The Harrier official campaign thread

[CheckGear]

So you don't know what you typed?

 

You said I was factually incorrect. I mentioned a number of facts in my post; I was asking you to clarify what you were specifically referring to. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he typed.

 

There were more inaccuracies such that you claim Iran can't invade anyone, yet they did invade Iraqi territory in 2009 to seize oil fields.

 

I'm guessing you're referring to this incident?

 

Oil prices rose after reports emerged that a unit of Iranian military personnel had raised the Islamic Republic flag on East Maysan oilfield 4.

 

The Iranian troops were digging in last night almost 24 hours after the incursion was launched. "They positioned tanks around it and dug trenches," General Zafer Nazmi, the head of the Border Police in Basra said. "They are still there, they raised the flag."

 

Baghdad officials said a meeting of the National Security Council had been convened before the Iranian ambassador was summoned to hear an official protest.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6840337/Iran-invades-Iraqi-territory-to-seize-oil-field.html

 

The story doesn't make anything I said inaccurate; if anything, you're drawing some insanely broad conclusions based on relatively little evidence. You're suggesting that because Iran was able to conduct a limited, lightly-contested border incursion, covering a relatively short distance, that this translates into the ability to conduct an offensive through Armenia towards the Caucasus? Or that this means it's able to conduct a cross-Strait invasion of the UAE? There's a difference between crossing a desert border into a country with underdeveloped defenses versus trekking through mountains or conducting an amphibious assault.

 

Here are some studies that demonstrate just how implausible an Iranian invasion of anything other than something right over the border (assuming the geography is favorable) truly is. More importantly, it's simply not part of Iran's strategy. Here's some snippets:

 

• Iraq no longer has the forces to directly challenge Iran, but Iran would have to

attack through Iraq by land to reach Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and would be

exposed to massive precision air attacks.

• Neither side’s forces are designed, well-organized, or trained to sustain long-range

maneuver warfare.

• Iran has limited forced entry amphibious warfare training, and any amphibious

force could face a major air and naval threat.

• Army not structure for sustained maneuver outside Iran.

•Limited land/air and air/sea capabilities.

• Very limited amphibious forced entry capability with no credible air cover.

 

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/161004_Iran_Gulf_Military_Balance.pdf

 

The above points completely rule out an invasion of the UAE or into the Caucasus.

 

Second, in the conventional military sphere, Iran remains defensively oriented and avoids direct confrontation with the US and other military powers. Tehran’s concerns for its own stability and regime survival, mitigation of its relative isolation, and deterrence of potential attack from multiple nearby military adversaries will likely continue to override considerations

for initiating overt military conflict. A sense of relative insecurity can be seen in much of Tehran’s behavior, including its search for greater strategic depth in the region and preference for self sufficiency in military capabilities.

 

http://www.aei.org/spotlight/the-future-of-irans-security-policy/

 

Here's another study that offers insight of what Iran's up to.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/deterring-iran-after-nuclear-deal

Edited November 8, 2017 by CheckGear

[sze5003]

I just want Baltic to do the missions the way he does. I've never been let down by his stuff. That way he can get them to us sooner :)

[Revelation]

You said I was factually incorrect. I mentioned a number of facts in my post; I was asking you to clarify what you were specifically referring to. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he typed.

If my very next statement was in regards to the Iranian nuke deal, then yeah it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was "talking about." In fact that was the entirety of my post... You then want to criticize that I don't know what I typed.... Childish behavior.

 

 

The story doesn't make anything I said inaccurate; if anything, you're drawing some insanely broad conclusions based on relatively little evidence.

It does in fact invalidate your statement where YOU said "Since when does Iran have the ability to invade anyone."

 

 

You're suggesting that because Iran was able to conduct a limited, lightly-contested border incursion, covering a relatively short distance, that this translates into the ability to conduct an offensive through Armenia towards the Caucasus?

No, you are being facetious and trying to play the straw-man. I clearly identified an instance, regardless of how insignificant you find it that invalidates your point. You simply cannot deal with being wrong so you want to create this erroneous scenario to make yourself feel better.

