TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Airships and their weapons.

Go To

pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#276: May 2nd 2011 at 7:16:47 PM

Wikipedia is my bestest friend.

I was doing some reading about the Russian/Japanese 1905 conflict, and that they considered 7,000 yards to be very long range - which is absurdly short for WWII naval combat in comparison. I'll have to dig up some range numbers for the Spanish-American War, though. Also, Battle of Jutland. I'm sure we'll see a trend of increasing engagement range, probably plug our airship effective ranges to scale with that more or less. I bet less if we're using lighter and smaller guns to save weight.

I am error - the Texas that is a museum today is the second ship to bear the name - the Texas that served in the Spanish-American war was the first, and sunk around 1911 as a target. You can still see remains of the wreck today off of Virginia.

Contrast with the still-floating Texas, a much larger ship that fought in both world wars and may be placed into a permament drydock configuration by 2017, provided that inspection of the hull shows that she can sit on keel blocks until doomsday - she leaks water like a sieve.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#277: May 2nd 2011 at 7:20:44 PM

When the Scharnhorst was sunk they were firing at 10000-12000 yards. Gun ranges definitely opened up on the big battle ships.

The launched over 20 torpedoes on the ship too. That nasty beast really got smacked around before being sunk.

edited 2nd May '11 7:50:42 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#278: May 8th 2011 at 2:31:03 PM

Ok We have covered the aerial aspects quite well except not really getting into aeroplanes and launchers and small attack boats.

I want to think more on attacking ground targets. My thought is this. An airship that will be purposed for attacking ground targets is going to have some sort of different weapon placement and weapon types. Or even be specifically designed to allow much higher degrees of tilting to bring deck mounted weapons to bear. Some ventrally mounted guns are useful but if you want dedicated ground attack ability you need give the weapons platform that capability likely from the start.

There is the option to fly lower to allow minimal tilt bring guns to bear but at the risk of putting you in range of the enemy ground forces. The other option is tilting slightly at long range. Great for general area bombardment but poor for accuracy.

We could also perhaps have modified cargo vessels that replace cargo holds with bomb bays or droppable weapons arrangements. Or downward angled side mounts and belly mounts on the air ships. Such as long barreled mortar guns or other assorted weapons. Like say a purpose designed ship with minimal deck mounting with focus on belly mounts relying on escorts to protect from other airships.

The final idea was having launches, frigates and other smaller naval equivalent vessels have a more dedicated ground support role with items like auto cannons and rapid fire weapons and or flame throwers, mine droppers, bomb racks etc.

Who watches the watchmen?
Morgulion An accurate depiction from Cornholes Since: May, 2009
An accurate depiction
#279: May 8th 2011 at 2:39:25 PM

One possibility would be having ships with a variant of the Jagdfaust, except downward-firing and reloadable. naturally, these would have to be accompanied by defense craft, as they would have a smaller capacity for fighting air-attack craft.

This is this.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#280: May 8th 2011 at 3:24:54 PM

I remember that weapon system. Very bizarre but creative. We could use a normal cannon with all the mountings to make it accurate.

It might make a good weapon for attacking airships.

Who watches the watchmen?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#281: May 9th 2011 at 1:51:10 PM

Big freaking howitzers, full stop.

Sit off beyond defensive range and lob shells at whim. The high-arching plunging flightpath would make defensive earthworks worthless and with the elevation of the airship, camoflaging the defensive structure would be rather difficult. You could also indirectly fire this system - from the other side of a hill or mountain, while another airship or observer sends targeting information and stuff back to the airship doing the bombardment - that or you have pre-planned bombardment missions; like go here and fire in this direction for an hour so as to turn the enemy field kitchens and any troops feeding there into bloody chuncks, during lunchtime. Hey, troops gotta eat sometime, right? (Stuff like that actually happened during WWI, only that they used .30-cal machineguns en masse in indirect-fire mode to rain deadly metal hail onto an area where they knew the Germans set up their field kitchens. It worked.)

The airship would be purpose-built for this sort of thing. Slow, lots of belly armor, wide hull for stability, and fairly large. It's basically a flying artillery battery, known in wet-navy parlance as a Floating Battery or a Monitor. Plenty of ammunition storage, but it might have real short range, being able to fly or hover for only a few days before having to refuel and rearm, and it woudl have only basic crew facilities. You'd base one to the rear of the battle line and send it up to provide artillery support to an ongoing attack or area-denial bombardments on known approach routes. It would basically be the airship version of an AC-130. You'd pull it out only if you already controlled the skies. It would not make a good warship for taking on other airships, as it would be firing large slow projectiles best suited for ground bombardment, not moving pargets.

