Noyhauser

Gunships already have an "intermediate" weapon. the 40mm Bofors cannon. In fact, the U boats are the only Spectres operating with 3 weapons systems right now: 1 25mm "Equalizer" 5-barrel cannon 1 40mm Bofors light cannon 1 105mm Howitzer artillery cannon The H models USED to have this: 2 20mm Vulcan cannons 1 40mm Bofors light cannon 1 105mm Howitzer artiller cannon Since about the mid/late 1990s, the Hotels did away with the 20mm vulcan cannons though, it was decided that with the advancements in AAA and MANPAD technology, the gunships had to get dangerously close for the 20mms to be of any real effect (within around 9,000-10,000 feet, the gun's MAXMIMUM range is around 12,000 ft). The Equalizer autocannon on the U-boats has a longer effective range (around 15,000 ft), hence the reason it still has them. For a little more AC-130 gunship weapons history: When the first AC-130As went to Southeast Asia in the late '60s, they were mounted with 4 20mm Vulcan Cannons and 4 7.62 miniguns. "Project Surprise Package" and the "Pave Pronto" program removed a pair of the miniguns and a pair of the vulcans in favor of a pair of the 40mm Bofors cannons. This was the heaviest any service AC-130A would be armed (around 1980, the miniguns were removed, for the same reasons the 20mms would LATER be removed). When the AC-130E models came to Asia, they were armed the same as the "Pave Pronto" AC-130As. When the "Pave Aegis" program came along, they removed one of the 40s and bolted a 105mm howitzer to the deck. ..... instant tank killer. It could also work over a hardened building pretty good. The 105s and 40mm were later put on trainable mounts, giving them added flexibility. When the AC-130Es rotated through the upgrade program to AC-130H standards, they all received the 105mm gun. AC-130H models of arounf 1971 or 1972 were probably the most heavily armed gunships ever (a pair of 20mm Vulcans, a pair of 7.62 miniguns, a 40mm, and a 105mm), although the gunships of today are FAR more accurate, needing much less ammo to get the job done. 389754[/snapback] Whats the general accuracy of the 105? It would seem to me that putting Hellfires on it would actually be a pretty big waste of money when you have a Howitzer which can do similar, if not more damage, with similar accurracy as well (allbeit with a limited arc of fire.)

Ah, right, thanks for the clarification, because that went totally over my head

Shall we start a lynch mob? *Lights his torch, picks up his pitchfork* 389716[/snapback] I think lunch mobs are confined by law to the HG legal debate thread. 389740[/snapback] awww... Well I guess I'll to keep my culinary interests restricted to the appropriate area in the future.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that you might one day see a A-400M version of one... however given where the EU Security policy is going, its unlikely at best.

Shall we start a lynch mob? *Lights his torch, picks up his pitchfork*

Still none of them match up to Helgensagen Vom Kosmenief

I'm inclined to agree with nied. It looks pretty obvious to me that the ASS-2 splits height wise to fire its main gun (like other Zent ships) while the other ASS-1 picture splits widthwise (like the SDF-1). Also wasn't there a Meltrandi derivative put foward as well? A completely spurious question that has always bugged me... what sort of personal attack craft does the supervision army use?

