The Iron Sky -team is looking for your ideas and comments.

Join and show your support for Iron Sky.

Anti-air against the nazis

This task is closed
Created atOctober 11, 2009
Created bySamuli Torssonen
ClosedNovember 25, 2009
Shots given40
Reference media
Nazi-gunship_thumb

Thumbs ranking

Samuli Torssonen The scale of Nazi gunship
Poll_bar
7/5%
David Chester Flying Tanks
Poll_bar
7/5%
(null) 330ml bottles of beer
Poll_bar
7/5%
martin taylor USA Gun based Mobile AA Systems
Poll_bar
6/5%
MajorD Surprise or Prepared?
Poll_bar
5/4%
Martín Luis Chamizo Moreno Propaganda
Poll_bar
5/4%
Kari Pihkala Lasers, high altitude nukes, balloons
Poll_bar
5/4%

Closing Note

Thanks *everyone* for great shots and comments! The anti-air for Nazis is quite well formed into our minds. We might need further assistance, but until then - thanks a lot for ideas!

Description

The nazis are attacking Earth - New York more specifically - with these gunships in the picture..We need ANTI-AIR!

The good thing is that the 40-meter long nazi craft are pretty clumsy and slow. Although they do have quite a thick armor, like a tank.

What can USA do? What kind of fighters would they have in service in 2018? What kind of other anti-air systems would they use?

Lets forget the science fiction this time and lets use only real and proven things :)


This task is closed.

Shots

Order by
No-user-picture-set
Kevin Kane November 17, 2009 03:38 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Railguns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

Sorry if this has already been posted, I haven't had time to go through every post yet.

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

No-user-picture-set
(null) October 14, 2009 14:42 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Sensitivity over 2001?

Another shot reminds me, has the production team considered how Americans would feel about a foreign film showing New York under attack?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a politically correct person. I'm from London and I wouldn't be offended at all by a film where London was under attack, and it's been bombed in real life for decades (indeed London was bombed the most by the real Nazis). I'd understand it was just a film.

But Americans are quite new to the idea that their country could be physically attacked by foreign terrorists, and they may be a bit more sensitive about seeing anything that reminds them of what happened in 2001. It would be especially sensitive for them if the film was made by foreigners. This might cause commercial problems for Energia if it was seen in the wrong way by Americans.

Has this issue been discussed by the production team?

Is there any chance of moving the attack to another city, one that hasn't been attacked in real life?

Jump to comment form

Comments

Jani Salomaa November 16, 2009 22:08 Flag

I think it's awfully unimaginative of Hollywood to keep destroying the same bloody cities every time. It's always either New York, LA, Washington DC or Las Vegas.

I guess there are only a handful of cities with landmarks that are instantly recognizable.. New Orleans, Seattle, Detroit, Chicago, etc. just don't have that instant international recognizability.

The same goes for other parts of the globe. Paris gets whacked every time. Other way too often blasted targets: The Kremlin, Sydney opera house, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, The Great Wall, Forbidden Palace, Pyramids, Colosseum, Tokyo, Amsterdam and Venice.

Never or rarely blown away: Madrid, Jerusalem (obvious moon Nazi target!), Mumbai, Istanbul, Saint Petersburg, Helsinki (we deserve a good pasting!), Berlin, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Johannesburg, Shanghai, Kyoto, Soul, Pyongjang (moon nazis should wipe out communism for good!), Singapore, Jakarta, Bruessels, Tehran, Wien, et cetera, et cetera.

Kevin Kane November 16, 2009 21:31 Flag

Being from the USA, I wouldn't worry about destroying New York in a movie, but if it's not important to the plot, could you blow up LA instead? Please blow up LA. Pretty please?

(null) November 05, 2009 17:20 Flag

So the dialogue might be:

-"Mr President, the UFOs are attacking earth, and have already obliterated one entire American city."
-"My god, this is terrible. Which city?"
-"Cleveland."
-"Ah, ain't so bad."

Michael Substelny November 05, 2009 17:12 Flag

You have a point, Kris. If Iron Sky depicts the moon nazis attacking Cleveland, I guarantee that most of America will *not* be offended. In fact they will find the movie even funnier. Insert the name "Cleveland" in any joke and it becomes funnier to Americans.

