|
Wait sorry I meant 1892 not 1898.  A reference to the Wright brothers I guess? Better than some 9/11 thing at least.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
fuf posted:Wait sorry I meant 1892 not 1898. Yeah that seemed kinda off. 1892 is Richthofen's DOB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
I found this dicking around on youtube, it's a video of a B-29 ditching and the crew getting picked up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I found this dicking around on youtube, it's a video of a B-29 ditching and the crew getting picked up. Tangerine Dream music aside, that channel is a godsend if you want to see anything in WWII in color without terrible commentary or even worse the cropping seen in "WWII in HD".
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:When I outgrew playing with army men, my friends and I decided to just make a pellet gun marksmanship game of setting up and shooting apart each others armies. They make great little targets for backyard plinking. Heck yeah, minisniping! I like to staple or hot glue the base to a board so I can shoot chunks off the guys. Go for headshots or center mass or try to pick the weapon out of their hands. Be cruel and shoot off their arms, then the legs (last one sends 'em flying). It's fun to own 10M olympic grade match pellet rifles 50X scopes that adjust to 10 yards, and a portable benchrest. It's almost as fun as spreading food on a sheet of cardboard and detonating bugs with pellets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I found this dicking around on youtube, it's a video of a B-29 ditching and the crew getting picked up. I love the plane just hovers above the waves for a second before appearing to do a complete flop into the ocean. "Steady......steady......" :stops mid-air ala Wild E Coyote and falls:
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I love the plane just hovers above the waves for a second before appearing to do a complete flop into the ocean. There's actually a real term for that: pancaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yO8GyU8asEI! Teaser for a documentary about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hoover
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
(x-post from AI) I want to print out some aviation related posters for decoration, does anyone have good ideas for source images? I'm thinking of something like xplanes and so forth, government pictures that are largely in the public domain would certainly be easier. Any awesome aviation pictures could be awesome, I wouldn't discriminate against mustangs and lightnings simply because they're prop planes. Here's a good idea of the kind of images I want, I'm just sure some of you have other ideas of what else can be put on posters. Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yO8GyU8asEI! Well this will be a fascinating watch, thanks. I love piston aviation flying stories. Wing Commander Bader is always a very interesting person http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3mdMlC7BAA
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Made a quick search and found that the Saab 35 Draken has been mentioned previously in the thread, but for some weird reason no-one bothered to post any pics of it. So here you go.  The Draken is configured as a so called "double-delta" design, one of very few aircraft in the world to be so. Another is the F-16XL mentioned on the last page, but the design is more pronounced in the Draken, giving it a very unique profile. While it was not actually intended, this also made it supremely maneuverable which would have given it an edge in a dog fight (the Draken never saw combat) Draken was designed from the ground-up as an all-round fighter, something fairly unorthodox for it's generation which favored specializing fighters as either interceptors or fighter bombers. Draken could carry both missiles, rockets and bombs. It flew for the first time in 1955, sharing its generation with such venerable aircraft as the American F-106 Delta Dart (1956) and the Soviet MiG-21 (1955). A full 644 Drakens were produced, with 24 exported to Austria, 51 to Denmark and 50 to Finland. The remaining 519 were bought by the Swedish Air Force. At the start of the 1960s, the Swedish Air force was the fourth largest in the world, fielding some 1000 aircraft, the majority of which were Drakens. The Swedish Air Force never fielded a designated bomber corps - the remaining aircraft were Saab 32 Lansen transsonic attack aircraft and Saab 29 Tunnan ("The Flying Barrel"), an older jet fighter converted to fighter-bomber. The Swedish Air Force was the first air force in the world to make the transfer to fielding only jet aircraft. Some (Swedish) historians would argue that it might actually have been more capable than even the British RAF, making it third rather than fourth most powerful in the world, eclipsed only by the USAF and the Soviet air forces at the time. Austria was the last nation to field active Drakens, having also been the last nation to buy them - as late as the mid 1980s. The aircraft was finally retired in 2005 - having served dutifully for almost 50 years. Today, precious few remain, some owned by private pilots primarily in the United States and a small number operated by its previous air forces for exhibition purposes.  Draken in Austrian livery, showing off the double-delta.  Draken on the ground. I can't shake how much this looks like a model with a little army man posed in front of it.  