Author Topic: Air force or Navy  (Read 43891 times)

Offline Balisarda

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2013, 07:47:10 pm »
Okay, have you ever had something that sounded better in your mind than when you wrote it down?  Well, that's kind of what I did with the steam portion on my post.  Learned a thing or two about closed steam systems after Thug Willis' post.  I was thinking more of open system without any regard for closed systems.  Closed systems with superheated steam do perform excellently at altitude.  I think an issue would be air induction for heating the boiler, but I don't recall seeing boilers on the ships.  And I meant to say the speed to boil water is faster at altitude, and the condensation is quicker.  Grah.  But thanks for the boot to the rear.

The plane that you're talking about is the SR-71, built in the 60's.  Its fuselage and other components would expand into place because of the heat caused by the friction of the molecules in the atmosphere being compressed against the leading edges of the aircraft.  The U2 is a high-altitude, relatively slow-speed, jet-powered sailplane.

Marines are a tricky thing, because we're not very good at long-term strategic occupation.  We don't have the logistics for that.  We're assaulters.  Occupation is usually what the army is there for.  But that's not saying that the merchant marine had the ability to move vast numbers of troops.  Look at the Liberty vessels during the Second World War; Navy civilian merchant marine and moved hundreds of thousands of troops.

The ships that we have in game are more comparable to brown water corvettes or gunships.  Relatively lightly armed and armored, with a minimal crew manning it.  Could you put troops on them?  Sure.  We did something similar with Marine Raiders during WWII.  Does it have long term viability?  Need the logistics.  Completely viable in a fictional Steampunk world where the engines don't make any mechanical sense?  Absolutely.  I look forward to where they go with it.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2013, 10:16:44 pm »
You're saying we a lot up there. What's your MOS?

Offline Thug Willis

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 2
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2013, 10:48:18 pm »
Okay, have you ever had something that sounded better in your mind than when you wrote it down? I was thinking more of open system without any regard for closed systems.
Lol. I haven't looked at the engines, I usually just slap them and move to the next part. About to look. When I was typin I thought it would probably be open system, but pretended like it wasn't.
~I don't see anything besides gears and propellers.
The ships that we have in game are more comparable to brown water corvettes or gunships.  Relatively lightly armed and armored, with a minimal crew manning it.  Could you put troops on them?  Sure.
Seems more comparable to submarines or any surface ship that isnt a carrier to me. I'm thinking of LCSs.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 11:03:19 pm by Thug Willis »

Offline Balisarda

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2013, 11:42:39 pm »
Quite a big difference between a DD (destroyer), a FF (frigate), a CG (cruiser) and a LCS (I'm assuming that you meant the Littoral); although the LCS is an apt modern day comparison.  Small, sleek, lightly armed and armored, minimally crewed, and a survivability of close to nothing.  Yep, those're our airships.  :P  Although I'm a little more old-fashioned when it comes to comparing the airships to waterborne ships; I always think of them as sailing vessels.

Charon, see your PM.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2013, 12:04:28 am »
Check.

Offline HamsterIV

  • Member
  • Salutes: 328
    • 10 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Monkey Dev
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2013, 12:30:32 pm »
The airships of GOI from a political sense are a navy. The navy is used to impose a nation's will over trade, all the guns and torpedoes are for frightening off other nations from using their navies to impose their will over your trade. The airforce's roll is more to destroy infrastructure and prevent your enemy from doing the same back to you. You can't blockade a port, seize contraband, or impose tariffs with an air force.  You can however do that with an airship fleet.

It would be extreamly difficult for an airship to be used in an infrastructure destroying capacity if that infrastructure was defended by the same weapons available in the game world. The airships can't fly high enough to be unhitable from the air based weapons in the game much less any beefier ground based variants that don't have to worry about weight. That plus bunkers would have better armor than an airship due to the complete lack of weight restrictions. So using an airship to fight through a fortified position would be next to impossible. If normal airplanes still exist (which the orriginal GOI and adventure mode seem to indicate), those airplanes would be much better suited for infrastructure destroying raids and therefor be the GOI equivalent to an air force.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 12:32:53 pm by HamsterIV »

Offline Zenark

  • Member
  • Salutes: 41
    • [Cake]
    • 5
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2013, 02:12:14 pm »
I could see a massive airship with an enormous cannon (heavy howitzer, anyone?) bombarding a port from afar.

These are definitely navel vessels, and now that I think about current ships, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an Airship carrier that houses a dozen Squids as almost-airforce.

Offline Thug Willis

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 2
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2013, 05:08:21 pm »
I could see a massive airship with an enormous cannon (heavy howitzer, anyone?) bombarding a port from afar.