From a writer's perspective, the names Cleveland and Detroit are good joke fodder because they begin and end with hard consonants (c, d, g, k, p, t, . . . though Detroit sounds different in French). Hard consonants are funny. By comparison, New York only ends with a hard consonant so that name sounds less funny. Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, and Atlanta don't sound funny at all. Too many fricatives.

There is no single reason for Cleveland being the butt of American jokes. It's a nice place to live, but not very fashionable. Currently America's growth areas are in the "sun belt" - places that never see snow. Cleveland gets snow during the winter. Cleveland also has a reputation as an industrial city, not very cool in the twenty-first century.

I hope I answered your question.

(null) November 04, 2009 03:10 Flag

Michael, always wanted to ask an American this... why do Americans make so many jokes about Cleveland? I must have seen about a dozen different Hollywood films where Cleveland is portrayed as the one town that no one cares about... :)

Michael Substelny November 03, 2009 19:10 Flag

I am an American and I would have no problem seeing New York sky scrapers being destroyed by moon nazis in a comedy. In fact it seems almost necessary for the story.

But if the producers are worried about New York as a target, then I humbly offer my home town of Cleveland:

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/679041-Cleveland_skyline-Cleveland.jpg

Fire away, moon nazis!

Jack Malinowski October 17, 2009 18:31 Flag

I agree w/ Major D. The conveyance of a public New York Nazi parade would represent total victory for the MooNazi.

Seeing how they might prepare and carry out such a victory without going through a short history in PostModern society would be fastening and potentially very humorous if the realism of such an outlandish attack was properly respected.

(null) October 16, 2009 22:16 Flag

MajorD, thanks for that!

MajorD October 16, 2009 20:03 Flag

I'm from NYC and I'm perfectly fine with movies that have it being destroyed, and as pointed out there have been plenty of movies since 9/11 that have destroyed NYC. But, I'm only fine with it if it's done realistically. Having professionals act like idiots just so the enemy can win breaks suspension of disbelief, so all I'm left thinking about is how the military, police, or civilians should have been acting and I'm not thinking about the plot anymore, because the plot is suddenly stupid.

(null) October 14, 2009 20:30 Flag

Fair enough, and I do hope I'm wrong about anyone being offended. I just want to make sure this issue has at least been considered. :)

Kari Pihkala October 14, 2009 18:42 Flag

Hollywood has wrecked New York City several times after 2001:

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) - a gigantic wave
I Am Legend (2007) - plague has taken New York City down
Cloverfield (2008) - Statue of Librerty and sky scrapers destroyed
King Kong (2005) - Empire State Building gets scratches and streets get wrecked
War of the Worlds (2005) - bridges and streets get ripped apart
Time Machine (2002)
Star Wreck (2005) - blows up the Statue of Liberty :)

I'm not an American, so I can't say if destroying NYC has been good or bad for the movies, but it happens..

As NY Times says: "The terrorist attack of 9/11 may have temporarily abated film projects involving urban destruction, but if so, it did so only briefly."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/the-irresistible-urge-to-destroy-new-york-on-screen/

Cloverfield shows how the military tries to save the city - check the trailer http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ - interesting if Iron Sky is trying to do the same?

I found an interesting movie about destruction of NYC made in 1983:
"2019: After the Fall of New York"

Fits to our future? :)

(null) October 14, 2009 15:47 Flag

(The kind of thing I'd be worried about would be a NY skyscraper being blown up in a very realistic fashion, that could produce imagery that some New Yorkers don't want to see again.)

(null) October 14, 2009 15:46 Flag

Whether or not we agree with people who are offended, if they are offended then it could make life very difficult for Iron Sky.

Is it important to the plot of Iron Sky that New York in particular is attacked?

We don't know because they haven't published the script, but if it isn't important then maybe the attack should be on a different city, just to make sure Iron Sky isn't unfairly criticised.

Jack Malinowski October 14, 2009 15:32 Flag

Agreed.

Few Americans care to know or teach that the White House was burned down in the war of 1812 by Canadians.

That being said, I assume sensitivity and ignorance would be two of the main themes under attack in this project, assuming it wouldn't be just a disaster film in German...