A Monitor or Battery would definitely need a defensive escort in case an opposing airship wanted to get rid of it.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#282: May 9th 2011 at 3:58:35 PM

Mortars of certain types would be nasty too.

Who watches the watchmen?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#283: May 9th 2011 at 4:33:12 PM

Mortars have more of a vertical arc, and I think they were designed to clar high walls and crap. With the airship elevated, that initial high arc isn't needed as much - although I suppose one could mount a whole bunch of 81mm or 4.2-inch tubes on a gundeck of an airship and rapid-fire gobs of shells at ground targets...

However, the benefit to using a howitzer is that they can be used in direct-fire mode, useful for defending the Flying Battery from other airships. Mortars would be much more difficult to use against another airship, especially one that is moving.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#284: May 9th 2011 at 4:37:20 PM

There are several mortar types that are very large bore and are ment for long distance firing. Very useful on fortifications.

The airships height would actually be a huge bonus to the mortar as it would have a more point down impact then ground fired.

edited 9th May '11 4:40:02 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#285: Jun 11th 2011 at 2:35:06 PM

Ok next bit. A smaller but faster air ship as a bomber craft.

Also air borne carrier groups.

And finally various anti-aircraft guns designed for shooting at airships. Any suggestions?

I know the first AAA guns were modified 1lbers and German variants.

Who watches the watchmen?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#286: Jun 21st 2011 at 10:34:18 PM

Ground-based triple-A would be whatever already existed to shoot at Zepplins. Fuse them to burst at a higher altitude, and aim as best you can at the ship. If you miss, the burst like flak. If you hit, the contact fuse lets them chew up the belly of the airship.

If you don't have altitude-sensing fuses, you'll have shells coming back down after they miss or dud out. Might be an issue if you don't want your own rounds landing on your stuff.

Bombers: Opposite problem. To avoid having bombs blow up on friendly territory and cause collateral damage, they would have altitude-sensing fuses so they blow up harmlessly above-ground. Otherwise, I think bomber-delivered ordnance is more ideal.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#287: Jun 27th 2011 at 12:05:08 PM

Airship carriers:

As aircraft of the day were slow biplanes, I wonder if they'd experiment with trapeze-hook ssytems like they did in dirigibles, or if they would look to using a landing strip or tunnel. Considering the low speeds that a biplane can operate at, it woudl be easy for an airship to bring itself up to high speed and thus make it easy to launch laden aircraft into the wind. Also, teh air carrier woudl be at altitude, so that in combination with good headwind means you don't need a long take-off deck or a steam catapult system to help get the airplane airborne.

The problem I see arising is that of turbulence and unstable atmospheric conditions - the shape of the airship itself might serve to either dampen or accelerate the air velocity passing over the runway. Although the air carrier won't be vulnerable to the mercies of unstable air masses that a dirigible was, the primitive rickety airplanes would be, especially while moving into position for launch, the launch itself and landing. Although if you use a flat-top carrier design, the aircraft would have landing gear of some sort, so they could choose to land or take off from a grond-based airfield if the need arises.

If you move away from rickety aeroplanes and have a hybrid winged aircraft with lifting grids, you could get by with a hook-trapeze setup, so that you don't have to design an airship with a large flat surface, which tend to make nice bombing targets.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#288: Jun 30th 2011 at 7:36:53 PM

I was thinking of the trapeze type system as well as a engine running drop bay approach. They would power up their engines throttle up and launch down a downward ramp into the air stream and use the speed to help them maintain lift until the engines rev up enough.

The parent ship would likely need to slow down just enough to allow launch and recovery.

They would need escort but that is true of a lot of battle groups.

I was thinking of bomber ships like the early zepplins that bombed england but without the gas bag vulnerability. You could even give them a larger assortment of weapons then the traditional zeps to fend off fighters.

Who watches the watchmen?
GiantSpaceChinchilla Since: Oct, 2009
#289: Jun 30th 2011 at 9:28:39 PM

Would this mean that mulberry harbour[1] has a chance to be a Floating Island?

sorry, just an amusing picture in my head. besides got to build your upside down ships somewhere else eventually.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#290: Jun 30th 2011 at 9:35:29 PM

They would still be ground mounted structures. We decided some form of generic docking cradles for landing dirt side would be needed for lengthy maintenance and repair. That and keeping up a platform like that would be costly and work intensive.

