Best military aviation history books according to redditors

We found 464 Reddit comments discussing the best military aviation history books. We ranked the 239 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Military Aviation History:

u/gsav55 · 47 pointsr/Military

I want to say the book was "Bury Us Upside Down" where he tells the story that during Vietnam the CIA was flying O-1 Bird Dog to mark bombing locations for his F-100 squadron. He said the pilot would bring a crate of grenades with him and when shit got hot would start lobbing grenades out the window at the enemy.

u/JoeIsHereBSU · 33 pointsr/preppers

Just some basic things can making them getting to you too difficult to continue. Basically make them go a different way.

u/newborn_babyshit · 20 pointsr/writing

I have a lot of reading assignments to give you, but I'm not certain how much time you are going to budget for research. At the very least I hope this will help you refine your Google fu and wiki consumption.

Step one : read Sun Tzu's Art of War. It's a short read, and you'll have a firm grasp of how military leadership is based on proven principles. You'll get a crash course on the essentials of intelligence, logistics, strategy, and tactics. If you want to write about warfare, you can't begin without knowing how it is conducted.

Next, I would approach classical warfare. I highly recommend the works of Donald Kagan, a Yale professor who's works on the Peloponnesian War are essentially the gold standard on the subject. He wrote a book called On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. His thesis statement is that "A persistent and repeated error through the ages has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort, planning, the expenditure of resources, and sacrifice, just as war does." What this means is that peace is not the default condition between two states. The natural tendency in foreign relations is entropy and warfare, and thus peace is only maintained through exhaustive effort. Kagan should inspire a certain level of pessimism/realism that could help you make your "empires" seem less cartoonish, and more like states that made hard pragmatic decisions to ensure the survival of their respective populations.

Skim the works of Nicollo Machiavelli. You need to read two of his books : The Prince, and The Art of War. He was an Italian statesmen during what we consider to be Renaissance Italy. It was a time when the country was broken up into warring city-states that shifted alliances constantly. He wrote The Prince to earn the favor of one of these rulers, and with this book he essentially destroyed every illusion about power being a natural extension of god's grace. He showed the world how "the sausage is made" in politics. It was so utterly cynical and dark that some considered him to be the devil himself, and a few historians can't even believe he took his own position seriously. His thesis : of course a prince should be both loved and feared, but if you must choose one, it is "better to be feared than loved". You'll understand every character from Darth Vader to Tony Soprano better.

Next, I would send you to Max Boot. Specifically, pick up War Made New. His narrative begins with the beginning of the Modern Era (roughly 1490), when gunpowder began to change the rules of warfare, and ends with the modern War on Terror in the early 21st century. He shows you how each technological leap from gunpowder and replaceable parts, through the industrial revolutions, to the internet era each shaped warfare. In turn, he shows you how successes on the battlefield shaped the global landscape.

Thats all I have time for at the moment. Please check back if you have more questions.

u/Isgrimnur · 17 pointsr/todayilearned

Soviets sold/gave them to client states. We either obtained them from client states after they soured on the Soviet relationship or were brought by defectors.

Red Eagles is a good read on the subject.

u/Lesser0fTwoWeevils · 17 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

If you're a patchhead (I think I just made that up, not sure), you should check out this book -

https://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X

Fun fact, this patch had to be reworked to avoid a lawsuit with George Lucas -

http://www.sci-fi-o-rama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/I_Could_Tell_You_But_Then_You_Would_Have_to_be_Destroyed_by_Me_02.jpg

u/neotropic9 · 16 pointsr/worldnews

It's a different category of weapon with different tactical uses, different civilian casualty rates, etc. We might just as well ask "what is the difference between getting blown up with a grenade or blown up with a nuke -you're dead either way." Or we might ask, "who cares if you die because of chemical weapons or because of a bullet?" Well, the fact is, there are different considerations that apply to different classes of weapons. If you want to know more about what makes drone strikes special, this book is a good place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Drone-Warfare-Killing-Remote-Control/dp/1781680779

To answer your question in a single sentence: a lot of people are concerned that drone weapons are leading to a new arms race, have an unacceptably high civilian casualty rate, are terrorizing the populations where they are being used, and are fundamentally changing the nature of war and what it means to go to war.

u/FilterOutBullshit3 · 15 pointsr/todayilearned

Because they're just so incredibly secret.

u/Paper_Weapon · 15 pointsr/hoggit

This book was a good read. These are the same tactics that have basically applied to fighter combat since forever, up to all aspect missiles, but excluding HOB missiles. There are great chapters on 2v1 and 2v2.

u/TwistedTechMike · 14 pointsr/hoggit

I've had this book over 20 years, and its still a go to.

https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

u/djnathanv · 12 pointsr/Military

Amazon link: www.amazon.com/Stealth-Fighter-Year-F-117-Pilot/dp/0760341354/

Not on Kindle. :(

u/Ophichius · 12 pointsr/Warthunder

I'll link you a proper study course further down, but here are the basics:

Speed is life, altitude is life insurance. Especially in US planes if you're not going fast you will die. Don't engage in combat under 450km/h IAS, and try to make sure you're pushing quite a bit faster than that so you have airspeed to burn during the fight.

Don't expect the P-38 to maneuver well, it's a twin-engine heavy fighter. Quite nimble for what it is, but never confuse that for being as agile as a single-engine aircraft.

BnZ is all about patience. Don't expect every one of your runs to score a kill. Heck, don't even expect most of them to do so. BnZ is all about manipulating your opponent's energy state and position to be favorable to you, then putting them under constant pressure so that they keep piling up little mistakes until they make the fatal one.

Don't use the keyboard for elevator control in turns, especially at high speeds. Keyboard input commands full control deflection and will usually lead to sharp, wasteful turns that leave you slow and vulnerable afterwards.

When making BnZ runs, apply the principle of CBDR to ensure that you're closing on a vector that will bring you in for a very close shot on the enemy.

And now on to the study course:

----

Start with /u/dmh_longshot's series of video tutorials, while they're for arcade the basic energy fighting principles still apply to all modes.

Follow up by reading In Pursuit (PDF) for more detailed coverage of air combat.

Supplement this with browsing the SimHQ Air Combat Corner Library for specific material. It's not all applicable to WT, and it's somewhat random, but it's all quality material and generally quite useful.

Finally, if you really get bit by the air combat bug and want to study it in tremendous depth, Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering will be your air combat bible.

u/TacoGrease051 · 12 pointsr/hoggit
u/kelby810 · 11 pointsr/Warthunder

What a load of horseshit. The cannon was designed to be an anti-tank cannon. There are so many sources out there that describe the cannons penetration statistics as >90mm @ 90° 300m and >40mm @60° 300m using armor piercing rounds. Most medium tanks come nowhere near that. The M4 sherman has 20-25mm on top. T-34s, T-54s, hell most of the heavies don't even have 40mm on top. And the fact that they used to be somewhat accurate and now aren't, kills me. Wow.

u/BrentRTaylor · 10 pointsr/hoggit

Try not to worry about it too much. There are plenty of resources to learn this stuff. :)

Here's my list:

u/QuantumCarrot · 10 pointsr/aviation

Thanks so much for posting this! Just got a Kindle on Friday and this will make an excellent addition to my library.

Here's the .com link for anyone not in the UK as it seems .co.uk won't allow international purchasing.

u/StarTrekMike · 8 pointsr/hoggit

So this may not be the kind of advice you are hoping for but in order to really have success with the Mirage, it is important to really learn the aircraft. This goes beyond just understanding the basics of systems operation and gets into the very idea behind the specific model of the Mirage-2000C that we are using and how that specific model fit into France's air power "ecosystem". What I am talking about here is understanding the roles it was realistically expected to fill and what roles would be left to other aircraft in the French Air force.

