Could the Macon have been been used as a bomber or troop transport?
USS Macon
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 NoOneFamous |
USS Macon |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1113 (25-Mar-2008 12:51:58) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3604 (25-Mar-2008 15:52:43) |
LTA require a lot of ground-based support, so it's probably not practical as a troop transport. LTA are also not a real good choice for bombing, although
it could probably carry bombs.
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4172 (25-Mar-2008 16:48:57) |
The Germans did use zeppelins to bomb London back in WW1, so it's certainly feasible. Whether the Macon design was suitable or not I don't know.
Certainly by the time of WW2, fixed-wing bombers were a far superior solution.
|
||
|
hoist40 |
|||
|
Posts: 995 (25-Mar-2008 20:58:35) |
On 3 November 1931 USS Akron took off with 207 personnel on board as part of a demonstration that it could carry out a limited high speed airlift to outlying possessions. So you could carry a few high value personnel but not much more. As to bombing as far as I have read neither USS Akron or USS Macon ever carried bombs. They were low level airships and if they had tried to bomb some place with any AA guns they would have been damaged or shot down. The much larger proposed ZRCV would have carried up to nine BT-1 dive bombers (early version of SBD) |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4530 (25-Mar-2008 22:08:43) |
The best use for blimps and zepplins then and now is ASW and AEW.
|
||
|
Ken the Coastie |
|||
|
Posts: 41 (26-Mar-2008 02:31:54) |
Agreed....They could have provided a combination of MAC carrier and asw blimp. They might have been good radar pickets as well with (in the case of ZRCV) their
planes replaced with fighters.
For the type of offensive operations you are talking about, both Macon and the ZRCV might have been a decent platform for a couple of BAT guided missiles which, with their 25NM range could have kept them well out of trouble from AAA. I would think they would have limited potential for increased weights so they would have had limited AA armament, a couple of .50s or 20mm and perhaps 1 0r 2 1.1in or bofors. I wonder how effective their planes would be as compensation if a few of the Dauntleses were replaced with fighters, perhaps point defence fighters like P-77s or P49s. I think for offshore patrol as well as AEW and ASW, airships actually have considerable potential. |
||
|
hoist40 |
|||
|
Posts: 996 (26-Mar-2008 02:53:20) |
I wonder how effective their planes would be as compensation if a few of the Dauntleses were replaced with fighters, perhaps point defence fighters like P-77s or P49s. The US patent drawing for the aircraft handling shows 6 bombers and 3 fighters. The bombers look like BT-1 to me but I don't recognize the fighters. They might be just generic planes since patent drawings don't need to be accurate for parts of the design not being patented.
You can download the patent in PDF form from the link below by putting in the patent number 2365827
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3605 (26-Mar-2008 04:01:17) |
hoist40 wrote: The Curtiss F9C was adopted for use from Akron and Macon
|
||
|
NoOneFamous |
|||
|
Posts: 1117 (26-Mar-2008 04:17:55) |
So the Macon couldn't be used to say drop parachutists behind enemy lines?
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4532 (26-Mar-2008 04:51:03) |
You could but its like driving down the freeway in an 18-wheeler covered with Christmas lights and an air raid siren going full blast, they will know your
comming.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
