Spring RTS Engine

Pressure Line wrote:

Gota wrote:hehe...I'm especially fearful for Finland.

Finland can take care of itself...

*cough* NAZI OCCUPATION *cough*

Machete234 wrote: *cough* NAZI OCCUPATION *cough*

No nazis in winter war. Finns were totally alone. And by totally I really mean totally.

hoijui wrote:is pakistan the only islamic country that has the bomb?
now with the great flood, and all the world sending stuff down there, it seems like the perfect moment for israel to use its own.
if pakistan will use it, nobody is gonna help them anymore. na na na na naaa

What?why would Israel bomb pakistan?sigh...
I mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

I lived with an iranian guy once, he would rant about how iran has '13 million AK' and 'there would be noo way'. if blackhawk down kill-loss ratio is anything to go by though (1:50)- and that was mostly just unsupported light infantry with awkward rules of engagement- 13 million AK are 99% worthless in modern warfare.

im not that up to date with my middle easten politics but wont america just crank on in if iran attacks?

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I lived with an iranian guy once, he would rant about how iran has '13 million AK' and 'there would be noo way'. if blackhawk down kill-loss ratio is anything to go by though (1:50)- and that was mostly just unsupported light infantry with awkward rules of engagement- 13 million AK are 99% worthless in modern warfare.

im not that up to date with my middle easten politics but wont america just crank on in if iran attacks?

US is already over stretched...Paki,Iraq...it wont start another conflict...
The funny thing is Iran is a threat to countries like saudi arabia and Egypt as well..

Anyway I dont know about Iranian AK count(lol) but they do have missiles with enough range to hit Israeli targets.

US just left Iraq so they could simply shift troops somewhere else.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:13 million AK are 99% worthless in modern warfare.

O RLY

13 million ak's with 13 million people would mean roughly 15 army groups, or 1500 army divisions, or 3000 regiments.

And lets not forget that the iran does have some decent weaponry and aa systems bought from its favourite buddy russia. The same systems that downed stealth aircraft in the balkans and kept the nato from using gunships for the majority of that conflict are also in use in iran


If theres gonna be a bigger conflict its gonna start from either israel or us bombing the now started reactors

There is not gonna be an invasion...The only things that matters for us here are their long range missiles and if they pass any nuclear material or a bomb to Hezbollah.
This reactor is also a punch in the face of the opposition in Iran since it helps solidify the ayatollahs regime.

and it's also an open invitation to all the middle eastern coocs to start A-bomb projects as well.

Sleksa wrote:

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:13 million AK are 99% worthless in modern warfare.

O RLY

13 million ak's with 13 million people would mean roughly 15 army groups, or 1500 army divisions, or 3000 regiments.

And lets not forget that the iran does have some decent weaponry and aa systems bought from its favourite buddy russia. The same systems that downed stealth aircraft in the balkans and kept the nato from using gunships for the majority of that conflict are also in use in iran

If theres gonna be a bigger conflict its gonna start from either israel or us bombing the now started reactors

got source on AA system ?

@ military

those 13 million AK are mostly in the hands of a Paramilitary:

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

* The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable. There are a claimed 2,500 battalions of which some are full-time personnel.[7] Globalsecurity.org quotes a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be.[8]

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

Paramilitary assets are not organised or mobile enough to be used in any kind of offensive warfare. they are horrendously ineffective in combat. all they are good for is defending their locality, and against combat infantry they do so with the expectation of suffering staggering casualites.

so: 0.5 million AK in the hands of military plus 12.5 in the hands of semi-useless paramilitary sorts.

the iranain airforce consists primarily of 3rd generation veitnam era F-4, F-5 and at best, F-14s, which are badly maintained and short on spare parts since the americans stopped exporting them (in order to run down the iranian airforce, the only airforce in the world to currently have the F-14 in service)

In January 2007, it was announced by the US Department of Defense that sales of spare parts for F-14s would be suspended, due to concerns that they could end up in Iran. It announced that the decision was taken "given the current situation in Iran".[46] On 2 July 2007, the remaining American F-14s were being shredded to ensure that F-14 spare parts would not be acquired by governments considered hostile to the US.[45] Iran had an estimated 44 F-14s,[47] with some 20 operational by 2009.[48]

the american airforce is spearheaded by the F-22, which in combat tests against numerically superior 4th gen aircraft (f-15 & f-16) achieved ludicrous kill:death ratios in excess of 20:1.

if america engaged in an open air war there is 0 chance the iranian airforce would survive. air superiority also trumps armoured assets, which are hugely vunerable to air attack.

the primary battletank of the iranian armoured groups is based off an arabic adaption of the american M-60 (which is vintage 1960). The American M1A2 has an absolutely ludicrous kill:death ratio in armoured conflicts to date and would cut through said iranian armour in the event of armoured confliict.