 

 

Or that this means it's able to conduct a cross-Strait invasion of the UAE? There's a difference between crossing a desert border into a country with underdeveloped defenses versus trekking through mountains or conducting an amphibious assault.

Iran actually practices this very scenario a lot. You would know that if you took a moment and learned of geo-political tensions in the region. You could also learn to humble yourself and realize that you do not know everything.

 

Here are some studies that demonstrate just how implausible an Iranian invasion of anything other than something right over the border (assuming the geography is favorable) truly is. More importantly, it's simply not part of Iran's strategy. Here's some snippets:

The above points completely rule out an invasion of the UAE or into the Caucasus.

 

No, no it doesn't. You keep mistaking that because someone says that something is possible doesn't mean that they are going to be efficient or successful. Its funny because the last point your copied was that they have limited amphibious capability. That is itself proves that they can, not that they can successfully.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-strong-is-the-UAEs-military-and-can-it-repel-an-Iranian-invasion

 

Now, I am not one in saying that they have the capabilities of the US when it comes to moving troops and the logistics that follow. To merely write them off is a sure-way to lose a conflict.

[baltic_dragon]

It's the comical nature of posts like these that lead me to say DCS fans and, frankly, developers, have a very liberal view of what's believable and what's not. It seems like the high demand for authenticity and realism goes completely out the window when it doesn't involve the planes and weapons themselves.

 

Interesting that you find this idea comical, but OK... As you probably imagine, I completely disagree. First of all because in my opinion there is a big difference for DCS between "believable" and "realistic". I dare say that both the ideas I presented - for Caucasus and for Iran, could be believable and I will return to that in a minute (though I want to avoid a very long post).

 

Now as for "realistic" - I doubt anyone here would like to play a really realistic scenario - because, frankly, it would be horribly boring. If you take any book written by pilots or summarizing pilot's experience - be it A-10 over Kosovo, Iraq, F-15E over Iraq, memoirs of the M-2000D pilot, A-10s over Afghanistan (2 books) or any other - the exciting stories gathered there are only a small % of total sorties. Many if not most of them would take around 4-6h, with at least 2 AARs and would end without any exciting action. That would be realistic to recreate, but would it be fun?

 

Therefore I aim for believable scenarios. Yes, I use my imagination, I also use a lot of intel I get from various sources to create campaigns that *could* happen, with developed background, storyline and characters. And in all honesty - if someone asked you in 2011 how "believable" it would be for Russia to annex Crimea and then wage war in Eastern Ukraine without any real reaction from the West, would you answer: "yeah, this totally can happen"? I doubt it.

 

OK, moving on:

 

Notwithstanding the fact negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal weren't even underway in 2012, since when does Iran have the ability to invade anything? One serious examination of their military capabilities reveals a largely defensive force, whose strengths are largely within their asymmetric and unconventional abilities. Better yet, why?

 

Why would Iran invade the UAE? I understand the leadership in Tehran is viewed as irrational by many in the West, but this just isn't the case. How does invading the UAE make sense given the realities of Iran's military capabilities. Better yet, how does attempting an impossible invasion of the UAE help Iran's strategic/political posture in any way? Wars don't unfold the way you think they do - often, with success, comes more headaches and the weaker countries don't deal with these headaches very well.

 

Let me answer with a question. Why then - if Iran is as weak as you suggest - is it considered by a major threat by Israel, which is a nuclear power and is much stronger than Iran? Why would Israelis be so vehemently criticizing the deal? I think there is much more than just military power. If you look at the region you will see it is a very difficult terrain. You have Saudis and UAE (with others) fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen and, to lesser extent, in Syria. You have a big clash of definition of religions between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudis. And yes, Iranian regime is not mad, of course, but much more prone to less rational actions than any democratic government. So:

 

If you still intend to create a Strait of Hormuz scenario taking place in 2012, here's an article detailing a real-world chain of events that'd form a better basis for a U.S.-Iran clash that year. It only takes a bit of research to avoid going off into the world of crazy scenarios that have no grip on reality.