Mitchell was well acquainted with Douhet's work, but he was also quite close to Air Marshall Hugh Trenchard, the third of the major thinkers of strategic airpower that people cite. Douhet was the most radical. He believed that Strategic bombing should be conducted against cities, and high explosive bombs being mixed in with gas. This would carve the heart out of the enemy. Trenchard was more direct, he believed that bombers should target; “iron and coal mines, steel mills, chemical production facilities, explosive factories, miscellaneous armament industries, aero engines and magneto works, submarine and shipbuilding works, large gun foundries, and engine repair shops" He chose many of these targets because of their large size. His contemporary, Harris, who came lead bomber command, reverted to bombing civilian centres that were involved in war production. This was partly because of the operational limitations placed on the Bomber Command. Flying at night, and with few instrument aids, really the only target they would ever hit was large population centers, and "Bomber" Harris went for it. Mitchell stood in the middle. He at times supported bombing civilians, and at other times didn’t. There were other differences between the authors. Douhet believed that the bomber would always get through, and therefore the first act was for one country to attack another’s bombers first, to preemptively remove this threat, before going on to attack cities. Mitchell believed that fighters were useful, and had a role as well. His influence on a whole generation of bombing theorist undoubtedly contributed to the fateful decision by the USAAF to attempt daylight percision bombing against German targets. In reality, the USAAF was carrying out a essentially British bombing theory, except that the British were too hesitant to take the grevious losses the americans were setting themselves up for. However all three were generally off about the nature of Bombing during the Second World War. In his seminal volume “The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy†Lawrence Freedman refers to strategic bombing as a thoroughly discredited theory in 1945 that was rescued by the invention of the atomic bomb. Strategic bombing was viewed in 1945 as insufficient to delivering complete victory that its proponents claimed. 5 years of strategic bombing did little to dent the German military production; in some cases it actually stimulated it (except in oil production). Conventional Strategic bombing was not seen as a decisive factor in pushing Japan to surrender, conversely, the USAAF was literally running out of targets to hit, before it dropped the nuclear bomb. With the advent of the nuclear age, strategic bombing advocates had a weapon that could be used to inflict the grievous harm they needed to make their strategies successful. This is why their works endure. A thinker that was closer to the mark however (but is far more obscure today) was British Air Marshall John Slessor, who wrote Airpower and Armies He had a very nuanced strategy, where airpower could be used against industrial centres, but also against transport infrastructure, and close air support roles. This all depended on the current state of war, whether it be a period of rest, or attack. His thoughts were realized in WWII. The Pre-Normandy aerial campaign to interdict the German’s ability to re-enforce its forces in the west of France was viewed as the best example of this. When I read Slessor for the first time last year, I was struck by how useful his words are today. I think Douhet, Mitchell and Trenchard (especially Douhet) should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Their work has only limited application to the world today. Slessor on the other hand showed a remarkable understanding of warfare, and if you're interested in bombing theory, you should read it. A great piece that is accessable to all is Phillip Meilinger's edited volume Paths of Heaven: the Evolution of Airpower theory. You can download the PDF Here A really good contemporary book is Benjamin Lambeths' The transformation of American Airpower. If you read it side by side with slessor's book, you'll see remarkable similarities between the two works, even if they are 60 years apart.

Wow, that looks so much better now... the arrows and the new locked/move symbols looks awesome. Although I think JS's alternate skulls (the more rounded polished kind) would go better with the new locked and move symbols. But thats just my opinion.

I knew that, but I couldn't remember the exact ways it was (no slammers was one I think), and I was too lazy to dig around my computer for the article.

I'm waiting for someone to post about the actual nature of these simulations, and how uneven it was for the US pilots. Also I wouldn't say that All European Planes were intended as speed demons. Many British fighters (like the Mark XII spitfire) were designed to be more maneoverable. Maybe David can make sense of,this site although I can't find anything on wing loading (though there are figures about wing area and weight) Personally I'd probably give it to a late model spitfire... maybe a Mark XIV? On the basis of the pure looks though, I'd give it to this. edit: forgot link.

386144[/snapback] Whats your graduate work in? If its a Arts based (politics/history/sociology/Psychology) we may be able to make a little deal.

VF_1 I will do ANYTHING for the Patlabor helix. I love that little thing. I think they are called hellriders?

Oh, I should say that macross world is one of the sites I visit the most in my day for my own leisure. Being a modeler, and a macross fan, its an amazing resource. Its helped me become a far better modeler, and rekindled my interest in the anime. I really appreciate what you guys are doing, and my criticism is really intended to be constructive, and not at all taken personally. I think the skull and minmay thingys aren't the best of additions, and that was all I was trying to say.

in my custom scheme, I went with Tamiya sea blue... I could also see it being done with dark green too.

Back to the original topic. I liked the kites, but I'm personally quite negative on the other changes, specifically changing the old files with the new skull and crossbones Logo. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making it more "macrossy," but I think it gets to a certain point where you cross from being functional and appropriate, and into unintuitive and trashy. I think the macross shield was okay, but having everything done in a macross theme is just too much in my opinion. the Skull and cross bones is not intuitive, especially for new people, and its pretty trashy. It makes the site look like it was done by a 14 year old fan, and doesn't impress the level of discussion that we do have on here. Please revert it to its previous state. I think it looked fine and didn't need anything more.