All of that may seem boring or even pointless in the DCS PvP context but I think really understanding what the Mirage-2000C-RDI S5 (the specific model we have in DCS) is supposed to do and how it is used will help you avoid trying to use it in a way that will only lead to frustration.

On a more general level. I think that a big part of seeing any success with a plane in DCS PvP comes down to knowing everything you can learn about its systems and how they are used. This means knowing all the radar special modes. This means understanding the exact capability of your radar, weapons, ECM, and even your engine and aerodynamic properties. A lot of your opponents are in faster aircraft with better radar and much better weapons and there is a good chance that they have been playing for a while and know their stuff (at least in how it applies to PvP public servers anyway). If you don't bring your "A-game", you are easy meat for them.

Another element to look at is tactics. This is a difficult situation because DCS's PvP servers tend to promote a certain kind of approach that does not jive too well with how air combat would work in the real world. With this in mind, you have to really look at the flow of things on a the server itself and how you can exploit advantages from that flow. For example. It is generally safe to assume that you will be fighting aircraft that can out-range and out-gun you. With that in mind, perhaps it is better to simply avoid straight-on "fair fights" and instead try to find ways to approach the enemy from directions that they are not used to looking.

If I were to frequent a server like the 104th, I would probably spend some time looking at where the combat happens most. Try to determine the routes that both my team and the enemy team are commonly taking to get into combat. From there, I would try to rely on whatever data I could get from a AWACS (if it is a option) or other players. With that data, I would take long, wide routes so that I can intercept other players from angles that there radar can't see and hopefully get the drop on them while they are focused on looking in front where most of the action is going to be.

Another thing I would consider is your altitude. Many will tell you to stay low and there is value in that but flying rather high can also be useful. The Mirage's weapons (especially the Super 530D) work better at higher altitudes so in order to maximize your weapon range, you will need to start getting used to climbing up to about 35,000 feet or more. It may be smart to climb in a direction away from the action so you can approach the combat area at your desired altitude. Many flight simmers tend to not spend a lot of time climbing as that is time spent not fighting. take advantage of that and you will have one more advantage to leverage in a fight.

Finally. I suggest finding a person to wing up with you that you can count on. Someone that knows how to fly and knows how to work with you as a proper team. If you can apply some proper tactics as a two-man team, you will be in a good position to do some damage.

Overall, you should start doing your homework. Hit the manual (it is a important foundation that should not be replaced with more abbreviated material), Chuck's guides, and any meaningful youtube lesson you can find (I suggest xxJohnxx's channel and even Creative Fun's channel for good, useful tutorials) should all be studied alongside any real-life information you can google search about the plane (and the specific version we use in DCS). Doing all this in conjunction with learning about basic tactics will go a long way and will certainly give you a leg-up over some who frequent those servers who don't really bother to do all that book-work.

It may all seem daunting but take it one step at a time. Learning this stuff is not too different from the process one must take to learn how to play on a competitive level (I am talking e-sport style here) on a MOBA or even Counter-strike. The more effort you put into learning, the better you will be and the more enjoyment you will have in the long-term.

u/[deleted] · 8 pointsr/hoggit

And remember the very first lesson in Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering: if you've got air-to-ground ordnance on board you're a bomber until that ordnance is expended or jettisoned.

u/CargoCulture · 7 pointsr/MilitaryPorn

If this interests you, read Trevor Paglen's I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed By Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World.

A fascinating look into the world of the patches and emblems of the US' secret or unknown military forces.

u/3-10 · 7 pointsr/il2sturmovik

Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering https://www.amazon.com/dp/0870210599/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_UC5yCbVE7KSBE

The only book for real and virtual fighters.

u/stikeymo · 7 pointsr/aviation

I haven't read this edition, but the Jane's guide is pretty good from my childhood memories!

u/Irish_317 · 6 pointsr/WarplanePorn

You'd think...there's a book of patches that covers a lot more than just the bird of prey.
Link to said book

Edit: words

u/Katamariguy · 6 pointsr/worldbuilding

My favorite aspect is the proliferation of manufacturers of aircraft and components, the individual quirks and focuses their engineers developed.

Here's my recommended reading for the day

u/sanjeetsuhag · 6 pointsr/aviation

Personally, I think the best way to get a good understanding of modern US airpower is to work chronologically. Most people find WWII stuff boring, so I recommend starting with the Vietnam War, then moving to the First Gulf War, then the Kosovo War, then the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Falklands War is very interesting because it gives a British and naval perspective (both of which are lacking from my current list), however, the author of that book was pretty pissed at how every thing was handled during his time as a pilot (and a lot of it I agree with), so the book sometimes ends up feeling a little 'rant-y'.

If you're looking for an action filled book about rotorcraft, then look no further and pick up Ed Macy's Apache. Some of the missions described in that book are just too insane, but somehow, they pulled it off.

u/x_TC_x · 5 pointsr/WarCollege

…'Was interrupted while typing the reply above, yesterday, so here an attempt to complete it.

As described above, there were two schools of thoughts about the strategy of aerial warfare even within the USAF. Initially at least, the ideas by these two schools de-facto 'dictated' what the Pentagon then demanded the defence sector to deliver (over the time, the relationship between the two [the Pentagon and the defence sector] became something like 'mutual': i.e. the defence sector began exercising ever higher influence upon decision-making processes in the Pentagon.)

Cumulative results of this relationship, plus ideas about future air warfare were that the military wanted to fight a high-technology war, controlled from one point. Correspondingly, ever more complex, more advanced too, C3 facilities came into being: these were fed data from ever larger networks of sensors (early warning radar stations and other means of observation). Simultaneously, combat aircraft were packed with ever more navigation and attack systems (nav/attack), required to fly ever further and ever faster. The two were networked with help of data-links.

The GenStab in the former USSR actually followed in fashion. Already in the late 1950s, it developed a strong C3 system (or 'integrated air defence system', IADS) for the purpose of air defence of the Rodina ('Motherland') against attacks of Western bombers armed with nuclear weapons. When the bombers began receiving missiles that enabled them to attack from stand-off ranges, the GenStab reacted by ordering interceptors that would be faster so to kill bombers before these could deploy their missiles (that's what, between others, led to the development of types like Su-15, MiG-25 etc.). For 1960s, it envisaged the development of a similar C3 system on the tactical plan too, this time with intention of countering a huge number of F-104 Starfighters that were about to enter service with the NATO and expected to operate at low altitudes against targets in eastern Europe (that's what, between others, led to the development of types like MiG-23).

Meanwhile, the USSR was not only lagging in regards of developing the necessary high-tech, but could also not afford installing it into all of its aircraft. Indeed, Moscow couldn't even afford training all its pilots to the levels comparable to those to which the West was training its pilots. The GenStab's solution was to improve the sophistication of its C3 (i.e. systems supporting the same), but also increase the number of sensors feeding the data into it. I.e. it attempted to provide a C3 with superior targeting information, so to enable first/single-shot/single-kill solutions. The advanced C3 required no advanced interceptors and fighter-bombers: these could operate along orders from the ground, indeed, literally 'per remote control'.

Thus, instead of requiring combat aircraft that could, for example, take off, fly a combat air patrol at 200 miles away from their base while waiting for their targets etc., then shoot once, wait for result, and shoot again (if necessary) etc., their solution was to have 'no bullshit' combat aircraft: combat aircraft 'brought to the point'.

