Talk:U.S. Army airships

Ok, here is a reasonably short but comprehensive account of the Army Airship Service.

I'm pretty new at Wikipedia but am trying to learn. Any recommendations or pointers will be appreciated.

Should I create stubs describing the different classes of Army airships?

Re: Adding tabs
I appreciate all the work you did creating the US Army Airships page. I think the tabs you suggested might be helpful. I would also love to see photographs and/or any diagrams you may have available added to your webpage Thanks again. EthelmarieEthelmarie 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still pretty new to Wikipedia work and have not yet done much with photos.

Re: Editing an Early Effort
I have returned to 'fix' some major deficiencies (inadequate citations) and some mistakes introduced by others who have just started to pursue that elusive subject, US Army Airships.

One motive was the failure of the HALE-D, a US Army experimental airship designed to provide a long-duration data relay capability over forward operating areas.

The airship was intended to operate at extremely high altitudes, similar to those probed by the Army airship pilots who flew the National Geographic Explorer stratospheric balloons in the 1930s. HALE-D is intended to be solar-powered. The first test was launched from the Goodyear Air Dock constructed to build the US Navy's airships Akron and Macon, mentioned as benefiting from US Army Airship experiments.

Only touched upon in the article, for fear of the DREADED 'Original Research" Damnation, is the perfect example of inter-service rivalry over roles which motivated the Lighter-Than-Air policies of both the USN and US Army during the inter-war period.

Yet that struggle, one fought by those who were already losing the greater struggle between lighter than air and heavier than air flight, is perhaps the most valuable insight which might be obtained from studying the US Navy and US Army airship programs.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am finished for now. I think it would be prudent to create a separate category for the two Semi-Rigid airships the Army operated. This is because both were experimental, rather than operational in nature. The desire of the Army for much greater capabilities in range, duration and lifting capability motivated the purchase of the two airships.70.241.19.66 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation and Physics as seen by Wikiopedia
I see two 'communities' have claimed this article.

The first refuses to have some of the most essential statistics about airships permitted in within it's specifications and performance figures.

The other seems desperate to gather some glory.

Separate section for Semi-Rigid airships
The Joint Army Navy Airship Board gave the blimp to the Army with the view that they would be used for costal patrol in support of the Army's Costal Defenses. The USN was given rigid airships as there was a belief that German Navy Zeppelins had been very successful at augmenting High Seas Fleet cruisers in scouting the North Sea and had influenced the Battle of Jutland.

As an after-thought the Army was also given the semi-rigid airship, a type which had been pursued by the Italians during WWI.

The Army thought there was great potential in using the semi-rigid airship as a way of gaining much greater range and lifting power. This it was believed would allow the army to use them for transport men and material over great range as well as searching far out to sea.

The Army purchased the Italian built "Roma," and later ordered the RS-1 from Goodyear to explore the capabilities of large semi-rigid airships.

Thus the role of the semi-rigid airships in Army service is quite separate from that of the blimps. This makes them, as well as their structural and operational distinctions, from blimps in the history of US Army airships.

Thus, I feel, they deserve a separate section so that their unique place in history be better understood.

Any comments?Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)