StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can anyone tell me where this image is from? It looks like it could be an anime of some sort in which case I must have it!



Post any other good sky ships images you have.

Hrm, this looks familiar. I think I've seen this in a trailer or something. It might be the Last Exile, since the trailer for that looks kind of like that, from my vague recollection of it. But I'm not 100% sure of that.

Looks interesting, though.

It's from the webcomic alpha-shade. http://www.alpha-shade.com

AniThyng wrote:It's from the webcomic alpha-shade. http://www.alpha-shade.com

Thanks, looks like they have a poster version of that image on their online store.

If nobody minds my asking, why are the hulls shaped like they're designed for in-water use? Is there a good in-story reason, or is it something the author simply didn't think about?

Surlethe wrote:If nobody minds my asking, why are the hulls shaped like they're designed for in-water use? Is there a good in-story reason, or is it something the author simply didn't think about?

Where do you think they land?

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:Hrm, this looks familiar. I think I've seen this in a trailer or something. It might be the Last Exile, since the trailer for that looks kind of like that, from my vague recollection of it. But I'm not 100% sure of that.

Looks interesting, though.

It's already been confirmed what the image is from, but for the record, nothing in it looks like anything that appears in the series Last Exile.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Surlethe wrote:If nobody minds my asking, why are the hulls shaped like they're designed for in-water use? Is there a good in-story reason, or is it something the author simply didn't think about?

Where do you think they land?

That's an excellent question. I guess I'd just assumed they stayed in the air all the time, since they're shitting all over the laws of physics anyway. Of course, if they do that, then I don't really have a problem with the shape of the hull as long as they're consistent.

Surlethe wrote:
That's an excellent question. I guess I'd just assumed they stayed in the air all the time, since they're shitting all over the laws of physics anyway. Of course, if they do that, then I don't really have a problem with the shape of the hull as long as they're consistent.

Generally sci-fi tries to be internally consistent about such things. They probably fly through some sort of interaction with magnetic fields ala Tesla wackier ideas.

Anyway, it's obvious that a vehicle that large could only land on water, which explains why they have boat-hulls.

I would imagine also that the shape lends itself well to protecting from the inevitable heavy calibre anti-aircraft fire something like that is going to take from below. Probably why they are being dive bombed from above infact.

Aaron Ash wrote:I would imagine also that the shape lends itself well to protecting from the inevitable heavy calibre anti-aircraft fire something like that is going to take from below. Probably why they are being dive bombed from above infact.

That would be correct. A curved V-hull shape would in fact allow for most incoming anti-aircraft fire from the ground to hit at an angle to the armour, increasing the effective armour thickness in resistance to that fire.


They probably have bomb-bays for attacking targets directly below; it would be very easy to close those and make them water-tight (lots of modern ships have openings in the bottoms of the hull), though for more convenience and safety (lest a shot get through right into a ventral bomb bay) it would make more sense to put the bombs on mine-laying rails along the fantail and just roll 'em off the stern.

Speaking of which, I wonder if they deploy barrage balloons supporting huge contact mines?

I don't think that the webcomic's author has really explained any of the military/technological aspects of his tale, or, indeed, expanded upon his main plot and its setting very much at all. For a comic that's been around for several years, its covered remarkably little ground. Still, Alpha-Shade's artwork is quite pretty, and the artist has a fairly good eye for detail.

Dutchess of Zeon wrote:They probably have bomb-bays for attacking targets directly below; it would be very easy to close those and make them water-tight (lots of modern ships have openings in the bottoms of the hull)

I don't believe that this is ever shown, but a shot of a transport ship early in the work does show it to have a large ventral bay; presumably, warships could have a similar rigging for weapon's deployment.

Noble Ire wrote:I don't think that the webcomic's author has really explained any of the military/technological aspects of his tale, or, indeed, expanded upon his main plot and its setting very much at all. For a comic that's been around for several years, its covered remarkably little ground. Still, Alpha-Shade's artwork is quite pretty, and the artist has a fairly good eye for detail.

Dutchess of Zeon wrote:They probably have bomb-bays for attacking targets directly below; it would be very easy to close those and make them water-tight (lots of modern ships have openings in the bottoms of the hull)

I don't believe that this is ever shown, but a shot of a transport ship early in the work does show it to have a large ventral bay; presumably, warships could have a similar rigging for weapon's deployment.

