What's wrong with this picture?

[Jame]

OK, opening the image in a new tab restores it to the big size and makes the details clearer. There is something deep down 'wrong' about a my-little-pony siege tank.

You're absolutely right. Fluttershy would NEVER be involved in a siege. Too evil.

And you lot can blame my fiancée for making me watch MLP with her - I keep saying it's for kids, not adults. She doesn't listen.

 

[Blue Ghost]

You people are killing me.

 

[Carlobrand]

WHere's her helmet? She's out of uniform!

 

[Blue Ghost]

Okay, while on the theme of "cute things with deadly impliments of war", I came across a clip of the show "Girls und Panzers";

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAnUqhKWZI

I have to admit, it looks pretty compelling, but I think I'll stick with more traditional offerings. Something about a pink tank just doesn't sit right with me.

Call me crazy.

 

[Condottiere]

They improve and professionalize.

The actual moral of the story is social cohesion, teamwork and friendship is magic. Also, that life is not a zero-sum game, something that two of the girls families have to come to terms with.

 

[Reban]

I have to admit, it looks pretty compelling, but I think I'll stick with more traditional offerings. Something about a pink tank just doesn't sit right with me.

Call me crazy.

The SAS had pink long range recon and raiding vehicles, is that not bad-ass? :rofl:

 

[JimMarn]

Okay, while on the theme of "cute things with deadly impliments of war", I came across a clip of the show "Girls und Panzers";

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAnUqhKWZI

I have to admit, it looks pretty compelling, but I think I'll stick with more traditional offerings. Something about a pink tank just doesn't sit right with me.

Call me crazy.

I can see the Grant taking on the Matilda, but the two light Japanese tanks... The Shermans and the few British tanks in the Pacific chewed them up.

 

[JimMarn]

The SAS had pink long range recon and raiding vehicles, is that not bad-ass? :rofl:

It was a pinkish color that was good camo in the Sahara. Not sure where I read that though.

 

[Blue Ghost]

.... I'm sorry, I draw the line at pink tanks...

 

[BlackBat242]

What's wrong with them?

In Poland:

Old Kent Road in London

 

[Blue Ghost]

You posted that on purpose

 

[Timerover51]

The SAS had pink long range recon and raiding vehicles, is that not bad-ass? :rofl:

And Col. John "Killer" Kane's 98th Bomb Group of B-24 Liberators were also painted "desert pink" when they flew the very low-level bombing mission on the Ploesti, Romania oil refineries on 1 August 1943. And when I say very low-level, I mean VERY LOW LEVEL, as some of the B-24s had corn tassels trapped in their bomb bay doors when they closed them exiting the target area.

 

[Condottiere]

There is an argument to be made by finding a distinctive colouring, let's say neon pink, an elite unit with a formidable reputation can cause automatic morale rolls by enemy units once they spot their distinctive camo.

 

[aramis]

There is an argument to be made by finding a distinctive colouring, let's say neon pink, an elite unit with a formidable reputation can cause automatic morale rolls by enemy units once they spot their distinctive camo.

The Von Richthofen argument.

It's been interesting to watch the changes - up to the mid-18th C, military uniforms were generally garish - no attempts at camouflage. At best, trousers in colors that didn't show mud well.

Very late 18th, to mid 20th, uniforms began to become more and camouflaged.

Military aircraft originally were uncamouflaged, as well. WWII, more and more aircraft were painted to not stand out - green tops, white/skyblue bottoms. But now, weapon ranges exceed visual to the point that the material color is almost immaterial. (see the stealth aircraft.)

Tanks engage at speeds and ranges where visual recognition is still important - but it's also first seen is first killed.

 

[Condottiere]

In space, everyone can see you.

Closer to the planetary surface, we get closer to what our militaries have actually experienced, and what we can extrapolate for the future.

Practically the entire argument for the F-35 is based on the supposition of see first, shoot first. And sociability, which apparently the F-22 are more the lone wolf types.

Protection plays a big roll, however that is provided. The capability to absorb the initial damage and close quickly to overrun the opposition. You get the psychological advantages of fear, possibly terror, surprise, confusion. At close quarters camouflage is less of an issue, but breaking the enemy's will to fight is.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Fighters are designed on the following criteria; mission profile and capability. What does it need to do, and what can it do. What targets are you expecting, what do you need to disable or destroy them, and what kind of platform is needed to deliver said weapon to the target.