 

http://warisboring.com/before-the-nuclear-deal-america-and-iran-flirted-with-war/

 

If Iran stood up so strongly against the US because of the economic sanctions and the burden they carried, it should be much easier to attack a rich neighbor to the south, wouldn't it? According to the article, the sanctions were tightened in 2011 - and what better way of really controlling and closing the SoH than being on both sides of it? And if you get some spoils of war along the way, that is even better... for me this is a good enough reason. Much better than they had in real life to escalate tensions with the US.

 

Given the realities of an Iranian invasion of UAE, imagine how much more ridiculous an Iranian invasion across Armenia towards the Black Sea region is. You may as well arm the Iranians with technology delivered by aliens if you're going to go there.

 

I don't really get the reference to Armenia here. But on a side note, when ED introduces UFOs as AI aircraft I will be the first to make an Area 51 campaign in Nellis ;)

 

I'm a lot less critical of the Caucasus region scenarios, primarily because it's just one of three maps currently available and that's going to limit the kinds of scenarios that can be made. Going forward, I want to see more believable and realistic scenarios - thus far, what we have is anything but. Below is a link to see the wars that are unfolding throughout the world; one of the things you'll see is how few of these conflicts are likely to trigger American intervention. The idea U.S./Western forces would be so deeply involved in the Caucasus has always been unbelievable and unrealistic.

 

OK, time for a little background - doing it only to make you understand that to some extent I know what I am talking about before I continue. Thanks to my day to day work I visited Georgia at least 7-8 times. I talked with many politicians there, including a few former ministers of defence, president, some generals, lower ranking officers, think tanks, NGOs etc. We've talked about different scenarios and things that could happen. Of course, you are right - nobody in the West would go to openly fight Russia for Georgia. But nobody has created such a campaign. What we have are COIN type operations (OP Piercing Fury and Enemy Within) which I find very believable. Georgia is praised very highly by almost all the NATO Members and officials - to some extent being called more ready for NATO than some of the current Member States. If they had a large scale problem with the terrorists I see no reason why would the West stand idly. After all, NATO attacked Serbia (which was backed by Russia) to defend Kosovo. Why in the scenario outlined above wouldn't they do the same for the candidate country (even though for political reasons after 2008 membership is still far away) in case of horrendous atrocities committed by a general who is no longer backed by Moscow - and considered a traitor there?

 

Finally, here's an example of what should be done - this is a scenario based on current events that, while taking "creative license," sticks to the facts and doesn't go off the deep end. This is what a believable scenario is - a UAE invasion isn't.

 

 

Forgive me for my blunt tone, but I just think DCS ought to apply the same standards of authenticity and realism to campaigns as well, because after all, the subject of DCS is war in the real world.

 

No worries about the tone and thanks for your post. I enjoy exchanging ideas, I also like a well - grounded criticism, and you are giving lots of facts and studies to prove you're right. I find your ideas interesting, even if I don't agree with many things.

 

You are free to create your own campaign if you find current one lacking - and I would be the first one to play it and I'm sure I would enjoy it. Having said that, you claim with full confidence that UEA invasion isn't a believable scenario and I disagree once again. I think it could be believable, though probably not very probable, but these are two different things.

 

BTW, to finish this long post (sorry for that) - sticking to the facts where able is what I always try to do in my campaigns. That is why I have been or am in touch with several active USAF pilots, ATC controllers, active duty FACs, crew chiefs etc. Throughout the time I spent building campaigns I met many fantastic people who do in real life what we try to recreate in DCS. And usually it was them reaching out to me because they found the campaigns realistic and with lot of care for details and they wanted to make them better. I had former Mirage pilot saying that flying the campaign felt somewhat similar to what he felt years ago. They all added and are adding their special touch to the missions I am currently working on - through radio chatter, briefings, terminology, histories they share. I feel that with each campaign I am getting closer and closer to what I consider a ideal campaign - with believable setting, detailed radio chatter, interesting characters and various tasks.

 

So the bottom line is - I will continue to do what I am doing, though I am open to changing some parts of the storyline if I see good ideas. But I will stick to the basic one I had regarding both outlined scenarios and I am certain then once the campaign is out, most of the people will find it entertaining and realistic.

