Talk:Weapons of Choice

Problems with the list of ships

"George Bush-class carrier"

USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) is currently considered the last Nimitz-class ship. Depending on developments, by 2021 she might be reconsidered as the first of a new class. Alternately, if something bad happened to her circa 2010, CVN-78 might be named USS George Bush.

I think this refers to George W. Bush (the current president) and not to George H.W. Bush. -Spotts1701 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's currently a George H.W. Bush in the works, and the Navy isn't going to have two ships named "George Bush" at the same time. Mind you, as I said above, there are ways around this problem. ("something bad" was a euphemism for 'gets sunk'.) Of course, the simplest explanation is that the MNF isn't from our timeline, so it isn't bound by our facts.

—wwoods 09:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to be from our timeline (e.g. there probably won't be a naval variant of the F-22, a fusion-powered ship by 2021 is not gonna happen, it doesn't look like the War on Terror's gonna get out of control like it did in that other timeline, etc).

Another thing is that the author is ready to throw reason overboard just to get a nice chuckle out of it (the George Bush class, the 1942 plane that had to save the fleet -- after 20 years of war against just such threats you'd think they'd be able to fight ships that get closer than a few hundred yards...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.3.204 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Littoral assault ship"

Is this the same as Littoral combat ship?

I think that referred to the Kandahar and iirc her description sounded like an amphibious assault ship. Perhaps an improved version better suited for a War on Terror-threat environment. Could also be that the Navy simply fell in love with the word "littoral" =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.67.221 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nemesis-class cruiser"

Is "Nemesis" the name of a US Navy ship, a RN ship, or a technology like Aegis?

It seems from the context to be a class of vessels (possibly replacing the Ticonderoga-class guided missle cruiser). -Spotts1701 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I was just wondering about the source of the name of the class, which is usually that of its lead ship.

Nemesis would be an odd name for a US Navy cruiser, which for a long time have been named for battles, cities, and a few people important to the Navy. (Maybe John D. Nemesis was/will-be HRC's SECNAV? :-).

Nemesis would be a fine name for a Royal Navy ship, but even if the USN copied the design, I think they'd give their version its own class name. Or the class might be informally referred to by some characteristic, the way the Ticos are 'AEGIS cruisers', but in that case "Nemesis" shouldn't be italicized.

(The real explanation is probably that when Birmingham made up the name he went with the RN/RAN style, without thinking about whether it was right for a USN ship. But that's no fun.)

—wwoods 07:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"LPD-12 landing assault ship"

USS Shreveport (LPD-12) is of the Cleveland (LPD-7) class, which is being replaced by the San Antonio (LPD-17) class.

—wwoods 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How to list ships that don't appear until second book?

There are two ships in the MNF which don't appear at all in Weapons of Choice post-transition, but are important in Designated Targets: the HMS Vanguard (which landed in the Arctic ice and was stripped by the USSR), and the Dessaix (captured and stripped by the Germans, and used by the Japanese to attack Hawaii). At the time of Weapons of Choice, as far as the rest of the MNF knows, these ships either didn't go through the Transition or were destroyed by it.

How should these ships be listed in the Order of Battle? Currently the "Ships of the MNF" section is inconsistent--it lists the Vanguard as "lost and presumed destroyed", but describes the Dessaix's fate as we readers know it from Designated Targets. Any opinions? Narsil 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I'm going to change the OoB to represent the state as known to the MNF at the end of WoC--that is, both the Vanguard and the Dessaix are missing and presumed lost. Narsil 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Bias?

• The 'flawless' nature of the 2021 personnel is also viewed as being heavily tainted by liberal bias.