Along that way of thinking, there was no need for super-advanced on-board radars, not even for RWRs. All of this was 'unnecessary', because interceptors were not expected to search for their target, not expected to dogfight, not expected to get surprised by the enemy etc.: all the related issues were to be solved by the C3/IADS. Instead, the purpose of an interceptor was to scramble in reaction to a clearly defined target, rush to that target along a course computed from the ground, acquire the target with help of simple onboard sensors, kill it and return to base. Period. Similarly, their fighter-bombers were expected to fly relatively straightforward attacks on tactical targets close to the frontline: even single SAM-sites were planned to be blasted by nukes. Shortly after, other tactical fighters would nuke selected targets close to the frontline in order to enable their ground forces to breach the enemy frontline and advance deep (and fast) into the rear. Training on such aircraft was also much simpler (and, therefore, cheaper): in essence, their crews only had to know how to take-off, control the work of on-board systems, follow orders from the ground, and land.

That was 'all' the Soviet air force was expected to do, and, therefore, was also equipped to do. In this regards, and because the Soviets largely ignored experiences from diverse 'local wars', of the 1960s and 1970s, very little changed in the way they thought over the time.

The situation began to change only in late 1970s, due to the changes of the NATO's strategy, and then in 1980s due to experiences from Afghanistan. The former made the option of a conventional war in Europe possible (i.e. there was a chance of the NATO vs Warsaw Pact war fought without nukes): this in turn required different types of combat aircraft, capable of delivering a more powerful conventional punch. The second has shown that theory and practice are two different pair of shoes, and that no sophisticated C3 can suitably replace 'flexible fighter-bombers' (i.e. fighter-bombers having the sensors, endurance/range and speed necessary to, for example, re-acquire and re-attack their target with conventional weapons). Before the Soviets could realize all of their related ideas, they not only lagged ever more massively in the field of high-technology, or bankrupted themselves (partially due to the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986, too), but also the Cold War came to an end, in 1989-1992 period.

On basis of this, here few direct answers to the original questions:

  • For most of the Cold War, the task of a Soviet pilot/crew of a tactical fighter was different than that of the Western tactical fighter. Their primary job was monitoring the work of on-board sensors while following directions from the C3/IADS (which in turn was to supply all the information necessary for them to accomplish the mission).

  • The idea was that Soviet pilots need not having the 'big picture': situational awareness was in the hands of the C3/IADS. The C3/IADS also knew the purpose of the mission: pilots need not knowing about the same; they only had to follow orders (how shall a pilot know 'better' than his superior commander about what exactly is his target?).

  • No matter at what point in time, there was no big difference in regards of reliance upon ground control between the East and the West. Both sides needed the ground control in order to find their targets, i.e. initiate an engagement ('air combat') - and thus both sides had to follow their orders. It was only after that point in an engagement that there were differences: the Soviets expected to successfully conclude any air battle with their first blow, right at the start of an engagement.

  • Correspondingly, the Soviet pilots were neither more nor less dependent on ground control than the Western pilots were. Their task was different: their task was to monitor the work of on-board systems, follow orders, deploy their weapons when said to do so - and not to waste their time (and fuel) with searching for target, dogfighting etc.

    Make no mistakes: the Westerners were seeking for exactly the same solution (i.e. one granting the opportunity to conclude an air combat right at the start, with the first shoot, first kill). It was only experiences from diverse 'local wars' (Vietnam, Middle East etc.), that taught them that there is a high probability that the first attack would miss; when that happened, the outcome of a re-engagement depended on on-board sensors, skills of the pilot/crew, aircraft performances etc.

  • The GenStab was slow into realizing this, and drew its related conclusions only in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The result were such measures like attempts to turn the MiG-23 into a dogfighter (see MiG-23ML/MLD variants), and then to re-train crews - for example with help of the '500' series of exercises, aimed to teach pilots how to fly complex air combat manoeuvres.

  • This proved a mammoth task, and was never fully completed (not until today). Combined with subsequent geo-political developments, the result was a massive stagnation (outright 'vegetation') in regards of further development of the Soviet - and the Russian - doctrine, strategy and tactics of air warfare ever since. Even as of the last three years (see Syria), they are still struggling to reach US/NATO levels from, say, 1991.

    Finally, an advice: do not try to gauge how the Soviets would (or should) operate their combat aircraft based on modern-day video-games. That is likely to end in a host of massive mistakes, and outright illusions. If you want to inform yourself properly about this topic, you might need books like On Target (strategic level of planning for the USAF), Russia's Air Power at the Crossroads and The Russian Way of War (the way the Soviets/Russians think about fighting wars, organization and planning), Fighter Combat, (tactical level) etc., etc., etc., or even Moscow's Game of Poker (for a summary of all of this, plus recent combat performance in Syria).
u/GorgeWashington · 5 pointsr/starcitizen
u/ckfinite · 5 pointsr/news

Read anything written by a pilot who flew strike missions (a good example is this), or an attack helicopter pilot (e.g. this), or simply read about modern air strikes a lot, and you'll find complaints about "a guy moved into the strike area, causing the mission to be cancelled," etc. This is also indicated by relatively recent tightenings of ROE, like this. The military is made up of people too, and they don't like killing people they shouldn't have, so they try to avoid it within acceptable limits. Tighter ROEs make it more hazardous to soldiers, as it imposes higher burdens before a shot can be made.

Another example that I'm more familiar with is how ROE changes killed a whole class of airplane: the interceptor. Interceptors are fast, high altitude aircraft designed to make over-the-horizon kills with radar only. This means that they can't do things like read roundels, and ROE now dictates that you get positive visual identification of targets before a shot may be made, making the interceptor obsolete.

ROE is very important in modern air operations, for the reason that it doesn't look good when you kill a lot of innocent people. People who didn't deserve to die dying is an inevitable side-effect of military force, and while the military tries their best to avoid it, it's simply impossible to prevent. Civilian casualties are always going to happen, and the best way to avoid them is to not involve the military, and use civilian police forces instead that can use local knowledge and make decisions more carefully and slowly instead. If you want stuff to explode, use the military, if you want a careful approach, use civil measures.

u/Badgerfest · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

This is a highly controversial area and I think that the first thing to consider is the language that you use when describing the Allied bomber offensives in Europe or the Pacific. I don't want to argue semantics, but words such as "atrocities" are emotionally charged and suggest that you have a biased agenda; this would be a shame because studying the bombing campaigns is a fascinating way to consider morality in warfare and the effect that our modern moral standards can have on our view of the past.

Moving on you need a range of sources which can give you a perspective on the campaigns as well as some eyewitness accounts. My knowledge is predominantly on the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) in Europe agreed upon at Casablanca in 1943, the aim of which was to achieve the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany (a goal agreed at the Washington Conference in 1942). Whilst studying any campaign it is important to bear in mind the goal it is trying to achieve (the "Ends" in military parlance) so you can assess whether the tactics ("ways") and resources ("means") were appropriate or proportionate.

You also need to bear in mind that the major protagonists of the CBO, the British and Americans, went about things in different ways. The Royal Air force was instituted as an independent service in 1918 because of a belief in the effectiveness of strategic bombing and so it's raison d'etre was always to take the fight to the enemy, in the words of Churchill:

> The fighters are our salvation, but the bombers alone provide the means of victory.

By contrast the US Army Air Forces were formed in 1941 to provide a dedicated organisation responsible for air power, but because it remained subordinate to the army and shared much of the army's ethos it was prepared early on to think more critically about its role and often tried to be a more precise instrument than the RAF.

