Most underappreciated AH concepts (post 1900)

By the 1930's when the airships were at their peak conventional aircraft were doing much better.

Point being, they had their fair share of accidents too, but no one says that airplanes were too dangerous.

A single airplane also cost nowhere near as much as an airship - we're talking something with the cost of a destroyer; USS Akron cost $4.5 million - a B-17 cost $240,000!
And a single cruiser cost much less than an aircraft carrier. What's your point?

Akron isn't supposed to be the equivalent of one B-17.

A neat idea that the USN tried very hard to make work and pretty much failed at. In the 1930's airships were still competitive in a few areas and superior in others, but aircraft were developing fast and airships hardly developing at all. By the end of the 1930's loiter time was the only advantage, and aerial refueling would soon eliminate even that edge.
I'd give a great deal to know how much that (underlined) would have been the case if Akron and Macon had lasted longer.

And I'm not sure whether airships continuing to last would have gone out of date quite so quickly.

I'm not saying they're superior, but they might have a niche, rather than being simply big and useless.

In fairness to your point(s), I feel romantic about those gasbags, so I'm probably half arguing because I want to believe in them.

One of the problems with airships is carrying capacity, at least of passengers. I'm not sure when airplanes become better in this regard, but it did happen by the 50s I think.

And the luxury issue...that's definitely a niche. Would be interesting to see how a Graf Zeppelin would compare to a Queen Elizabeth II in that category.

Though, on third thoughts, airplanes carry more people by cramming them in like sardines. One might manage the same thing on an airship, though that takes away the ability to claim "yes, but we have comfort".
 

And I'll admit, I'm prejudiced against them because they're a massively overused trope of AH.

Let's compare the Hindenburg-class airship to a Boeing 314-type flying boat.

H requires a crew of about 40 and can handle about 40-70 passengers.
B requires a crew of about 12 and can handle about 36-74 passengers.

H top speed: 81 mph, cruise: 76 mph
B top speed: 210 mph, cruise: 188 mph

H first flight: March, 1936
B first flight: June, 1938

H useful lift: 22,000 lbs
B payload: 10,000 lbs (cargo and mail)

If you think the 314 wasn't luxurious, I'll note it had sit-down dining and berths for sleeping. Take a look at some pictures.
 
And I'll admit, I'm prejudiced against them because they're a massively overused trope of AH.

How so? Speaking as someone relatively new to AH's tropes.

Let's compare the Hindenburg-class airship to a Boeing 314-type flying boat.

H requires a crew of about 40 and can handle about 40-70 passengers.
B requires a crew of about 12 and can handle about 36-74 passengers.

H top speed: 81 mph, cruise: 76 mph
B top speed: 210 mph, cruise: 188 mph

H first flight: March, 1936
B first flight: June, 1938

H useful lift: 22,000 lbs
B payload: 10,000 lbs (cargo and mail)

If you think the 314 wasn't luxurious, I'll note it had sit-down dining and berths for sleeping. Take a look at some pictures.
So crew is in favor of B, passenger capacity is close enough to even to not matter, speed is significantly in favor of B, and the useful lift is unclear (though not overwhelming).

As for luxuries: While I'll take your word for it on the 314, modern airplanes have certainly developed away from that, and that seems likely to happen whether airships continue or not.

And on the note of passenger capacity, I ran into this while looking for pictures (which may be what you drew the statistics from, or not): http://www.flyingclippers.com/B314.html

40-74 (36 night) passengers

What do they mean "36 night"? Only berths for 36 people?

That is a disadvantage - at least at this point - vs. airships.
 

Thande

Donor
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned alternate culture, that has to be a neglected area 90% of the time (to the point that your timeline looks much, much more thorough if you give even a little attention to it).
 
How so? Speaking as someone relatively new to AH's tropes.

(Shrug) They show up all over the place. Search for "airship" on these fora and you'll find lots of examples. They also show up in books, movies, etc.

As for luxuries: While I'll take your word for it on the 314, modern airplanes have certainly developed away from that, and that seems likely to happen whether airships continue or not.

They most certainly have. Even 1st class on brand-new widebodies fitted for trans-Pacific routes (Singapore Airlines, etc.) aren't up to the B314 with standard fittings (OK, the media features are a lot better). Of course, you're also on board for a lot less time. There are actually rules in spaceship design for how much volume a person needs for a given occupancy time in a craft - it goes up rapidly as you move from an hour to several hours to a few days, then tends to plane off (pun not actually intended).

What do they mean "36 night"? Only berths for 36 people?

That is a disadvantage - at least at this point - vs. airships.

There were only 36 beds. OTOH, I've seen passenger numbers for the Hindenburg class quoted as low as 40. So not much of a disadvantage. One other thing you learn in aviation - passenger number is almost always a variable unless someone only built one bird and never modified it. Some 737's in current use get their configuration changed up to twice a day - cargo to passenger in the morning, and the reverse in the evening. They fly passengers during the day and cargo at night.
 