Who watches the watchmen?
GiantSpaceChinchilla Since: Oct, 2009
#291: Jun 30th 2011 at 9:44:09 PM

If you say so, like I said it was just an amusing image.

although now it raises questions about how low a flight ceiling these critters would have. blimps, zeppelins, aircraft and naval ships have their infrastructure built up especialy dry docks [1] or built to be submersible. seems cheaper to use you're engine to keep it in place and lighter than air to lift it up.

eh C'est la Vie, at least this way you wont end up with air dropped mini-subs or other madness.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#292: Jun 30th 2011 at 11:06:48 PM

We have mulled the idea of floating defensive structures that need constant feeding of resources to keep it up or using an hereto unknown method of powering such structures. There were also mentions of large gun/barrage barges.

We have decided the two chief limiters for constant upward float is power generation and temperature maintenance. There are other things that play into it like what the lift plates are made of, what type of generators they have, how those generators are powered/spun up. etc.

I have considered a mad Tesla power transmission scheme for an air fortress kind of thing. Have the power generated ground side and transmitted through the air or through power cables some how.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:07:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
GiantSpaceChinchilla Since: Oct, 2009
#293: Jun 30th 2011 at 11:39:35 PM

We have mulled the idea of floating defensive structures that need constant feeding of resources to keep it up or using an hereto unknown method of powering such structures. There were also mentions of large gun/barrage barges.

I thought you were useing lighter than air materials for lift and some kind of gravity magnet thingy for motive force?

if you want to do lighter than air some simple chemical reactions can create the gasses you need, or you could try using vacuum pumps.

if you have a pressurised hull you could presumably fly over the cloud layer and use something to use the sunlight or windstream's to heat your steam engine

We have decided the two chief limiters for constant upward float is power generation and temperature maintenance. There are other things that play into it like what the lift plates are made of, what type of generators they have, how those generators are powered/spun up. etc.

Electromagnetic induction? it was first discovered in the early 1800s kind of bizarre but plausible if you consider that when they discovered this material they put alot of funding into trying to figure out how it works, even if it's mostly a dead end derivative technologies could have arisen. such as if they tried gyroscopic inertial models they could have developed a clockwork inertial navigation device.

I have considered a mad Tesla power transmission scheme for an air fortress kind of thing. Have the power generated ground side and transmitted through the air or through power cables some how.

kind of seem like a bizarre combination of echo base and silver towers.

then again you said large gun barrages, probably bigger guns since they could stick a "gravity magnet rotatatrix" patent pending. on it to save space. assuming you're engines work with something like a rail or ball bearings on something like a free floating turret.

Fun stuff!

while I'm thinking about it, is there any particuar reason you decided to go with motive force instead of lift for you're Applied Phlebotinum?

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#294: Jul 1st 2011 at 12:02:49 AM

I am still trying to figure out how to word how it actually functions. Also mostly because it seemed kind of cool. The reason we didn't like the gas bags was the most potent gases are either expensive or hard to harness or highly volatile. There may be some early hybrids until they work out the tech. This was mostly an attempt to flesh out a locomotion and lift mechanism that doesn't have the issues of giant gas bags.

The idea was the system would be both. The plates are supposedly divided into two groups. One set provides lift and trim control. The other plates are the main means of propulsion.

The material would be discovered by accident while a German scientist would be experimenting with various metals and electricity in an effort to figure out a way to power a German city as the race for adding electricity to power a German city.

This would be a alternate time line where history and some discoveries diverge and change and the end result is airships. The potential stories are also a playful examination of how airships would affect warfare and how they would be used.

pvtnum11 has provided a vast amount of knowledge about ships of various sorts. Some of this stuff is being pulled out of the air and if we can figuring out a way to wrangle in a little bit of reality to the fictional components.

Who watches the watchmen?
GiantSpaceChinchilla Since: Oct, 2009
#295: Jul 1st 2011 at 12:33:31 AM

so, you moved away from blimps, zeppelins, et al? okay.

it sounds like you're looking for something like differential thrust to apply torque to your craft and linear thrust for lift.

or you managed to make a really weird Reactionless Drive perhaps Gyroscopic Inertial Propulsion? if it's going to be Applied Phlebotinum might want something people can google

or not, in retrospect I'm not realy adding anything. sorry.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#296: Jul 1st 2011 at 12:38:21 AM

Actually you are helping. You are giving me exactly the types of terminology and stuff I need to look up and flesh it out more.

