Invader ZIM

LOL, nice one marcos. Yea, I had to come up with some kind of solution without using manned aircraft as per the scenario so I used the LORA system as an example. Using Google Maps, I think you could move parts of the Israeli army to the border and help ensure a safe operations area at the border closest to the known position of the S-300 and engage if it's in range. Going by the given ranges, I can stay inside Israel without going into Lebanon and engage air defense sites in southern Syria into the region of Homs, perhaps with a lightened payload the Hamah area. This would force the S-300 sites to be positioned far enough away to prevent them from engaging aircraft over Israel itself, or risk detection and destruction from Lora. Looking at the brochure from the maker's of LORA: http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/6/39426.pdf It's also capable of being launched from ship, so that opens up new possibilities for taking out the deeper SAM threats in Syria without air strikes. Looking at the map: Israel has some options of dealing with the expected threat, that we know of at least.

MLRS comes to mind, and LORA, unless they have the U.S. Atacms in an export version. If you want to overwhelm the system, I'd use barrage jamming from multiple directions by having the ECM set up on multiple cheap drones or land based since we're so close to the threat to entice the the S-300 to wake up and fire, while I fired multiple rounds from the LORA system, the round itself is small and maneuvering, and I'd have each round maneuver differently and come from different directions if applicable depending on range which coupled with the jamming, they would be a tough target I would imagine. Even if the S-300 attempted to intercept, it would be prohibitively expensive for Syria since they apparently will have a very limited number of S-300 sites, and also missiles available for the system. If the system isn't knocked out directly, it will soon become combat ineffective, all without even using HARM laden Israeli aircraft. http://missilethreat.com/missiles/lora/ If the war escalates and Syria Egypt and Iran attack, there's a solution, and you can see it on Google Maps: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/eilabun-ilabun-israeli-tactical-nuclear-weapons-storage/view/?service=0

otto, out of the many concerns which are outlined below in the Reuters article, I think one of the big concerns is that the S-300 has such a long range that Syria could use it as leverage against civilian aircraft operating at Israeli airports. Israel's neighbors have a long history of targeting civilian public transportation and aircraft in attacks, and such a system that allows interception of aircraft over Israel proper is not acceptable to them. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-israel-s300-analysis-idUSBRE94T0IZ20130530

Stability is actually decreased, and things are escalated. Imagine instead of Isreali planes shot down it's dead Russians delivering missiles that got caught in the middle of this. The Israeli's already warned repeatedly they WILL deal with the S-300's. If Russia decides to stand by their decision to deliver them to Syria after such warnings then they take their chances. The Israeli's tend to do what they say they are going to do, usually within days of a statement. Like other's have said, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Syrian S-300 or any other Syrian SAM unit in the coming days.

@kaktus, I think you have a good assessment there, it doesn't mean the S-300 system is a failure if it's destroyed, but to those less familiar with how these systems work it can be a PR nightmare for the companies involved with making these systems. I am thinking the countdown timer for Israel to strike has already started. http://www.debka.com/article/23002/Israeli-intelligence-denies-first-Russian-S-300s-arrive-in-Syria---contrary-to-Assad%E2%80%99s-claim- Going by the info above in the article, I would suspect that Israel will wait until the Russian techs are away from the system or it's handed over to the Syrian military, but before the S-300 is able to go online and active to take them out. And who says you need to risk aircraft to do the job? Depending on where the systems are deployed and the ranges between the two countries, Israel could use MLRS or other artillery against them.

I agree with your assessment of the S-300 and the variables involved in it's procurement marcos, but I think your forgetting that Israel has proven time and again that they have some pretty good ground based intelligence on it's neighbors. I also wouldn't throw out the idea that the U.S. could supply Satellite and other types of intel on the S-300's as well to aid in taking them out. Like I said, time will tell. If the S-300's do get destroyed what will be the excuse for their lack of performance, I wonder.

I'm interested to see just how this action actually won't prevent Israel from conducting it's raids. I would hazard a guess that shortly after the S-300 sites are set up, that the Israeli's will make sure that those sites are no longer operating according to origional manufacturer specifications. Time will tell though.

Congratulations, my one buddy once told me that if I kept going back to look at something, then I must really want it. I've never regretted purchases based on that criteria. I'm sure you'll enjoy the increased immersion with the X52 :D

To be honest, it would not have mattered if the Iraqi's had full Soviet T-72B's with composite armor that were capable of firing the missiles. One reason is because the TPD-K1 daysight only has a magnification of 8x. Try seeing an M1 tank 3 to 5 km away to use the beam riding missile effectively with only an 8x daysight that's limited by weather conditions. Smoke, fog, rain, camouflaged smoke popping and maneuvering tanks, sandstorms, etc will all degrade the maximum range and performance. And at night, the T-72 uses a 1K13-495 5.6x (8x ATGM) sight that's limited by available lighting and weather conditions because of it's far inferior night vision capability to the M1A1's 3x Wide field and 10x zoomed thermal and daylight sights. M1's also used AN/VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasure Devices in all the conflicts going back to 1991 which would have hampered beam riding missiles as well. It's not even a matchup if we compare the M1A2's Optical 12.5 and added 25x and 50x digital 2nd gen thermals into the equation. Combined arms is a work in progress, but I'm liking the improvements I've seen recently. Some of our strategies have to be changed from real world conditions to compensate for how the AI works and how some systems are modeled in the sim. The closer to reality the better though. :D

LOL @ jazjar's comment. It is neat with the multiple guided munitions, but I still like the 105mm gunned version better.