In retrospect it makes a lot more sense in terms of the security of the vessel to just use mine racks on the fantail loaded with aerial contact bombs. You're not going to be carrying those into a line engagement with other aerial battleships, anyway.

I wish I could get permission to do a Technical Commentaries for this comic, it is seriously about the coolest thing I've found for free on the internet yet. Eye-candy, yes, but, by the Gods, what eye-candy!

The only bad part is it updates sloooowwwwly. I'm currently trying to check for updates only once a month, so I'll have more pages to read.

Though as cool as flying battleships are, those biplanes are superior economically and tactically. The warships likely do have a strategic range advantage.

Adrian Laguna wrote:The only bad part is it updates sloooowwwwly. I'm currently trying to check for updates only once a month, so I'll have more pages to read.

Though as cool as flying battleships are, those biplanes are superior economically and tactically. The warships likely do have a strategic range advantage.

The battleships, however, can fulfill the roll of bombers. For example, Russian warships in WW1 would regularly carry up to 400 mines on fantail mine-racks, each of which would weigh up to 1000kg, or 2,200lbs. That is the equivalent of 200 B-17 loads over Berlin, and we're talking about older armoured cruisers half the size of even a smaller dreadnought battleship. A Line of Battle of 20 ships could easily deliver to a city the equivalent of a 5,000-bomber raid by B-17s.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: That would be correct. A curved V-hull shape would in fact allow for most incoming anti-aircraft fire from the ground to hit at an angle to the armour, increasing the effective armour thickness in resistance to that fire.

That would depend on the angle the gun is firing from, and since it’s generally going to be at 20-50 degrees the slope of the armor could in fact aid penetration. However, it would also be extremely difficult to build a mobile anti aircraft gun of sufficient caliber to hurt a battleship, espically in WW1. The largest AA gun even designed, that could be moved in one piece, is the Soviet KS-30 and as a 130mm weapon its not going to be that effective. It’s a 1950s product too. The Germans had several detailed designs for 150mm guns which could be moved… in four pieces. They also had detail designs of semi static 203 and 240mm, and even 240mm twin anti aircraft guns, but I dont think they'd be a very good investment vs. building your own flying warships.

If you could armor the battleship with about 6in of steel all around, then it would be pretty much immune to any ground or naval gun which can fire or traverse rapidly enough to hit it.

Adrian Laguna wrote:The only bad part is it updates sloooowwwwly. I'm currently trying to check for updates only once a month, so I'll have more pages to read.

Though as cool as flying battleships are, those biplanes are superior economically and tactically. The warships likely do have a strategic range advantage.

Biplanes crashed incessantly, even without combat, and they can’t fly very far or carry very much. A typical single engine bomber in WW1 carried less then 100lb of bombs. A flying battleship, even one that could only move at 20-30 knots would be immensely powerful against them.

WW2 monoplanes however, would be about eighty thousand times more effective against a flying armored warship. It’s just too easy to pack a warship with automatic guns that would devastate any biplane attack. The hips of Alpha Shade however, look neat but seem quite poorly designed and lacking in secondary armament. Clearly weight must not be any great concern as they have wing turrets.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
That would depend on the angle the gun is firing from, and since it’s generally going to be at 20-50 degrees the slope of the armor could in fact aid penetration. However, it would also be extremely difficult to build a mobile anti aircraft gun of sufficient caliber to hurt a battleship, espically in WW1. The largest AA gun even designed, that could be moved in one piece, is the Soviet KS-30 and as a 130mm weapon its not going to be that effective. It’s a 1950s product too. The Germans had several detailed designs for 150mm guns which could be moved… in four pieces. They also had detail designs of semi static 203 and 240mm, and even 240mm twin anti aircraft guns, but I dont think they'd be a very good investment vs. building your own flying warships.

If you could armor the battleship with about 6in of steel all around, then it would be pretty much immune to any ground or naval gun which can fire or traverse rapidly enough to hit it.

Is my frightening supposition I'm now getting, that tumblehome would actually make sense on a flying battleship in terms of improving resistance to ground-fire, a correct one?

Also, how would one calculate the range of the main guns, say, firing at an elevation of 45 - 50 degrees, from a ship-altitude of 10,000 feet?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Is my frightening supposition I'm now getting, that tumblehome would actually make sense on a flying battleship in terms of improving resistance to ground-fire, a correct one?