In any case strategic air power was a blunt instrument. Although the Allies made great inroads into developing more accurate equipment and tactics, bombing was still inaccurate and inefficient and the only way to effectively attack a particular target was generally to send as many bombers as possible - more bombs dropped equals more chance of hitting the target. Unfortunately this increases collateral damage considerably.

The effectiveness of area bombing is still a matter for debate. Questions were asked about the effectiveness of strategic bombing form the start of the war with a famous debate held in the House of commons in early 1942 during which Prof Hill, an MP and Cambridge Don, pointed out that the Blitz had had a smaller impact on British production than the Easter holidays had. This was all in response to the Butt report of 1941 which showed that bombing was far less accurate and effective than widely thought:

> Any examination of night photographs taken during night bombing in June and July points to the following conclusions:

> Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles].

>
Over the French ports, the proportion was two in three; over Germany as a whole, the proportion was one in four; over the Ruhr it was only one in ten.

> In the full moon, the proportion was two in five; in the new moon it was only one in fifteen. ...

> All these figures relate only to aircraft recorded as attacking the target; the proportion of the total sorties which reached within 5 miles is less than one-third. The conclusion seems to follow that only about one-third of aircraft claiming to reach their target actually reached it.

Finally in an era of total war, civilian populations were considered a legitimate target. The Fourth Geneva Convention affording protection to civilians in war were not instituted until 1949, and breaking the German populations will to fight was seen by many as legitimate way of achieving unconditional surrender. Interestingly this same reasoning has been used by proponents of the current global salafi jihad to justify attacks such as 9/11. It should be noted that German attacks on the UK did not break morale and the CBO does not appear to have had any serious impact on the German will to fight.

So with this in mind I recommend:

[
The World at War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War) is an extraordinary documentary which balances accessibility and depth very well. Episode 12 Whirlwind: Bombing Germany has interviews with Allied and German commanders and some superb eyewitness accounts. I would go so far as to suggest that you are obliged to show it to your students.

[
Bomber Command by Max Hastings](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bomber-Command-Pan-Military-Classics/dp/0330513613)

[
Bombing to Win by Robert Pape](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bombing-Win-Coercion-Cornell-Security/dp/0801483115)

[
Bomber Boys* by Patrick Bishop](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bombing-Win-Coercion-Cornell-Security/dp/0801483115)

The Bomber War Trilogy by Kevin Wilson

I could write much much more, but it's late in the UK and I need to retire. I'm sure there will be many more contributors here including those knowledgeable about air power in the Pacific theatre and I will cheerfully answer any questions you have, assuming you're happy to wait 12 hours or so!

u/BorderColliesRule · 4 pointsr/MilitaryPorn

Whoops!

Anthony Green!

https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Guns-World-War-II/dp/1840372273

Seriously, his books are like Wikipedia 1.0 when it comes to WWII aircraft.

u/Major_FuzzBear · 4 pointsr/acecombat

This work?

Might be a decade old, but I don’t think there’s anything newer, aside from their primary product which is a whopping $1500. One day I’ll get to look inside one of these, but that day is not soon.

u/ShamAbram · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

I don't actually own a firearm. I support those who do however.

It is my own belief that Maguyver could take on the government much better with a copy of their book, and a computer with a live stream if presence is known to be near. Barry Cooper meets Jason Borne.

u/When_Ducks_Attack · 4 pointsr/WarshipPorn

I've never found a truly good single-volume book on the design/development of the aircraft carrier in general, but I've found a couple that are excellent for specific nations.

US Aircraft Carriers: A Design History by Norman Friedman is... well, the history of US Aircraft Carrier design, from pre-WWII to the supercarriers.

British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories by David Hobbs is the same thing as the previously mentioned book, but covering things like seaplane carriers, amphibious assault ships, and even Project Habbakuk (gee, why would that interest me?) as well as traditional flat-tops.

u/13Grins · 4 pointsr/EliteDangerous

If you are interested in some crazy US Military patches check out the contents of "I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed By Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World"

Amazon has it here: http://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X

u/twuelfing · 3 pointsr/spacex

this book is great, lost my copy a while back.
https://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1468632181&sr=8-2&keywords=if+i+told+you+i+would+have+to+kill+you

a colleague on my visual effects and animation team at a big defense contractor designed lots of patches for missile defense tests and other programs. Typically everything present on the patch has some meaning, even if its not obvious. I always loved seeing what he would come up with.

[this was my favorite, for FTM-14 stellar scorpion. sorry i cant find any better images of it.]
(http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/FwwAAOSwubRXMXYs/s-l225.jpg)

u/kingonothing · 3 pointsr/IRstudies

The only disagreement I have with the article is "Danger #2".

The offensive preparations (especially the Schleiffen Plan) of the great powers certainly had a profound effect on the escalation of the conflict, but I think the situation is, at the risk of being reductive, a sound illustration of the prisoners' dilemma.

Some would posit that the great powers assumed the lessons of Snyder's "Danger #2" following World War I, so much so that it informed the Allies' grand strategy in the interwar years, especially France's investment in the Maginot Line. The efficacy of that strategy and the fate of France is well known.

I'm willing to admit though that the accuracy of the concept, when applied to the Pacific, might be totally different.

u/Khanbalyk · 3 pointsr/Warthunder

The planners of the Ploesti strike might disagree with you.

Before they flew the mission.

Afterwards, they would also agree with you.

u/Cephelopodia · 3 pointsr/hoggit

Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering https://www.amazon.com/dp/0870210599/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zSRCCbRDCYX8T

This will serve you well.

u/snipekill1997 · 3 pointsr/flying

https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Fifth/dp/0061346195

Also as to why they aren't being made anymore I'd venture the internet is the major reason.

u/19Kilo · 3 pointsr/collapse

Robert Pape wrote one of the best books on bombing I've ever read.

u/Bacarruda · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

It'd take a book to answer your question in the depth it deserves. WWI represents a major turning point in how militaries used (and thought about aircraft). At the outbreak of the war, aircraft were used mostly as scouts and flying messenger boys. In the United States, for example, the Army's few aricraft all belonged to the Signal Corps!

Although initially regarded as "toys," by old-school military officers, scout aircraft quickly proved their worth. The Western and Eastern Fronts of WWI started off as swirling, mobile campaigns as armies rapidly marched into battle. On the ground, horse-mounted cavalry tried to sniff out the enemy. Above their heads, airmen put a modern spin on the scouting mission. In August 1914, one French spotter plane noticed a gap between two advancing German forces. Allied troops counter-attacked, halting the German advance and arguably saving Paris. But for one lone plane, the Great War mighy have ended very differently.

As the mobile warfare of mid-1914 gave way to trench warfare in late 1914 and 1915, aircraft became even more valuable. Cavalry, the armies' traditional scouts, couldn't penetrate the trench lines of the Western Front (the Eastern Front is still a more fluid affair at this point. Interestingly, future ace Manfred von Richtofen was a cavalry officer here at this point in the war).

Airplanes, and to some extent, observation balloons, could roam wherever they pleased. Two-man spotter planes soon combed the skies over the Western Front. Observers sketched maps and even used primitive cameras to take aerial reconnaissance photos. The intelligence they gleaned was vital. Before offensives, it helped planners discover enemy positions, particularly hidden artillery batteries. Those guns could savage attacking troops in no-man's land, so knocking them out with counterbattery fire was essential for a large-scale attack to succeed. For defenders, recon planes could spot enemy troops and supplies massing for an offensive, giving the defenders time to prepare a response.

