Alternate Weapons of War thread...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Zor

Save for the odd Pattonesque general, Novan Army officers DON'T WEAR SAID DRESS UNIFORMS INTO BATTLE. This is for formal occasions and parades, it's part of the aesthetic. Might as well have complained that they charge into battle with cutlasses by that logic.

Zor

You're completely missing the point...if these officers aren't going to wear the dress unfirom into battle, then WHY DOES IT NEED ARMOR? It sound scompeltely unnecesary, adding more cost and weight to a uniform that is already pretty costily as it is, and is not supposed to weigh that much.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're completely missing the point...if these officers aren't going to wear the dress unfirom into battle, then WHY DOES IT NEED ARMOR? It sound scompeltely unnecesary, adding more cost and weight to a uniform that is already pretty costily as it is, and is not supposed to weigh that much.

It's a dress uniform. Necessity has nothing to do with it. Especially with parade dress, what counts is flair and Rule of Cool.

The real question you should be asking is why he's posting uniforms in the weapons thread.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're completely missing the point...if these officers aren't going to wear the dress unfirom into battle, then WHY DOES IT NEED ARMOR? It sound scompeltely unnecesary, adding more cost and weight to a uniform that is already pretty costily as it is, and is not supposed to weigh that much.

You're the one missing the point. Dress uniforms have no point other than to look cool. Why the hell do U.S. Marines carry swords? Why does the British Household Cavalry wear cuirasses? Dress uniforms are the one place in militaries where the "rule of cool" is acceptable.

[Zor]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

The real question you should be asking is why he's posting uniforms in the weapons thread.

That was an error of haste.

Zor

[Sachyriel]

Hapsburg if I piloted that giant Basking shark cargo plane filled with explosives set to go off as soon as I smashed it into the ground, how many Sawfish strike drones could I take out with the shock wave of the blast alone?

[Snowman23]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

C-305E "Basking Shark" Cargo/Troopship, is the largest Army Air Force cargo plane, second in tri-service size only to the naval-use C-1000 "Whaleshark" Regimental Landing Barge; the Basking Shark contains four massive cargo bays that can hold up to a thousand tons of cargo including a fully-equipped battalion of soldiers, armoured vehicles, mechanised walkers, or up to 300 standard cargo pallets.

Nice job on them all. Except, does the Basking Shark have tracks on the bottom?

Oh, and a a former Shark nerd, I enjoy the naming conventions.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by mmmeee0

how many Sawfish strike drones could I take out with the shock wave of the blast alone?

A lot.

Originally Posted by Snowman23

Nice job on them all. Except, does the Basking Shark have treads on the bottom?

On the main part, yes. The side compartments has large wheels. They're retracted in flight, of course. The thing's so goddamn big, it needs treads to support its weight while taxing or landing.
Then again, the does lead to the question of- if it's so big, why does it fly? What I'm thinking is that the fuselage itself is wide enough to be a lifting body, plus the giant wingspan and the high-powered engines.

[Hapsburg]

And here's a smaller catalogue of Army and Marines aerodynes and helicopters (yes, rotor aircraft are still called "helicopters" in the future, because that's what they are). The differentiation is that aerodynes typically use turbofans and repulsorlift systems to provide hoverlift and flight capacity, usually at higher speed and power; helicopters use traditional turboshaft and rotor blade systems to provide lift. Helicopters are generally cheaper to produce and use than aerodynes, at the cost of relative performance; due to these differences, both types of craft are used.

The AV-99B "Tern" Gunship Aerodyne is a medium-sized attack and close-air support hovercraft equipped with numerous weapons stations, thrust-vectoring jets, and a single 35mm cannon; it is capable of great speed and assault power, but are often difficult to use in its close support role.

The UV-127H "Gull" Utility Hoverlift Aerodyne is a large cargo and troop-carrying hovercraft, functioning as a small dropship or "Platoon Landing Craft"; equipped with vectorable thrusters, weapons pylons, and twin 30mm cannons, the Gull is equally capable of supporting its troop payload as it is of transporting it.