Yan Pagh October 14, 2009 15:27 Flag

Americans have been way too sensitive for the lat couple of decades (from before 9/11 that is)

Too much sensitivity can be translated as pure will to censor others from disagreeing with one's opinion as I see it.

David Jansson October 14, 2009 14:54 Flag

It may be that a few Americans went a little nuts when they tried to get The two towers of Lord of the Rings movies renamed. And it's true that it was nuts. On the other hand, if it doesn't add very much to the movie I don't see the point of upsetting them, even if they are a bit nuts. I mean, since we know it might have that effect it would just be childish if it's just for a cheap joke.

(null) October 14, 2009 14:47 Flag

If the attack was from space it could happen virtually anywhere. Some alternatives might be other well-known US cities like LA, San Francisco, Las Vegas etc.

Bild_thumb
Adryan Linden November 16, 2009 18:28 1 Thumb-up
Add to Favorites

This may be the defence ...

The 2018 world AA/AG-defense will consist of following weapon-systems:

The Israeli Iron dome-weapon system, more likely this then the US Patriot system. Why, because the Patriot is crappy ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

The main purpose for this weapon system are to counter short range rockets and 155 mm artillery shell threats. You can read more about this in this Israeli Iron Dome brochure:

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/946.pdf

The Iron Dome-weapon system together with the Arrow-missile and David's Sling/Magic Wand, or by the Americans sometimes referred to as "Stunner" will be the next generation combined system against rockets and ballistic missiles.

The iron dome-system is planned to be fully operational in mid-2010.

NATO:s MEADS-program to replace the aging Patriot missile system will 2018 probably also be put into place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Extended_Air_Defense_System

Or ...

Lasers will be what US/EU use against missiles and rocket attacks. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Liquid_Laser_Area_Defense_System

In 2018 I think we also will see a new generation of the old Phalanx Close-in weapon system (CIWS), like the Centurion C-RAM.

The Sant Antonio ship class weapon platform RAM short for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, i guess will be used widely 2018 to fight the Nazi threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile#Variants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_class_amphibious_transport_dock

Another angel no one has lifted is what ammunition will be used 2018. Probably more developed HEIT-rounds ...

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

Thierry_gschwind_thumb
Thierry Gschwind October 11, 2009 08:18 4 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Anti Tank Weapons

Instead of anti-air weapons, they could use normal anti-armored vehicle weapons like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW This could be launched from ground vehicles, and soldier hidden in the buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire With some modification probably usable

And the next generation is already in developmenet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-169_Joint_Common_Missile

I think normal artillery might still be effective, if they fly not too fast.

Fot planes proably F-35 will be widely in use by 2018, since they introduced now. F-22 and modern F-18 are also possible.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Adryan Linden November 16, 2009 16:41 Flag

No the task dosent say there is no AA available, not from what I can read.

Thierry Gschwind November 15, 2009 10:00 Flag

The idea is there are no AA weapons available at the time of the attack to defeat heavily amroured air crafts like the NAZI saucer.

Adryan Linden November 14, 2009 23:28 Flag

I don´t understand, the weapon will still be classed AA rather then AG. And for thick armor it rather be more developed SAM:s or gatlin/vulcan guns that do the job staging the air defense.

Thierry Gschwind November 11, 2009 03:51 Flag

Because they need wepaons to penetrate the thick armour of the Nazi spaceships.

Adryan Linden November 10, 2009 21:12 Flag

Why should they have anti-tank weapons instead of anti-air??

Img_2536_thumb
Kari Pihkala October 30, 2009 14:32 5 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

New 1WTC tower in NYC

Remember that new buildings are being constructed in New York. The 'One World Trade Center' aka 'Freedom Tower' will be replacing WTC twin towers by 2013.

Also, other buildings are under construction: "The site is currently being rebuilt with six new skyscrapers and a memorial to the casualties of the attacks."

It would be cool to see the new skyline of New York in the movie. There's plenty of images in the web:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=future+new+york+skyline&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

The new buildings have stronger walls. Perhaps the UFOs could first destroy few old skyscrapers and then try to get the new One World Trade Center tower down. As a surprise, it wouldn't fall down that easily.. it could also have a secret anti-air defense system..