Like most of SAAB's fighters, the Draken is relatively small - it's roughly comparable to the F-16. The Draken measures 15,4 x 3,9 meters with a wingspan of 9,4 meters. The F-16 measures 15,03 x 5,09 meters with a wingspan of 10 meters. The key difference is the wing area, thanks to the double-delta: 27,9 m2 in the F-16 and a whooping full 49,2 m2 in the Draken. This allows the fighter to achieve a high capacity for lift with a considerably weaker engine. The Draken is powered by 1 x Volvo Flygm. RM 6C, capable of 56.9kN which should be compared to 1 x P&W F100-PW-220 capable of 105.7kN mounted in the F-16. Of course, this isn't a very fair comparison considering that the F-16 had its maiden flight in 1974. A lot of engine development took place in 20 years. Even so, the Draken was extraordinarily capable of pusing it's weaker engine to the limit - it can match the F-16 both in reaching Mach 2 as top speed and having an equal or better cruising speed fully armed. Its even comparable to the F-16 in carrying capacity (both about 30000lbs max take-off weight) and almost matching it in range (2000 vs 2200 kilometers at max weight and fuel) I'm actually a bit astonished at how well it matches an aircraft belonging a full generation ahead of it, but here are my sources: Draken source, F-16 source 1, F-16 source 2. The main difference is the armament: the Draken carried a full 2 x 30mm internal Aden autocannon and 4 hardpoints. The F-16 carries a single 20 mm M61 Vulcan autocannon, relying more on the superior missiles of its era, having 11 hardpoints for that purpose (later upgrades to the Draken did scale back to one autocannon in favor of avionics)  Austrian double-delta Drakens in delta formation - would that be a triple delta? Deltas within deltas!  A rare black Draken belonging to the National Test Pilot School in California.  Two Drakens flying off into the sunset. A fitting end to a post about a reamarkable aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Awesome Drakenpostin The Draken was the first airplane model I bought with my own money when I was about 7. Still burned into my mind as one of the zoomiest looking airplanes ever. I may have picked this up from this very thread, but here is a ten minute sales film thingy for the Draken circa 1955. Worth watching for the Soooper Sveeeedish accents and some decent air-to-air footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCSSlfNJk8&feature=player_embedded!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Oh man how did we forget about the Draken. That thing is the goddamn tits.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Double delta! Chengdu J7E
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:A full 644 Drakens were produced, with 24 exported to Austria, 51 to Denmark and 50 to Finland. The remaining 519 were bought by the Swedish Air Force. At the start of the 1960s, the Swedish Air force was the fourth largest in the world, fielding some 1000 aircraft, the majority of which were Drakens. The Swedish Air Force never fielded a designated bomber corps - the remaining aircraft were Saab 32 Lansen transsonic attack aircraft and Saab 29 Tunnan ("The Flying Barrel"), an older jet fighter converted to fighter-bomber. This boggles my mind a bit. I know the Swedes are one of the few nations with a high-end domestic aerospace industry, but what was the geopolitical/their financial situation like during the Cold War to maintain such a large air force for a relatively small nation? Their Air Force alone would be several times the size of their neighbours Norway and Finland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
movax posted:This boggles my mind a bit. I know the Swedes are one of the few nations with a high-end domestic aerospace industry, but what was the geopolitical/their financial situation like during the Cold War to maintain such a large air force for a relatively small nation? Their Air Force alone would be several times the size of their neighbours Norway and Finland. I guess they REALLY wanted to stay neutral during the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
movax posted:
Well now you done it. I never get to talk early Cold War history of the Swedish military - over here in Sweden, even giving the appearance of celebrating military power is akin to advocating genocide in the circles I socialize in. Megapost incoming! Scramble fighters, run for shelter! Introduction Considering that Finland's and Denmark's air forces at the time existed solely of those 51 and 50 Drakens, respectively, Sweden's air force at the time was somewhere between 10 and 20 times as powerful. Granted, Finland - since it allied itself with Germany during WW2 - was bound by the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 to an air force not exceeding 60 aircraft. To counteract this in regards to Finland, a secret pact was sworn that Sweden was to store surplus Drakens, which were to be transferred directly to Finnish command in case of war. This pact was in effect well into the 80s. There are a number of factors explaining how the massive Swedish air force came to be. 1: Industry The first and greatest is that Sweden was one very few European nations that escaped the war completely unharmed. Sweden also benefited greatly during the war itself from trade - in fact, it traded with both sides for the duration of the conflict. That's not necessarily something modern Swedes are particularly proud of, but understandable if viewed from the Swedish perspective of the time. After the war ended, Sweden's full industrial capacity was available to assist in rebuilding Europe - at the right price, of course. The result was a massive economic boon comparable to the one simultaneously experienced in the United States, merely on a smaller scale. It's no coincidence that Americans and Swedes alike recall the 1950s as a golden age economically. 