Fighters can operate as singletons or as a group. There's no design that enhances that feature. Some fighters are optimized for dogfighting, but that doesn't make them more effective alone verse being in a flight group. Dog fighting is like any other confrontation; the more people you have on your side, the higher your chances of victory (platform design and capability depending).

Fighters are usually designed to be inherently unstable to allow quick maneuverability, and fast acceleration. That verse passenger jets which are designed to be highly stable, which is why you can fly big birds into storms, but are advised to keep your hot jets away from same storms.

I've never ever heard of the "sociability" aspect of jet fighter design. That's no where in any of my AIAA publications, nor my books on Jet Fighter design and concept engineering. I can't recall it ever being bandied about as an off handed tactical term.

Getting back to the humorous aspect of a cartoon horse driving a knockoff of a Starcraft Terran AFV, I thought the pic was funny and humorous without really knowing anything about the "MLP Phenomenon". To me, MLP was a series of commercials that aired just as I was weaning myself off of Sat morning and after school cartoons, and it was specifically for a product that my friend's sister really liked. More power to her.

To see some person draw a funny pic and paint it is pretty humorous. Part of the reason I posted it here. But to see that said same artist apparently has an entire series of the stuff ... er, well, hmm ... okay. To each his own.

 

[Condottiere]

Brony power.

Once the actual, or the costs they couldn't hide anymore, came to surface for the F-35 programme, a lot of people asked why they just didn't build more of the F-22, as the F-35 had been promoted as the low part of the high-low mixture, therefore considerably cheaper per unit, since you cut out a lot of the research and development costs, and the answer was that the F-22 couldn't be refurbished with the new avionics and networking electronics.

See first, shoot first is tied in to not only talking to and piggy back riding of what other F-35s are seeing, but also what other platforms that are connected are seeing, which if it works as advertised, is one helluva force multiplier.

 

[Hyphen]

There is an argument to be made by finding a distinctive colouring, let's say neon pink, an elite unit with a formidable reputation can cause automatic morale rolls by enemy units once they spot their distinctive camo.

Not really camo, then. It's...it's... well, it's whatever the opposite of camo is. U-camo, perhaps.

Military aircraft originally were uncamouflaged, as well. WWII, more and more aircraft were painted to not stand out - green tops, white/skyblue bottoms.

Minor quibble: I think it's called "duck-egg blue", a colour first developed by Sidney Cotton prior to WW2 (although he painted his ENTIRE recon plane this colour so it would disappear):
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=Sidney Cotton Last Plane Berlin blue&f=false

Different versions of this colour were used by different Allied airforces.

 

[BlackBat242]

Fighters can operate as singletons or as a group. There's no design that enhances that feature. Some fighters are optimized for dogfighting, but that doesn't make them more effective alone verse being in a flight group. Dog fighting is like any other confrontation; the more people you have on your side, the higher your chances of victory (platform design and capability depending).

.....

I've never ever heard of the "sociability" aspect of jet fighter design. That's no where in any of my AIAA publications, nor my books on Jet Fighter design and concept engineering. I can't recall it ever being bandied about as an off handed tactical term.

Its a fad term for the ability to share data between aircraft, and refers to the installed electronics, not to the airframe.

The F-22 and earlier US fighters had a very limited ability to do this, so a set of fighters had to be controlled by a large AWACS aircraft. The fighters sent data to the AWACS, who made sense of the overall picture and sent out specific instructions and target info (but not actual sensor data) to specific fighters. Those fighters then have to use their own sensors to acquire, identify, and attack the targets.

The F-35 has the ability to share all the info its sensors can gather, along with its own flight info (location, course, weapons load, etc) with several other F-35s directly, so that the pilots can share tasks and work together without the need for a central controller. One F-35 can provide full sensor data directly to the others in a manner that acts as if their sensors were providing the info. Therefore several F-35s can attack a group of enemy aircraft or other targets with only one using its sensors, but with each pilot "seeing" all the data directly, and making his own decisions based on that.


So according to the USAF and Lock-Mart, the F-35 is almost like an insectoid "hive mind" that experiences and "thinks" jointly with other F-35s, while the earlier fighters (including F-22s) are individuals isolated from their fellows except through voice and a very limited data-stream from the AWACS aircraft.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I've never heard of it. The AWACs or ground base as the single data node, I think , was overcome years ago when jet fighters shared data with everyone by way of not only the airborne asset, but also whatever CIC was involved.