Since one scout aircraft could indirectly do immense damage, more and more effort went into shooting down enemy scouts. Early air-to-air combat had an air of enthusiastic amateurishness to it. Pilots and observers brought aloft pistols, hunting vehicles, shotguns, and even a few machine guns. The tactics weren't terribly complex: Fly alongside your target and blaze away.

Eventually, people on both sides of the war started seriously thinking about how to effectively arm an aircraft. The initial Allied solutions are crude, but fairly effective. Some fit a Lewis gun to the top wing of a biplane so it fires over the top of the propeller arc. It's hard to aim, but its better than nothing. French mechanics fit heavy metal deflectorsi to the propellers of a few planes. It's an awkward solution, to say the least, but it's enough for pilots like Roland Garros to start rackin up a few kills.

Robert Shaw's book has the best publicly-available breakdown of Air Combat Maneuvering. It's very much worth a read.
https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

u/Creighton_Beryll · 3 pointsr/aviation

> Also, aircraft with swept wings tend to be much less dihedral, or even anhedral, because the wing sweep conveys some dihedral effect on its own.

I can't think of a single Western jet airliner that didn't/doesn't have dihedral.

(I realize that you didn't limit your statement to transport aircraft. But why wouldn't the same aerodynamic principles and engineering practices apply to them as to other swept-wing jet aircraft?)

> For example, the Tu-154, the workhorse Soviet airliner between 1970 and the early 2000's, was one of the fastest subsonic airliners produced, with a high degree of wing sweep, owing at least partly to its military origins.

The Tu-154 wasn't based on any military predecessor. It was a "clean sheet of paper" design. This is probably the most authoritative history of the airplane that's out there:

http://www.amazon.com/Tupolev-Tu-154-Medium-Range-Airliner-Aerofax/dp/1857802411

> The same can be seen in the preceeding Il-18 and Tu-104 aircraft, both developed directly from military versions.

The Tu-104 was developed from the Tu-16 "Badger" bomber. But the Il-18 wasn't developed from a military aircraft; it, too, was an original design.

u/HughJorgens · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

It's cool to hear what happened to her. I read about her in the Ploesti linktobook book, but that only covers the one mission. On a side note, you will never read a more exciting book than that one, about a low level bombing raid over the most heavily defended city in the world.

u/cadre_78 · 3 pointsr/aviation

Dick Rutan, Burt's brother owns this one. If you look in the mouth of the bird, there is an F-100 flying. Dick flew F-100s in Vietnam as a FAC. I highly suggest reading this if you have any interest in the subject matter.

u/GoNDSioux · 3 pointsr/aviation

My personal go-to is the Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide. It's not 100% up-to-date, but it still has a picture of most aircraft you'd expect to see, and some that you will appreciate being able to identify down the road!

u/MrMonday11235 · 3 pointsr/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM

I mean, we've basically always been at war.

And I very much subscribe to Donald Kagan's views on the issue of war from On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, wherein he posits that peace is not the "default state" for countries and that the modern perception is very much not congruent with the pre-WWII understanding of war.

u/EarthandEverything · 3 pointsr/WarCollege

>where did you get that figure from? USNI says the magazines of the Nimitz-class can hold "1,954 tons of aviation ordnance."

Norman Friedman.

u/4esop · 3 pointsr/starcitizen

I'd recommend using KB/mouse to be more effective. For immersion, joysticks are awesome but they cannot compete with manual gimbal aim. The gamepad is going to give you the worst experience in current implementation IMO.

I recently read a really great book on dog fighting. It deals with atmospheric flight, but there is a lot of great info in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427749842&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+l+shaw+combat

u/tunersharkbitten · 2 pointsr/Military
u/Brad_Chanderson · 2 pointsr/hoggit

This past year, I read Stealth Fighter and Top Gun Days, and THOROUGHLY enjoyed both.

As always, I recommend Sled Driver, one of the most iconic aviation reads ever (woefully under-)published.

u/dotdoubledot · 2 pointsr/flightsim

Read this.

u/markth_wi · 2 pointsr/politics

I would say in so far as one considers the overall question of who's interests are being served in the greater middle east, while clearly up until the 1960's or so, there was a favorable attitude towards Israel as a strong proxy in resistance to Communism , it could be seen as a secondary.

A fascinating book on neoconservative political though, Leo Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli", pointed out that among what we would today identify as neoconservatives, they should endeavor to gain and keep literary and ideological influence in the US political structure.

Strauss makes a second major (although very obscurant) observation that given the Western penchant for representative government, if one really wants to lead, the "best" form of representative democracy is in fact totalitarian democracy, whereby people elect a leadership, but that leadership effectively has absolute power, during it's tenure.

Even a cursory reading of constitutional writings makes it pretty abundantly clear, this vision is not exactly what the founders had envisioned, and in fact can be seen as highly incompatible with the original intent of US constitutional processes.

Neoconservatives, however, during the later years of the 1960's (and this is a FASCINATING observation made by many early neoconservatives), especially after the 1967 days war and the attack on the USS Liberty, it became increasingly clear to Irving Krystol and others that polemic influence was rapidly declining as the "left" in the United States became increasingly difficult to gain reliable outputs from the political process ;Representative "Scoop" Jackson was being investigated for espionage, the Viet Nam anti-war movement was in full swing, and it was unclear the "left" would long remain uncritical of Israeli political/military positions, indefinitely)

So the notion to "switch" political affiliation started ,and astutely re-ordered itself slowly becoming rhetorically reflective of and ultimately part and parcel of the conservative movement - which was seen as far more capable of being managed rhetorically.

More painful to read was that what neoconservatism should do, first and foremost is decide what is wanted, and disregard the practical considerations , or reasons one might not want to do such a thing; this is a tragic element of neoconservatism since it encourages the political class to disregard the well being of any host society and perform at some political 'id' level of functioning - effectively giving philosophical sanction to sociopathy - that makes Ayn Rand look positively generative by comparison.

In this way we can attribute the decline of "realpolitik" to the political maneuverings and ascent of neoconservatism within the Reagan administration, ultimately consigning that political tradition to the last holders of those political views in the 1990's , (Schultz, Bush Sr, Scowcroft even Kissinger were marginalized)

Today we see this in the preposterous ideological stances of some Israeli leaders (Avi Lieberman for example) proposes that non-loyal Jews (and of course all Arabs/Sephardi) be required to take loyalty tests or be "relocated", how one fails or passes a loyalty test and when the disloyal Israeli citizen is relocated is not mentioned. More perverse is the notion of racial purity gangs sprouting up, that are not actively discouraged. That said, I'm not Israeli, these days, if they want to setup racial purity laws, or ethnically houseclean, it's not my concern, although history clearly shows that ultimately it does become our concern eventually (honestly, who in the US, wants to end up on the wrong side of another Apartheid argument).

In US politics, you get the notion of constant warfare, I dislike the polemic of Chomsky on this point but do find that there is a very strong element of don't ask whether it's in the interests of the United States, but rather ask whether it is in the interests of these ideologues and then push hard for whatever it is.

This operates in concert with the overall feeling of some in the US oriented political class that military might is the signature element of US power, rather than taking the traditional / historical view (Paul Kennedy makes this case in his excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" , that military power is a direct consequence of economic power, and that confusing the two / or failure to reconcile the relation has repeatedly lead to the self-destruction of more than one economic power in the past.