2: Resolve WW2 caught Sweden completely off guard. The Swedish government had remained willfully blind until the very outbreak of the war in September 1939 and completely failed to mobilize more than a token force. There is a speech made by the Prime Minister during the war that as been lives on in infamy, called the "Our Preparedness is Good" speech, named after a promise in the speech that was so in conflict with reality that barely anyone believed it. Sweden only managed to remain neutral due to a combination of skillful diplomacy, lack of strategic value for prospective invaders on either side and sheer luck that the war developed as it did. Sweden did not fully mobilize until the very final phases of WW2. The memory of its humiliating weakness during the war was strong, how it forced Sweden to compromise its neutrality to the point of allowing Nazi Germany to use Swedish railways to transport troops from occupied Norway to Finland! This - combined with the fact that Sweden's old nemesis, Russia, through the Soviet Union now controlled half of the shores of the eastern Baltic - resulted in a strong resolution in keeping considerable mobilization and prioritizing military capacity in the future, to ensure that Sweden would have a powerful deterrence during the next war, which could allow it to remain truly neutral on its own terms. Luckily for all of us, this was never tested. 3: Strategy Finally there is the matter of proper strategy - Sweden is a very large, scarcely populated country. Sweden also decided to maintain fierce independence in neutrality early in the Cold War - this meant that any defensive plan had to account for the possibility of being invaded by the full might of the Soviet Union without receiving any NATO support at all, no matter how remote that possibility still was. The doctrine during the cold war was therefore one of unrelenting defense: the Soviet invader was to face such resistance that his forces was either ground to a pulp or, more realistically, his losses was to be so great that he would either abandon his efforts in invading Sweden - which still didn't have that much strategic value - or even better, keep him from invading at all. Everything in the Swedish military at the time could be directly traced to this. Case in point, the S-Tank, the Swedish MBT chosen in 1958 to defend the nation:  The S-tank is a one-of-a-kind main battle tank, designed purely for defense and probably not very useful in offense. It lacks a turret to maintain a minimal vertical profile. Any adjustments to the elevation and direction of the gun was achieved through intricate changes to the tank's treads and suspension. It had a second unique feature - a rear driver, who had a full set of controls to drive the tank in reverse at a high speed. The idea was to achieve a hull-down set-up, leaving advancing enemy units looking at this:  Yeah, good luck hitting that. And the second you get close enough to just maybe get a shot in the thing speeds off in the opposite direction and deploys again. The tank is designed for one, singular purpose: to slaughter advancing Soviet tanks in the tight confines of the Swedish woodlands and retreat once the assumed flood wave of Soviet tanks got close enough. It was to hit hard, avoid being hit in return and running away really fast. Close to 300 were built and not one was exported, because lets face it - what government in their right mind would buy something so hyperspecialized? This has great bearing on the air force in general and the Draken in particular. Since Sweden is so big, the air force would be the only military arm capable of defending every part of the nation. It had three tasks to complete: One, intercept and eliminate hostile bombers and fighters approaching Swedish shores. Two, intercept and cripple any Soviet invasion fleet. Third, provide acceptable air cover and close air support capacity for the army and whatever remained of the navy once the invasion was a fact. This is the reason the Draken was designed as a multi-role fighter rather than either an interceptor or fighter-bomber - this way the air force would always be able to respond within hours, no matter what mission or battlefield. What could have been: Sweden, nuclear power. Sweden, like many other European nations at the time, also had its own nuclear program. The plan was to build advanced heavy-water type reactors that convert uranium-238, of which there are considerable deposits in Sweden, to plutonium-239 to be used in bombs, especially since Sweden's neutrality placed it outside the NATO nuclear umbrella. Most efforts went into designing tactical nuclear shells and missiles, to be used on advancing Soviet forces or critical naval facilities, preferably even hitting a Soviet invasion fleet while it's in port. SAAB even developed a supersonic bomber designed to deliver strategic bombs weighing up to 800 kg: the SAAB A 36.  