Colombian Not-To-Be Ships

[Carthaginian]

1. The chief design failure of rigid airships was that their frame strength was inadequate to take torque or bend loads.
2. They could not fly in thunderstorms or simple wind-shear, ever.
3. The loss rate > 50% per 1000 hours flight was appalling.
4. Riddle the nose full of simple simple bullet holes and tears and watch it SNAP in two as the nose falls and the tail lifts. You don't have to set it on fire at all to cause a bend moment that it cannot sustain.
5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA

The hydrogen problem was never solved.  
 

Again, as a man with TREMENDOUS experience with automatic weapons of all flavors:
Damocles... it can't be done the way you are trying to do it.
PERIOD.

Yes, the Mk-19 is a very low velocity autocannon... but it is NOT a mortar. It has a reliable and accurate 1 mile engagement range, and is a flat-shooting weapon over 900 yards. You can actually coax a good bit more range out of it in indirect fire mode if you know how to work it... I got 1.25 miles once, with my target building lased by an M1 Abrams for confirmation.

I have also witnessed fire from both 25mm and 30mm autocannons and discussed at length their use and effectiveness.
Even the Bushmaster in the Bradley doesn't make it much more than 3000 yards accurately (and then with only a single type of AP ammo), and you're limited to pretty much either 'squishies' or soft vehicles at that point. Anything with armor needs to be much closer. Most rounds get about a hot mile tops. Ranges for autocannon are NOT very long, regardless of their size. Honestly, the .50 caliber machine gun shoots about as far and as flat as any weapon that isn't classified as 'artillery.'

You are trying to argue that you can engage a target AT ALTITUDE at ranges that weapons that I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE can't do it.  Sorry, man... you're spitting into the wind arguing with me on weapons.

[damocles]

Bombing altitude is 3000 meters. That is what I need.

[Carthaginian]

Bombing altitude is 3000 meters. That is what I need.

Ok... 3000m is what is called 'maximum effective range' distance.
That means, quite literally, your stock-still vehicle can hit the broad side of an equally immobile barn... that being about what you can see at such a range. If you are on a moving ship which is pitching and rolling like a drunk sorority girl trying to shoot at something that is not only 3000m DISTANT, but 3000m IN ALTITUDE, then you can not make the shot in any effective manner- especially after you factor in wind and weather and any resultant aiming difficulties.

You might hit the zep about every 10th round.... might.
Maybe.

Of these, if you are using exploding ammunition, only the 'lucky' ones that actually hit internal framework will explode... maybe 1 in 100 or more. Of these, many will still not cause any kind of telling damage.*

HERE is the story on the 20mm Oerlikon AA gun used by the USN.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.htm
Notice the very important note that differentiates between 'ballistic characteristics' of the round and the 'actual effective potential' of the round? This is MOST TELLING in a 'Numbers vs Usefulness' argument like you are perpetuating here. Though the 20mm had a 'maximum effective range' of 4800 yards and a 'maximum AA ceiling' of 10,000 feet, the weapons 'realistic useful range' was only 1000 yards! Even the mighty Bofors 40mm had a 'realistic useful range' of about 4500-5000 yards with a director, and that was so widely accepted that most of our AA munitions self destructed at that range to prevent unexpected hazard to friendly ships downrange!

Not to mention that you are trying to take the numbers for a modern, computer-aimed, laser ranged 25mm chaingun with much better ballistic coefficients and propellants and are applying it to a much less accurate and effective weapon/optics system. ;)

Again, you are grabbing ahold to a number that, while realistic, is highly unreasonable. It's basically like saying 'my car theoretically gets a maximum of 25 miles per gallon, so I am going to put exactly 2 gallons in for my 50 mile drive to work.' You are trying to play things way too fast and loose on the math end.


*Remember, once you get into the gasbag, even though you have plenty of hydrogen, you are now in an oxygen-poor environment. The explosion might choke itself out before it does any real damage for simple lack of a reactant to go with the fuel- though that is more Maddox's area of expertise than mine. I DO know that you can set off explosions to put out fires- the explosion sucks up the useable oxygen in the vicinity of the fire with such rapidity that the fire simply chokes out in the presence of the fireball!

[Carthaginian]

True, except for two things.

1. I have the gun under research testing based off the Browning short recoil action M-2 (just like the Russian 1 pounder based off the 1889 Maxim example) right now at Durham in the Dutch news and it is planned as standard armament in the 1920 program.
2. The 13 mm Browning is in existence and it is effective to 2000 meters slant against aircraft.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG.htm

The 25 mm is extrapolated off the expected performance of the 13 mm Hotchkiss.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_13mm_aamg.htm
   

1.) The .50 BMG is a great design for the .50 BMG round.
It is a VERY poor fit for something larger, due to the way that it is built. Sustained fire causes the weapon to begin to 'loose sync' while cycling... meaning that your weapon will, over time, begin to first missfire/jam occasionally, then cease to function entirely. The extra recoil forces of a larger round would exacerbate this problem. If you had ever had to headspace and time a .50 BMG, you'd be aware that it's a damn fine weapon, but also a fairly particular one.

