Talk:USS Akron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:USS Akron (ZRS-4))

"boot" seamen[edit]

What are these? trainee seamen? --82.133.79.7 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were trainees. as in "Boot Camp".Mark Lincoln 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"See also"[edit]

shouldn't there be a "see-also"-link to the Hindenburg?

Why?Mark Lincoln 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this paragraph? sounds like complete fiction to me.

"But it was confirmed later that the Navy's intention of emplacing between 37 and 45, F-16 Tomcat's would not be physically achieved at this time. As a result of this physical inadequacy the U.S. Navy needed additional funding and lobbied to have, then Governor, George Bush, to push the U.S. Senate and Congress to pass a Texas State and Federal Act legislating the use of Blimps or Dirigibles as mandatory replacements to the automobile. A direct product of this resulted in the United States defeating Rome in the Battle of Cannae, on August 2nd, when the United States, led by General Adolf Hitler, soundly defeated the combined armies of Rome. Much credit to Zepplins and "blimps" can be given in their role in providing strateigic line reconnaisance infantry troops to the frontlines. For this reason that is why Hannibal's Secret Weapon is known as "Hindenburgue."..."

That's what's called "patent nonsense". — Bellhalla (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How big were they?[edit]

They were so big...but were they "largest"? Longest, greatest volume, greatest lift? Some clarification would be welcome. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text Similarity to Other Work[edit]

While researching "White Forces", I found very similar text at [Hazegray] which says it is, in turn, from Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. A, 1991, Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History Division, Washington, D.C.

See especially the passage paragraph beginning Over the weeks that followed.

It does not appear that this source is cited in the main article. The website at [DANFS] says it is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS Online). (Note the addition of the word Naval.)

That site's homepage says:

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, commonly known as DANFS, is the foremost reference regarding US naval vessels. Published in nine volumes (from 1959 to 1991), it gives histories for virtually every US naval vessel. To make DANFS accessible to a larger number of people, we are working to put all DANFS ship histories online through this site. Currently the online collection includes over 7000 ship histories, and more are being added. These files are faithfully transcribed from DANFS, without updating or corrections.

However, it does not state any copyright position.

For Wikipedia, at least a citation to the original book or this website seems to be needed. It also seems that the extended quotations should be removed and replaced with original narrative.

JDAddelston (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DANFS is public domain as a work of the US Federal Government and is therefore ineligible for copyright. -MBK004 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed the line This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. That is not quite a citation, since it is not footnoted under the References section. JDAddelston (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Akron (ZRS-4)[edit]

For more than 12 years i have had a piece of this airship not knowing nothing about the USS Akron until today. I know the piece i have was from February 22 1932. Now i know the piece i have is from the first accident, more than likely from the lower fin area.Is there a museum for items from the USS Akron (ZRS-4)? or any collectors for items, parts,pieces. Are there any other pieces out there? If you have any answers please let me know, thank you,Ernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.250 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment?[edit]

The closing of the article haqs the heading: "Assessment" it should be: "Controversy".


The useful days of airships as warships were nearly over. British experimentsa with Radio Location and Direction Finding was already being developed in the mid 1930's to the extent that the RAF was in a position to use it in combat. However it was still top secret in WW2. After pearl Harbour it was a technology shared with the USA and would have led to the retirement of all balloon aircraft.


OTOH the litany of errors made with the first ship should have slowed development of the second until long after the difficulties and mishandling issues had been resolved with the first. It does seem that the politics of the military needed to provide a viable weapon too soon. Cal Tech developed the atmospheric science behind the destruction of Akron almost as soon as they heard of the accident. It was the physics of changeable weather much like what was occurring at the date of the time of writing.


Even with satellite data gathering and supercomputers networked planet-wide, we are incapable of allowing for such hazards. (This latter "opinion" is personal research into the events leading up to the recent large earthquake: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.geo.earthquakes/dvcc8Wq60Kw[1-25])


Whatever the decision the article does need some sort of closure like that passage offers however this last paragraph needs deleting:

"Sadly, time ran out for the Akron before she could prove her worth. The Macon was on the verge of achieving much, building on what had already been done, but fate prevented this. The two ships never had the chance to develop their operational doctrine and tactics further, especially when operating as a pair, as had originally been intended."

