Author Topic: What if we added Airships?  (Read 1978 times)

Offline Zexx

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2012, 10:48:17 PM »
Sure, you can have airships if I can have barrage balloons to deploy around town when the NOE is inbound.

+1

Viable inclusion since they were widely used in World War Two. If Airships ( and subs) are included the inclusion of Barrage Balloons would be logical development. As a side note they[barrage balloons] are being encouraged to make a comeback these days citing limitations on SHORAD (SHORt Range Air Defense) defenses and capabilities of Manpads (shoulder fires missiles) and vehicle mounted missile defense systems, such as the FIM-92 "Stinger" and converntional ballistic weapons like the 25mm "Bushmaster" or .50 calibur coaxes. There's and article in the Air Power Journal (USAF) that states reasons for this. It reads:

"Many people remember or have seen pictures of barrage balloons floating majestically in the skies over England in mock peacefulness during World War II. These large, airborne barriers protected important installations in both Great Britain and the United States against low-level air attack. They complemented the existing air defense system and--particularly in England--proved their worth an numerous occasions by helping to thwart low-flying enemy aircraft. Barrage balloons disappeared after World War II as newer, more sophisticated air defense weapons were introduced. The threat from low-flying aircraft, however, continues to be a problem. Aerial barrages still offer a viable deterrent against this form of attack, and we should use them. "

 (Maj Franklin J. Hillson, USAF, N.D. "Barrage Balloons for Low Level Air Defense"; Air Power Journal, Summer 1989.http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/sum89/hillson.html, Accessed June 17th 2012)
Yes there is a Huge learning curve in flying. It starts on Take off and ends on the glide slope for landing. In short The grade arc is the difference you take between being in the sky or in a mountainside.

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6974
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2012, 08:27:58 AM »

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2012, 01:08:39 PM »
always amazing what keeps some people awake at night dreaming about "that would be so cool".  :rolleyes:  the op thinks a "low and slow free kill hangar queen" like a zepplin would be cool yet his stats shows he doesn't like being caught in the existing low and slow...
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Nathan60

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4573
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2012, 01:35:45 PM »
Q:What if we added airships?
A: I'd puke
HamHawk
Wing III-- Pigs on The Wing
FSO--JG54
CHUGGA-CHUGGA, CHOO-CHOO
Pigs go wing deep

Offline Zexx

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2012, 04:42:25 PM »
always amazing what keeps some people awake at night dreaming about "that would be so cool".  :rolleyes:  the op thinks a "low and slow free kill hangar queen" like a zepplin would be cool yet his stats shows he doesn't like being caught in the existing low and slow...

There is an axiom that is generally held to be true in the AH community and that is: If you don't like it. Don't fly it. There are many Aircraft that dubbed "Hangar Queens" and see little to next to no use in any arena; but that's not the point here.  The point is two fold: Suggesting a beneficial Aircraft and suggest one that is  potentially game enhancing not just to one specific arena, but rather multiple Arenas. The Blimp was a successful Convoy Escort, Observation Post, and historically the first Strategic -internationally capable- bomber. The aircraft, in this case lighter than air, made contributions to both wars in it's own unique way- and  is currently being researched by the DoD and DARPA  to fullfill the same roles in a modern context (which includes providing realtime battlefield Recon, C2 and,C3i).

Yes the Airship is slow. Very slow by piston fighter and jet age standards and highly susceptible to ADA weapon systems, but it can be argued that every wepon systems has  trade off's in advantages and disadvantages. I've listed some of the benefits of having Airships in game, especially in the World War I Arena- where I state again- The airship found the most use as a front line combat aircraft (despite that Arena seeing little use.)

By comparison the P-39 "Aircobra" was, by most historical accounts of it, an abysmal performer- yet it's in the game. The Russians managed to use them to some measure of success agianst German Armor and in some cases Aircraft such as the Me-109(Bf109). It even sees some use in Game. Another Comparison is the Fi156. It's low and slow, and its used.

Frankly, The Airship has a record of use and success (far longer than any piston engine or jet fighter) dating back as far as the American Civil War. What other Aircraft can claim that? What other Aircraft can claim Longer flight duration times, Lioter times, and  Energy conservation ( in terms of fuel spent and manning requirements)? None.

This aircraft has the potential to increase the historical aspect of the entire game- not just one historical segement of time. Yes it's slow and highly susceptible to enemy fire- but it has made significant contributions to in spite of these limitations. Most Aircraft are built to fulfill a doctrinal niche or to apply a particular aspect of  Air power Theory. Very few have actually proved the feasibility and was adapted to fulfill that role. Airships were the original Multi-role Aircraft and have evolved just as the Jet or piston engined plane has.
Yes there is a Huge learning curve in flying. It starts on Take off and ends on the glide slope for landing. In short The grade arc is the difference you take between being in the sky or in a mountainside.

Offline ariansworld

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 756
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2012, 05:06:05 PM »
Four words...... Hot air balloon duels.

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2012, 05:15:49 PM »
There is an axiom that is generally held to be true in the AH community and that is: If you don't like it. Don't fly it.