Plenty of assassination attempts from our timeline are thwarted in AH, but rarely does a timeline stem from an attempt that failed in our timeline succeeding in a different one.
 
Except that the weather is the example of the chaotic behaviour, human changes to its inputs from transpiration (cutting/not cutting trees) and heat sources (building that town/power plant in a different place) will have huge and unpredictable effects down the line.
Absolutely right. Even changes in materials used in cities can affect weather, by changing the amount of sunlight absorbed/reflected.

Changes I've rarely/never seen: the impact of disease (or medicine) on progress. Frex, without the realization mosquitoes spread yellow fever, & the will to fix it, the Panama Canal probably would not have been completed.

Something else I don't see enough of: "connectedness". Too many TLs don't acknowledge, or realize, changes are interrelated. Frex, if you introduce a breechloading rifle early, you force changes in infantry tactics (dispersal &/or entrenchment), & persuade armies to consider new forms of armor &/or mobility.

I'd like to see more of the unexpected. Who would have thought introducing airplanes would lead to trench warfare? Yet knowing what the enemy is doing makes movement in secret very difficult... In the same way, radio meant controlling armies was easier, but it was also possible for the enemy to know what you were going to do as soon as your troops did, so both cryptography had to be simplified (M209, Enigma, Typex...), & cryptanalysis became essential & more difficult... Or telephone: better communication, but also the ability to control artillery beyond LOS. Or cars: they make suburbs much more attractive, which leads to sprawl, which causes downtowns to be turned into slums...& if they lead to demand for Interstates/autobahnen, they also create the likes of McDonald's. (Not to say streetcars didn't help create 'burbs, & railways didn't have "standardized" restaurants...:rolleyes:)
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned alternate culture, that has to be a neglected area 90% of the time (to the point that your timeline looks much, much more thorough if you give even a little attention to it).
An excellent point. (I wish I'd thought of it.:eek::p) How much of culture is a product of events? And of technology? Frex, would rock & roll be as popular today without WW2? WW2 helped create a Baby Boom in the U.S., which spurred R&R. Without the Depression & WW2, a lot of black movement north, & resultant musical mixing, would never happen. Without the Holocaust, anti-Semitism & anti-black racism would be much more common & acceptable...:mad:
The balance however there probably lies in what the author is prepared to put in culturally, and methinks that might be determined a little by what the author would like to see, rather than what might occur. I know I've probably succumbed a little to that sin myself.
:pYou wouldn't be alone.:D It's also a matter of knowing how things could change. If, say, rock & roll never develops, what does? What influences are dominant? Who expresses them? That is, do the same players just adopt new musical styles? Who becomes famous that didn't OTL?
Then again, the flipside is that there could be so many butterflies that you could spend page after page accounting for the alt-development of, say, the folk music scene New York and not get on with writing the core narrative.
Maybe not. You could take a "lazy" approach: use OTL musicians & change the song titles. Or change the degree of success a band/musician has. (Elvis stays a truck driver? Pat Boone is "King of Hillbilly Swing"?:p) Or both.
 
Last edited:
If they are unable to find another shoe, or another horse, or another messenger in time though...

Its not as if no one has ever lost a crucial message or that losing one has never had consequences.


Istr that in 1866 three couriers were sent by Wilhelm I to Crown Prince Friedrich, urging him to hurry to his father's assistance at Koniggratz - and that two of them failed to make it.
 
Pretty fair points, especially the one about 'what comes after?' People forget that subjectivity practically rules history; AH is even more beset by it.

Another concept that isnt really touched on are the lives of women. Think about it; history itself is practically geared to what men did since records began. Sure, a lot of men made a lot of the decisions that lead to today's society, but the bias against looking at the lives of women extends to all areas of modern historiography, and that's really reflected on AH.com. Nobody here really wants to explore the old adage, 'behind every powerful man there's a powerful woman.'

I think the problem is not so much a bias about women as that adage being greatly exaggerated - and I say this as someone who is proud of being a feminist. This especially applies to pre-1900 AH, but not exclusively.

That's not to say women were irrelevant, but I can't even name John II (Comnenus)'s wife offhand, and Byzantine history is probably the most obviously female-influenced from at least Theodora in Europe.

I'm not saying we should ignore the lives of women when studying what really happened or when writing AH, but I think we also need to note that a time and place that treats women as second class at best is also a time where the role of women is going to be distinctly secondary.

Men became rulers. Men became generals. Men became religious figures. Men became the educated class.

So long as AH focuses on politics and war, those who dominated politics and war will get most of the attention.

If you can name a hundred women within (on either side) fifty years of 1950 who were as important to the fate of nations as their husbands and sons and brothers (with enough information on them that I know who they are - just naming a hundred names won't do much good), I will be a happy & enlightened man.

There are definitely examples of strong women behind strong men, but not every strong man has a strong woman behind him. Its a pity, but its reality.
 
Top