Unless the enemy is either shooting and hitting at more then 20,000 yards (not bloody likely with a target moving in 3-D), or shooting directly into the bottom of the ship, the best hull form would be a triangle with the base down. So yeah, tumblehome with incremental armor is what you want.

A perfect triangle would of course not be possible for various reasons, the bottom would probably need to be slightly rounded off to improve its strength, and you’d want an actual deck on top to make space for guns and such.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Unless the enemy is either shooting and hitting at more then 20,000 yards (not bloody likely with a target moving in 3-D), or shooting directly into the bottom of the ship, the best hull form would be a triangle with the base down. So yeah, tumblehome with incremental armor is what you want.

A perfect triangle would of course not be possible for various reasons, the bottom would probably need to be slightly rounded off to improve its strength, and you’d want an actual deck on top to make space for guns and such.

And combined with the need to land in water for maintenance and provisioning, tumblehome ends up making perfect sense. Splendid.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Also, how would one calculate the range of the main guns, say, firing at an elevation of 45 - 50 degrees, from a ship-altitude of 10,000 feet?

A formula exists which works off the known ‘normal’ range of the gun for any given degree of elevation and the altitude you’re firing from. However for it to work you need to know the ballistics of the gun to start out, because the key factor is the shells angle of fall. The shell form factor and other factors are of course also required since you’ve changed the air resistance. It’s thus not easy to calculate; this is what we built ENIAC for after all.

Some day when I have 150 bucks to spare I’m going to buy the book (name escapes me at the moment) that lets you calculate your own range tables and guns….

If you had a range table for the gun like this this then you could estimate your own approximation of what the added range should be. However 10,000ft is an extremely difference, which will throw the shell into the low drag stratosphere much more quickly then normal (assuming you’ve got a high angle high power battleship gun) so this method might not work very well for that,.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Also, how would one calculate the range of the main guns, say, firing at an elevation of 45 - 50 degrees, from a ship-altitude of 10,000 feet?

A formula exists which works off the known ‘normal’ range of the gun for any given degree of elevation and the altitude you’re firing from. However for it to work you need to know the ballistics of the gun to start out, because the key factor is the shells angle of fall. The shell form factor and other factors are of course also required since you’ve changed the air resistance. It’s thus not easy to calculate; this is what we built ENIAC for after all.

Some day when I have 150 bucks to spare I’m going to buy the book (name escapes me at the moment) that lets you calculate your own range tables and guns….

If you had a range table for the gun like this this then you could estimate your own approximation of what the added range should be. However 10,000ft is an extremely difference, which will throw the shell into the low drag stratosphere much more quickly then normal (assuming you’ve got a high angle high power battleship gun) so this method might not work very well for that,.

Phong and I were thinking about the range you could stand off with, say, the South Dakota Mk.Is (as the pinnacle of WW1-era battleship technology for us) and pound a target with their 12 x 16in/50cal's.

10,000ft would seem a handy max altitude with normal draught and no oxygen for the crews, but it would also be interesting to consider how high they could get with oxygen masks and forced draught for the boilers before the ships would have difficulty operating. You could throw those shells pretty goddamned far if we're talking about altitudes approaching those of the German "Silent Raids" by Airship in 1917 on the UK.

The range increase would probably be at least 25%, I think thats a safe rule of thumb, if not a great deal more. Combine with a lightweight HE shell and you might fling a projectile more then 100km. Accuracy however is not going to be that great. You could hit an airfield but not anything much smaller.

Also I have noticed that later parts of the comics have T-34s and TV sets rolling around.... does this comic jump around in time or what?

High altitude would be made much easier if the ship could be diesel powered, with supercharging to increase engine output, and turbocharging to maintain power at alatuide. On onboard LOX plant should be quite pratical, the Japanese had them on destroyers and cruisers so that they didn’t have the keep the torpedoes fueled at all times.


Edit: It did just occur to me that since its WW1 level technology, the guns probably cannot elevate very high, and in fact the turrets might be designed with very low trunnions. This would allow more depression, to improve the ability of the ship to hit ground targets without having the shells skip off.

Personally the idea of a flying ‘bomb ship’ in the style of the old blackpowder mortar armed vessels is also very appealing. Arm it with a battery of 240mm breach loading mortars for pounding infantry positions into oblivion. It would be safer then directly bombing, yet still a very economical way of delivering HE onto the target.