VSF 'all things airborne...'

[The_Beast]

With some recent posts here, and being reminded of a thread in '22 elsewhere, I thought I would put my comments up to see if anyone finds them useful for further discussion. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=559879

Please notice I didn't say 'be gentle.'

As background, the thread was started by an author writing a piece set in the thirties posing the question 'Where would things be this long after Victorian flying ships?'

Unfortunately, the author didn't cross-post to Pulp or the like to get viewpoints from the other side, later admitting finding in a 'rabbit hole.'

My response:

    "i have a quick question"

Perhaps a quick question, but liable to create long answers.

Firstly, Mr. [redacted ] is absolutely correct in that you have to envision your own world view to answer your own question, particularly how YOUR story shapes said world.

However, I'll share a bit of my own viewpoint, to see if it helps, though mostly from games I've looked upon, and less stories I've yet to read.

I'm a bit of a contrarian as many people fly ships the size of contemporary naval vessels, and I can't accept that. I use the aphorism 'we've just begun', with an under theme of 'first, baby steps.'

So, look upon the game Aeronef as Victorian, Imperial Skies as early Edwardian, and Leviathans 'Monsters' [shoehorning Castles in the Sky here] even later.

As for aircraft, their development might well be delayed due to what's available in larger ships(part of Aeronef's backstory), and I also wouldn't assume the same dynamics between those larger ships with fighters/bombers compared to naval ships.

But, people DO like Frankie's flying airfields… ;->= [Sky Captain reference. Too old?]

On the other hand, I find the assumption that surface ships would be helpless in the face of nef/dig bombardment equally questionable. A) 'There is no Norden bomb sight, and, actually, there never was…', B) Hitting "bull in the butt with a bass fiddle" [Tora, Tora, Tora. Now THAT'S old.] is infinitely more complicated if it's running, dodging, and weaving.

Like I said, not the popular view, but I best leave it there, as an example of one man's[meat/poison], as 'I do go on.'

Doug

PS I tend to ignore the fact that those games all call things battleships and destroyers and gunboats, assuming vastly different meaning over long periods.

[You can't argue with 'I do go on...'

Doug]

[Tactalvanic]

Welll..

depends what floats your boat? air/water/both?

Is a stealth airship simply a submarine but airborne?

- its your fantastical world you choose.
- not really seeing the point in arguing.
- I certainly see no reason why navy air and navy sea would not exist, and there in conflict would adapt depending on how things develop regards sea/air superiority.

arms race and all that - sometimes one or the other would have advantages in particular situations?

large airships are not fast flying aircraft so speeds would not be that different to waterbourne ships? depending on water/sea depth size restrictions apply?

fast aircraft might be primarily used in support rolls initially until suitable air torpedoes have been developed and so on?

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

There are stratetegic/operational differences, as well as tactical, that might be considered:  Loitering ability, fuel and ammunition capacity and ease of resupply as well as maximum weights that airborne craft could bear, rates of ascent or  descent for avoiding interception or intercepting. Cruising speeds vs emergency speeds.    Command control differences such as signaling and sighting, fields of view.
susceptibility to wind and weather,  Ease of manufacture, availability of essential raw materials (especially unobtainium), training concerns. Sea navies could still be a cheaper/better alternative in many cases. Like real aircraft, there are limitations on how many guns can be borne.  If nothing else the surface ships will be great AAA batteries.

[The_Beast]

Thanks, lads!

Excellent points well made!

Tactalvanic, hope it doesn't come off as defensive, but "- its your fantastical world you choose." matches my "you have to envision your own world view to answer your own question, particularly how YOUR story shapes said world."

Also, my claim to be a contrarian points out my minority opinion status.

Anyway, I HOPE not an argument, but still a spirited discussion.

Aethelflaeda was framed, I am still chewing on your thoughts, many mirror my own, some perhaps an extension of the subject, but strongly appreciated!

Doug

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Aethelflaeda was framed, I am still chewing on your thoughts, many mirror my own, some perhaps an extension of the subject, but strongly appreciated!

I always find that we gamers get too caught up within very limited scope for our analysis of various types of units or vehicles we want to field in a game: the tactical battle usually with even numbers.  It’s like raging over the merits of a sherman vs a panther in 1 on 1 combat or deploying a Hurricane squadron vs a Spitfire, without all the very real concerns that make an adequate weapon, great or even present: ie numbers that can be deployed and the mission.  We don’t live in a real world with a real industrial base to build our toy armies and navies.  even points based armies are usually more about tactical quality then ability to deploy.

[Macrossmartin]

Hmm. Agreeing that the technology of a setting must suit the needs of the story, and not the other way around, I have to say that aeroplanes (relying on dynamic lift) make less sense to me in a 'flying battleship' setting than a knife in a submarine duel.

Why, if you have the ability to lift a few thousand armoured tonnes into the sky, would you bother with flimsy contraptions of wood and linen?? If you can construct flying machines with endurances measured in weeks, why would you want others only capable of staying aloft for hours?

Aeroplanes - with their flying carriers - bewilder me in games such as Imperial Skies et al. Even if the 'anti gravity' tech of the setting is relatively primitive, it will, by its very nature, be more efficient than dynamic lift; It should be capable of lifting more per cubic volume, requires no vulnerable lifting surfaces (wings), and does not require construction from flimsy materials. (Think aeroplanes from the first 20-30 years of historical flight.)

Let me put it this way: A Royal Sovereign class pre-dread' (1890) weighed in at 14,000-odd tons. That's the equivalent of about 230 B-29 Superfortresses.

Take out all the guns and torpedoes of the Royal Sovereign, and replace them with bombs. See where this is going...? Goodbye Tokyo in one sortie, and no atom bomb required! What could possibly be the incentive to build aeroplanes?

This brings to mind the very good arguments against fighters in space. Given they are flying and fighting in the same medium (vacuum) as space ships, they must, by their very size, have less range, less speed, fewer weapons and poorer survivability. Aside from 'rule of cool' why are they there?

It seems to me that there might be an equivalent of 'fighters' and bombers' in one of these settings, but they would be, essentially, smaller versions of the flying ships. Fundamentally the same proven technology, but more nimble, with smaller crews, weapons, etc. Such craft might evolve from scout / spotter craft (as real warplanes did), built to range ahead of the battlefleet, seeking the enemy. Then someone thinks to add some guns for defence, a bomb or three, and...

The sole exception I personally accept is the idea that aeroplanes are the first into the skies, and anti gravity flyers develop afterwards; Say, in the 1920's or '30s. Aeroplanes are then 'the establishment' and militaries are reluctant to abandon their investments in their aerial armadas.

Then perhaps, a militaristic nation, with an axe to grind over the outcome of the last war, sees the potential of this new technology, and begins secretly building flying cruisers, troop carriers, and so on...