The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
I was honestly thinking of an armoured train like Strelnikov's from Dr. Zhivago, but that's just me.
I’m afraid that all railway tracks and bridge girders east of the Mississippi will be requisitioned to armor my ironclad conversions.
Coyote wrote:As far as military applications, the mil-Zepp would not be flown into an advanced air defense net. However, in situations like guerrilla insurgencies, a JSTARS Zepp could park over a battlefield where, at worst, a few RPG-7 will be dumbfired upwards, or perhaps a couple old SA-7s or Stingers-- and again, if a TROPHY system can't deal with it, then the puncture will require the wounded Zepp to pick its way slowly back to a repair facility.
That's not really accomplishing anything you couldn't do with a tethered balloon though, at a small fraction of the cost.
Insurgents would have a hard time dealing with an airship except when landing its true, but I can’t see any reason why we’d need an airship to fight insurgents either.. Another C-17 is gonna be more useful as it can do more things and fly six times faster. Frankly an airship would also just make a really good propaganda target for insurgents, its destruction being far more impressive appearing then any blasted tank or a shot down C-130.
Overall I cant see military investment in the design and construction of airships as anything but a waste, and the recent civil efforts to do so have all fallen apart.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
I certainly don't see anyone proposing we fly these things anywhere near someone with a dozen ZSU-23s or S-300s.
I think a 122mm field howitzer, one of the Soviet ones that fires from a pedestal, ought to work just fine for bringing down one of these stadium sized target at economical cost.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956