Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Definately a place for them, but they'll never replace ground based transportation options in the majority of cases.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull
The point is it would be a cheap show and tell tool. Many areas will still have Armored/Mechanized/Motorized reactionary force that would be able to get there much faster.
|
“We need information. We need to know who these people are, where they got the factories and workers to build airships. We need those things for ourselves. God knows it would be nice to move troops and supplies around the country and not have to fight damned marauder bands at every river crossing!†(
Airlords of the Ozarks, p.7)
I doubt I could say it any better. Regardless of how the New Americans use their airships, the airship is a platform for strategic mobility. If well-armed truck convoys were both practical and practicable for connecting non-contiguous MilGov enclaves, the convoys would be rolling. I agree that truck convoys (and maybe even rail) are probably possible between Colorado and many area of Oklahoma. I’m sure a special effort could be made from time to time to collect enough trucks, AFV, and other necessities for a rolling convoy to move from Oklahoma to southern Illinois. Given the state of the country in late 2000/early 2001, do we really believe that any truck convoy that could be fueled and maintained on the road could be forced through from the Mississippi to New Jersey or Virginia? These Atlantic seaboard locations might be linked with MilGov cantonments along the Mississippi with sea traffic moving through the Gulf of Mexico and up the Mississippi, except that doesn’t seem to be happening, either. Another way has to be found. I think you both are dead right about the total misapplication of the airship as a tactical weapon or even as a tactical transport. Legbreaker, I think you are hearing what I am trying to say. The airship a slow, fuel-stingy, unglamorous and somewhat dangerous airborne cargo hauler.
Webstral