Author Topic: Aerial Battleships  (Read 1094 times)

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2019, 05:00:13 PM »
To use EL would require a large cap to power it which would be limited in flight duration plus the need for thrust which combined would leave little or no room for an explosive charge. ... perhaps a little flag could pop out with "BANG " written on it :)

tankmodeler was looking at a more simplistic approach keeping to similar principles as that of waterborne torpedoes.
I think stabilisers would be required and perhaps having them offset to create a spin which coupled with the high velocity from the solid fuel motor would keep the bugger going in a straight line ... maybe.... ;)
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2019, 05:52:35 PM »
Why not just use gyroscopic stabilisation? WW2 torpedoes had it.

Mark 14;


Mark 18;


Give it wings, tail fins & a rocket motor, move the gyro gear (which you'll notice is rather small) forward to allow room for the rocket motor, & Robert's your mother's brother's nephew's aunt's husband! :smiley:
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2019, 10:19:48 PM »
Find these cutaways really interesting  - nice one
Yes, the gyros would do the trick but would they be necessary I wonder if enough speed and spin is available to keep it straight?
I was wondering about a proximity fuse as well but with something like a battleship there is a need for armour piercing, blast won't cut it.
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2019, 10:46:51 PM »
With respect to EL and capacitors/batteries vs propellant and warhead, I could posit a system where, much like your early WW2 fighters, the EL doesn't provide all the lift, but allows wings to be reduced to limit drag and increase speed. The rocket provides the forward speed for the wing lift as well, of course, to generate the velocity to get to the target.

The speed wouldn't have to be terribly high, say 20-30% greater than the aerial ships it is meant to kill. A pursuit course is never the way torpedoes work. They are fired at the broadside of the target and timed to intercept the target at a future point, not chase it down.

Basic setting of course and speed was known when Whitehead invented the modern water torpedo in 1866:
"The first trials were not successful as the weapon was unable to maintain a course at a steady depth. After much work, Whitehead introduced his "secret" in 1868 which overcame this. It was a mechanism consisting of a hydrostatic valve and pendulum that caused the torpedo's hydroplanes to be adjusted so as to maintain a preset depth."

And as soon as gyroscopes were available in the late 1890s, they were used instead and improved capabilities. WWI torpedoes were gyro stabilised.

Firing a spread has always been wasteful, absolutely, however until guided torpedoes came into being after WW2, firing a spread and hoping was the _only_ way to use torpedoes, so the concept is not out of hand.

In our world, torpedoes were originally fired in daylight from light ships against larger targets and from subs. The first set of techniques for daylight attack would be the obvious analogy to make, but the 3rd dimension of the EL world provide others. The submarine model could be used for attacking at night, especially moonlit nights, with the attacker moving silently on battery power and completely blacked out awaiting an enemy to come within attack range. Similarly, the PT model could be used with exceptionally fast, small EL torpedo craft lurking in clouds (analogous to PT boats lurking in inlets and bays) across the path of enemy aerial warships and then bursting out of the clouds in a small swarm to attack the bigger enemies.

The 3D nature of this EL world, though, also suggests a new method where ground anti-aerial battleship batteries launch torpedoes against enemy capital ships in a defensive manner much like the coastal batteries of our world protected harbours from enemy ships.

Loads of visual imagery there to play with.

Picture a young, dashing, New Englander at the helm of his Elco Levitation Industries 100' Patrol-Torpedo Craft, PT-109, bursting from the cover of a cloud along with the three other aircraft of his patrol to attack a destroyer-protected convoy over the Pacific in 1944. Having lain in wait for 4 hours, the convoy appears and the PT ambush is sprung. Approaching from above with two attackers to each beam of the convoy the first attack of the patrol quickly disable and dispatch the Japanese destroyer Sawakaze leaving 4 of the remaining 6 fast transports trying to resupply Rabaul to be destroyed at leisure.

Powered by 4 license-built Packard-Tesla Griffons, the Elco 100 footers could make 65kts while carrying six Whitehead-Westinghouse 24" Mk 14 aerial torpedoes, four  twin .50-cal MG turrets and two 20mm Oerlikon turrets. The ELco PT Craft were the first to carry oxygen for all crew members allowing them to attack from much higher altitudes than previous craft. Later in the war, as targets dried up, PT Craft carried fewer and fewer torpedoes and increased the number of autocannon and switched to raiding the more local aerial shipping lanes for smaller vessels.


:D

Paul

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2019, 10:53:44 PM »
Find these cutaways really interesting  - nice one
Yes, the gyros would do the trick but would they be necessary I wonder if enough speed and spin is available to keep it straight?
Spin for an unguided projectile would have to be pretty high meaning that you are back to needing a LOT of propellant. And, essentially the projectile needing to achieve gun-like speeds which drive the propellant needs way up.

Quote
I was wondering about a proximity fuse as well but with something like a battleship there is a need for armour piercing, blast won't cut it.
Proximity fuses need radar. For later in the war, absolutely, but, as you say, it would be pretty useless given that your aerial battleships are heavily armoured. You need a hit.