 

Thanks again for your post!

[Jester986]

Baltic, I've yet to play one of your campaigns, but I plan to, and thank you for keeping fun as the primary factor.

[CheckGear]

If my very next statement was in regards to the Iranian nuke deal, then yeah it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was "talking about." In fact that was the entirety of my post... You then want to criticize that I don't know what I typed.... Childish behavior.

 

Don't want childish behavior? Don't bring it to the table. Here's what you said:

 

Checkgear, I'm not entirely against your post, but you are factual incorrect. There have been talks of getting Iran to move away from Nuclear capabilities since its first reactor in 1967.

 

There have been multiple meetings and discussions and attempted deals over the past couple of decades that have stalled, failed or where flat out ignored.

 

The only reference I made to the Iran nuke deal was that BalticDragon was wrong in saying negotiations for it were underway in 2012, when they didn't start until 2013. Unless you're referring to every single discussion the U.S. and Iran held on the latter's nuclear program, which, by the way, were very few, if any, then the nuclear deal was of no relevance in 2012 because they weren't talking about it then. In fact, the JCPOA was as ground-breaking as it was because it involved direct U.S.-Iran talks on a matter of heavy substance, something that had never happened before. I am very much correct on this point and the facts back it up.

 

It's also why I asked for clarification - I made one reference to the Iran nuke deal, it was very much correct, therefore, unless you were under the impression the U.S. and Iran had held talks on its nuclear program since 1987, it wasn't obvious exactly what you were challenging.

 

It does in fact invalidate your statement where YOU said "Since when does Iran have the ability to invade anyone."

 

No, you are being facetious and trying to play the straw-man. I clearly identified an instance, regardless of how insignificant you find it that invalidates your point. You simply cannot deal with being wrong so you want to create this erroneous scenario to make yourself feel better.

 

But you haven't proven me wrong on anything. I've provided abundant amount of evidence that backs up my argument. These aren't my facts, these are the facts; my sources, which are credible, are making the arguments.

 

You, on the other hand, by focusing on that one statement, are deliberately missing the forest for the trees and engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

 

Your logic appears to be that the ability to cross borders, which is all the Iranians really did, amounts to being capable of mounting major invasions (this is what we're talking about here). It's a faulty generalization, the same as saying "If a national soccer team beat a junior national team of another country, it should be able to beat the senior national team as well." I'm sure even you can see the lack of logic in that.

 

I've already provided evidence that Iran's ability to do anything is incredibly limited, suggesting if they were to try, they'd fail. Unless you take the Iranians for idiots, it's likely they're aware of their weaknesses, which explains much of their strategy. So it means nothing that I said what I said, nor does it mean anything that Iran crossed the border, largely uncontested, and seized an oil field, because that wasn't the question at hand.

 

The question at hand was, can they mount a major offensive such as one into the Caucasus or across the Strait into the UAE? The evidence says? No.

 

Iran actually practices this very scenario a lot.

 

Practices what? Driving across the border into southern Iraq? Invading the UAE? A northward offensive towards the Caucasus? And may I remind you Iran practices sinking U.S. aircraft carriers; does this mean they'd actually try or are capable of being successful? You appear to have a bad habit of drawing broad conclusions based on narrow evidence.

 

You would know that if you took a moment and learned of geo-political tensions in the region. You could also learn to humble yourself and realize that you do not know everything.

 

I don't know everything. But I do know what I know is correct; I've done the research through credible sources, read countless books on the matter, and I've provided many sources to you. In return, you've provided nothing except fallacies and a red herring, and have presented things as evidence that might become fact depending on how well you play word games.

 

No, no it doesn't. You keep mistaking that because someone says that something is possible doesn't mean that they are going to be efficient or successful. Its funny because the last point your copied was that they have limited amphibious capability. That is itself proves that they can, not that they can successfully.

 

Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. You get so caught up in one thing, you forgot to look at the whole picture. That limited amphibious capability would run into serious resistance with little support for itself, implying that their chances of failure or unacceptable casualties are incredibly high. Put yourself in the Iranians' shoes; would you roll the dice, knowing the odds are lopsided against your favor?

