too much info to be in this article. This should only cover the details of that these were weapons of war that conducted raids against the Allied powers. The wider discussion should all be an article entitled 'WWI Zeppelin raids' IMO. This needs to be done sooner rather than later as these sections are only going to get bigger and bigger.80.189.122.156 (talk) 80.189.122.156 (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is more fully covered in German strategic bombing during World War I; some coverage in this article is necessary.TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna know[edit]

When were zeppelins created??? 98.110.215.112 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeppelin&oldid=1213327562"