It was also a delta design, inspired by the success of the Draken. It never left the drawing board, in 1957 it was scrapped in favor of the SAAB 37 Viggen ("Thunderbolt") Had Swedish nuclear ambitions come to term, this would have meant that the Viggen would have been the ultimate all-round aircraft: a fighter capable of providing air superiority, naval interdiction, close air support and delivering tactical and strategic nuclear missiles and bombs weighing up to 500 kg. Eventually, the nuclear program dragged on throughout the 50s and 60s as Sweden changed around it. Technical issues with the reactors mounted, driving costs upwards, issues with developing munitions could never be satisfactorily solved and the strategic question of just how and when nuclear weapons could be used without spelling the total annihilation of Sweden constantly loomed. The death knell came with political shifts during the 60s, including the non-proliferation treaty, turning Sweden into the more pacifistic creature we recognize today, resulting in Sweden becoming a driving force for demobilization rather than mobilization throughout the remainder of the Cold War. Legacy The era of the Draken would eventually become the apex of Swedish aeronautic power, as the rest of Europe recovered, matching Swedish industrial capacity once more and bursting the reconstruction bubble. The cost of maintaining such a massive air force, both politically and economically, became untenable. Newer fighter designs would also be able to do more with fewer aircraft. Above all, even supporting the maintenance of overwhelming capacity for defense in order to ensure neutrality became viewed as war mongering belligerence - the defense budget would be continuously cut all the way to the present. Even so, to this day Sweden maintains a significantly more capable air force than its neighbors. Sweden fields 100 active advanced SAAB JAS 39 Gripen fighters with 50 more in storage - along with unknown quantities of possible Viggens, which I have failed to find out just exactly was what done to after the aircraft was retired. Compare this to the 60-ish F-16s of Norway, the 30 F-16s of Denmark or the 60-ish F/A-18s of the Finnish Air Force. Or even the planned 140 Eurofighters and 85 Tornados, for a total of 225 aircraft, of the German Luftwaffe - a nation with almost eight times the GDP of Sweden. Not too shabby for a country with a population the size of New York City. EDIT: Regarding Finnish Drakens. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:swedepost That's an awesome post, thanks for making it. The Gripen is also an awesome plane. Being in the US we rarely get to see foreign planes, as our air shows are always American airpower (not complaining, I love our jets). The only foreign plane I've ever seen and been able to get close to was a Luftwaffe Tornado. I know the US spends millions of dollars on training our fighter pilots and it's a glorified position, and I'm sure Sweden spends just as much training their pilots, but do young Swedes dream of being fighter pilots? I know Sweden did away with conscription in 2010, moving to an all-volunteer force. You mentioned that interest in military power is frowned upon in Sweden - are people disappointed if you choose a military career instead of something in the civilian field?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
co199 posted:That's an awesome post, thanks for making it. The Gripen is also an awesome plane. Being in the US we rarely get to see foreign planes, as our air shows are always American airpower (not complaining, I love our jets). The only foreign plane I've ever seen and been able to get close to was a Luftwaffe Tornado. Swedes certainly dream of being fighter pilots - I know I did - but fighter jocks are seen in a more positive light than other positions in the military, probably because most people can sympathize with the joy of the freedom in flight. And yes, traditionally expressing too much interest in military service has been frowned upon. This hasn't been an issue historically: as long as the military was conscription based, only higher officers actively chose their careers. Since these people usually belonged to upper class, conservative families, and anti-war activists were primarily found in leftist circles, such as students and socialist or green parties, career soldiers were largely isolated from their critics. Since all men (in theory) got conscripted, their service was respected on some level as long as they presented it as an unwanted sacrifice. But there were other nuances as well. Military service became a bonding experience for the millions of men undergoing it and it was perfectly acceptable to be nostalgic about the time - as long as you're nostalgic about things like companionship or the fresh air (Ha! Few remember excersises in -40C as enjoyable) and keep well clear from the killing aspect of military service. That includes anything regarding guns and tactics. Even recreational shooters in Sweden reflect this attitude - people interested in "military looking" firearms (military firearms are outright banned) can derogatorily be called "MÖPs", which stands for "Military Over-interested Person" who could only be expected to be trouble for the club. Belonging to the National Guard is more respected, partially because it's public profile has been more geared towards disaster relief than military action. This may change now that they are being transformed into a capable territorial army. Even so, service was more accepted than respected. It's nothing like in America were at least some portion of the population views you as a hero and "Support 'R Troops" is a viable political slogan. This became very clear when conscription was finally ended in 2010. The military has had massive problems reaching their recruitment quota, despite the fact that overseas service is largely voluntary, and are somewhat stumped as to how to solve this. If you ask me, the