 

The link you provided, which is hardly an authoritative source, even suggests, rather blatantly, that an Iranian invasion of the UAE would end very badly. Again, the Iranians are probably at least partially aware of this, so unless they're suicidal or feel like the apocalypse is nigh, this is scenario so unlikely it's an insult to one's intelligence to seriously consider it.

 

Now, I am not one in saying that they have the capabilities of the US when it comes to moving troops and the logistics that follow. To merely write them off is a sure-way to lose a conflict.

 

This is why we evaluate their capabilities based off the facts and assess the threat within reason. Iran can certainly wreak havoc in the Strait of Hormuz, but their ability to put up a sustained military effort of any sort is quite limited. Their strategy is to make the cost of victory for their enemy so great, they won't even try to test Iran. That doesn't make a war impossible, but it certainly doesn't suggest these major war scenarios everyone keeps writing up. In all likelihood, a U.S.-Iran clash will be brief, violent, and frustratingly inconclusive.

[Revelation]

Don't want childish behavior? Don't bring it to the table.

And here's your sign...

 

 

The only reference I made to the Iran nuke deal was that BalticDragon was wrong in saying negotiations for it were underway in 2012, when they didn't start until 2013.

Again, you are wrong as negotiations began in 2006.

 

Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 began in 2006, to assure the P5+1 world powers that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons, and to assure Iran that its right to enrich nuclear fuel for civilian purposes under the third pillar of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which it is a party, was respected.

 

 

It's also why I asked for clarification - I made one reference to the Iran nuke deal, it was very much correct, therefore, unless you were under the impression the U.S. and Iran had held talks on its nuclear program since 1987, it wasn't obvious exactly what you were challenging.

Again, my entire post was about Iran's nuclear program. That's like me replying to your post asking if you were really talking about the Titanic; that is how absurd your position is.

 

 

But you haven't proven me wrong on anything. I've provided abundant amount of evidence that backs up my argument. These aren't my facts, these are the facts; my sources, which are credible, are making the arguments.

I did prove you wrong. I provided a specific instance where Iran did invade Iraq. You claimed that they weren't able. This is very simple, You are wrong as they had previously invaded Iraq. In no way did you qualify your original statement as saying invasion and conquer "X' amount of land.

 

You, on the other hand, by focusing on that one statement, are deliberately missing the forest for the trees and engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

No, I focused on one statement because you were wrong. In fact I stated that I agreed with most of your post, what do you want me to cite the rest of your post and give you a pat on the back or the part I take issue with?

 

Your logic appears to be that the ability to cross borders, which is all the Iranians really did, amounts to being capable of mounting major invasions (this is what we're talking about here). It's a faulty generalization, the same as saying "If a national soccer team beat a junior national team of another country, it should be able to beat the senior national team as well." I'm sure even you can see the lack of logic in that.

See there you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never claimed they performed a large scale invasion, in fact I stated the exact opposite. Are you actually reading to understand or reading to respond?

 

I've already provided evidence that Iran's ability to do anything is incredibly limited, suggesting if they were to try, they'd fail. Unless you take the Iranians for idiots, it's likely they're aware of their weaknesses, which explains much of their strategy. So it means nothing that I said what I said, nor does it mean anything that Iran crossed the border, largely uncontested, and seized an oil field, because that wasn't the question at hand.

What you stated was the Iran COULD NOT, not that their efforts were essentially futile. No where in your first post, the one in question, did you state they have limited capability and would likely be insignificant - however, I did. An invasion is an invasion, unless you qualify ahead of time. You don't get to come back later and state:

(this is what we're talking about here) when you never qualified that as your stance. See, unlike you, I don't claim to know what you mean, I am taking you at the words that you typed.

 

The question at hand was, can they mount a major offensive such as one into the Caucasus or across the Strait into the UAE? The evidence says? No.

I never saw that posed as a question at all.

 

 

Practices what? Driving across the border into southern Iraq? Invading the UAE?