These are definitely navel vessels, and now that I think about current ships, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an Airship carrier that houses a dozen Squids as almost-airforce.
There wouldn't be a point in that, that's like a carrier launching out speedboats. It would have to launch out something similar to airplanes, traveling at speeds MUCH faster than the carrier/normal ships. Other wise why not just have this giant ship blow the crap out whatever, or just carry around normal ships with more fire power to survivability to cost efficiency.
It would be extreamly difficult for an airship to be used in an infrastructure destroying capacity if that infrastructure was defended by the same weapons available in the game world. The airships can't fly high enough to be unhitable from the air based weapons in the game much less any beefier ground based variants that don't have to worry about weight. That plus bunkers would have better armor than an airship due to the complete lack of weight restrictions. So using an airship to fight through a fortified position would be next to impossible.
Amphibious invasion has been historically inefficient (reference Seal Team Eight, the book, idk proper notation), which is why you don't do it except as a last resort, or when you're 100% sure you can sustain the heavy loss to take the position. As seen with D-Day, WW2. Navies dry out countries, they don't invade (except with Marines and the proper invasion point. You were saying it, but you don't explain it very well. Also, they wouldn't go high they would go far with long range weapons. Hitting a stationary target from multiple moving positions will be easier than hitting multiple moving targets from a stationary position imo.
I agree with most of what you said though.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:28:56 pm by Thug Willis »

Offline Balisarda

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2013, 11:38:38 pm »
I like Zenark's idea.  The whole airship carrier full of airships is rather amusing, but that type of thing has been done before.  I don't think smaller airships would be carried, but given that there are monoplanes existing in the Guns of Icarus world, I could see something like the USS Akron (a rigid airship that carried Sparrowhawk pursuit biplanes) or heck, Don Karnage's Iron Vulture from TaleSpin (am I dating myself here?).  That would be rather neat to see monoplanes being launched from underneath a behemoth airship.

And putting a heavy gun in an airborne craft is nothing new.  Aircraft that I can think of are the British Mosquito Mk.18, the Ju-88P, and the B-25G Mitchell.  All with super-heavies (for aircraft).  I think something like 75mm or so.

But that brings to point what HamsterIV was talking about.  The airspeed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow.  No, not really, but it is a matter of weight ratio.  Airships, steampunk or otherwise, will always be carrying the lighter-weight weapons.  They need to.  Whereas ground installations can have as heavy and as powerful as they possibly can field; weapons that can not only out-distance the effective range of an airborne arsenal, but out explodey it too.  Hitting a stationary target is fine, it sucks when that stationary target can also bring to bear more firepower and withstand more beating than you for a longer period of time.

The hitting of moving targets isn't much an issue, because all you need to do is hit the section of the airspace that they're in.  One thing my great-uncle, who was a waist gunner for a B-24 during the Second World War, always mentioned, was how terrifying the flak fields were.  Because it was so thick, so precise, so impersonal, and so invisible.  All you saw was the puff of black smoke, not the fragments of shrapnel nor the rounds ascending.  And there were tens of thousands of rounds all trying to occupy the same airspace that you were in.

Also, in the concept that you can just bombard a defense into submission and it'll work, well, I have an island to sell you on that idea.  It's called Iwo Jima, and the American brass thought that after a three days of bombardment (some of which was 14-inch munitions) that the Japanese would be so shell-shocked that the American forces could just relatively waltz in.  Instead, the Japanese kept their heads down, dusted themselves off, and some 36 days later, after 26,000 American casualties and almost 22,000 Japanese dead, Americans had secured the island.

Defense and offense are always vying against each other, and ground to air defense is always a better bet than air to ground assault (given relatively equal technology advances).

Offline GeoRmr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 178
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 1
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Storm Ryders
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2013, 07:39:04 am »
The use of the word 'beam' in the signal commands: "Enemy sighted on port beam!'
Contextualises the airships as naval vessles.

Offline Goldenglade

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 47
    • [Grim]
    • 22 
    • 35
    • 43 
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2013, 04:54:38 pm »
Navy always covered land sea and space.... so i mean that's a thing but the navy has more aviators then the airforce.... which is the same awkward note that shows the army having more boats then the navy. either way i would say these are navy.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2013, 05:02:16 am »
Yeah, but the Army's only rockin' tugboats, recon ships, a log train and some landing craft. Not nearly as close a comparison to the Navy/Air Force debate here.

But again, unless every nation has some kind of standardized terminology, they're probably going to have their own weird words for it. There may not even be a precedent that they can remember to name it after.



Offline HamsterIV

  • Member
  • Salutes: 328
    • 10 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Monkey Dev
Re: Air force or Navy
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2013, 11:41:51 am »
The Airship fleet is the law enforcement arm of the Department of Transportation (DoT). The DoT is responsible for inter city infrastructure which, in this world without highways, is airships. The DoT funds itself by collecting taxes on intercity trade and maintaining airship docking stations. As we have seen, these airships can't land on their own. In fact the DoT forbids the construction of any airship without the pesky bottom fins to protect their monopoly on docking facilities. The airships that we fly in Guns of Icarus are out to enforce the DoT's will on a variety of issues ranging from tax evasion, illegal docking facilities, piracy, and smuggling.

Just like until 2003 the US Secret Service were agents of the Treasury department, so are we agents of a benign sounding yet ruthless bureaucracy.