Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests

Airships?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Airships?
Post by OrlandoNative   » Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:27 pm

OrlandoNative
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Florida

Bluestrike2 wrote:Unlikely. Speed, lifting capacity, and fuel efficiency would create some significant disadvantages with Safehold's tech base. Even today with our technology, projects for developing heavy lift capacity have hit a lot of snags despite some significant advantages for use in un/under-developed regions. The sea is still a much more efficient, and likely faster, option on Safehold. As for tactical operations, airship use in WWI was pretty limited and with almost no real consequence. Explosive shells and incendiary rounds--fire vine oil, for instance--would offer CoGA forces the weapons to repel any airship attacks.


You don't really need speed, much lifting capacity, or fuel efficiency to utilize a balloon or small blimp for scouting/spotting purposes. A few people, some fuel for the air heater (if you can't get hydrogen or helium for the lifting medium), and some telescopic spyscopes.

You could even use something tethered. All you'd need to do is keep it out of the range of the opposition's rifles, which would mean perhaps a thousand yards or so behind the lines.

However, Owl's SNARCs are probably much better, so that's most likely why "no one has thought of it". Most of the commanders of the larger ICA groups are members of the "Inner Circle"; so they don't *need* such observational capability. If things change, and smaller groups - with commanders who *DON'T* have access to SNARC data - are fielded, then this might change.

As far as bombing goes, I think you're missing something, however. A dirigible isn't a plane. It could hover, with only a bit of wind drift. You wouldn't have to calculate a trajectory based on the speed of the launching platform. If one added some fins to even a standard elongated shell, it would be "accurate enough" to hit any reasonably sized target; say a bunker or other fortification, or even a supply depot; if just aimed and dropped over the side by eye and hand.

They really didn't have much in the way of bombsights in WWI or *early* in WWII; but they still managed to successfully use bombs in many cases. It's more a question of what it is you want to bomb, and how big - and easy - a target it is to hit.

As far as lift goes, how much do you need even for bombing? I doubt they could build a large bomb anyway. It's likely that any bombs they might come up with would probably weigh about half the weight of a person or less. If you can transport 4 or 5 people in a hot air balloon, you should be able to transport 2 people and 4-6 bombs. In any case, bombing would probably be more of a psychological issue than actual physical damage, unless they come up with some sort of FAE; which probably wouldn't work unless you had a suicide mission in mind, since the balloon or dirigible isn't likely to be able to get outside the blast effect radius.
"Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again."
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:08 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Bluestrike2 wrote:...Sufficient munitions for any raid would weigh well beyond anything an airship could lift. ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_st ... orld_War_I

The Germans were content with 100 bombs/raid even if the bombs were small by the standards of later wars. Exact figures are difficult to find, but bomb loads seem to have started at 2000 lbs (900Kg) (1 ton) and increased during the war to as much as 16000 lbs (7250 Kg) (8 tons)

The German "Zeppelin Raids" were opposed by fixed-wing fighters and eventualy replaced by fixed wing bombers (with significantly smaller bomb loads) but Charisian Airships wouldn't face those problems.

Navigation and accuracy were major problems, and Merlin's aversion to "terror tactics" would probably kill any "strategic bombing" plan using airships.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by chrisd   » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:44 am

chrisd
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:38 am
Location: North-East England (70%) and also Thailand (30%)

Bluestrike2 wrote: Yes, but Giffard's design had severe limitations that affected speed, mobility, and lifting capacity. With Owl's records, the Inner Circle could develop something significantly more advanced than what Giffard managed, but it'd still be unable to fulfill a bombing role. Sufficient munitions for any raid would weigh well beyond anything an airship could lift.

If the Inner Circle needs to destroy targets they'd otherwise use bombers for, they can just use SNARCs and their self-destruct capabilities to ignite something flammable like gunpowder already at the location or use remotes to deploy explosives. The Inquisition would automatically assume sabotage by Charisian spies, and Charis gets the results they need (and they'd be throwing a wrench in the Church's industrial efforts while the Inquisition hunted for secret saboteurs). Much easier to do that compared to diverting industrial resources away from their current priorities for the limited gains they can get at this time with airpower.


