Warbadger posted:

Gotta wait until they get India to buy a bunch before that one emerges.

For now just claim the crew for your top secret tank's big reveal to the world, in a massive public event, following years of propaganda to hype it, and in front of dear leader himself - are actually methhead rhesus monkeys.

xthetenth posted:

They were too busy squatting to properly operate the tank.

bewbies posted:

This is sort of the direction things are headed, but the obvious limitation is that this sort of mutual defense setup limits your ability to move independently. The first big step is integrating the sensors, with the major effort being to implement some sort of elevated sensor (probably a small-ish rotary wing UAS) that hovers above the unit that can detect launches at much greater distances.

Stolen from Wiki posted:

The Complete Hammer's Slammers (2006): is a three volume set from Night Shade Books that contains all Hammer's Slammers fiction, including three new stories written for this set. Volume 1 was released in January 2006, and features an introduction by Gene Wolfe. Volume 2 (introduction by David G Hartwell) was released January 2007, with Volume 3 (introduction by Barry Malzberg) following in November 2007.

Volume 1 contains: Hammer's Slammers (collection), Code-Name Feirefitz, The Interrogation Team, The Tank Lords, Liberty Port, Night March, The Immovable Object, The Irresistible Force, A Death in Peacetime (all short stories).
Volume 2 contains: At Any Price, Counting the Cost, Rolling Hot, The Warrior, The Day of Glory (short story).
Volume 3 contains: The Sharp End, Paying the Piper, The Darkness (short story).

Totally TWISTED posted:

Everyone who likes sci-fi and tank defense systems needs to read David Drake's Hammers Slammers series of books if they haven't already. He was a tanker in Vietnam before writing the book series.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I also commend him for writing the only military sci-fi I've read where propellant gasses stink and people occasionally need to clear a jam.

ArchangeI posted:

For more in that vein, read Glen Cook's Passage at Arms. It's pretty much Das Boot in space, complete with the food sucking more the longer the mission goes on and the ship developing a serious mold problem.

Polikarpov posted:

Hammers Slammers is pretty rad, the tanks all have a terminal defense system that is basically a strip of space claymores laid around the hull- they can be automatically activated by the onboard computer to intercept AT weapons or manually triggered by the tank commander as a close in anti-infantry weapon.

Dark Helmut posted:

4th or 5thing that these books gave me a total mil-spec-boner growing up and I only had 3 or 4 of them.

Forums Terrorist posted:

I think the Navy's recommendations on fighters should get priority over the Air Force's, though. It seems like being forced to use carriers as your airbases leads to you not asking for dumb poo poo as often (this is my admittedly cursory reading of postwar fighter development)

Mortabis posted:

OR you could have two different planes, and then you get the F-15 and the F-14, or the F-16 and the F-18.

Mortabis posted:

OR you could have two different planes, and then you get the F-15 and the F-14, or the F-16 and the F-18.

Baracula posted:

5 more years of British f35 purchases ahead

LowellDND posted:

So I finally finished reading the entire thread

Saw a lot of proposals for folding the USMC into the Army. As a doctrine (not as a real possibility), would it make sense to also fold the Air Force into the Navy? Considering the emphasis on Air/Sea Battle, my initial glance would give 'everything that flies and everything that floats' to this super branch, and let the Army chill out state side.

Am I completely wrong? Is there a doctrinal reason why Air Force and Navy shouldn't be best buddies?

Forums Terrorist posted:

I think the Navy's recommendations on fighters should get priority over the Air Force's, though. It seems like being forced to use carriers as your airbases leads to you not asking for dumb poo poo as often (this is my admittedly cursory reading of postwar fighter development)

Dead Reckoning posted:

Dead Reckoning posted:

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Or you could just accept than America is a maritime country and that there is no God but Neptune and Alfred Thayer Mahan (pbuh) is his prophet.

Psion posted:

oh it's on now, buddy.

Dead Reckoning posted:

- Designed as a gunfighter
- Gun design tends to jam during BFM
- Got most of its kills with missiles
- Daytime only
- From a Naval War College paper: "In all, 1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps. Only a handful of them were lost to enemy fire in Vietnam. While the F-8 statistics might have been worse than those for most other models, they make the magnitude of the problem clear: whether from engine failure, pilot error, weather, or bad luck, the vast majority (88 percent!) of Crusaders ever built ended up as smoking holes in the ground, splashes in the water, or fireballs hurtling across a flight deck."
- Still considered a relative success in Navy fighter procrement

hobbesmaster posted:

Psion posted:

In response to a patch about a plane introduced in 1957 you reply with a plane that was introduced in 1976.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The Crusader was retired in 1976. When we ran out of Crusaders, we actually got better at fighters. Makes you think.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Polikarpov posted:

Hammers Slammers is pretty rad, the tanks all have a terminal defense system that is basically a strip of space claymores laid around the hull- they can be automatically activated by the onboard computer to intercept AT weapons or manually triggered by the tank commander as a close in anti-infantry weapon.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The navy has neither the inclination nor the training to manage strategic air and space operations. The largest aircraft they have more than 20 of is a twin-engined bizjet the P-3, which they use as a dumpster for unwanted aircrew. After that, it's twin-engine bizjets.

Incorrect.