Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKDejaVu on January 05, 2003, 05:17:54 PM
-
"The Hunt for Red October" and "Red Storm Rising" are a couple of my favorite books. Around "Sum of all Fears" I noticed that there was a tendancy to infuse fantasy pollitics into the books. "The Bear and the Dragon" took that to completely new heights.
I've also noticed that he managed to use a mere 750 pages to set up the 150 page conflict.
Sigh... its hard to find good writers these days.
AKDejaVu
-
Suckage so far, early books = great reading, later ones = suckage.
Try W.E.B. Griffins books, they're pretty good reads, the characters fleshed out over a series of books.
-
I think Clancy started to suck around "Clear and Present Danger". Does Ryan become the Pope in this one?
-
His early books were just technowarporn but at least they delivered a money shot. I was only able to finish his last book because I was on an airplane. He is the McRib of military fiction writers.
-
Try Wilber Smith instead. He has quite a few books out and if you like one you will like them all.
-
Clancy made far too much money with his first few books. Now ghost writers spin out the recent drivel and he puts his name on them so that they will sell.
-
All been downhill since Red Storm Rising IMO.
There have been decent bits and pieces here and there, but their sum total doesn't even equal 1/2 a book.
-
He went as far as the techno-babble would take him... once that ran dry, people realized that he can't write.
-
He can write pretty decently... but he has a tendancy to infuse his own brand of politics into everything. And I don't believe he has nearly the ability to present politics as technology.
AKDejaVu
-
I liked them all up through Clear and Present Danger. Like everyone else, I am becoming a bit disenfranchised by his latest efforts. However, Without Remorse is my all-time favorite book of his, and it is one of my top ten favorite fiction books. I wish Clancy would write some more about the early Clark and leave Ryan to the past.
-
Red Storm Rising is a great book. The rest are mediocre except R6 which was pure trash. They made a nice video game out of it though.
I think he wishes he were Ryan.
F.
-
Red storm rising was his best read.
-
Just read Red Rabbit:(
I kinda think he imagines himself as Jack Ryan right now and just won't give us a new set of characters.
Kind of hard to kill yourself off.
-
without remorse was awesome
-
Hmm I first read Red Storm Rising in a Barracks in Pirmasens, Germany in 87.......
It felt like he was looking over my shoulder
Gunns
-
What unit were you in?
I was in Pirm 82-84, 59th MP Co.
I don't drink anymore but have fond memories of Parkbrau beer. ;)
Originally posted by gunnss
Hmm I first read Red Storm Rising in a Barracks in Pirmasens, Germany in 87.......
It felt like he was looking over my shoulder
Gunns
-
Originally posted by funkedup
....He is the McRib of military fiction writers.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
but seriously why you need fiction, when there is so much good real history that you've not yet read...if you want something that reads like a novel pick up an autobiography, if you want something w/ the high-tech dream weapons, pick up Jane's
-
The whole ryan thing got painful a decade ago.
Those things are like Harlyquin Warmance novels or something.
Even red storm didnt make any sence...but I wont go into that.
-
I liked Rainbow Six!
Originally posted by funkedup
He is the McRib of military fiction writers.
Comedy gold.
-
Tom Clancy's books are god awful, departure lounge trash.
He's good at making games though - splinter cell is great.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
but seriously why you need fiction, when there is so much good real history that you've not yet read
True true true
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Does Ryan become the Pope in this one?
No but he's crowned Queen of England, wins the Nobel Prize, and leads the Redskins to victory in the Superbowl.
-
My top five works of fiction, which I whole-heartedly recommend:
1) Catch-22 (Joseph Heller)
Sublime. Mind bendingly satirical. Annoyingly frustrating at times - the whole Milo Minderbender thing just makes me angry for some reason. It's like I want him to stop doing the things that he's doing because they seem so wrong. A work of genius. The film version is pathetic and the sequel is not as good (not surprising), but is worth a look.