So it is for that reason , pretty much alone, that the United States, does very well for itself by constraining it's military expeditions to those which are strictly necessary and similarly keeping military and other social support expenditures well below our means if we mean to persist as a functional nation-state.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" makes a grand statement about US presence and influence in the US, but does so in a surprisingly insightful way, it's an excellent counterpoint to alot of the geopolitical views that hold sway today, covering many of the same problems, but with a more US centered focus.

In recent readings, I think one of my favorite books on the subject was a short and easy read by Donald Kagan "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace", or , both of which basically lays out the notion (although he NEVER states as much for obvious reasons), that US military dominance implies a duty to preserve US interests in the Eurasian sphere of influence, limiting the ascent of China and dominance of Russia.

Most of these positions are entirely counter to the positions taken historically in the US, and more disturbingly they are directly counter to the actions and policies of all of the major developed nations (Japan, Germany, England, France) which 40 years ago, made coherent energy ,infrastructure and industrial policies that slowly moved their nation-states away from oil, and the geopolitical instability of the Middle East.

More damningly I think this political worldview, rather abruptly disrupted, our educational system, both at the liberal arts and especially the scientific level;

There is a peculiar animus towards scientists who can counter the political views of absolutism, one of the best examples of this was very early on when Richard Perle got shut-down, from his hard-line and openly discredited idea that the Soviet Union was "breaking" US / USSR arms treaty conditions, here a knowledgeable expert destroyed Perle in a public forum, especially as the 1980's continued.

It was possible to see the vast efficiencies of computers and later communications (ultimately leading to the internet in later years), but these innovations are the legacy of the R&D and generous funding of the late 1950's and 1960's, today rather than innovate and engineer around the economic & resource constraints in our economy, we shuffle money around and hope someone else clever comes up with ideas.

Ultimately, however the sad tale ends up in the actions that warranted the removal from office of most of the political operatives and strong ideological advocates of neoconservativsm in the United States military / civilian establishment, in 2003-4, when FBI (CIA and DIA conducted similar investigations internally) all started to determine independently, that US interests, were not just being poorly served, but in fact were undermined, forcing the Bush administration to remove or allow to retire almost all of the major players, although , the damage was done, the US had overthrown the Iraqi leadership by this time.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and less successfully against Iran by stove-piping questionable information to the US administration, and in some cases there was evidence of at the very least questionable and arguably treasonous actions undertaken by some elements of the political/military administration under the Bush administration.

Personally, I found the investigation and continued influence of these guys totally disheartening, and it has made me very apathetic to continued US involvement in the Middle East whatsoever.

It seems simply far more logical , and in concert with our longer term interests, to just load up on static energy production - solar, thermal, wind , "cleaner" coal, and just do whatever is possible to maintain a small footprint in the region, and re-establish our governmental educational/industrial/military trajectory from - what - a generation ago?

u/midwestastronaut · 2 pointsr/DaystromInstitute

>How is that not ridiculous? I work for a top secret intelligence service. Here's my badge that proves it! LOL

Reality is unrealistic

https://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X

u/DrMarianus · 2 pointsr/ProjectMilSim

After loads of reading on the bus to work every day, here follows my reading list for military aviation:


Modern

  • Viper Pilot - memoir of an F-16 Wild Weasel pilot who flew in both Iraq Wars
  • A Nightmare's Prayer - memoir of a Marine Harrier Pilot flying out of Bagram.
  • Warthog - Story of the A-10C pilots and their many varied missions in Desert Storm
  • Hornets over Kuwait - Memoir of a Marine F/A-18 pilot during Desert Storm
  • Strike Eagle - Story of the brand new F-15C Strike Eagle pilots and their time in Desert Storm

    Vietnam

  • The Hunter Killers - look at the very first Wild Weasels, their inception, early development, successes, and failures
  • Low Level Hell - memoir of an OH-6 Air Cav pilot

    WWII

  • Unsung Eagles - various snapshots of the less well-known but arguably more impactful pilots and their missions during WWII (pilot who flew channel rescue in a P-47, morale demonstration pilot, etc.)
  • Stuka Pilot - memoir of the most prolific aviator of Nazi Germany (and an unapologetic Nazi) who killed hundreds of tanks with his cannon-armed Stuka
  • The First Team - more academic historical look at the first US Naval Aviators in WWII


    Overall/Other

  • Skunk Works - memoir of Ben Rich, head of Lockeed's top secret internal firm and his time working on the U-2, SR-71, and F-117 including anecdotes from pilots of all 3 and accounts of these remarkable planes' exploits.
  • Lords of the Sky - ambitious attempt to chronicle the rise and evolution of the "fighter pilot" from WWI to the modern day
  • Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs - the story of the long-top secret group of pilots who evaluated and flew captured Soviet aircraft against US pilots to train them against these unknown foes.
  • Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage - story of the US submarine fleet starting at the outbreak of the Cold War and their exploits



    Bonus non-military aviation

    I highly second the recommendations of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and Diamond Age. I would also recommend:

  • Neuromancer - defined the cyberpunk genre
  • Ghost in the Wires - memoir of prolific hacker Kevin Mitnick
  • Starship Troopers - nothing like the movie
  • The Martian - fantastic read
  • Heir to the Empire - first of the Star Wars Thrawn Trilogy and the book that arguably sparked the growth of the Extended Universe of Star Wars
  • Devil in the White City - semi-fictional (mostly non-fiction) account of a serial killer who created an entire palace to capture and kill his prey during the Chicago World's Fair
  • Good Omens - dark comedy story of a demon and an angel trying to stop the end of the world because they like us too much
  • American Gods - fantastic story about how the old gods still walk among us
  • Dune - just read it
u/idoescompooters · 2 pointsr/HomeworkHelp

You could talk about the drone attacks and the fact that that they keep killing civilians. There's this book. Some drone books like this and this.

u/EmoHaircut · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

The second link is actually a book. I just like to source a free pdf so everyone can read.

https://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X

>In 2008 by the means of hundreds of Freedom of Information requests, Trevor Paglen obtained and analyzed forty mission patches.

u/marty4286 · 2 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Friedman's US Carriers: An Illustrated Design History has a chapter on the postwar upgrades for the Essex, Midway, and even CVE classes, including what was carried out, what remained plans, and the bureaucratic processes that drove it all.

For example, there was actually a postwar proposal to give CVEs angled flight decks, but they couldn't drum up money for it: http://i.imgur.com/dvMIsqr.png

u/CAulds · 2 pointsr/antiwar

in his book Kill Chain: The Rise Of The High-Tech Assassins, published two years ago, Andrew Cockburn describes how, if US surveillance suspects the presence of a "High Value Target" in a public place, regardless of restrictions on the number of innocents who can be murdered as "collateral damage," the Americans bomb the site and kill everyone there. He describes an instance where the US assassinated an underling of a "High Value Target" based on the mere assumption that the man would attend a funeral. The funeral was obliterated from the air though it was not known if the "High Value Target" was actually there. Every "military-age" male within the strike zone is automatically counted among the "hostile combatants."

They do these things knowing that innocent civilians will die; it is considered an acceptable, if unfortunate, price to pay.

That is, of course, not morally different from terrorists who explode suicide bombs in public places; considering the means justified by the ends.

Actually, the suicide bomber takes a risk infinitely greater than that of a drone pilot; and doesn't deserve the appellation of coward. Killing by robots, from a safe place several thousand miles away, is the very definition of cowardice.