Neat development. I remember reading about the theory of cased telescoped ammunition in the early 90's, it's amazing when you consider how many times certain ammunition based system are considered obsolete or ineffective against modern armor, they come up with a new solution that makes them viable again. This Canadian Minister of National Defence pdf file really helps explain the advantages of such ammunition. It's amazing for me to see it become a reality. I guess the future is now. :) http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_11_e.pdf

Here's a 32 min video from the local news helicopter and channel that was there when the tornado was heading toward Moore, for those not familiar with the size and speed of such storms this is probably the closest thing to seeing Godzilla heading your way. When one is on the ground, this is the sort of warning we get here in the U.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEqXpesgYg0

Family are okay from the area, they received warning and took shelter 20 minutes before. Out my way in the Ohio Valley we have a 30% chance for tornadoes this afternoon, so we're keeping an eye on the sky, I have my radar set up and lightning detectors ready to warn neighbors.

LOL, I thought the poor guy was having a bad day when he was hit by the bus.... But no, it got worse. :lol: Hope he got better. :megalol:

And if your in the F10 map view, you can always select a vehicle your interested in from the F10 map and hit F7, that will allow you to see the selected unit in action, and also get some info on the surrounding terrain better. I believe to pilot the vehicles you have to hit Escape, and then select drive vehicle in the menu that pops up.

I haven't used the feature for awile, but I think you can just jump into other aircraft if you lose your initial one. The battle will rage on as ground force commander. It just has to be an aircraft you have a module for to pilot though. Hopefully someone will help me out with more experience in that regard. But I think you'll enjoy it JetlinerX, I used the quick mission creator and set all parameters to random. Then I selected "Edit Mission" and on the left side selected "Battlefield Commanders" Selected the box which says "Pilot can control Vehicles" Then Select Ground Force CMDR, and select "1" for the red or blue forces you want to control. Choose to pilot your aircraft or select Grnd Force Cmdr. And your off!! You can use the F-10 map view to select your ground vehicles, make waypoints for them, set formations or select targets. Use your artillery units and set up fire zones, control your helicopters and set up kill zones, etc. Best way to learn is to jump in and play around. Also setting "Fog of War" is good for this as it forces you to have units that have eyes on the enemy forces to see them on the map for targeting. Watch out for counter battery fire, make sure to move your MLRS and other artillery after firing as you'll soon see incoming from the AI or if enemy units have seen your forces. Move those AAA and Sams along with your tanks and IFV's to provide cover, use the terrain to your advantage. Most importantly,just have Fun!! :D

In single player, CA will allow you to maneuver your forces to attack the enemy. You can now coordinate with your strike aircraft to soften up a target with strikes and then move your MBT's toward the recently struck forces with a follow on ground attack for instance. Or a heavy artillery barrage against a large and dangerous known enemy air defence unit, clearing the way for your aircraft to have less trouble attacking the targets in the surrounding area, and minimizing losses for your side. In a way CA in singleplayer really adds to the strategy of the simulation because you can conduct the ground war on your own terms. And also you can still jump into one of the flyable aircraft if you have the module and fight while your ground forces maneuver where you want them to go. Add to that, if you have a favorite ground vehicle, like for me it was the Gephard AAA unit, you can tool around and have fun engaging enemy aircraft if you want, or guide missiles from the T-80's and T-90's, TOW's from the Bradley's, etc. It's just fun, on different levels, just depends how deep you want to get into using the CA module. I've used CA since last July, it was worth it just for the ability to move my units where I wanted to.

lol, actually I haven't been to the photos and videos for awile, thanks for pointing out there's some good photos there topol-m. Didn't realize you had the X-47B stuff covered already. :)

Yea, carrier landing will be the next interesting milestone.

Let me be the first to welcome our future robotic drone overlords. :lol: How long do you guys think before this thing decides to become self aware? :) Nevertheless, a new record has been achieved, this is not the same kind of drone like the Predators most are now familiar with. Background on the X-47B program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Video's of the catapult launch from various angles: Landing:

To answer your question, it would be more realistic if you had the compute firing solution on in my opinion. Why? Well it would be simulating the work a normal tank or IFV crew do to find range to a particular target (Usually in the form of firing the laser range finder), and then have that range data transferred to the computers in the vehicle to have a more accurate firing solution. In the M1A2 for instance, the gunner would put his reticle on the target, fire the laser rangefinder, and that data goes to the M1's fire control computer, the computer knows the ballistics of the particular round being fired, the barometric pressure, and even the crosswind to move the gun so that the gunner only has to put the reticle on the target, and fire. This is all done in as little as two or 3 seconds if a round is in the breech.

Thanks for that Bahger, wow! I'd say that success rate against mavericks and ALARM's is a little too optimistic for the lowest AI level. The air defense used to do that if you had them set on Excellent in the earlier game versions.

I feel the same as MonnieRock, I've used the mods available and some edits to get my own Ultra high settings for A-10 since version 1.0.9, but it would be nice to have a simple selector button to enable settings for higher end machines.

Keep your origional mission, check to see if your SA-19 site is set to Excellent AI. Now try backing the AI down one notch. If that doesn't work, back it down another and see the results. Same with the Tunguska's, back them off one notch from the highest AI setting, and I think you'll find they aren't as capable of intercepting mavericks and other small missiles. I'd be interested to hear your results using the above info. Hope it helps without having to redo all your scenarios.

I thought it was interesting, thanks for sharing that Griffin.