Like all pretty girls, Ma Duce is high maintenance. :D


2.) The .50 BMG is NOT effective that far out against an aircraft. Oh, sure it'll REACH one tht far out, but due to lead distances, reaction times, and so on and so forth, you wind up not being able to hit a darn thing.

You need an effective slant range of 4.25 miles or 23,000 feet or 6750 meters. That is within the performance slant of the expected 25 mm.

See my above post... not in a million years can you sell that one.

[maddox]

I don't know for the ZMC-2's skin, but I know the truss of the Zeppelins used different thickness of Dural.

I have held is a truss of 10 yards long about 8" side , lifted it at one side, easely, and it didn't bend. And that was a replica of one of the longitudal secundary trusses of Hindenburg. (I should go back to the zeppelin Museum.)If I recall correctly, it was made of strips 1/8" thick.

[P3D]

That means, quite literally, your stock-still vehicle can hit the broad side of an equally immobile barn...

But... The Zep' is larger than the barn.  ;)

[Carthaginian]

That means, quite literally, your stock-still vehicle can hit the broad side of an equally immobile barn...

But... The Zep' is larger than the barn.  ;)

LOL... a 200 foot barn or a 1000 foot zep- both are damnably tough targets at a mile. ;)
And again, there is a lot of extraneous motion involved at sea that doesn't figure into shooting on land.

I mean, there's a good reason that gunners on wooden ships had to time their shots with the ship's pitch an roll: even at a few hundred yards, a 20 foot pitch/roll difference can make a massive difference in point of aim.

[ctwaterman]

That is why my anti ballon gun on my ships is Quad 25mm volume of fire against a target that is trying to bomb my ships that all I can do at the moment tech wize my anti Aircraft gun for airplanes are machine guns mounted on the rails and the odd purpose 13.2mm gun that just began entering service.

And Im the one who actually has pilots claiming to have hit moving targets [Warships even at sea]  after talking to the survivors of such ships I have a realistic idea of what happened.  I would say if Foxy took some of the survivors of the two ships who made port home with him or atleast reports then he has a good Idea of what happened as well.   But none of the Cruisers attacked at sea by aircraft to my knowledge have survived the war in the rift.

Charles

[Logi]

And Im the one who actually has pilots claiming to have hit moving targets [Warships even at sea]  after talking to the survivors of such ships I have a realistic idea of what happened.

Um, no I have that too. But mine are all torpedo bombers and my targets were 30+ kt Torpedo Boats and Destroyers.

[damocles]

And Im the one who actually has pilots claiming to have hit moving targets [Warships even at sea]  after talking to the survivors of such ships I have a realistic idea of what happened.

Um, no I have that too. But mine are all torpedo bombers and my targets were 30+ kt Torpedo Boats and Destroyers.

Look at this point, the Italians, the RRC, the NZ, and the MK/(Dutch volunteers) as well as the NS all have some aerial combat experience of all types against small fast attacks.

[damocles]

I don't know for the ZMC-2's skin, but I know the truss of the Zeppelins used different thickness of Dural.

I have held is a truss of 10 yards long about 8" side , lifted it at one side, easely, and it didn't bend. And that was a replica of one of the longitudal secundary trusses of Hindenburg. (I should go back to the zeppelin Museum.)If I recall correctly, it was made of strips 1/8" thick.

Relook at the frame bend on that Hindenberg structure before the crash.

The Japanese solved the H05 Carthage. They solved for up to 30 mm using the Browning action. That was for aircraft cannon.

You also argue against known historic Zep results, the crashes and shootdowns happened with the mechanisms exactly as I described.  We have the films, and the investigation post mortems plus modern effects testing. I can't help that evidence, its there and its that evidence you have to use.

D.

[maddox]

Of course the frame bends. That's the result of a few good ideas, and the way of building.
Main thing is, it's the result of rivetting all the trusses, and the total length.

If it was a rigid structure, it would break at the first attempt to bring it out of the hangar with wind over 0.1 beaufort.
Even modern, steel hulled ships will bend and twist in heavy weather. I believe P3D or Valles posted some Youtube clips in that respect.
Even concrete skyscrapers sway in the wind.

And yes, we have the evidence of the photo's ,movies and reports of crashed airships for all to consult. Still, we have also the evidence that airships could be safe and succesfull.
The British (Zeppelin Highflyer based ) airships R33 and R34.  R33 was worked untill her frame was worn out (longer than the Nverse sules allow btw) and R34 is a good example why airships shouldn't be unsheltered on the ground in bad weather.
LZ126 and LZ127, as well LZ130 are just icing on the cake.
Not to mention the N Class Blimps used by the US as flying radarposts. Or the predecessors, the blimps Rocky and I base our blimps upon, the Coastal patrol blimps of WW I

And of course, what aircraft in the 1930's can claim 308 323 km flown in a year with 2,798 passengers and 160 tons of freight.

[damocles]

Argument conceded. ATD.