The ZPK blimp

[margeorg]

Hello,


I´m somewhat disappointed about the performance of these ZPK blimps in WitPAE. According to the sources amongst their best abilities was their endurance. They could stay out on patrol longer than a Cataline, f.e. However, this isn´t reflected in their performance ingame. Their range is mediocre, they are of limited usefulness for ASW patrols, due to that short range.

Anyone knows why they were so much crippled in the game?

[Spurius Evidens]

They're not very fast you know, with a cruise speed in Wikipedia of 58mph, and I suspect faced with any sort of serious headwind would be able to make very little progress at all. Perhaps the designers have taken into account that much of the time that will have been the case? It would certainly be highly inaccurate to calculate it's range based on the assumption that there would never be any wind. Just my guess.

[pmelheck1]

The blimps could stay up for hours to be sure but are painfully slow. From the ground it almost seems you can walk faster.

Also consider the ZPK could stay aloft for more than 24 hours so the ZPK would have to shorten it's range to what it could cover in a 24 or 12 hour period. WITP:AE uses 24 hour turns with no provisions for aircraft that can stay aloft over several turns. For a 12 hour period they can only cover Approx 720 miles now halve that if they return to base during the same 12 hour phase. It works out to 9 hexes at cruse speed and I think during a search rather than just flying at cruise speed to a destination would slow things down a bit or a 2 hour turn around time plus launch and recovery. A PBY on the other hand would fly twice as far in the same period. Rather than a long range I would expect a much higher chance of detection of subs plus giving a very high detection level that would take days to go away.

[crsutton]

In game terms not very useful or important for that matter. I converted them all to patrol planes.

[jmalter]

Useful in the early war for protecting the West Coast. In a PBEM game I'd convert them after enough radar-equipped Cats became available. I've kept them in my current AI game, purely for sentimental reasons.

I think they're OK in the detection department, they're among the first airframes to get radar. I'll hazard a guess that the devs limited their operational range to conform to historical use.

[Lokasenna]

I've debated moving them forward just to mess with my opponents. I still might. They have better patrol range than Seagulls...I think.

[kbfchicago]

I always attributed short range to slow speed (round trip time on patrol).

Use them for "search" (vs ASW) to maximize their modest range and high detection rate for IJN subs along west coast. Other AC and ASW TF take care of sub kill'n. They are also a handy platform to generate trained search pilots for the many patrol sqdns that arrive in '43-44 (40% search, 40% train, 20% rest). In my case (at least on '43) my worthy IJ opponent has concentrated his subs forward in combat areas, leaving the West Coast, for the most part, a "quiet" front.

Kevin

[dr.hal]

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.

One could argue that they would be easy targets for sub-based AAA. A welcome benefit to the enemy-"Hey look! Aerial target practice! And it's moving slower than a tow target too! Thanks, Allies!"

[dr.hal]

Now Chickenboy I did say in poor visibility or at night with radar.... which changes the picture somewhat...You are selectively repackaging my statement.

[jmalter]

IIRC an airframe uses its 'reduced payload' when assigned to ASW - but the ZPK's reduced payload (4 x 250lb bombs) is the same as its normal payload!

Also, I get hardly any patrol contacts on subs from NavS missions (I use 6000' alt), nor do I get contacts on surface TFs from ASW missions (flown at 1000'). I get a lot of obvious wrong contacts when patrols identify a friendly TF as enemy, but very, very few 'cross-mission' contacts on actual enemy TFs. Is this a function of search altitude?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

IIRC an airframe uses its 'reduced payload' when assigned to ASW - but the ZPK's reduced payload (4 x 250lb bombs) is the same as its normal payload!

Also, I get hardly any patrol contacts on subs from NavS missions (I use 6000' alt), nor do I get contacts on surface TFs from ASW missions (flown at 1000'). I get a lot of obvious wrong contacts when patrols identify a friendly TF as enemy, but very, very few 'cross-mission' contacts on actual enemy TFs. Is this a function of search altitude?

In previous threads on Nav Search, altitude has come up... My takeaways:

1) Higher altitude means better chance of detection (the guys can see more of the ocean from way up there) but a lower DL (hard to tell if that's a DD or a CL from 20,000 feet).

2) Lower altitude means lower chance of detection, but much better DL if you do sight something.

3) Nav Search will detect subs and sometimes attack them.

4) ASW mostly attacks subs, but detects them as well.

5) It is important to have both NavS and ASW groups working together if at all possible. I use NavS on 6k or higher, and ASW on 2k or sometimes even 1k.


I usually leave my NavS groups at 6k, but will adjust altitude when appropriate. Sometimes I will have groups at different altitudes searching the same arcs.

[jmalter]

Thanks for your answer, Lokasenna.

I've been getting the feeling that Night ops from ASW/NavS groups are important, tho' only radar-equipped airframes are useful. This puts add'l stress on the limited # of Allied patrol-plane assets.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.

One could argue that they would be easy targets for sub-based AAA. A welcome benefit to the enemy-"Hey look! Aerial target practice! And it's moving slower than a tow target too! Thanks, Allies!"

It only happened once. http://www.naval-airships.org/Default.a ... eId=660682
And of course the crew made repeated runs over the U-boat with a jammed bomb rack. On the last two runs , the ordanceman was allegedly kicking the bombs trying to get them to fall. All the Blimp had was a single forward firing machine gun. But in fairness , the Blimps had a phenomenal record , they could refuel from ships , land on carriers , and even hover. Several of them actually picked up survivors from the water. And they were not much slower than a helicopter. But MUCH longer ranged and with tremendous loiter ability. A MPA that can stay over a prosecution for hours is said to have great staying power. A blimp could stay for DAYS. One Blimp , the Snow Goose , did an endurance flight for weeks. [:)]
http://airshipworld.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... rship.html

[Bullwinkle58]

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.

[Chickenboy]

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.

[margeorg]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.

Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.

Well equipped for going around in circles.

[geofflambert]

The west coast should only be a training area for ASW air crews (except the ZPKs). Use them to spot for some of those ASW ships rated 6 or 8 (as well as your search planes). I never send subs into a ZPK's zone, it's a good way to get sunk.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.

Well equipped for going around in circles.

I wonder if it was a USN "political" thing? IOW, they were "half an aviator" to the carrier guys.