2) The Tempest (William Shakespeare)
Probably the most accessible of his plays. Analogy of the New World/slave trade, supposedly. I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare (4 hours of Hamlet nearly destroyed my will to live) - this is perhaps the only Shakespeare play I've seen that didn't make me want the thing to end. Although MacBeth is ok.
3) Piece of Cake (Derek Robinson)
It's Battle of France/Britain and the exploits of a Hurricane squadron. Extremely well written with superb characterization, Robinson is great at luring the reader into a false sense of security, before smacking him with an event that highlights the brutality of war. On the other hand, the book is absurdly funny in places. I believe it was a Booker Prize nominee, and has a less impressive sequel set in Northern Africa about the SAS and a P40 squadron (A Good Clean Fight).
4) Goshawk Squadron (Derek Robinson)
Royal Flying Corps, set in WW1. Piece of Cake came later and they are quite similar. Goshawk squadron is much more bitter and harsh, IMO. Not quite as light hearted as Piece of Cake. Forms a trilogy of three books that are linked; War Story starts in 1916, Hornet's Sting continues through 1917 and Goshawk Squadron finishes the story in 1918.
5) The Day After Tommorow (Can't remember)
Both critically acclaimed and a world best seller. Pacey with a gripping storyline, it revolves around the activities of a modern day Nazi organisation. The sequel was piss-poor, however. I think it was called the Day after the Day After Tomorrow or some such crap.
6) Sharpe's Rifles (Bernard Cornwell)
I first picked this up from the library when I was 11 y/o basically because the cover looked interesting. I was hooked, and have read every Sharpe novel since. Basically revolves around Richard Sharpe, British Infantry officer (promoted from the ranks and hence not popular with fellow officers, who buy their commissions). It's kind of contrived and fomulaic - he does pretty much the same thing in every book. Shags some seemingly unreachable bird, nearly dies because of some villain, vanquishes said villain. But the descriptions of the battle scenes are second to none. Rifles is set in 1809 in Galicia, but he's since filled in the early career of Sharpe (in India). Also did an American Civil War thing, which was quite good. If your into Napoleonic history it's worth a look.
-
I liked Rainbow 6 but havnt read any after that.
Wilbur Smith and Richard Herman Jnr are good novelists interested in war and action that would make good reading if you havnt read any of them yet DeJa (or is it Duran ? ;) ).
-
My top five works of fiction, which I whole-heartedly recommend:
1.
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0586054480.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
2. Nineteen Eightyfour by George Orwell
3. Red Storm Rising
4. Hunt for Red October
5. Bomber by Len Deighton
Tronsky
-
I heard a rumour that Clancy's latest books aren't even written by him.. He just slaps his name on them for marketing.
Apparently he's so rich now and has such a strong brand that it pays off to buy material from other writers - stuff like this happens all the time in the music industry.
That would explain the sudden decline in quality.
Edit: Uh just noticed Curval pointed out the very same thing.
-
I might check that one out Tronski.
Damn! I'd forgotten 1984 - that would probably be my No.2
I'd also recommend 'Down and Out in London and Paris' by Orwell.
And 'For whom the Bell Tolls' by Hemmingway.
And 'The Big Sleep' by Raymond Chandler. In fact any of the Philip Marlowe P.I. books.
-
Red Storm Rising
Hunt For Red October
Without Remorse
are his best works by far, I enjoy authors who are not afraid to kill off their lead characters. Ryan has been boring to me for a while now, the last Clancy book I have read was Executive Orders. I feel that his books are more of a soap opera than fiction.
P.S. Catch 22 was a great read, first book to make me laugh aloud.
-
Great fiction? Naw just really funny chit?
You gotta read "Semi Tough" by Dan Jenkins, or any of his other works.
It may be a little dated now, but I laughed out loud at the "Yellow Rose of Texas" rendition by the rookie football player.
-
Originally posted by Mr.H
I liked Rainbow 6 but havnt read any after that.
Wilbur Smith and Richard Herman Jnr are good novelists interested in war and action that would make good reading if you havnt read any of them yet DeJa (or is it Duran ? ;) ).
Ah... I haven't been "duran" since going 151:0 in FC;) And who might you be?
I've read most of Richard Herman Jr's stuff. He had some of the better Vietnam erra stuff out there. Dale Brown's early stuff was good too.... as was Stephen Coontz. Can't say I've seen anything from Wilbur Smith though.
AKDejaVu
-
Tom Clancy. Except for the early books, it is what I call APP.
American Patriotism Porn.
Take that Jake whatever his name is. Ends up president, saves the world a thousand times. Clancy of late has been fantazising too much, resulting in odd politics, one dimensional superheroes 'normal military guys'.
'We're the best, biggest, baddest' all American wet dream war honry person. I believe the SAS guy behind the book *Free Falling* (which dealt with his attempt to break the altitude record for skydiving while at the same time talking about his mental illness) described him as an armchair warrior who seemed to get off on war.
It's fun to see him on CNN, as if he's an expert on all things political - as long as the military is involved, it seems legitimate to include him.
His game company makes great games though. Early books were great too. He's just faded into senility or something.
-
Pretty much spot on StSanta.
I think it started with "Patriot Games" when Jack Ryan sat down and told the Prince of Whales how to be a man. :rolleyes:
It was downhill from there.
And don't even get me going on his whole concept of cause and effect in government.
AKDejaVu
-
Peace of cake was GREAT!
lol
I will look for his WW1 ones.
hmm I liked hunt, and red storm alot, and without remorse was great.
I think he got way out there after sum of all fears though.
-
Originally posted by gunnss
Hmm I first read Red Storm Rising in a Barracks in Pirmasens, Germany in 87.......
It felt like he was looking over my shoulder
Gunns
Huh...
Did it really make you believe that an American tank platoon can stop three Soviet tank divisions?
The whole "Soviet" part of the plot is a complete nonsence. Makes me laugh out loud at some places. Hehe. Azerbaijanian terrorist Ibrahim Tolkadze. Ibrahim Tolkadze!!! :D General Alexeyev driving to Moscow from Vnukovo through Leningrad highway!!! Kolkhoz #12345!!!!!!!!
The best phrase ever from that book is that Soviet captain is taken from the bridge after he has a "tourniquet on his neck". It's beautiful.
My diagnosis: very good read, beautiful action. Genre: non-science fiction. Closest book from "red side": Nikolay Shpanov's "First attack. The story about a future war", 1939. http://militera.lib.ru/prose/russian/shpanov/index.html
-
Anyone count how many US CVNs have been hit or killed in Clancy books..lol
My favorite burp in Red Storm was the soviets using airborn troops to take Iceland sneaking in in cargo ships.
then thier surface to air stuff doenst work because of the salt damage...
I guess the russians didnt know they have marine forces...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I guess the russians didnt know they have marine forces...
Russian marine forces ("sea infantry") are 300 years old. Founded by Peter I.
It can be interesting for you to read something about a Kerch-Feodosia landing operation during WWII.
Sea infantry was widely used in Far East against Japanese in 1945 too. I can say that Russian do have some experience.
About US CVs destroyed - last year we had several Su-24 pilots awarded Heroes of Russia for penetrating US CV groups air defence. I think someone really craped their pants when Russian supersonic planes passed over their flight decks ;)
-
Boroda, when was that? Any references?
I dunno if this:
(http://home.achilles.net/~rjl/planes/su24m-1.jpg)
would be able to defeat AWACS, F-14 Tomcats, the new F/A-18 AND the SAM missile screen. Would really like some references.
Click here (http://home.achilles.net/~rjl/aircraft_html/su24.html) for more info on the SU-24.
-
Hi DeJa, i was petrel in FC :) Big
to you all, i couldnt be Mr.H in the game so im slogun now. Just got back into the game after about 2 years away from all flying, still prefer a dreidecker but the 109G10 is a tasty little bnz ride.
Wilbur Smith was wrong and i cant remember the name of the author i meant either........ still useless then :)
cya in the game.
:D
-
The Su-24 looks amazingly like an F-111 wouldn't you say?
Like Santa says, I really doubt it could penetrate a CV group - where was it flying from?
-
Dowding, from what I've learned perusing the net, it's based on the Tornado and F-111. Seems they built almost a replica - must have had some decent spies.
Oh btw - anyone know where I can get hold of 'Piece a cake' the television series? I remember seeing it when I was 14 or so, and back then I thought it kicked arse, especially since the heroes could die (and stupidly sometimes).
-
Try "Larry Bond" (red Phoenix, Cauldron were my favourites) if you liked the old Clancy style.
Couldn't finish Bear & dragon myself, probably won't bother reading any more Clancys.
-
Yeah it does look very Tornado-ish too. But the front section is almost identical to an F-111 - especially how the nose cone is curved underneath and more or less flat on top.
As for Piece of Cake, I was quite young when it was shown (8 or 9 y/o?), and it was on usually way past my bed time. :) But I remember it being very good, from what I saw of it.
Unfortunately, I've looked high and low for it on VHS or DVD and can't find it anywhere. :( I don't think you can buy it. Also, I don't think it's been repeated over here in the last ten years, so it's not as though I can tape it. Hell, it isn't even on any of the myriad cable channels! You can watch endless re-runs of Dallas or 'Allo 'Allo however. :rolleyes:
-
The Su-24 was a direct knock off of the F-111. The US was so worried about it that they hurried the F-15 program as a means to counter it.
Then we got to check one out after a Russian defected in it... and we weren't nearly as worried.
AKDejaVu
-
Actually it looks like the plane the F-111 was based on.
The Avro Arrow.
(http://www.maverick2.com/gifs/AvroArrow/201inflight.jpg)
-
LOL! wich was a copy of what century model?
The sweep wing aircraft were a different breed.
AKDejaVu
-
Actually when the Canadian government fired all the Avro workers many of the engineers and scientists whet to work in the US at NASA and the major defense contractors and brought with them the cutting edge ideas from that program.
The sweep wing fighter was an evolution of the original delta wing concept that the Arrow program developed.
-
Sorry Habu, but you are stretching. A sweep wing setup with horizontal stabilizers is drastically different than the delta wing in every aspect other than final shape.... and that isn't something that was inovated with that plane... simply implimented.
BTW.. a funny thing about the Su-24. They never allowed for external stores on the wings while the wings were swept. The F-111 could sweep its wings with fuel pods or ordinance attatched.
AKDejaVu
-
There was nothing that looked anything like the Arrow before. The nose fuselage shape cockpit high slung thin delta wing dual engine configuration were all designed for that plane. Now look at the mig and the F-111 and tell me you don't Arrow all over them.
The F-111 had sweep wings and the arrow did not because the expected mission of the planes changed. The Arrow was to be the ultimate high speed bomber intercepter. The F-111 was more a bomber.
-
The cockpit and nose design is similar to the F-105... just that it has high mounted wings and two engines. The thin delta wing was nothing new either.
Really... I don't look at it as being a completely revolutionary and trend setting plane. It was a natural progression.
The Su-24, OTH was made using the blueprints for the F-111 with certain sacrifices made due to materials availability and different engines. This is common knowledge.
The origins of all other fighters stems from previous designs of another.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Habu
There was nothing that looked anything like the Arrow before. The nose fuselage shape cockpit high slung thin delta wing dual engine configuration were all designed for that plane. Now look at the mig and the F-111 and tell me you don't Arrow all over them.
The F-111 had sweep wings and the arrow did not because the expected mission of the planes changed. The Arrow was to be the ultimate high speed bomber intercepter. The F-111 was more a bomber.
sad sad arrow myths.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russian marine forces ("sea infantry") are 300 years old. Founded by Peter I.
It can be interesting for you to read something about a Kerch-Feodosia landing operation during WWII.
Sea infantry was widely used in Far East against Japanese in 1945 too. I can say that Russian do have some experience.
About US CVs destroyed - last year we had several Su-24 pilots awarded Heroes of Russia for penetrating US CV groups air defence. I think someone really craped their pants when Russian supersonic planes passed over their flight decks ;)
you missunderstood my first point.
and you probably over state the second.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The Su-24 was a direct knock off of the F-111. The US was so worried about it that they hurried the F-15 program as a means to counter it.
Then we got to check one out after a Russian defected in it... and we weren't nearly as worried.
AKDejaVu
I think your thinking of the Mig 25
-
You may be right... the Mig25 is the Foxbat?
AKDejaVu
-
Yes, the Mig-25 is the Foxbat. A highly capable plane if I remember rightly - Mach 2.5 capable, for short bursts (although a
that's a one time deal for the engines - they would need immediate overhaul).
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yes, the Mig-25 is the Foxbat. A highly capable plane if I remember rightly - Mach 2.5 capable, for short bursts (although a
that's a one time deal for the engines - they would need immediate overhaul).
The Avro Arrow would have done Mack 2.5 with a full weapons load too with the proper engine. Unfortunetly the Canadian government pulled the plug just as the first prototypes were ready.
The planes that flew had much less powerful engines installed just for flight testing as the proper engine was not yet ready. Thus it was slower.
And it was designed and built in the 50's.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
You may be right... the Mig25 is the Foxbat?
AKDejaVu
Yes. as recounted in the book "Mig Pilot"
what ever happend to him?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think your thinking of the Mig 25
No, he was correct. The Su-24 Fencer closely resembles an F-111 as does the MiG 23 Flogger.
-
Originally posted by Habu
The Avro Arrow would have done Mack 2.5 with a full weapons load too with the proper engine. Unfortunetly the Canadian government pulled the plug just as the first prototypes were ready.
The planes that flew had much less powerful engines installed just for flight testing as the proper engine was not yet ready. Thus it was slower.
And it was designed and built in the 50's.
The foxbat was useless. So would the arrow have been. The supersonic Soviet bombers coming over the pole it was developed to intercept didnt exist till the BlackJack.
You think it would have been superior to the canceled YF12? ..cancelled for the same reason?
-
Originally posted by Furious
No, he was correct. The Su-24 Fencer closely resembles an F-111.
Yes..but none ever defected. He is mixing and combining two soviet AC.
-
I was correct that the Su-24 was a direct knockoff of the F-111... but the Mig25 is the plane that had us extremely worried during the cold war mostly because we didn't know anything about it. The Mig25 is the plane that drove the need for the F-15.
Ironic how a plane built on rumors and hype caused the development of one of the best jet fighters of all time.
AKDejaVu
-
I think the Arrow would have come into its own in Viet Nam. There was no plane in the world that was even close to it in performance.
It could carry 4 air to air missiles in its belly and could have been configured for all sorts of other weapons systems and photo reconnaissance.
Its two engines would have gotten many pilots home and its high speed would have outclassed any migs the North had. It would have been the perfect plane for the deep penetration missions into the north.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I think the Arrow would have come into its own in Viet Nam. There was no plane in the world that was even close to it in performance.
It could carry 4 air to air missiles in its belly and could have been configured for all sorts of other weapons systems and photo reconnaissance.
Its two engines would have gotten many pilots home and its high speed would have outclassed any migs the North had. It would have been the perfect plane for the deep penetration missions into the north.
What???
You are saying all of this about a plane that never saw any service. By these standards of utility, the LW would have won WW2 with the frikking Ho229.
What it does sound like you are describing was the F4 Phantom II. A real plane actually used. Not pretend. Not make believe.
F.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I think the Arrow would have come into its own in Viet Nam. There was no plane in the world that was even close to it in performance.
It could carry 4 air to air missiles in its belly and could have been configured for all sorts of other weapons systems and photo reconnaissance.
Its two engines would have gotten many pilots home and its high speed would have outclassed any migs the North had. It would have been the perfect plane for the deep penetration missions into the north.
Deep penetration raids with what..its air to air missiles?
All the thing could do was get to bomber quick and shoot them down..Not much use against an enemy with no bombers.
How is that better then the Phantom? At least the Phantom could dog fight, sling mud and had a back seat to run the old vacum tube radars they had to use.
I predict that the Cf105 would have scored about ummm 0 kills in Vietnam..the big potato.
The US had allready cancelled the Fighter version of the Sr71...Do you maintain the Arrow would out perform that?
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Boroda, when was that? Any references?
I dunno if this:
(http://home.achilles.net/~rjl/planes/su24m-1.jpg)
would be able to defeat AWACS, F-14 Tomcats, the new F/A-18 AND the SAM missile screen. Would really like some references.
Click here (http://home.achilles.net/~rjl/aircraft_html/su24.html) for more info on the SU-24.
http://legion.wplus.net/news/kittyhawk.shtml
http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/2000/oblet/
October, 17th and November, 9th, 2000.
The CV was Kittyhawk, it happened duiring American maneuvers in Japanese sea.
The planes were Su-24MR, covered by Su-27 fighters. Su-24MR is a tactical recon plane, with weapon systems removed.
Hehe, here we go again, "who stole who's design".
-
Yes the Phantom. With its smoking engines (look here I am shoot me) and lower speed it was a real match for the Russian Migs. Plus with the maze of fuel lines all around the engines even one small caliber ground fire bullet was enough to bring them down if it hit the engine.
Do you know that every second ejection seat in a Phantom was used? Think about that. Out of 100 planes 100 ejection seats were used (since each plane had two of them).
It was a good plane and very versitile but the Arrow would have been able to do many of the missions that Phantoms were doing up north and would have had a lower loss rate.
The Arrow was big and in its first configuration was strictly an air to air interceptor. However like all programs it would have evolved to adapt to its changing missions. It would not have been good down low but it would have had a place in that war.
You could put anything in that bomb bay it had. Even percision guided weapons and Cruise missles. With its thin delta wings and shape I am sure it had a low radar signature as well.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Deep penetration raids with what..its air to air missiles?
All the thing could do was get to bomber quick and shoot them down..Not much use against an enemy with no bombers.
The Starfighter was suppose to be a high speed, high altitude interceptor. The RCAF turned them in very successful low level attack planes.
-
Exaclty Habu. Like the previos poster said, How can you compare an AC that went through the attrition hell of vietnam and stats like numbers of ejection seats used are available for with a plane that was a prototype. How do we know how its fuel lines would stand up. How do we know.
You seem facinated with absolulte max speed. How often does that matter?
The 105s wing was way to large to be able to be a low level interdictor like the 104 was. It was the small wing of the 104 that made it less vulnerable to wind gusts down low that was its most redeeming feature in that role. The huge wing of the105 would have absolutly precluded it being used that way.
And you could buy 3 104s for the cost of a 105.
The only mission that the 105 would have been usefull for was recce. And they had the sr71. Would it do better then the sr71?
If they had targeted the design and manufacture of a multi role fighter or an Air superiority fighter they would have had a plane worth bankrupting the country for. But a heavy interceptor with no enemy to intercept was a waste of money. No matter how cool a plane it was.
-
Boroda,
Were they making up for toejamty Kitty running over a victor??
hehehe. USS Kitty Hawk, ASW by braille.
F.