America's wars are not only morally indefensible; they are the most cowardly in human history.

u/deadlyfalcon89 · 2 pointsr/aviation

I did notice that, and it's appreciated. However reddit natively removes any comment that has a known link shortener in it. For readability and to avoid getting caught in the spam filter, I suggest formatting with the reddit hyperlink syntax in the future, like so:

[Tupolev Tu-154: The USSR's Medium-Range Jet Airliner](http://www\.amazon.com/Tupolev-Tu-154-Medium-Range-Airliner-Aerofax/dp/1857802411)

Which, when entered into a comment field and submitted, ends up looking like this:

Tupolev Tu-154: The USSR's Medium-Range Jet Airliner

Thanks for the comment! I've approved it now.

u/MeneMeneTekelUpharsi · 2 pointsr/aviation

> I can't think of a single Western jet airliner that didn't/doesn't have dihedral.

All I said is that as wing sweep increases, you tend to see less and less dihedral, sometimes going into anhedral, because the wing sweep introduces dihedral effect on it's own. Even in western airliners, aircraft with more swept wings have less dihedral. Take the 727 or HS Trident for example, comparable sweep to the Tu-134/Tu-154 and almost no dihedral at all.

And of course, almost every western high-wing aircraft has anhedral. The Bae 146 is one example, as someone said, and moving into cargo aircraft you have the C-17 and C-5, among others.

> The Tu-154 wasn't based on any military predecessor. It was a "clean sheet of paper" design. This is probably the most authoritative history of the airplane that's out there:
http://www.amazon.com/Tupolev-Tu-154-Medium-Range-Airliner-Aerofax/dp/1857802411[1]

Thanks for the link- I'll check it out. For the Tu-154, I didn't mean that it came for a bomber, but I could have sworn that it originated from a military specification for a government transport and then state airline use. Might be wrong though.

u/wacotaco99 · 2 pointsr/MilitaryGfys

I’d like to add Bury Us Upside Down by Don Shepperd and Rick Newman

As well as Tiger Force by Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss

u/-MK84- · 2 pointsr/arma

Watch this and read this.

And practice... practice.... practice...

u/MrYum · 2 pointsr/aviation

Book: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703

Sweet, need another read for my Kindle. Thanks for the suggestion!

u/Inkompetent · 2 pointsr/il2sturmovik

Already a lot of good advice here, and I did see In Pursuit mentioned, so I thought I'd just help point to the source of the good theory.

  1. In Pursuit: A Pilot's Guide to Online Air Combat by Johan Kylander. This is a free online publication. Can be bought as a print if you so desire, but the PDF is free.

  2. Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering (the 1985 edition) by Robert Shaw. This is the bible of air combat, covering everything from the basic concept of "energy" and the different weapons available, all the way to group-vs-group and alone-vs-group combat, used as study material even for real pilots. You can't do better than this, and for 485 pages (if I remember right) it's a pretty darn cheap book. It is well written in all senses of the word, and understanding it will make it so much easier to learn from other guides and materials available. Can definitely recommend reading it.
u/spookyskywatcher · 2 pointsr/SpecialAccess

no, mainly these are replicas of Black project patches.

all of them come from a book called "I could tell you, but you would have to be destroyed by me"

u/DerFritzReddit · 2 pointsr/hoggit

Alright, check out crash laobis youtube channel, and if you wann learn some BFM check out this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFMX5z-ed4

and this https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

u/x3nopon · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Germany had armored flak trains during WW2. One in particular instance that stands out is the air raid on the Ploiesti oil refineries in Romania in 1943. The mission is infamous for its extrodinary high casualty rate.

In order to fly deep into Axis territory at this stage of the war, the bombers flew very low, sometimes 100ft or less above the ground. Some of the planes flew their approach parallel to the rail lines. As fate would have it , this rail line had a disguised flak train on it running in the same direction towards the already attacked refinery. This led to something from a movie or videogame where bomber formations only 100ft in the air were exchanging gunfire with a moving train.

The History Channel used to run a documentary about this raid and the mental image has always stuck with me. I tried to find the name of the documentary but was unsuccessful. However, the first review of this book about the raid is mentions the incredible air/train battle.

u/el_capitan_obvio · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Anyone into this kind of stuff might enjoy a book called, "I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed By Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World" by Trevor Paglen.

Cool book and an interesting read.

u/misunderstandgap · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn
u/caferrell · 1 pointr/EndlessWar

I read "The Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins" by Andrew Cockburn a few months ago. It is, IMHO, the best book about the drone war in general and a lot of details about the evolution of the US - Terrorist international confrontation in particular.

One thing that Cockburn makes clear is that assassinating leaders in these jihadi groups tend to radicalize the movements by replacing older, more cautious men with young firebrands, therefore it is not surprising that the assassination of 120 Islamic State leaders has not done anything to slow down the expansion and radicalization of the Islamic State.

u/locked4rae · 1 pointr/whatisthisthing

I'm using general symbology, the shape and colors. I've been interested and studied militaria since I was a kid. I've also served in the military and been assigned to facilities that are home to USASOC, AFSOC and JSOC units and some that house and assemble projects that show up on the congressional budget with nothing more than a two word title.

Not having anything to back up an explanation of a black project's or super secret unit's or facility 's insignia is sort of the point. They're kept vague on purpose so as to be confused with many other things, yet at the same time, have clear symbolism that have direct and explicit ties to what they represent.

Without a slogan or company name or personal rank, title or name, it points toward something that's unpublicized. Because of the selection of the red circle around the diamond shape, it tells me that a few things. Given that there is a near perfect representation of the Have Blue aircraft in the color blue inside a red circle, it's easy to deduce that the circle represents a radar display that shows nothing as the aircraft (Have Blue) is flying through the observed area. This flight path is shown by the blue vector line that bisects the aircraft. It is all represented on a desert tan background, because the aircraft was tested and flown out of Groom Lake. At the time of the project, military flight suits were sage green, so the desert tan is there to add emphasis for some reason.

Also, there can be a few different flight suit or uniform insignia used on black projects, because it confuses people and the insignia aren't required under the Geneva or Hague Conventions or the more modern UN conventions, rulings or guidelines for R&D projects that don't initiate hostilities.

I could be really wrong, I'm just positing one rather obvious theory. I'm just giving a fairly educated guess without having done any research.

If I was to seek further verification personally, I'd take a look at the works of Trevor Paglen. He has done a lot of work into researching the insignia of secret US defense projects and units. He has a book or two that have been published on secret US insignia and seems to be obsessed with them. He's a pretty good guy, look up his website and contact him, if he doesn't outright have an answer, he'll at least be very interested in researching it.

https://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-Would-Destroyed/dp/193555414X/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?keywords=trevor+paglen&qid=1565136762&s=gateway&sprefix=trevor+p&sr=8-4

I've got relatives that have retired after a life working in defense and aerospace, as well as some that were USAF lifers that have worked on interesting bases from Eglin to Beale. I'll ask them and get back to you if they've any ideas.

u/Irkam · 1 pointr/france

> Si tu t’intéresse au combat aérien Je ne peux que te conseiller ce bouquin https://www.amazon.fr/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599 c'est simplement la bible

Ca se lit aussi pour du space sim tu penses ?

u/_elFred_ · 1 pointr/france

> Tu veux parler du gros ressort extérieur à la base du joystick ? Il n'est pas là pour éviter les petits mouvements ?