0.5 AK + outdated armour & airforce means america could neuter an iranian offensive painlessly. iran could probably never be occupied, there is just too many AK and the population is just too aggressive and unhinged, but I severely doubt it could successfully invade israel if america decided to defensively intervene/

There is not gonna be an invasion...The only things that matters for us here are their long range missiles and if they pass any nuclear material or a bomb to Hezbollah.
This reactor is also a punch in the face of the opposition in Iran since it helps solidify the ayatollahs regime.

so why farewell?

SirArtturi wrote:

Machete234 wrote: *cough* NAZI OCCUPATION *cough*

No nazis in winter war. Finns were totally alone. And by totally I really mean totally.

Yes and they invented the Molotov Cocktail.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
so why farewell?

Cause when a missile falls on your head you die(and i was sort of kidding?)?
I guess people arent aware of the geography of the area but Iran has no borders with Israel.
the only access to Israel is through Iraq and than Jordan or through turkey than Syria.

Gota wrote:What?why would Israel bomb pakistan?

Israel would bomb iran
but if do so, pakistan could theoretically feel urged to bomb israel in turn, as a revenge for their muslim brothers in iran. this kind of stuff is what always has to be considered first, before checking aircraft, AKs and tanks.
if some group of states (israel, US and.. maybe others) could make a secret treaty with pakistan, to give a lot of aid with the flood, if they agree to not bomb israel, "no matter what may accidentally happen", ...

of course that would need much more insight then i have. :D
it was more meant like a troll comment.. then again, how are these politicians different then trolls, in their mindsets?

1v0ry_k1ng wrote: got source on AA system ?

wikipedia gives the following list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... le_Systems

Paramilitary assets are not organised or mobile enough to be used in any kind of offensive warfare. they are horrendously ineffective in combat. all they are good for is defending their locality, and against combat infantry they do so with the expectation of suffering staggering casualites.

I dont expect iran to be the agressor, and generally speaking an attack to a certain location usually requires superior amounts of troops. In the army we were taught that generally a defending company will be facing a batallion's worth attacking troops, and paramilitary troops working behind the main frontline ties up a lot of equipment and units in protection of supplies and sensitive units (command elements, refuel rearm routes)

That would mean that the army attacking iran would have to bring in even more combat units than usa has brought into afghanistan and iraq combined

f22 is mega giga and iran is teh suxx0r

The question is not about us f22 facing off a 50 year old sukhoi, but a normal bomber/air support/attack chopper facing aa autocannons and antiair missiles.

there are generally 2 ways for aircraft to assault hostile locations, both of which saw use in the balkans.

The first and safest route is to have bombers launch guided munitions from as high as possible to avoid low tech aa such as aamg, autocannons and manpads, but it is only possible after enemy long range aa is taken out, and is highly inaccurate and expensive

The second and normal way of giving air support is that target position is known 100%, aircraft flies low towards the target, takes some height and strafe the target area for several seconds, and fly off before aa can be brought to target the aircraft.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... Img-29.gif this picture should clarify roughly how a air attack of this type would be performed.

also youtube clips of russian su's performing this type of attacks, ignore the hate/propaganda messages
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_83dl7 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO97mbKr ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5xy4cEm ... re=related

To clear a safe LZ, to insert over a company's amount of airborne troops you need roughly 300 kilometers of secured space around the flightpath , or face the possibility of the air operation being intercepted by aa missiles of regiment level. Against batallion/company sized units which would possibly be targeted after the several hundred long range aa batteries were taken out the aircraft would be facing russian sergey(zu 23) autocannons and manpad missiles

In the balkans, the nato had to call a halt on almost all helicopter operations because they would be frequently targeted by antiair mg's and cannons (dshkm and zu), and would have to increase altitude to avoid being downed by fire, but by increasing altitude they would be targeted by the aa missiles. So the nato's solution was to bomb the aa assests from high altitude, but it remained unsuccesfull because of the terrain (forest+urban area, will clarify how that affects shit if you want me to)
After the conflict the serbs moved their assets out of their positions in neat and organized columns, and that conflict is taught and analyzed by most european armies as a encounter of massive airpower meeting inferior army's effective aa tactics

if america engaged in an open air war there is 0 chance the iranian airforce would survive. air superiority also trumps armoured assets, which are hugely vunerable to air attack.