The UV-61Y "Albatross" Utility Dropship Aerodyne is the largest hoverlift aircraft in the Union Army's arsenal, capable to hauling an infantry company plus supporting equipment or vehicles, within its vast hull; it is, like the Gull, heavily equipped for support and defence, including twin 75mm cannons, a 35mm cannon, and a pulse laser, as well as optional missile or rocket pylons for the wings.

The UH-240E "Petrel" Utility Helicopter is a light utility and cargo helicopter, powered by twin transverse rotors and turboshaft engines, used for low-level materiel transport and moving a squad of airmobile infantry; though not equipped with anything more than a 40mm grenade launcher, it has attachment points for weapons pylons, including rocket pods and machine-guns.

The AV-109D "Falcon" Light Gunship Aerodyne is the "little brother" of the Tern, powered by two turbojets in tilt-housings, and is capable of light close-air support and attack duties, somewhat more stably than the Tern; it is equipped with missile pylons and a 35mm cannon.

The AH-505W "Mallard" Helicopter Gunship is a medium attack helicopter, powered by twin transverse rotors in armoured fixed housings, capable of highly accurate and stable close-air support; it is armed with a 35mmm chin cannon, numerous weapons stations for missiles and rockets, and a rear seat with pintle-mount 13mm machine-gun.

The MH-144E "Swan" Multi-Mission Helicopter is a heavy helicopter designed for multiple mission roles, though most commonly it is used for cargo and heavy lifting, including the emplacement of field artillery and airborne armoured vehicles; like the Mallard, it is powered by dual rotors in armoured housings, giving it ample power and protection.

[Sachyriel]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

The MH-144E "Swan" Multi-Mission Helicopter is a heavy helicopter designed for multiple mission roles, though most commonly it is used for cargo and heavy lifting, including the emplacement of field artillery and airborne armoured vehicles; like the Mallard, it is powered by dual rotors in armoured housings, giving it ample power and protection.

I don't know why I am asking this, but is the largest cargo helicopter able to take of and land from the giant cargo plane while it's in the air? That.....that would be amazing as a military tactic, crapping out close air support in the form of helicopters from the back of a giant plane and in those helicopters are men on ziplines waiting to attack the roof of a vital building...

[Hapsburg]

Theoretically, it could. If dropped from a high enough altitude so that it doesn't, you know, hit the ground too soon.
Incidentally, you just gave me an excellent scene for the novel...

[Sachyriel]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Theoretically, it could. If dropped from a high enough altitude so that it doesn't, you know, hit the ground too soon.
Incidentally, you just gave me an excellent scene for the novel...

Just name the dead guy after me.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by mmmeee0

Just name the dead guy after me.

I'll have two dead guys, one with the initials MMM and the other EEE.
PFC Michael M. Marlowe and LT Edward Euripides Everest.
Yeah, alliteration. The far future has it.

[gilbertk1993]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Theoretically, it could. If dropped from a high enough altitude so that it doesn't, you know, hit the ground too soon.
Incidentally, you just gave me an excellent scene for the novel...

There's a novel? Is it on here...?

[Hapsburg]

No, of course not. This isn't a literature website.

However, the TL that leads up to the setting, and the TL of the CGU setting proper, are available to read in the Future History section.
Links are in my sig, they are both far from finished.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're completely missing the point...if these officers aren't going to wear the dress unfirom into battle, then WHY DOES IT NEED ARMOR? It sound scompeltely unnecesary, adding more cost and weight to a uniform that is already pretty costily as it is, and is not supposed to weigh that much.

Hey, an Officer is a serious investment, so you might as well insure it right?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

It's a dress uniform. Necessity has nothing to do with it. Especially with parade dress, what counts is flair and Rule of Cool.

The real question you should be asking is why he's posting uniforms in the weapons thread.