I have suggested the Use of SNARCs as you mention, some time ago, where Merlin has a SNARC perched in Hector's ear and muses on the possibility of "blowing his brains out" (OAR ?) but RFC "nixed" the idea back then.

Giffard's Airship was, as you state, limited but progress was rapid and Count von Zeppelin made both the commercial and military airship a relatively heavy lifter.

As for staying out of range, surely "A Thousand Yards" Straight Up would be suitable as anything fired at the airship would tend to fall back on those firing in the first place
(As has been reported happening at several Middle Eastern wedding celebrations where the guests fire off volleys into the sky and bullets end up falling on their heads, occasionally fatally)
Last edited by chrisd on Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Rawb   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:02 am

Rawb
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:07 pm

The point about the inner circle skipping stages in design is a good one and probably settles it. We might see something along the lines of hot air balloons from Thirsk's side though.
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:17 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Bluestrike2 wrote: Explosive shells and incendiary rounds--fire vine oil, for instance--would offer CoGA forces the weapons to repel any airship attacks.


Completely wrong. It's pretty hard to hit airship even with World War I level of technology; and the middle-XIX century level of technology, avaliable for CoGA, is just unable to produce effective AA gun.

And bombing is completely out. Airships would really only offer strategic bombing capabilities


Again, completely wrong. There were a lot of cases when airships was used against tactical targets with a lot of sucsess.


and that'd be subject to huge accuracy issues,


Astronomically wrong. The airship could, actually, bob with high persision - because it could simply stall in air, allowing to drop bombs with great accuracy even with primitive bombsights.

You definitely haven't got any idea about airships on the real battlefield.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:20 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Weird Harold wrote:
Navigation and accuracy were major problems, and Merlin's aversion to "terror tactics" would probably kill any "strategic bombing" plan using airships.



Actually, the airships raids on Britain was NEVER just a terror actions. They never have been ordered to attack civilian population. The airships crews always targeted some valuable targets - factories, docks, railroad stations, warehouses, ect. Of course, they often make mistakes in targets identification - there were night raids, after all! - but they never intended to attack civilians.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:23 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Dilandu wrote:Actually, the airships raids on Britain was NEVER just a terror actions. They never have been ordered to attack civilian population.


Whatever their intent, their primary effect was "Terror."

As far as I can determine, every single one of the 758 (approx) people killed by Zeppelin bombing of England were civilians.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:41 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Weird Harold wrote:
Whatever their intent, their primary effect was "Terror."

As far as I can determine, every single one of the 758 (approx) people killed by Zeppelin bombing of England were civilians.


Well, yes. But it wasn't exactly the purpose of the raids. The zeppelins crews never were ordered to "just drop bombs on the city and go away"; they were ordered to try to hit something valuable, or not attack at all. And at least in some cases, the valuable industrial targets were damaged or destroyed - factories, steel mills, ect.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Randomiser   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:59 pm

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

Weird Harold wrote:
Dilandu wrote:Actually, the airships raids on Britain was NEVER just a terror actions. They never have been ordered to attack civilian population.


Whatever their intent, their primary effect was "Terror."

As far as I can determine, every single one of the 758 (approx) people killed by Zeppelin bombing of England were civilians.


Well if you bomb a munitions factory or a railway yard or a steel mill who else would you kill except civilians? Nobody from the military works in any of these places, but they are all reasonably legitimate targets, since they are directly supporting the war effort. Or are you using a more restricted definition of civilians than is usual?
Top
Re: Airships?
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:51 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Randomiser wrote:Well if you bomb a munitions factory or a railway yard or a steel mill who else would you kill except civilians? Nobody from the military works in any of these places, but they are all reasonably legitimate targets, since they are directly supporting the war effort. Or are you using a more restricted definition of civilians than is usual?


Google "Zeppelin Raids" -- several hits give targets, actual site bombed, casualties, and cost. Not one mentions a valid military target.

FWIW, the German strategic bombing of England was the first recorded use of "Baby Bombers" as an epithet.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top

Return to Safehold