Who watches the watchmen?
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#297: Jul 1st 2011 at 9:51:12 AM

Yay, fresh discussion points.

I can't remember (and the thread is kind of long to go into archive-panic mode) but one idea for a static defensive line (similiar to the Maginot Line) with this technology woudl be to have what amounted to floating gun batteries tucked away in mountain areas, so that they coudl ascend to gain a commanding view of the surrounding terrain, expected approach routes over or through the mountain terrain, and if need be, engage approaching enemy forces with long-ranged rifled guns. Their mobility woudl be hampered, as these floating batteries are not intended to travel far at all, but maneuverable enough so that they can dock properly in their fortified cradles. Their ability to keep station at altitude would be limited; as they aren't expected to loiter for more than a few days at most before descending for resupply, they'll have only rudimentary accomodations for the crew and smaller bunkers for fuel (be it coal or fuel-oil). This will free up mass for additional armor, heavier guns and whatever else that they'll need. The goal is to make it a very stable shooting platform that can both dish out and receive punishment.

Since we'll have airships that can carry cargo, building a mountaintop base and supplying it with provisions won't be much of an issue, now. Whereas you'd normally have to ship construction materials, workers and supplies by rail or truck, you can now do that with an airship without worrying about whether or not you have road or rail access.

One of my ideas was to give airships a landing tripod type of setup so that they can touch down and either load or off-load cargo and stuff in the field if a docking cradle isn't available. This would be pretty useful for a cargo or construction type of airship, at least until a suitable docking cradle is constructed. The landing tripod would not neccessairly be strong enough to suport the full weight of the ship, though, only so that the ship can reduce the power to the lifting grids and stabalize it so that shifting internal cargo mass doesn't upset the ship.

The last thing you want to happen to an airship is for it to capsize, as Tuefel mentioned that the lifting grids only only lift in one direction, making them inherently unstable vessles. Giving them stability would entail either actively trimming the ship to counter list or up-angle or down-angle by altering the lift given off by trim grids, or by shifting weight around on the ship to balance it. Passive stability measures include placing the lifting grids above the center of mass of the ship (rather than underneath the center of mass, like in the keel), possibly going for a catamaran-style of ship (although I think a double-hulled ship would be a lot more complicated to build) or simply making the ship pretty wide to begin with.

There's more (lots more), but if we wanted to sum up the meaty points of discussion into one document, it would be quite a read.

EDIT: How they move:

We had worked that out, too. You have static grids that only provide lift (and smaller versions for trim), and you have grids that can rotate on two axis points (fore and aft, port and starboard) so that they effectively push the ship through the air. As more power goes through the propulsion grids, the power needed for the lifting grids to maintain a steady altitude becomes less, although I'd imagine that it would take more power to move the ship at altitude than it would be to merely keep station at altitude. By using grids to push the ship along, you have no exposed moving parts, like a propeller or turbofan or whatever to get shot up in battle.

Or, I suppose one could use propellers or something to provide forward motion - it's still valid and you don't have to use internal space for them, but you'd have to move a lot of air to move a 10-thousand ton battlecruiser, and you still have to stop and maneuver. I think propuslion grids are the superior choice.

edited 1st Jul '11 9:57:16 AM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
GiantSpaceChinchilla Since: Oct, 2009
#298: Jul 2nd 2011 at 1:31:36 AM

so the engine would look something like this? assuming the middle column generates linear lift based on some fixed point such as up or down from the ground, the left most and the right most work together to either accelerate linearly or rotate on the one of the 3 dimensional axes.

and the image would look almost nothing like that since, presumably if you do find a free 3 dimensional modeling software you'd be computer literate enough to know you really need to pay someone else and not rely on google. tongue

also, tangentially, is that close enough to what it's supposed to look like?


edit: the brick with fiddly things is now public. let me know if I got the images right.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:37:12 PM by GiantSpaceChinchilla

pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#299: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:04:26 PM

Can't see the photo, unfortunately.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#300: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:34:59 PM

The photo is set to private. Try to set it public or use photobucket.

Who watches the watchmen?

Total posts: 361
Top