minimum wage you make as a grunt certainly doesn't help, but there's also a considerable social stigma against signing up. Those serving overseas receive mixed support. Most people respect what they do, but they still have to tread the line: emphasize how you are there helping the locals, focus on professionalism and so forth. Just. Don't. Mention. Killing. I'll leave you with this: here's a nice video comparing recruitment ads in America and Sweden. The USMC ad focuses on patriotism, honor and some cool tech. The Swedish ad combines everyday scenes in Sweden with the carnage of war to show that service is a humanitarian effort. No flags, no inspiring music, no inspiring actors - that would stir up a scandal and lead to the military being accused of warmongering and brainwashing impressionable youths. Insted you just have death and destruction, and the question of what you can do to help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWqT8Rljt_8 Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
Jesus christ. I'm a giant tank nerd and I LOVED this. Look at that loving thing. Just LOOK at it. It's all gun with a tiny loving sliver of visible frontage, and oh yeah that armor is at something like 30 degrees of slope. gently caress me, good luck getting through that with any kind of frontal hit, especially using 60s era tank shell technology. Now, realistically, as a Soviet commander facing that poo poo I think the answer is "shell the gently caress out of it with artillery" perhaps followed by "send in a gently caress load of infantry."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
They've got one of those over at the Panzermuseum in Munster. Thing is a dinky toy even compared to WWII tracked vehicles. Extremely low profile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:It had a second unique feature - a rear driver, who had a full set of controls to drive the tank in reverse at a high speed. I'm surprised it's not French. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
In an open desert sure, but assuming the Swedes at the very least are able to deny aerial superiority to the Soviets the heavily wooded nature would nullify a LOT of the artillery fire causing the primitive shells to possibly burst in the trees. As far as infantry goes a mixture of interlocking fields of fire, there own infantry and their own artillery I can see a swedish defensive line being a very tough nut to crack.   E: Craptacular posted:I'm surprised it's not French. It can't jettison it's cannon onto the battle field
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:That's really interesting. It's really easy to get caught up in the hooah-woooo military mindset in this country (lord knows I've fallen victim to it) and it's neat to hear other outlooks. Not a day goes by where I don't see some sort of recruitment ad, although they've been less gung-ho. I remember a couple years ago, National Guard recruitment ads before movies had Kid Rock playing and tanks throwing dirt around everywhere. Hell, even the modern Navy ads that focus more on humanitarianism still have aircraft carriers and F/A-18s interspersed with shots of the hospital ships: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3wtUCPWmeI I don't suppose a movie like Act of Valor would ever get made in Sweden, eh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Jesus christ. I'm a giant tank nerd and I LOVED this. Hence the "rear driver, get us the gently caress out of here" function. I wonder if the Soviets taught their tank commanders any special tactics to deal with this thing - it's so different from anything else they were trained to face. The main problem with the S tank is that since it's so specialized for defense, counterattacking is difficult. An aggressor could simply amass sufficient amounts of artillery to safely force the S-tanks backwards in perpetuity. The Swedish doctrine in such a situation probably was to bring their own artillery to match and create a stalemate - if the Soviet attack force fails to blitz its way to Stockholm supply lines would be at risk and the Soviets could have ended up stranding a significant army in the northern wastes of Sweden, with NATO knocking on the door down in Europe. It was assumed that if the Soviets invaded, they would have to win quickly so they could reconsilidate their forces elsewhere. Oh, and the designers expected Soviet human wave attacks to be a possibility - that's why they mounted two internal 7,62 mm FN MAGs on the left side of the hull - those are located on the slits in hump you can see on my first picture up there. And a third FN Mag mounted on top of the tank for the commander, which could be used to take pot shots at attack helicopters in a pinch. And if that's not enough, the main gun could be loaded with high explosive rounds. Other goodies include: - Dozer blade, allowing some S-tanks to build their own trenches in seconds. An upgrade in 1982 added this functionality to all tanks. - A flotation skirt to ford rivers. - Smoke launchers, which could be used to cover a retreat. By the time the smoke clears, the tank could have reversed and dug in a good distance ahead of you, forcing you to do it all over again! The S tank was designed to simply force the enemy to maintain a neverending trench assault. If you invade through Finland, you'll have to do this for 570 miles before you reach Stockholm. This picture (of a LEGO modell, curiously) is a good approximation of how tiltable the tank actually was:  Also found a pretty cool vid from a documentary program on Swedish Television. No English translation but some neat footage of the tank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQwsgPYHPd4