Jump to comment form

Comments

(null) November 04, 2009 03:39 Flag

Hey... that is a great idea... and it might go down well with American audiences.

The Nazi UFOs try to take out the new tower, but this tower fires back and takes out the UFOs.

That would play well with the "U - S - A! U - S - A!" crowd, and it would also generally be an amusing plot twist as the Nazis run into one building they cannot destroy.

Amy Macintyre November 04, 2009 00:29 Flag

Or better yet - the 1WTC fires back, a UFO is hit and falls towards the 1WTC...but explodes when it hits the forcefield. :P

Amy Macintyre November 04, 2009 00:22 Flag

Perhaps the 1WTC...could fire back ;)

MajorD November 01, 2009 21:37 Flag

Considering the slowness in starting construction on the trade center, I would have the project barely progressed even in 2013, rather than completed. Have it so the same day as the invasion is a speech by the mayor about how great progress is going and that it will only take another five years, and then saucers shoot up what little of the builds are standing.

As for invasion proof buildings in NYC, there are two that may work. It also makes sense to arm them based on their purpose and aesthetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street
This is a switching station for east coast telephones, and as such is built to be bomb proof. It won't be anti-tank gun proof but it's made strong. It's completely windowless, with a granite over cast concrete facade, and only two entrances (one for trucks and one for people). The thing is a modern day castle. Take note of those vent grills at the top of the building, they're perfect as doors for retracting AA gun and missile platforms. The roof can hold AA gear too. In real life it also has several weeks of fuel stored underground and I think it has positive pressure and air filtration to defeat biological and chemical weapons and fallout.

Similar is 375 Pearl Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/375_Pearl_Street
Although not windowless, in comparison to other buildings it might as well be. I'm pretty sure some of the vertical black slits are just stone and not windows.
http://newyorkdailyphoto.blogspot.com/2007/09/verizon.html
It was a switching station, but it being turned into office space. But, it's built tough like 33 Thomas St.

There is also 811 10th Avenue, I'm pretty sure that building is completely windowless. So, there's another building worth arming. Anywhere telephone cables are run through as a hub probably is a strong building or could be armed.

People hate those two buildings, but I love 33 Thomas St. If you end up flattening NYC, have only those buildings left standing. It would be hilarious.

Carl L. October 30, 2009 20:32 Flag

One of the buildings could then spontaneously implode, even though it was not even hit by any ufo. ;-)

(null) October 30, 2009 19:10 Flag

My personal feeling would be to just avoid the whole topic by leaving these buildings out of the film.

But that's just my personal feeling.

Jack Malinowski October 30, 2009 18:09 Flag

Kari,

great picture!

Realism is always appreciated - of course these buildings would be part of the sky line...

However,

Unmotivated 'shock,' like 'how about after the ufo destroys
some older buildings they go after the these...'
degrades a serious subject matter and distracts from the mission
of, for example, a comedy like Iron Sky.

In my opinion, there is much more humor to be mined in other issues besides, 'is this offensive?'
FYI ::
Looking at the Nazi techniques in Warsaw uprisings / Stalingrad, might suggest the Nazis would encourage flight to the largest buildings buildings rather than scattering their quarry.

Kalle Max Hofmann October 30, 2009 17:54 Flag

Haha Kari I guess now your name is on some black list of the FBI ;P

Kari Pihkala October 30, 2009 17:36 Flag

Sensitivity of destroying NYC was discussed earlier, NYC citizens seem to be fine with it (at least one guy :)
http://www.wreckamovie.com/shots/show/3872#comment_6502

It all depends how you show the attack against 1WTC. If it is the last building standing, it would only show the strength of it.

And think how the nazis are wondering why that specific building has so much stronger armor:
"Nein, nein, nein! Was ist es mit dem Gebäude?"

And looking at those buildings - don't you just get a desire to wreck them?? ;D

Angela R. October 30, 2009 15:21 Flag

Good point as well. A specific attack to them would be pretty easily considered of bad taste. But still, if NY city is attacked at all, wouldn't be obvious that these would come under siege as well? That doesn't mean that the space nazis would have to specifically attack these buildings. But there could be anti-air shooting the nazis from their tops? Just my two cents, as usual. ^_^

Kalle Max Hofmann October 30, 2009 15:13 Flag

Including the buildings in the skyline is a good idea... but I'm not too sure if the americans would like to see them attacked? They probably wouldn't think this was funny or appropriate. Just my 2 cents!