Weatherlawyer (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment?[edit]

The closing of the article has the heading: "Assessment" it should be something like: "Controversy".


The useful days of airships as warships were nearly over. British experimentsa with Radio Location and Direction Finding was already being developed in the mid 1930's to the extent that the RAF was in a position to use it in combat. However it was still top secret in WW2. After pearl Harbour it was a technology shared with the USA and would have led to the retirement of all balloon aircraft.


OTOH the litany of errors made with the first ship should have slowed development of the second until long after the difficulties and mishandling issues had been resolved with the first. It does seem that the politics of the military needed to provide a viable weapon too soon. Cal Tech developed the atmospheric science behind the destruction of Akron almost as soon as they heard of the accident. It was the physics of changeable weather much like what was occurring at the date of the time of writing.


Even with satellite data gathering and supercomputers networked planet-wide, we are incapable of allowing for such hazards. (This latter "opinion" is personal research into the events leading up to the recent large earthquake: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.geo.earthquakes/dvcc8Wq60Kw[1-25])


Whatever the decision the article does need some sort of closure like that passage offers however this last paragraph needs deleting:

"Sadly, time ran out for the Akron before she could prove her worth. The Macon was on the verge of achieving much, building on what had already been done, but fate prevented this. The two ships never had the chance to develop their operational doctrine and tactics further, especially when operating as a pair, as had originally been intended."

Weatherlawyer (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:USS Akron/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good article (rated B by the Military Wikiproject), the stats/infobox is just a table, but since this is a zepplin, I'm not sure how to deal thith the page, should it be formated just like any other aircraft page? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhhh....[edit]

'Scuse me, I don't speak nerd. Can someone please translate?

"and it was something of a 'hot ship'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.73.65.128 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irony?[edit]

I find it rather coincidental that 73 people perished/died on the Akron's 73rd, and last, flight.

Anybody else notice the "73"s? 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabatoge[edit]

F.B.I. Agent Leon G. Turrou said he had investigated sabotage on the Akron. In his 1938 book Nazi Spies in America, he stated:

"...it was I who exposed sabotage on the United States dirigible Akron by radicals, as court and F.B.I. records show;"

What is he referring to? There is nothing in the article about it. 86.148.51.31 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob miller"[edit]

what is the point of including this: "The songwriter Bob Miller wrote and recorded a song, "The Crash of the Akron", within one day of the disaster." It isn't very relevant and I'm wondering if it's necessary Jabish1134 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water recovery from exhaust[edit]

10 lb from 1 lb fuel as was originally stated is certainly wrong. For every C in a long chain hyrocarbon we get on average 2 H (slightly more, in the extreme case of methane 4H), so in the reaction we get as products per oxidized C one CO2 (lost) and one H2O (potentially recovered) on average. atu C=12 vs. O=16, plus 2 for the hydrogens - see other sources that clearly state the weight of water recovered from exhaust gas is at max 20-30% above the weight of the burnt fuel (in the case of complete recovery) - never 10 times the original weight. It is unclear, despite the citation, where this number came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.48.84.1 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a comment[edit]

"....the world's first purpose-built flying aircraft carrier,...." not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of flying aircraft carriers before 1931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.125.112 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Service ceiling?[edit]

If anyone knows the service ceiling of this airship, could they please add it to the Specifications section please?

Greatest Loss of Life[edit]

I noticed on the first paragraph it mentions this was the greatest loss of life of any airship crash? I don't think that is correct. I don't know too much about airship history but I'm pretty sure the Akron was not the worst disaster. (by the way, I don't thing the Hindenburg was the worst either) If I remember right there was a worst British disaster. I'll look into it.

Thanks, Dwightol102 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Akron&oldid=1213168969"