Personally I think that the Internet has really opened up modeling more than anything else. Traditional Hobby shops just can't compare to the internet. For example I've been searching for ages for a late model 1/72 Spitfire or spiteful and a bearcat. No model shop could ever find me this model, but 10 minutes on Ebay and I have a Mark XVI in the mail from the UK. Similar to modeling, is that Small and antique Book stores have had to embrace the internet otherwise they quickly go out of business. This has become an ever increasing part of successful bookstores buisness models, where the customer has become a virtual concept, rather than a guy walking through the door. One only has to point at the explosion in option kits (Especially ones from eastern europe) to see how modeling has diversified, partly because of the internet (but not completely). More choice is a good thing. And I think most people enter into modeling due to family members . My brother got me into modeling, as I suspect most people do too. So don't count out the "young uns" too soon, or the hobby itself.

Have you seen the Ultimate Detail 1/48? No amount of customization would ever make a Yamato even a pale imitation of it. If someone tried, it wouldn't even be a toy at that point, because it would require so many customized parts. I think your point has more to do with scale, than toys vs models. Personally I love 1/72, and have since I was a child. I think its a good balance where you can build most aircraft and display them together. Also I would hazard to say that 1/72 requires more skill than 1/48, if one were to attempt to aspire to a similar level of detail, I think Memnon's old strike valk (Click here to see) shows how an expert modeler can incorporate great amount of detail into a very small area. Also I don't think two magazines post of customized yams is any sort of indicator of a major switch... sorry.

You have got to be kidding me. I don't think toys come anywhere close to the "realism" factor that models do. The panel lines and shape of the hase are amazing, (even if they may not be completely canon, they are realistic), when I look at the Yamato, I don't get that feeling that its a real flyable piece of machinery as I do with the Hase versions. Moreover being able to transform is great and all, but a couple of transformations and the long worked on paint job gets trashed. And with the exception of the Yamato VF-1s every other model looks like a poorly made toy (no offense, but they do). Take one look at the Hase YF-21 and the Yamato YF-21 and its not even a comparison. The Yamato 21 looks like something a 12 year old plays with, while the Hasegawa model looks like something I can legitimately display along side my collection of real world military jets and airplanes. Finally toys don't offer anywhere the level of customability and range of products. It would nearly be impossible for me to build the electronic warfare VF-1 that I am planning from a toy, and I certainly won't be seeing a VF-4 toy any time soon either (but I've got several VF-4 resin kits just itching to be built) If I've been baited into a sarchastic thread, sorry, but its not even comparable. Maybe some modelers might be enticed, but on the whole, toys don't even come close to replicating the best parts of modeling.

Can someone say, Nichimo? (BTW awesome... its amazing the level of skill on here)

Issues dealing with the JSF and the UK http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/032006p2.xml

Agreed.

My Personal choices (all in 1/72, stuff I'd buy in a heartbeat) VF-1 Stampede Valk VF-17 Fighter Mode VF-9 Gerwalk fixed pose model OR VF-9 Fighter fixed pose (Really, both are so similar that one would do me fine) Figure set with all the main characters and additional field personnel Stuff I'd like to see, but honestly I think will get made sometime in the future YF-21 Battroid (I'd LOVE to see this, and not just the resin option kit, but its own sculpt, fully posable) Hase GPB Conversion I was thinking of making my own VF-X-4. Looking at it, this might be one of the easier kitbashes possible. Much of it is basically a fast packed VF-1 rearranged. From what I can tell the only parts that would need crafting are the Leading edge nacelle assembies (that contain the arms) the wings (from the fusalage to the nacelles, and the stubby outboard wings). What would be cool (and easier to do) would be a option kit that could do this. Pfft SAR, get with the program, 1/72 is a modeler's scale... for real men. Not pansy men with their little minatures they push across a board.

It certainly has a beam cannon, just never used it... its forward of the island just in front of the elevator.

Got my stuff, took HLJ two weeks to get it to me, and it caught me on one of the days I work from home... thats probably not a good thing. I can't resist the temptation to pull out one of my new Hase files and remove some seams on an old model.... wonderful. Also got a question about MoriMori. What is the proper ratio of the black bottle liquid and the main putty? (man its a big tube too)