protected. In spite of the fact that injury to the envelope is not necessarily dangerous, it has been reported that such injury has already necessitated a hurried descent into a hostile country, with the effective loss of both vessel and crew. These are the considerations which place the dirigible at a formidable disadvantage when within reach of the enemy's guns.
§ 5. Aeroplane and Dirigible, analogy between Air and Naval Forces not tenable. We may now pass to the discussion of the secondary function of the aeronautical Arm in its present relation—that is to say, we shall consider the question of aeroplane versus dirigible in armed conflict.
At the outset it is desirable to dispose of the much-worried analogy that crops up again and again when the present subject is discussed. Some of the most strenuous supporters of the airship as an auxiliary to the aeronautical service are fond of drawing a parallel between the air service and the Navy, the airship being put forward as analogous or comparable to the battleship or battle-cruiser, and the aeroplane to the torpedo boat or destroyer. In the author's opinion any such analogy is totally fallacious. The effective area of the target presented by an aeroplane is but a few square feet. The effective target area of a torpedo boat or destroyer is more than one hundred times as great. The time during which an aeroplane is visible and under fire, owing to its small size and high speed, is short compared to that of torpedo craft at sea.[1] The armament which a Zeppelin can bring to bear on an attacking aeroplane is confined to that which she can carry on a platform arranged on top of the structure, since the hostile aeroplane making its attack from above
- ↑ Added to this, in order to detect the approach of a hostile aeroplane, the sky has to be scanned in the three dimensions of space.
