|
|
Post by christian on Mar 18, 2021 1:31:23 GMT -6
(TLDR question) What are airships in RTW meant to represent ? blimps, zeppelins or a combination ?
Currently it seems airships are meant to represent rigid body airships (zeppelins) which can be seen from the implementation of parasite fighters.
But when you look at the actual production of these airships only Germany was able to produce them in any significant number and not after the 20s.
The US only made 6 rigid body airships, which sure were large and impressive but also expensive.
Currently it only takes 3 months to build 8 airships, and the hangar with not that high of a maintenance cost.
The only way i can explain this is somehow RTW devs have combined non rigid body airships (blimps and so on) with rigid body airships.
RTW airships seem to be much more representative of stuff like the K-class blimp than an Akron class rigid body airship.
The price of blimps like the K class of which over 130 were produced is also very cheap being only 1/3rd more expensive than a B-17 in 1945
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60 
|
Post by zoomar on Mar 19, 2021 9:43:52 GMT -6
The Devs say the that rigid airships are the model. Clearly airships in this game are an afterthought, even more so than submarines and MTBs. I have three main wishes. 1. Availability of helium should be something the US gets automatically at about 1920, and is then an advance in technology that must be bought from the US in the same way as other innovations are, and the the US player can sell who they want to or not. 2. Other than endurance and range, the real advantage of airships is ASW capability. Maintaining and enhancing airship bases should provide an ASW benefit in the sea area in which you build them, and this should increase over the years as you enhance and expand them. 3. the real purpose of "parisite fighters" was not protection of the airship, but enhanced scouting range. This should be incorporated somewhow in their effectiveness as scouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 19, 2021 11:35:26 GMT -6
Well, it is possible to make airships with hydrogen instead of helium, so I'm not in agreement that building an airship means buying US helium.
Given that the US thought it was most likely it would have to fight a war in the Pacific, scouting became a priority. The Omaha class light cruisers are one example of how the navy attempted to fill that need (and no they are not great light cruisers compared to what came after - on a par with British WW1 designs or Japanese CLs). Having an aerial asset that could see a great distance, launch aircraft to extend that sighting range, stay out for an extended period as a ship would and yet move three or four times faster than a ship - that could have been a real asset, at least until Japanese fighters caught up with it. Plus, while the US was treaty-limited as to the number of carriers it could operate, airships were not limited.
Unfortunately, while the US and Britain could build rigid airships they did not fully appreciate how very fragile they were and how very unsuited to flying in storms. As far as I know, all US and British rigid airships failed structurally, in or out of a storm, or were scrapped after the level of danger became apparent.
I'd agree that rigid airships are different animals from blimps and should be treated and used differently, with the latter improving ASW scores and the former best at reconnaissance.
|
|