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

You're the one missing the point. Dress uniforms have no point other than to look cool. Why the hell do U.S. Marines carry swords? Why does the British Household Cavalry wear cuirasses? Dress uniforms are the one place in militaries where the "rule of cool" is acceptable.

Why do Marines carry ceremonial swords? Because they're ceremonial. Do you see Marines charging into battle against the Taliban wielding them and their full dress unifrom? Would you expect any modern day marine to put a plate of ballisitc armor over his dress unfirom, and go toe to toe with an enemy?

I will give you both a point: at first glance, dress uniforms do tend to incorporate rule of cool and flaire. But, there is one thing I stress, and this is the thing you are contineuing to ignore dress uniforms are NOT BDUs! The battlefield is the place where Rule of Cool and flaire are not attributes-they are, in fact, quite the opposite! It's all ergonomics and practicality! Tell me, where does a brightly-lit, poorly armored dress uniform meet any of that criteria? It doesn't. Therefore, there is no point in putting armor ona dress uniform. Don't shout Rule of Cool to me. Dress uniforms aren't about Rule of Cool-they are about formality and, again, ceremony. Any attempt to blend two completely opposite things will only result in a useless contraption, such as the one Zor drew-and don't get me wrong Zor, I'm not criticizing you or your drawing (because it is a good drawing), merely the idea behind it.

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by Locke

But, there is one thing I stress, and this is the thing you are contineuing to ignore dress uniforms are NOT BDUs!

But, as we've pointed out to about half a dozen times- they're not battle uniforms. They are strictly, and this is what the guy who posted it told you as well, ceremonial parade dress. Ranting about how it makes piss-poor BDU's means fuck all when they're not BDU's in the first place.

Therefore, there is no point in putting armor on a dress uniform.

I do not see where you drew that conclusion from. It certainly does not logically follow from your preceding rant, and it certainly does not fit with realit

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're completely missing the point...if these officers aren't going to wear the dress unfirom into battle, then WHY DOES IT NEED ARMOR? It sound scompeltely unnecesary, adding more cost and weight to a uniform that is already pretty costily as it is, and is not supposed to weigh that much.

It's hardly unreasonable to assume that they would buy the dress uniforms THEMSELVES, like people do in modern militaries.

Officers don't usually get subsidies to buy uniforms. Yet they have no problem buying the Uniforms they are required to wear. Have any idea how much Marine Full Dress Blues cost? I'm pretty sure these guys have no problem with a more expensive uniform.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why do Marines carry ceremonial swords? Because they're ceremonial. Do you see Marines charging into battle against the Taliban wielding them and their full dress unifrom? Would you expect any modern day marine to put a plate of ballisitc armor over his dress unfirom, and go toe to toe with an enemy?

I will give you both a point: at first glance, dress uniforms do tend to incorporate rule of cool and flaire. But, there is one thing I stress, and this is the thing you are contineuing to ignore dress uniforms are NOT BDUs! The battlefield is the place where Rule of Cool and flaire are not attributes-they are, in fact, quite the opposite! It's all ergonomics and practicality! Tell me, where does a brightly-lit, poorly armored dress uniform meet any of that criteria? It doesn't. Therefore, there is no point in putting armor ona dress uniform. Don't shout Rule of Cool to me. Dress uniforms aren't about Rule of Cool-they are about formality and, again, ceremony. Any attempt to blend two completely opposite things will only result in a useless contraption, such as the one Zor drew-and don't get me wrong Zor, I'm not criticizing you or your drawing (because it is a good drawing), merely the idea behind it.

What are you trying to say? Dress uniforms aren't BDUs. Nobody would ever expect someone to go into battle wearing a dress uniform. Nobody would ever expect someone to go into battle wearing a ceremonial sword. I hate the Rule of Cool as much as anyone, but the one place they are acceptable (and even encouraged) are military dress uniforms.

[A.M. Turtle]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why do Marines carry ceremonial swords? Because they're ceremonial. Do you see Marines charging into battle against the Taliban wielding them and their full dress unifrom?

Let's be honest that would be pretty interesting to watch.