Angela R. October 30, 2009 14:34 Flag

Pretty good idea, especially have to agree concerning the secret anti-air defense system. Thumb up!

No-user-picture-set
Martín Luis Chamizo Moreno October 21, 2009 14:05 5 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Propaganda

I think that propaganda was something very important for the nazis. Why attacking New York? Is a symbol. I would divide the forces in military targets and symbolic targets. For example, the Statue of Liberty with a svastica hanging from the torch and a nazi eagle landed on the book would be very dramatic. Removing the American eagle and putting instead the nazi one in buildings, would be a kind of special forces operation. Nazis loved television, that would be one of the first thing to control for broadcasting the nazi news. How could they do this thing? Using all the city as hostages. The nazi crafts should move between the streets with spoken messages for the population, and throwing propaganda on paper. This way the fight should be street by street, too powerful weapons would kill the hostages. I imagine it more in a kind of nazi parachutists and special forces. Something between 1984 and Black Hawk Down. Of course all these could be spiced with collaborationists that can do different missions.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Amy Macintyre November 04, 2009 00:25 Flag

Perhaps midway through the film when it seems the Nazis have won it zooms out on the moonnazi fleet as if the film is over, and then they get shot down by Finns and the film continues ;D

Carl L. October 30, 2009 21:12 Flag

Besides, when Hitler invaded Russia, he first 'freed' Stalingrad.
He could have marched on to Moscow, but he wanted to destroy the communist movement by occupying the movement's hometown: Leningrad aka Stalingrad. (In other words: Hitler was insane)
Then one of russias harshest winters ever came, allowing the Russians to regroup at Moscow, and taxing the nazi-forces who had not been prepared for such cold.
Insane, I tell you!

Carl L. October 30, 2009 20:52 Flag

Why do Moon-Nazis need Gold?
Maybe to produce fuel! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27998860/
"Blasting a gold target with high-powered lasers creates huge amounts of antimatter, reported scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..." [Discovery News, Dec. 1, 2008]
Antimatter created with gold could then be smashed into copious amounts of water, also abundant in NYC, and power the Jakob-Sporenberg Vril-Drive. (or whatever)

Martín Luis Chamizo Moreno October 28, 2009 17:01 Flag

Don't forget the collaborationists, they were very very important for preparing the different invasions in WWII. There were in every country invaded. Tired of their situation they hope a better one with the new masters.
The gold idea is great, perhaps it could give a little homage to Die Hard 3, that deals with this idea of the gold. Fighting in the underground must be a claustrophobic experience.

Jack Malinowski October 23, 2009 15:02 Flag

It might be argued that the Nazis lost WWII because they fought a bi-frontal war...

Escaping to the Moon, (the one orbiting the planet Earth) waiting 70years to publicly return to lose again 'because of greed' on a conventional war level (one that typically takes millions and millions of marching soldiers) does not make a good picture.

Perhaps they get caught in another unlikely two front war?

Defining the nature of the conflict is of primary concern.

I don't believe that 'the king' or leader of a fleet of UFO flying Nazi officers wouldn't be reigning holy terror on a modern world obsessed with remote control and viewership who prefer remote control for some time.

Monty Python should really attempt a Jason And The Argonaughts.
Iron Sky should not be that film.

Major D seems to make another great point: holding gold hostage...

I believe perhaps by this age of open 'free energy' Gold may no longer hold sway the way KNOWLEDGE does.

Perhaps the ANTI-AIR might need to take more of HOSTAGE CRISIS tack in order to be able to mount a convincing rebuttal against an obviously superior force.

Perhaps an 'under ground' response might be in order once the A-Team is demolitioned...

Thomas Shaddack October 23, 2009 12:13 Flag

Why "go public"?

Boredom. Population discontent. Vanity - you can be the highest-in-command on the entire Moon, but you're still just the biggest cheese on a stupid rock. There are many possible reasons that look stupid - when you aren't sitting decade after decade in the same bloody moon base.