True, however this game is run by gentlemen without unlimited resources.  The time and money spent developing what you want means something else does not get made and implemented.

I thank you for the idea that caused me to think a bit but no.  If this is just a what if exercise then great, but like my buddy, (hi buddy !), gyrene said, you're record doesn't show a propensity to fly vulnerable planes so I'm just guessing that it is a "wouldn't it be cool if" kinda thing.  :salute
Wag more, bark less.

Offline Zexx

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2012, 07:30:29 PM »
Four words...... Hot air balloon duels.

+1 Rewplay the Battle of Jutland..albiet Airborne  :x :rock :banana:
Yes there is a Huge learning curve in flying. It starts on Take off and ends on the glide slope for landing. In short The grade arc is the difference you take between being in the sky or in a mountainside.

Offline Dover

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 137
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2012, 01:55:35 AM »
Four words...... Hot air balloon duels.

right up there with fun like bomber to bomber dog fights and pt to pt sea battles always fun to be in but no one really wins

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2012, 05:30:29 AM »
Four words...... Hot air balloon duels.

best. thread. ever.  :rofl
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2012, 01:21:03 PM »
hiya Zoney,  :salute mi amigo

There is an axiom that is generally held to be true in the AH community and that is: If you don't like it. Don't fly it. There are many Aircraft that dubbed "Hangar Queens" and see little to next to no use in any arena; but that's not the point here.  The point is two fold: Suggesting a beneficial Aircraft and suggest one that is  potentially game enhancing not just to one specific arena, but rather multiple Arenas.
actually, the point is hangar queen or no hangar queen because in actuality a blimp, balloon, zeppelin or airship would be neither beneficial nor game enhancing. i know you're new around here but, it doesn't appear that you are thinking with the correct head on this one. historically they had purpose, in the aces high world they would be a novelty item that would eventually find less use than the early war and ww1 arenas.

again, your personal record kinda speaks for itself in the matter. fly a lot more sorties in some of the existing hangar queens and see how much you really enjoy getting swatted out of the air, then think about how much worse manning a balloon would be.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2012, 04:03:15 PM »
     A blimp doing 60 mph with no defenses and the worst turning ability in the game...whoo whoo!  I KNEW we had too much empty hangar
space!  :lol  They would be hangar queens even in WW1!  I'm impressed, it will be tough to beat this wish for pure futility  :banana:
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Zexx

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2012, 05:42:08 PM »

actually, the point is hangar queen or no hangar queen because in actuality a blimp, balloon, zeppelin or airship would be neither beneficial nor game enhancing...  historically they had purpose, in the aces high world they would be a novelty item that would eventually find less use than the early war and ww1 arenas.


Thank you Gyrene, Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that from the start instead of  pigeon holing me based on my record like you have done in previous posts? This was the response I was looking for, not riddling me or my posts based on my record.. and possibly assuming that I am looking for an easy kill,or not "thinking with the right head".

I know the inherent flaws of the Airship. I stated those flaws.  In that light, had you actually sat back and ingested the content rather than skimming them you would have seen that. Further, my record has NOTHING to the do with discussion of including a vehicle  for historical accuracy, as neither do your opinions of me (which frankly you can keep to yourself as I do not have to prove myself to you or anyone else for that matter). It maybe a weak and useless idea but at least I am trying to be constructive to the community, rather than leeching detriment like you seem to be...
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 05:48:10 PM by Zexx »
Yes there is a Huge learning curve in flying. It starts on Take off and ends on the glide slope for landing. In short The grade arc is the difference you take between being in the sky or in a mountainside.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2012, 07:18:05 PM »
       I'm impressed, it will be tough to beat this wish for pure futility  :banana:

i think submarines put into the existing game, chasing cv's around must have it beat :)

kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: What if we added Airships?
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2012, 07:21:42 PM »
Thank you Gyrene, Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that from the start instead of  pigeon holing me based on my record like you have done in previous posts? This was the response I was looking for, not riddling me or my posts based on my record.. and possibly assuming that I am looking for an easy kill,or not "thinking with the right head".

I know the inherent flaws of the Airship. I stated those flaws.  In that light, had you actually sat back and ingested the content rather than skimming them you would have seen that. Further, my record has NOTHING to the do with discussion of including a vehicle  for historical accuracy, as neither do your opinions of me (which frankly you can keep to yourself as I do not have to prove myself to you or anyone else for that matter). It maybe a weak and useless idea but at least I am trying to be constructive to the community, rather than leeching detriment like you seem to be...
oh i actually did read everything you posted, even looked at the links you posted and i know you're not "new" as in a first time aces high cherry newb. don't feel special, i take jabs at pretty much everyone when the opportunity arises. and yes, in this particular instance your online record does have something to do with the discussion. it's a reflection of your in game habits and, your habits show that you would not use an item you are wishing to be included more than a hand full of times as a novelty. there are a lot of history buffs here who enjoy having things included even though they may not be highly competitive in the late war arena, when they make sense.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett