Showdown

Rating:
Summary: Buy it only if you need tinder for your fireplace
Review: "Look, I can use the cool military acronyms too!"
That's what this book screamed at me when I read it. Slater's artistic license should be permanently revoked over this book: the US military is depicted as being so inept and stupid that they'd surrender to your average Pokemon armed with a Taco Bell Chalupa. The cover is misleading; there's no air combat at all. To top it off, the miltia freaks are depicted as more organized than they probably are in real life: gun control is not a big enough issue to foment a rebellion around, and the whole war would probably turn into an American version of the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
The only frightening thing about this scenario is that it spawned sequels. Anybody who thinks Slater's better than Tom Clancy should know that Clancy at least researches his material.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent novel, but author doesn't know some things
Review: "Showdown" is not only realistic. It's frightening! What if a war with the militias actually happened? How would we all be affected by it? The characters are great, we learn how the militias really act, and the action is spectacular. However, Mr. Slater does not know how our soldiers act or how we Americans talk. He has the way we talk wrong, uses terms we don't use such as "outrider", uses British surnames for some American characters such as "Freeth" and "Reeth", uses British first names for American characters such as "Gerald" and "Lourne", has his geography and locations wrong in a couple of places, and doesn't know our lingo.

Other than that, the story is great! A great patriotic novel!

Rating:
Summary: If you want to read on the civil war try the first one.
Review: Although I liked Ian Slaters WWIII series (despite the many innaccuracies it was still highly entertaining) I think that if you want to read about a civil war try our own war between the states before picking up SHOWDOWN. He isn't superior to Clancy. Clancy's materials are more researched and the battles are far more realistic. Ian Slater spends too much time making the Militias lookout to be like redneck -hippie religious dopes instead of Americans angry with the system. Freeman is too gung ho. To read a bout a real general try R E Lee, US Grant, Stonewall Jackson or Tom Clancys study on General Franks. (Although I lost the title in my brain it is an excellent book on American leadership during Desert Storm. Franks should be a hero.) Militias are not as racist as Slater makes them out to be and the war is to small scale to be considered a new civil war. And what the heckie darn is up with the fighters on the cover!!!! There was no fighter duels in the book and ! those jets on the cover looked like Japanese anime'!!!!! To read a good book on the 1st civil war try Shelby Footes trilogy. For the second- not this one. To read a good Slater novel try WWIII's best the very first one.

Rating:
Summary: Another action packed, too-real-to-be-fiction adventure
Review: Beginning with a story pulled from today's headlines Ian Slater brings us a story from tomorrow's. In yet another action filled "what if" Slater now asks, "What if the militia were able to launch an organized attack on the US government." Along the way Slater is actually very even handed with both the militia and the federals. Some militia members are depicted as racist rednecks but others are shown as patriotic Americans striking a blow for freedom. Likewise, not all the federal forces are portrayed as angels in khaki. All the characters have their faults and often the reader is not sure which side to root for. In typical Slater fashion the storyline is carried on the wings of action packed sequences filled with enough detail to keep the reader informed and interested but not so much that the story drags or becomes boring. If you like seat of the pants reading, non-stop action and realistic fiction then pick up a copy of Showdown today

Rating:
Summary: A GOOD BOOK FOR EVERY PATRIOT
Review: I really enjoyed this book. As a member of a militia and a soldier in the 37th Engineer Battalion(Combat)(Airborne), I see both sides of the story. I am here being trained by the Army and will use my training against the government if necessary. Slater really does get to the heart of how people feel in this conflict. His portrayal of the Army as inexperienced is pretty accurate, and I think many of the soldiers here would refuse to fight against fellow Americans. In a conflict where all our gee-whiz technology isn't real useful (mountains and forests) the Army would suffer massive casualties. In the end the militia by itself cannot win, though. It will take the people of this once-great nation to throw off the yoke of oppression and gain freedom once more.

Rating:
Summary: a great "fiction" book
Review: I thought this book was great. I notice you guys ragging on the military realism of ian slaters' works. that's alright, but you guys say it takes out of the enjoyment or whatever you may get out of a "good" book. let me remind you that this is a book of "fiction," meaning not real. so maybe he doesn't know every little thing about the military but I thought he wrote it well and it made for in, my opinion, a very exciting and involving book with lots of action. P.S. I think clancy's books are hard to follow and slaters are not, but that's just my opinion

Rating:
Summary: Better than WW III South China Sea
Review: Slater's writing gets better and better as he progresses as an author. One can tell from the details that He really researches his weapons and technology thoroughly.

Rating:
Summary: i don't know if the premise is to realistic but it is int...
Review: this book was interesting but there are several sequals to it and I think if our military can take down the soviet Union we could handle a full scale militia revolt I guess this is a sequal to the WWIII series thats how I read it at least

Rating:
Summary: If I could give it no stars I would
Review: This book was just bad. It was poorly organized and it was easy to get confused. Mr. Slater tried to have the detail of Clancy and the blood and gore of Bond. He missed on both. Don't bother with this book.

This is the first Ian Slater I have read. I was going to pick the WWW III series, but after reading this book, I don't know if I want to take another chance on Ian Slater.

To bad, the concept was good, writing was bad.

Rating:
Summary: Stick with the WWIII series, it is much better.
Review: This is Slater's worst book ever!!! He portrays the militias as an organized fighting unit that could give the airborne guys an good fight!!! Hah! Slater, obviously do not know anything about the militia movement in America. They could never fight a convential battle with American military units because they would have been smashed. And I knew that he would portray the real Americans as the baby killers and those stupid militia guys as heroes. It seems that Slater's vast military knowledge vanished while writing this book. Stick to the WWIII series if you want to continue writing good books, Mr. Slater.