Huh? The main issues with the 1942ers seem to be their racist and sexist attitudes. I thought those two were no longer considered liberal issues. Sexual orientation plays a minor role but even here all that we see is acceptance which is shared (at least officially) by all mainstream Republican politicians. So what is so *heavily* tainted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.67.221 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That whole section could be stricken, as it stands today. Flagged for refs, but the very, very specific criticisms it lays down read like blatent NPOV violations or OR without sources. Were those descriptions of real reviews, or just written by someone that mistook the Wiki for Amazon? MrZaius^talk 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Research Quality

I am currently trying to read this book, and so far have found the quality of the research to be horrible. The author has a Marine Battalion being led by a Colonel (the job of a Lt. Col.), the S-4 Logistics officer being a Lt. Col. (the job of a Captain), and the chief medical officer being a Navy Captain (the job of a Navy Lieutenant). He also has the 3rd Battalion 9th Marine Regiment (3/9) being part of the 5th Marine Division, when it is really a part of the 3rd Marine Division. He also has 3/9 having a "C Company". C Company would belong to 1/9, and 3/9 would have comppanies lettered I, J, andK (plus L if at full wartime strength). An MEU is the equivelant of a Regiment, with a Colonel leading it (who outranks the LtCol that leads the GCU (Infantry) section). The MEU is composed of seperate units combined, and they do not loose their unit designation. 3/9 (or 3rd Bn or Btn, not "3 batt" as the author calls it - Batt is short for "Battery", an Artillary unit) would still be 3/9. The individual armour and artillary units would also keep their designations. The MEU is only a temporary unit, and once the operation is complete it is disbanded. And if it was an MEU of the 5th Division, it would be named a 2 digit number, starting with a 5 (51st MEU, 52nd MEU, etc). An MEU designation of 82nd MEU would belong to the 8th Marine Division (which like the 5th, does not exist - the most ever was 6 during WWII). The author also has new classes of ships (including Amphibious Ships) thrown all over the place, apparently not realizing the length of service that the US Navy actually puts it's ships through. The USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) was in service from 1961-1993. The current Wasp class ships (7 built - 1 under construction) is so new, I can't see the reason for the author designing an entire new class of Amphibious ship. Especially considering what they normally stick the Marines with (20-30+ years is the average life span of an amphib ship). Speaking as a former Marine infantryman, the author should have talked to a few Marines as research before publishing this book. I am only on page 7, and have found a huge number of glaring inconsistancies. No matter what changes may happen (such as women being in an infantry battalion), they would never make such huge changes in the rank structure, or build entire new classes of Amphib ships. A Tom Clancy, Harry Turtledove, or W.E.B. Griffin this guy is not. Mushrom 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does happen, sometimes, that Bns are lead by Cols(He probably screwed up somewhere.). Thats not really so big of an error there. The rest of it, I can't say... I've never read the book. Gelston 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it is a piece of fiction and set in a different timeline. I can not honestly remember seeing or reading that a multinational force made its way to the 40's from the future. As it is a piece of fiction, I don't think your arguments are relavent. ----darkman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.16.21 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Its actally worth than than mushroom suggests. The Surgeon mentioned above is supposedly a Marine Officer, she gets promoted to Major in the second book. All medical staff in support of Marine corps units are naval officers or enlisted men. The author seems to have little idea of the correct order of seniority between commisioned ranks in teh various armed forces and often has ground force captains (O3) senior to Lieutenant Comanders (O4). Any officer involved in flying a plane of O3 grade (Captain - army/airforce or Lieutenant - navy) is titled Flight Lieutenant whether thay are in the Royal Air Forces or not, in fact not is more likey the case because we don't meet any RAF personnel till the second book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainmbrown (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain Harry Windsor

Wasn't this character an SAS officer, rather than a Royal Navy officer? I no longer have a copy, so I cannot check myself. Kevin 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry's second name is Wales not Windsor. As British Princes never hold surnames, he's chosen, as tradition dictates, the name of the area over which his father, The Prince of Wales, holds title. His name, therefore, is Harry Wales. Quite sloppy research to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.167.105 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

English

Would anyone object if this article was changed to C'wealth English as it is written by and Australian and initially released in Australia? BradK (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Otto Caliax" and Hermann Hoth

The article mentions an admiral named Otto Caliax. Shouldn't this be Otto Ciliax, who was the German admiral in command of the Channel Dash? Also it states that Hermann Hoth was an oberführer when in fact he was a regular army officer and not SA or SS. Are these historical mistakes in the book or errors by the editor of the article? -- fdewaele, 10 February 2014, 16:25 (CET).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Weapons of Choice/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This needs sources and some genuine critiquing, not fancruft.--Grahame (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)