One of the differences between a water torpedo and an aerial one is that water provides a magnifying effect on explosions, i.e. with a torpedo exploding on he side of a ship in water, the water acts to drive most of the explosion effect into the ship, not the water. For an aerial torpedo, this wouldn't be the case and the bulk of the effect would be away from the armour.  Now, a hollow charge warhead, though, would see all the explosive effect be driven into and through the armour.

Paul

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2019, 11:00:32 PM »
Perhaps torpedoes with shaped charge warheads from the beginning, to get better penetrating power in the air?  The principle was well known long before it was applied to anti-tank weaponry.

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2019, 11:10:56 PM »
With respect to EL and capacitors/batteries vs propellant and warhead, I could posit a system where, much like your early WW2 fighters, the EL doesn't provide all the lift, but allows wings to be reduced to limit drag and increase speed. The rocket provides the forward speed for the wing lift as well, of course, to generate the velocity to get to the target.

The speed wouldn't have to be terribly high, say 20-30% greater than the aerial ships it is meant to kill. A pursuit course is never the way torpedoes work. They are fired at the broadside of the target and timed to intercept the target at a future point, not chase it down.

Basic setting of course and speed was known when Whitehead invented the modern water torpedo in 1866:
"The first trials were not successful as the weapon was unable to maintain a course at a steady depth. After much work, Whitehead introduced his "secret" in 1868 which overcame this. It was a mechanism consisting of a hydrostatic valve and pendulum that caused the torpedo's hydroplanes to be adjusted so as to maintain a preset depth."

And as soon as gyroscopes were available in the late 1890s, they were used instead and improved capabilities. WWI torpedoes were gyro stabilised.

Firing a spread has always been wasteful, absolutely, however until guided torpedoes came into being after WW2, firing a spread and hoping was the _only_ way to use torpedoes, so the concept is not out of hand.

In our world, torpedoes were originally fired in daylight from light ships against larger targets and from subs. The first set of techniques for daylight attack would be the obvious analogy to make, but the 3rd dimension of the EL world provide others. The submarine model could be used for attacking at night, especially moonlit nights, with the attacker moving silently on battery power and completely blacked out awaiting an enemy to come within attack range. Similarly, the PT model could be used with exceptionally fast, small EL torpedo craft lurking in clouds (analogous to PT boats lurking in inlets and bays) across the path of enemy aerial warships and then bursting out of the clouds in a small swarm to attack the bigger enemies.

The 3D nature of this EL world, though, also suggests a new method where ground anti-aerial battleship batteries launch torpedoes against enemy capital ships in a defensive manner much like the coastal batteries of our world protected harbours from enemy ships.

Loads of visual imagery there to play with.

Picture a young, dashing, New Englander at the helm of his Elco Levitation Industries 100' Patrol-Torpedo Craft, PT-109, bursting from the cover of a cloud along with the three other aircraft of his patrol to attack a destroyer-protected convoy over the Pacific in 1944. Having lain in wait for 4 hours, the convoy appears and the PT ambush is sprung. Approaching from above with two attackers to each beam of the convoy the first attack of the patrol quickly disable and dispatch the Japanese destroyer Sawakaze leaving 4 of the remaining 6 fast transports trying to resupply Rabaul to be destroyed at leisure.

Powered by 4 license-built Packard-Tesla Griffons, the Elco 100 footers could make 65kts while carrying six Whitehead-Westinghouse 24" Mk 14 aerial torpedoes, four  twin .50-cal MG turrets and two 20mm Oerlikon turrets. The ELco PT Craft were the first to carry oxygen for all crew members allowing them to attack from much higher altitudes than previous craft. Later in the war, as targets dried up, PT Craft carried fewer and fewer torpedoes and increased the number of autocannon and switched to raiding the more local aerial shipping lanes for smaller vessels.


:D

Paul


That is a lot of imagery and its fired a few extra neurons  and I might also be getting a little moist :)
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2019, 11:22:08 PM »
Proximity fuses need radar......


Not always so:



Just stand off and fire into the bomber stream :)

Dunno why but this is my most popular image. I think I have done better.
Inspired by the label given to the JU87 -   “flying artillery”.
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2019, 09:29:09 PM »
Proximity fuses need radar......
Not always so:
Yeah, they need radar because the fuses themselves are mini radar sets. That's the point I was making, not that you need radar to find or target the enemy, but that the round, itself, needs miniature radar to actually set itself off in proximity to the target.  :D

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2019, 09:38:37 PM »
That is a lot of imagery and its fired a few extra neurons  and I might also be getting a little moist :)
For an aerospace engineer, I can occasionally wax lyrical...

Paul

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Woof!
Re: Aerial Battleships
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2019, 11:38:24 PM »
Proximity fuses need radar......
Not always so:
Yeah, they need radar because the fuses themselves are mini radar sets. That's the point I was making, not that you need radar to find or target the enemy, but that the round, itself, needs miniature radar to actually set itself off in proximity to the target.  :D

This is true my mistake.
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.