Yes i have little doubt that us/israeli equipment would come on top in a air-air battle, however in order to posess air control of a location you also need to take out the air defence on the ground, which is usually the task of artillery/landforce, which in turn would require a land assault/invasion

0.5 AK + outdated armour & airforce means america could neuter an iranian offensive painlessly. iran could probably never be occupied, there is just too many AK and the population is just too aggressive and unhinged, but I severely doubt it could successfully invade israel if america decided to defensively intervene

Yes, however as i said , i personally think the agressor would more likely be usa and/or israel, and in a defencive situation iran's situation does look a lot better

And the reason why ahmajinedad is in power in the first place is because the british and us started a revolution there in the first place, then sold them billions worth of army hardware to solidify the new regime's position, and now youre suddenly hating on him?

sounds like what happened with saddam, first you provide him wmd's in the 80's and few years later you come screaming that they have these kinds of weapons, well yeah he did and he had your goddamn receipt for them ~_~

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 270674227/

Check out what the newer S300 variants are capable of:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

Btw I can more than recommend http://www.ausairpower.net

Sleksa wrote:things

What weapons did the US give Iran post revolution?

USA also did not support the revolution, on the contrary it opposed it but misjudged its potency and was taken by surprise.
The reason the US backed the Shah was cause they were afraid of the communist opposition inside iran and this was also in light of china becoming a communist country and there was a fear of "the attempt by the Soviet Union to set up separatist states in Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan".

There is sometimes misunderstanding as to why the usa was so involved in those regions but it was because of the soviet union that was attempting to take control of the area.
There was a front all across the globe between the communist regimes and the western democracies but mainly the US.
We can only guess what would have happened if the US didn't intervene and the soviet union was allowed to do whatever it wanted.

The middle east is still split up.
Egypt,saudi arabia,jordan,turkey and Israel are backed up and have relations with the US while iran,syria and unfortunately Lebanon (and maybe some others?) are in some ways backed up by the russians and chinese(this is of course a simplification because there are tons of internal issues and all sorts of forces working in all these countries pulling to different directions).

It is correct to say that USA might be contributing to the dictatorships in these countries but the alternatives are in no way better.
What would have happened if in Egypt the muslim brootherhood was to take control of the country?a movement that has been responsible for international terrorist acts and is basically a fundamentalist Muslim organization?

Many like to point at the US and the CIA and blame them for all the troubles in the middle east but that's just nonsense.

Sabutai wrote:http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 270674227/

Check out what the newer S300 variants are capable of:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

Btw I can more than recommend http://www.ausairpower.net

The shipment of those AA systems has been postponed indefinitely for now, unless there has been some very recent changes.

if in contrary, iran would use the bomb first, it could be assured with 100% security to be wiped out, whether by a-bombs or classically, by israel or basically all the whole west.
in any way, it seems totally unthinkable that iran would get aggressive, nukularly or "normally". and looking at the way you argument there, justifying what the US did, i bet you'd not see anything wrong in starting aggressions against iran (to prevent their aggressions only, of course. even though it is clear, that it would make absolutely no sense for them).

Machete234 wrote:

Pressure Line wrote:

Gota wrote:hehe...I'm especially fearful for Finland.

Finland can take care of itself...

*cough* NAZI OCCUPATION *cough*

I'm confused... Russia invaded Finland during WW2 ?
Was Finland allied with nazis or something

or is this talking about when the Nazi's invaded Russia, and the Finland people went to help the Russians defend, of course Russia would have a lot more casualties

If anything, this picture is contradicts it's meaning, it shows the Finland people have an awful army and didn't do much during the war

Gouken wrote:I'm confused... Russia invaded Finland during WW2 ?
Was Finland allied with nazis or something

or is this talking about when the Nazi's invaded Russia, and the Finland people went to help the Russians defend, of course Russia would have a lot more casualties

If anything, this picture is contradicts it's meaning, it shows the Finland people have an awful army and didn't do much during the war

This was the count during the Winter War, where Russia committed a vastly superior force and while Finland lost formally, they achieved a strategic victory through a multi-stage defensive action. Finland's primary military support during this engagement came in the form of nationalist volunteers from Sweden.

Otherside wrote:US just left Iraq so they could simply shift troops somewhere else.

Ostensibly so we could retrain and refit while drawing down operational costs in order to narrow the gap in the budget and win some political support for the Presidency. In truth, I assume there are several conflicting interests involved.

Gouken wrote: I'm confused... Russia invaded Finland during WW2 ?
Was Finland allied with nazis or something

or is this talking about when the Nazi's invaded Russia, and the Finland people went to help the Russians defend, of course Russia would have a lot more casualties

If anything, this picture is contradicts it's meaning, it shows the Finland people have an awful army and didn't do much during the war

yeah, we allied ourselves with the nazis and went to help russia against the nazis, obviously this resulted in the soviets suffering more casualties, despite the fact that the finns had a awful army and didnt do much during the war(s)