Oui celui-la, en fait sa résistance est non linéaire ce que fait que tu vas faire des mouvement largement trop brusques (tu perdra le retour au neutre mais c'est pas plus gênant que ça).
Et avec ces mouvements brutaux tu perdras de l'Energie et ça c'est moche en dogfight
go ici : https://www.helisimmer.com/tips-and-tricks/making-your-joystick-more-helicopter-friendly/


Si tu t’intéresse au combat aérien Je ne peux que te conseiller ce bouquin https://www.amazon.fr/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599 c'est simplement la bible

u/bdavisx · 1 pointr/reddit.com

Wow, I read Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering back in the day; I'm guessing this kinda changes a lot of the maneuvers taught there. I remember trying to get the nose around on an adversary and not being able, this thing would have made it a piece of cake.

u/flatraccoon · 1 pointr/todayilearned

If you're the reading type, I would suggest Steve Davies' "Red Eagles" in which he discusses just that. We often got them from countries that had previous Soviet influence, or from allies that captured them previously (if I remember correctly, one of our first batches of MiG-17s came from Israel).

Davies' book reads rather easily, and contains great primary sources. I suggest grabbing a copy!

u/FNRN · 1 pointr/birding

Try this one - https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Fifth/dp/0061346195

I don't own it, I just like pretty much anything that flies. I was lucky enough to be birding in the Columbia gorge in central WA when an F18 came screaming downriver and rolled up over the canyon wall right in front of me.

u/Faelwolf · 1 pointr/hoggit

Off the top of my head, a couple reasons. One is closure rate would be way too fast for reliable missile tracking. There would also be issues with the difficulties in managing the mental calculations the pilot would have to go through in obtaining missile lock, engagement tactics, etc. For the details of all that is involved in air to air combat, I highly recommend the book Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert Shaw. It's practically the bible for air to air combat. Once you study that, you'll see why it's not practical, and pick up some good info to help you out as well in your combat flying. https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

u/ThellraAK · 1 pointr/politics

It's dangerous to go alone, take this

And maybe a few dozen copies of this

u/mssnaaa16 · 1 pointr/worldnews

They're not. Drone pilots and their SO(sensor operator) have very strict rules of engagement. They will literally follow targets around for hours to make sure they get a good, safe shot. Also, it's not like the pilot and operator are sitting in their trailer when a message comes through, "New target located at XXXXX. Follow and terminate". Instead a group of those in intellgence and sometimes law(believe it or not) sit in the trailer as they follow new leads or known terrorists and proceed from there.

Also, the pilot and SO have a very good idea of who they're surveilling and lots of times are the ones themselves looking for these targets and watching them for days at a time. Usually waiting because they want to find the best place to watch or kill them from.

See & Read:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1781680779

http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Remote-Control-Afghanistan-Pilots-Story/dp/0760338965/ref=pd_sim_b_4



u/SomeoneSimple · 1 pointr/Warthunder

> Except 20mm APHE is performing realistically, if you're talking about the MG 151. [...] It historically penetrates 10mm of armor at 300m, which is pretty abysmal. That's like 7.62 FMJ penetration.

That's blatantly wrong, and the comparison to .303's is simply ridiculous.

As per Flying Guns, by Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin:

  • 7.92mm AP at 300 meters 6mm/60 degrees
  • MG131 AP at 300 meters 7mm/60 degrees
  • 20mm MG151 APHE at 300 meters 12mm/60 degrees
  • .50 Browning at 300 meters 13mm/60 degrees
  • 20mm Hispano M75 AP 300 meters 19mm/60 degrees
u/weegee101 · 1 pointr/hoggit

The thing about BVR is that it isn't a science. You can learn all the maneuvers, nomenclature, and tactics, but at the end of the day BVR combat is about 40% luck and 60% art. I think what nealius posted is about the best you'll find outside of military practice. I always recommend Shaw's book but even his book is fairly light on the BVR stuff.

I guess a good way to put it is that the rote learning that most of us are used to gets you about 90% of the way with WVR combat, but with BVR combat it only gets you about 10% of the way. The only way to improve at BVR is practice every situation you can simulate.

u/jimothy_clickit · 1 pointr/hoggit

Shaw's "Fighter Combat".

A bible for any aspiring combat pilot.

u/Gutbucket1968 · 1 pointr/pics

Here is a good source for stories on some of these emblems.

u/watsoned · 1 pointr/Wishlist

Frozen In Time which tells the story of survival during WWII when a cargo plane crashed into the Arctic.

u/LightningGeek · 1 pointr/history

I've been made aware that there is another link for this book on the .com site, so here it is for those who may have had trouble getting it.

http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Dragon-Lady-Memoirs-ebook/dp/B0072L0ERO/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1335791466&sr=8-5

u/FlorbFnarb · 1 pointr/army

Confounding variable. The lack of a gun wasn't what caused the Navy's success, recognition of the value of proper ACM training was the cause of their success.

As an aside, I don't know what you do for a living in the Air Force, but I greatly enjoyed this book. https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599 I haven't read it in many years, but it was a real eye-opener.

u/Krombot · 1 pointr/aviation

jane's guides, and time / spotting

u/Ukiah · 1 pointr/Warthunder

I have a paperback copy I bought when I was a teanager.

EDIT Found a paperback version on Amazon for around $17 and the Kindle version is only $6:

http://www.amazon.com/Stuka-Pilot-Hans-Ulrich-Rudel/dp/1908476877/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374849519&sr=1-1&keywords=stuka+pilot

I'd also recommend Adolph Galland's "The First and the Last" and a book called "Horrido"

http://www.amazon.com/Horrido-Raymond-Constable-Trevor-Toliver/dp/0553126636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374849615&sr=1-1&keywords=horrido

If you're into japanese aces, "Samurai!" by Saburo Sakai is also very, very good: http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Unforgettable-Japans-Greatest-Fighter/dp/B0025ZXCQW/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374849652&sr=1-4&keywords=saburo+sakai

And then of course, read "Baa Baa Black Sheep" by Gregory Boyington

u/littlelowcougar · 1 pointr/flying

Completely inappropriate for GA, but the wanted-to-be-a-fighter-pilot in me absolutely loves Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering.

Very, very technical book. It's the Ph.D of aerial warfare.

And Stick and Rudder, of course, but someone has already mentioned that.

u/GillicuttyMcAnus · 1 pointr/MachinePorn

In case anyone is wondering, it's a Rumpler Taube "Dove"

From "Flight- the complete history" page 71 (excellent book by the way, if you like aviation you should definitely buy this book)

> Instantly recognizable by its swept, bird-like wings, which warped for flight control, the Austrian Taube (dove) had its roots in the Etrich-Wels glider of 1907. Manufacture was initially licensed to Rumpler, and the design is generally associated with that company; although it's initial success as a reconnaissance platform in the early days of the war led it to be being built by Albatross, Gotha, and DFW.

> 100 HP Mercedes engine, 6-cylinder liquid-cooled
> 47ft wingspan, 32ft length
> Two seater with a top speed of 60mph

u/rootwyrm · 1 pointr/NZXT

Naw. Interstellar's on the list, but that's mostly because Christopher Nolan would probably be a terrible fucking author. And I saw The Wind Rises partly because this is one of my favorite books.

u/kaantechy · -3 pointsr/syriancivilwar

I want you to read this

u/narkotsky · -5 pointsr/worldnews

US just follows a protocol - here it is (Second Iraq War) if collateral damage was less then 30 civilians field commanders can authorize a a strike. If it was more then 30 it had to go to Rumsfield and then he authorized a strike. So it's all legal u'know.
/S
Source - http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Chain-Rise-High-Tech-Assassins/dp/0805099263

u/dogisigod · -15 pointsr/news

The coolest thing of all this is probably its Mission Patch.


Edit:
Apologies. Was not trying to promote sales just trying to encourage thoughts on mysterious and clandestine mission patches. Not sure how accurate these are, pulled from Google images.