MajorD October 23, 2009 06:59 Flag

I agree, splitting between targets with propaganda and strategic value makes sense. NYC has a large portion of the world's gold supply. When one country gives gold to another in payment, gold in the NYC bank just moves a few feet from one vault to another, intead of traveling hundreds or thousands of miles between countries. It's faster, more efficient, and safer. But, if the Nazis get that gold it would be a major victory for them in that it will horribly destabilize Earth markets and act as a huge propaganda event. They would probably spin it as liberating the assets stolen by the Zionist conspiraters.

However, the Moon Nazis will have to be careful about splitting their forces too much. It's actually realistic that they might get greedy and spread their forces too thinly in an attempt to take too many targets, or put too much emphasis on propaganda. If they're of sound mind, they will make sure to concentrate their forces sufficiently to take the most important targets first with the greatest of ease, then gradually split up as the situation allows. Even if they start off soundly, doesn't mean they can't get greedy later.

This is true of both sides. While Earth's militaries will have more real world experience and greater numbers there are stronger political forces to contend with. Instead of going on the offensive sufficiently, too many assets could be tied up in over defending homelands or Earth forces may try counter attacking on too many fronts.

Martín Luis Chamizo Moreno October 21, 2009 17:25 Flag

what would the Nazis want with New York besides the vast supply of water?

Wall Street. The biggest concentration of wealthy Jews in the world. The supplies to Israel would be cut. The films of Woody Allen would be... Verboten.

Perhaps all the military things could be printed in the number 113 of the Signal magazine. Now the NeuSignal or something like that falling from the sky to the astonished New Yorkers.

The New Yorkers defending their city can give scenes of many different kinds, from an homage to the baby scene in Potemkin to the Ghostbusters or Alien.

Jack Malinowski October 21, 2009 16:01 Flag

Well Stated :

---

"Quiet! Graphic! Gory! Glory!

(Bashful, Dopey, Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sad, Sleepy, Sneezy...)

Glory Be..."

---

Horrifying...

---

Great Question : what would the Nazis want with New York besides the vast supply of water?
- a base?
- a camp?

---

I still wonder why the Nazis would 'go public' anyway?
Perhaps they anticipate encountering superior technologies?

No-user-picture-set
Sami Jumppanen November 03, 2009 11:19 1 Thumb-up
Add to Favorites

Found something in Finnish...

http://www.mil.fi/paaesikunta/materiaaliosasto/liitteet/stae_2020_osa2.pdf

For what it is worth in this context, but there is something at its own section. (chapter 8.)

Note that it is in finnish and dated 2004.

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

Lair8bsm_thumb
Thomas Shaddack October 28, 2009 18:29 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

US Field Manuals

A literal treasure trove of warfare-related information lies in the American field manuals. A large collection is located here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/index.html
Most are from 1990s to early 2000s, but some of the principles did not change much since WW2 and could be easily-ish extrapolated a decade into the future.

A rough firtst-glance list of those potentially most relevant follows. Unless said otherwise, they are accessible from the URL above.

Anti-aircraft defense:
FM 3-01.7 - Air Defense Artillery Brigade Operations
FM 3-01.11 - Air Defense Artillery Reference Handbook
FM 44-8 - Combined Arms for Air Defense
FM 44-18 - Air Defense Artillery Employment Stinger (the venerable Stinger anti-aircraft missile, way obsolete by 2018 but some tactics may be common)
FM 44-18-1 - Stinger team operations
FM 44-85 - Patriot battalion and battery operations (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot - a common surface-to-air missile, likely to be employed at least in some places; the 90+ kg warhead in hit-to-kill mode instead of the more usual proximity fragmentation mode may be fairly efficient against the atmospheric Nazi crafts)

Fighting in cities:
FM 3-06 - Urban Operations
FM 3-06.11 - Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain (!!!)
FM 90-10 - Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT)
FM 90-10-1 - An infantryman's guide to combat in built-up areas

Ground warfare in general:
FM 3-25.150 - Combatives (general man-on-man combat)
FM 5-102 - Countermobility (blocking roads, creating obstacles; chapter 6 contains section on deploying atomic demolition mutions - low-yield nukes)

Resettlement of cities/areas, handling POWs, keeping order in captured cities:
FM 3-19.40 - Military police internment/resettlement operations
FM 19-15 - Civil disturbances

Behavior of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and smoke and incendiary weapons:
AFM 105-7 - Field behavior of NBC weapons
FM 4-02.7 - Health service support in an NBC environment ("Mediiiiiic!")
(There are more. How much in-depth should I consider nuclear attacks? Handbook is focused on terrestrial environment. Moon will be way easier, however, due to no weather patterns, no fallout, and no atmosphere to cause pesky problems with fireballs and sucking in dirt by convective flows and causing more fallout.)

