Dirigibles and the Future of Airpower

[Blooded]

I have gotten some ideas from a conversation with maddox. In our timeline Dirigibles were expensive and dangerous. I would like to approach the players with idea for a tech which would allow helium extraction in large enough quantities that we could allow a safer future for airships.

The first helium airship was apparently used in 1921 as far as I can tell. the US seems to have had a monopoly on helium until far past the time when the game shall retire. I propose that we allow helium to be made in larger quantities in the historical areas or perhaps it can be extracted from any natural gas field. This would allow these expensive and majestic beasts to glide through the air far into the future.

Airship Tech:
1919: Helium extraction from natural gas fields in sufficient quanties for common airship use.
Or somesuch....

I believe that airships speed should be tied to the year of airship tech as well. Many smaller craft reached highher speeds than are allowed by the current system. Range and payload would still be based on size.
-----------------------------
Also... since this is a NAVAL game that I assume will end around 1945ish, I would suggest a hard limit on aircraft designs to top out around the 1936 to 1939 period.  staying behind about 5 years from reallife designs. Air torpedos will stay small, and Divebombing will only be introduced right at the end of the sim. This allows 'traditional' warships to maintain a true combat role in naval warfare by limiting the power and range that aircraft carriers will have on future fleets.

I am afraid that without such limits hindsightitis will have nothing but CVs and DDs sailing the world in 10 years or less.

What say ye?

[Tanthalas]

I agree compleatly Blooded, as I have said before the bigest problem in the Nverse is Hindsightis.  People know what happend OTL and so they are trying to get a jump on it in the Nverse.  Although I would be curious to see what happend in some of the early Plane to ship actions with the concentraded AA most people plug onto their ships.

[hooper82]

What about the carrier fanboi's (me being one)?  We want to see carrier combat.

I'd argue two points -

First, that traditional warships maintained a very important role even in the age of the carrier.
Secondly, as Tan pointed out, with the concentrated AA that ships are showing in 1918, by the time carrier based aircraft can carry anything to threaten a battleship (1930) they are going to get blown out of the sky in huge numbers.  Think of 1945 style AA weapons shooting at 1925-30 Torpedo Bombers...

Even those at the edge of carrier and aircraft technology (and UNK is one of them), I think, will find that carrier based aircraft (and land based aircraft) will be primarily for scouting for many years to come.  I think we'll see more surface combat as it'll be harder to hide, along with the very occasional torpedo hit (After loosing a carriers worth of torpedo bombers)

Re Dirigibles, I'm all for em!!!

[Desertfox]

First of all dirigibiles will always be dangerous. However, the Germans 'succesfully' used zeppelins in combat during WWI. Meanwhile, three US helium filled airships were lost in accidents. I do not agree that helium production should be increased, if people want zeppelins they will have to live with either getting supplies from the CSA or using hydrogen.

I do agree that the airship tech needs some tweaking.

As far as aircraft go, ships are already packing mid-WWII level AA suites. Without a single succesful recorded case of an attack by a heavier-than-air aircraft on a ship. I do not and will not agree that planes should be forced to lag behind. Besides, the aircraft carrier tech already limits the first true carrier to a 1924 lay down date, 6 years AFTER the first true carrier was layed down in OTL.

Hindsightitis is a problem but what about the North Carolina clones and WWII destroyers already running around?

[maddox]

Problem with helium extraction is the incredible cost. 
Only a few gaswells in the world carry enough helium to make extraction worthwile, and we're talking 2009.  Even with the adapted geography of the Nverse, that isn't something that changes a lot.

Another thing that should be taken in account is that pure hydrogen ain't that dangerous. LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, and her predecessor LZ 126 Los Angeles were designed to use Hydrogen als lift gas. Still, those 2 airships were the most succesfull desings up to date.

LZ129 Hindenburg had the disadvantage that the designers wanted helium as liftgas, and were a tad less carefull about static elemination. Still, the airship had a respectable milage for the time she was in use.
And even now there is a strong controvercy about what gave birth to the disaster. Sabotage or the negligence converting her to hydrogen liftgas.

All in all. It's just a different pricetag.  An airship operating on Hydrogen is about 25 times cheaper to fill than an Helium using one.
One of the tricks to make it a tad cheaper is to mix 4% hydrogen and 2% nitrogen in the helium. Balloongas with the same buyancy as pure helium, but a serious bit cheaper and as safe.

But for 1920-1930 it's also the amount of available Helium.  To fill the carrier airship ZRS-4 Akron  ZR-3 Los Angeles was emptied of Helium , otherwise the US didn't have enough. And that was the only helium producer of that day.

[maddox]

First of all dirigibiles will always be dangerous.

What aircraft isn't?

However, the Germans 'succesfully' used zeppelins in combat during WWI.

Only the kriegsmarine did so. The army lost a few in daylight actions, and stopped using those. And the most succes the kriegsmarine made was using the airships as aerial scouts.

Meanwhile, three US helium filled airships were lost in accidents. I do not agree that helium production should be increased, if people want zeppelins they will have to live with either getting supplies from the CSA or using hydrogen.

The CSA can't produce more helium. 2 type 2 airships filled in 1920 and maintaned is about the limit.  Hydrogen will it be.

I do agree that the airship tech needs some tweaking.

The moderators are aware and we'll make it work. But not right now.

As far as aircraft go, ships are already packing mid-WWII level AA suites.Without a single succesful recorded case of an attack by a heavier-than-air aircraft on a ship. I do not and will not agree that planes should be forced to lag behind.

Care to give examples?
The heaviest AA suite France has on a ship is 6 single 37mm guns. And that's on the latest cruisers, with the experience from Gravelines.

Besides, the aircraft carrier tech already limits the first true carrier to a 1924 lay down date, 6 years AFTER the first true carrier was layed down in OTL.

So?  Big guns are more important...

Hindsightitis is a problem.

Unfortunatly.

but what about the North Carolina clones and WWII destroyers already running around?

Examples please.

[Desertfox]

The Baltic Oceans ~ North Carolinas, Dutch I-Class ~ WWII destroyers.

I recall seeing some designs with 20+ 3" AA guns + a bunch of lighter guns, the current UNK Victorias already have 6x3" and 16x1" AA guns, the Japanese Akagi will pack 6x3", 6x57mm, and 40x45cal AA guns.

[maddox]

Thank you for that tidbit of info Desertfox.

[Walter]

the Japanese Akagi will pack 6x3", 6x57mm, and 40x45cal AA guns.

Akagi's AA armament is only 6x1 57mm guns. The 3" guns are not part of the AA armament and as for the 40x 0.45 guns, they're actually four of these guns...

... and are used for darker purposes which does not include flying objects. :)

[Guinness]

No doubt those are simply for crew motivational purposes.

[Walter]

Actually for entertainment purposes. To force the crew of a cargo ship to dance as the ship moves alongside it. :D