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
How much of Swedish land defense doctrine was based on the Sovs having to get through Finland first?  What were the Soviet plans anyway? Amphibious assault across the Baltic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
priznat posted:How much of Swedish land defense doctrine was based on the Sovs having to get through Finland first? Weren't the Finns in a odd situation with them committing neither to NATO or Pact and having to buy from both sides? I thought a lot of "What if" scenarios had them just get quickly occupied by Russians since they didn't want to get nuked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
While the S-Tank was stupid loving awesome, I'm surprised that the Swedes never developed a ATGM. A quick wikipedia perusal seems to indicate that they made almost everything else, from SAMS to cruise missiles. While kick-rear end, the Carl Gustav and AT4 are not ATGMS. Edit: also, while playing F-14 Fleet Defender back in the '90s, a Soviet attack on my CBG strayed a little too close to Swedish airspace and got annihilated by the Swedes, leaving me to fly around in circles waiting for the Soviets to show up. Had to watch the replay to figure out what happened. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
co199 posted:That's really interesting. It's really easy to get caught up in the hooah-woooo military mindset in this country (lord knows I've fallen victim to it) and it's neat to hear other outlooks. Not a day goes by where I don't see some sort of recruitment ad, although they've been less gung-ho. I remember a couple years ago, National Guard recruitment ads before movies had Kid Rock playing and tanks throwing dirt around everywhere. Hell, even the modern Navy ads that focus more on humanitarianism still have aircraft carriers and F/A-18s interspersed with shots of the hospital ships: Notice how it's still really, really focused on pointing out what an awesome individual you would be if you joined. The early Swedish ads were almost exclusively focused on the people you help, not the guy being recruited. Maybe this didn't work out so well, since the newer batch is more focused on the individual. First were a failed batch that tried to be more American: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Telz2gT3IdQ This got the military mercilessly ridiculed since people didn't think it represented the nature of the armed forces very well and - the kicker - the actors playing Swedish marines were neither marines nor Swedish, they were South African. BTW, the text that appears when the red background comes down says "Now we're waiting for your opinion on what we do - if you got what it takes". They were trying to be more edgy. The message pretty much boils down to "Join the military - we dare you!" Because of this fiasco they made this last batch, which try to show some humor and a more tasteful message - they literally end with the line "We can offer you our reality, training that leads to a job were you can make a difference, for real". The message is essentially 'It's honest work, ey' But the best thing is how it mercilessly parodies how Swedes think American recruitment ads look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upZMwKfucEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMaVwRXI1WI
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:How much of Swedish land defense doctrine was based on the Sovs having to get through Finland first? Short answer: both. Simultaneously. They tried to develop those nuclear missiles specifically to nuke a Soviet invasion fleet while in port in Gdansk or similar facilities, before realizing that would just get Sweden nuked in retaliation. Swedish land defense doctrines were still heavily geared towards a land invasion through Finland though - it was always assumed that the Soviets would try to take a short cut through Sweden to get to NATOs naval facilities in Norway, and that they would simply dispatch a few divisions south along the way and secure Swedish surrender if they weren't met with sufficient resistance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
There are obviously lots of factors at play, but it's a fascinating social study to see how European notions of self-defense morphed as they fell under the American conventional and nuclear defense umbrellas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Notice how it's still really, really focused on pointing out what an awesome individual you would be if you joined. The early Swedish ads were almost exclusively focused on the people you help, not the guy being recruited. Those last two are hilarious and would be pretty effective, I think. I agree that the first video was trying too hard, although it looked pretty cool. I think the big thing to take away here is the mindset of both countries. The United States has never really had a "for the greater good" mindset, although I think a short period during World War 2 would count (gas sacrifices, rubber, etc). It's always been a very me-first attitude and it only makes sense our military recruiting ads would focus on how badass you can be. Look at these sweet fighter jets, or this wicked destroyer, or all these cool guns. Thanks for humoring my curiosity!