Specialties:
FM 8-50 - Prevention and medical management of laser injuries
FM 24-12 - Communication in a come-as-you-are war (namely chapters 1 and 6, the rest may be too detailed)
FM 100-18 - Space support to army operations (namely chapter 4, capabilities and limitations)

Propaganda, PSYOPS:
FM 33-1-1 - Psychological operations techniques and procedures
http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/fm-33-1-1-psychological-operations-techniques-and-procedures.shtml

The ADMs described in chapter 6 of FM 5-102 are notable by allowing a relatively small force in a defense position to hold off a relatively large attacking force for a while. A single Davy Crockett like grenade can demolish a bridge or a tunnel in matter of few minutes tops, and look pretty in the movie.

Jump to comment form

Comments

Carl L. October 30, 2009 20:36 Flag

http://www.stevespages.com/page7c.htm
also has loads of U.S. Aussie, and Canadian manuals!

Le_voyage_dans_la_lune_thumb
Jack Malinowski October 23, 2009 14:57 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

The Theatre Of Aerial Invasion

The nature of the invasion might perhaps be designed as the first stage in a gradual war of technological attrition. The UFOs simply show up and blow up anything that keep them from determining train schedules, flight plans, traffic lights, toll-bridges, etc.

The Nazis just take over the media centers, airports, railways, mass transit, the electrical companies, dams, etc.
The Hospitals, The Prisons, The Courts...
AND THEN THE BANKS!

And then wherever there is 'revolution,' they engage the SPECIAL FORCES sent to deploy, offering 'collateral damage reports,' over the Media Air Waves.

Perhaps the Invasion might in reality be more of a HOSTAGE SCENARIO where the NAZIS defy the MILITARY to run the highways and byways with greater efficiency.

IN SHORT : A COUP RUN BY ENGINEERS FLYING UFOS THAT HAPPEN TO BE NAZIS DESCENDED FROM WWII HOLOCAUST WORSHIPPERS -

Obviously, the Nazis would have planted supported terrorists, spies, entourages of 'yes men' at key locations, etc. to encourage 'efficient' movements when the 'GUN TOTING ANTIGRAVITY TRAFFIC LAMPS' SHOW UP!

Jump to comment form

Comments

This shot doesn't have comments.

Me_thumb
Charles Anderson October 18, 2009 10:28 2 Thumb-ups
Add to Favorites

Well this is a comedy after all.

Hi Guys,

I'm thinking that as the Nazi saucers are based on an antigravity device... maybe, or a form of manipulating magnetism... maybe. Conventional weapons may not work.

However due to finding a crashed recon saucer years ago, an effective anti-saucer weapon has been found.

It has been found that exercise balls over inflated and filled with hot porridge will interfer with the saucers levetation mechanism.

The over inflated balls explode on impact, and the porridge bakes hard of the levetation emitters. Nothing can remopve this coating, bar a hammer and chisel.

Personally I think there is never enough porridge in films these days ;-)

Regards Charles
<http://www.joyofbaking.com/breakfast/OatmealPorridge.html>

Jump to comment form

Comments

Charles Anderson October 25, 2009 11:54 Flag

The joke may be on the Nazi's ;-)

However I'm hoping the joke is on us :-D

Once again... more porridge!

(null) October 18, 2009 11:57 Flag

"However due to finding a crashed recon saucer years ago, an effective anti-saucer weapon has been found."

...I dunno about that bit... isn't the film's joke partly that the attack is a complete surprise? :)

Radar operator: Sir, sir, we're being attacked by a giant fleet of Nazi UFOs from the Moon!
Commanding officer: Have you been smoking that herbal tobacco again?

I agree there's never enough porridge in films though. :D