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Sweden is a rather larger country than Finland, Norway or Denmark in size and population, the size of the air force seems to be roughly in line proportionally, maybe it's better to say that the Germans aren't buying enough planes. What's the SAM situation in Sweden? If you're going to go to the trouble develop a specialized defensive tank, you would think that large numbers of SAM batteries would be integral to the strategy as well, since SAM batteries are a bit easier to man with conscripts than fighters, but according to Wikipedia it doesn't seem to be very heavily emphasized at all. Was the air force expected to just fight off the VVS entirely in the air?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:While the S-Tank was stupid loving awesome, I'm surprised that the Swedes never developed a ATGM. A quick wikipedia perusal seems to indicate that they made almost everything else, from SAMS to cruise missiles. They did, actually. The Rb 53 "Bantam" (Bofors ANti-TAnk Missile) ATGM was developed in the late fifties and introduced in 1963. It has a standard load-out of missile in box, guidance system and targeting optics and what not. Source for pic says it's comparable to the AT-3 Sagger.  The Swedish army bought a ton and for some reason mounted it on this ugly fucker:  They never mounted it on any tanks, but then again only the Soviets did back then. It was never prominent or anything. Switzerland and Argentina are mentioned as buyers though. Still, 33 000 were made so I guess someone liked them. The reason most people never heard of it is probably because NATO never bought any - everyone knows about LAW, AT-4 and the Carl Gustaf since the US uses them and we know about most of the Soviet gear because they were the enemy. No-one really kept an eye on the neutral guys, so gear unique to them - especially fairly low profile stuff like portable ATGMs - get overlooked. Bofors also developed the BILL series starting in 1979 and resulting in deployment in 1988, late enough to be Cold War so I'll add a picture. The Swedish military bought 15 000. They built a few successors after that, but that's current era gear. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
Respectfully disagree, whatever that is, I think it looks fine and i'd love to have one. Requesting details! And thanks for the Swede posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Swedish camouflage rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:S tank info also who can't help but love the draken? a supersonic multirole fighter built and fielded in huge numbers in the era dominated by strictly single role jet designs. very cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:14
|
|
I visited an old Swedish training base/museum last time I was there. It was pretty interesting.                        
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Sweden is a rather larger country than Finland, Norway or Denmark in size and population, the size of the air force seems to be roughly in line proportionally, maybe it's better to say that the Germans aren't buying enough planes. When you factor in population it does look less odd, true. Let's do a "fighters per million people" comparison: - Sweden is baseline, with about 16,5. - Denmark is at about 5,5. Norway and Finland are both at 11. Denmark is still an exception in lower range and Sweden in the higher. (Fun fact: Norway, Denmark and Finland all have populations between 5 and 5,5 million - Sweden is the Nordic exception with 9) - Big NATO countries Germany: 220 aircraft for a score of 2,8. Yes, Germany should probably buy some more. The UK: about 300 aircraft when all Eurofighters are delivered for a score of 4,8. Current score for 220 aircraft: 3,5 France: 221 aircraft for a score of 3,4 Spain: 142 aircraft for a score of 3,0. Will increase to about 200 when they get the rest of the Typhoons for a score of 4,3 Italy: 221 aircraft for a score of 3,7 - Eastern Europe Russia: 1657 fighter and attack aircraft for a score of 11,5. Please note that I have no idea how many are actually operational, these are just the ones listed in their inventory on Wikipedia. They also own 195 bombers, elevating their score to 13 if we factor them linearly. The Ukraine: 188 aircraft for a score of 4,1 Poland: 125 aircraft for a score of 3,2 - Just for funsies The United States: 2650 fighter and attack aircraft for a total score of 12,4. Add bombers and we get 13,0. How about that. Sweden well may have the greatest figther per capita quota in the world  Of course, this is just playing with numbers. Fighters don't defend individual people - they defend territory. But just doing a fighter by land area is even worse since that fails to factor in population density and economy. To do a really fair comparison you would have to combine GDP per capita, land area and population density into a factor and run it, but that's way too much work. And this still isn't even touching on the fact that not all aircraft are equal - a lot of those Russian aircraft are outdated Su-24s, as an example. Still, looking at it this way the Swedish air force is still pretty capable. EDIT: Did I seriously write "Finland in the Sweden"? It's getting way too late over here. Fixed. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Any chance of any cold-war experts doing a post on French Cold War doctrine? I mean, I know that after, what, '58 DeGaulle buggered out of NATO, but considering if the Red Army poured through the Fulda Gap, wouldn't the French have to contribute? Would their forces just have stuck to the French frontier and not moved an inch beyond?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 01:53
|
|