So I provided a link to show that they do practice amphibious landings into the UAE, you obviously didn't even check it out based on this dribble.

 

 

A northward offensive towards the Caucasus?

Wasn't ever part of my discussion, this is simply a distraction...

 

 

And may I remind you Iran practices sinking U.S. aircraft carriers; does this mean they'd actually try or are capable of being successful? You appear to have a bad habit of drawing broad conclusions based on narrow evidence.

Yes they do. If they are underestimated then yes they can. This was actually proven recently in a War Game where a retired general led OPFOR and decimated the Navy's Carrier Battle Group.

 

https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/

 

Again, underestimating your enemy will lead to a loss faster than any plan you can come up with.

 

I don't know everything. But I do know what I know is correct; I've done the research through credible sources, read countless books on the matter, and I've provided many sources to you. In return, you've provided nothing except fallacies and a red herring, and have presented things as evidence that might become fact depending on how well you play word games.

No. You do not get to come back after a statement to qualify it and act like it was common knowledge or reasonably understood.

 

Now you could have come back and stated " I meant along these lines" and that would have been the end of it.

 

 

Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. You get so caught up in one thing, you forgot to look at the whole picture. That limited amphibious capability would run into serious resistance with little support for itself, implying that their chances of failure or unacceptable casualties are incredibly high. Put yourself in the Iranians' shoes; would you roll the dice, knowing the odds are lopsided against your favor?

No, again. You keep trying to say I'm missing something but that is a lie. Your statement, as it originally stood, has been proven false. I never claimed that they could conquer the world or the UAE; simply that they had the ability and that they were training for it. IN FACT, I even stated:

No, no it doesn't. You keep mistaking that because someone says that something is possible doesn't mean that they are going to be efficient or successful.

 

 

The link you provided, which is hardly an authoritative source, even suggests, rather blatantly, that an Iranian invasion of the UAE would end very badly. Again, the Iranians are probably at least partially aware of this, so unless they're suicidal or feel like the apocalypse is nigh, this is scenario so unlikely it's an insult to one's intelligence to seriously consider it.

Again, where did I say that they would be successful, again I stated the opposite. I merely cited sources that say they could and that the trained for it where you said Iran could not. You didn't say Iran has amphibious capabilities that is largely irrelevant unless they get lucky. < THAT is a factually correct statement.
Edited November 9, 2017 by Revelation

[CheckGear]

No worries about the long post, I'll gladly answer them with an equally long one:

 

Now as for "realistic" - I doubt anyone here would like to play a really realistic scenario - because, frankly, it would be horribly boring. If you take any book written by pilots or summarizing pilot's experience - be it A-10 over Kosovo, Iraq, F-15E over Iraq, memoirs of the M-2000D pilot, A-10s over Afghanistan (2 books) or any other - the exciting stories gathered there are only a small % of total sorties. Many if not most of them would take around 4-6h, with at least 2 AARs and would end without any exciting action. That would be realistic to recreate, but would it be fun?

 

Not only do I agree, this is so not what I was arguing in favor of, so this is an irrelevant point to be making. Gameplay-versus-realism trade-offs are inevitable and I fully understand the balance isn't always easy to maintain.

 

Interesting that you find this idea comical, but OK... As you probably imagine, I completely disagree. First of all because in my opinion there is a big difference for DCS between "believable" and "realistic". I dare say that both the ideas I presented - for Caucasus and for Iran, could be believable and I will return to that in a minute (though I want to avoid a very long post).

 

Therefore I aim for believable scenarios. Yes, I use my imagination, I also use a lot of intel I get from various sources to create campaigns that *could* happen, with developed background, storyline and characters.

 

In other words, "believable" means nothing, because it's all a matter of personal opinion and, therefore, largely subjective.

 

And in all honesty - if someone asked you in 2011 how "believable" it would be for Russia to annex Crimea and then wage war in Eastern Ukraine without any real reaction from the West, would you answer: "yeah, this totally can happen"? I doubt it.

 

Given Russia's history of military operations in the Caucasus, the largely favorable geography in the region, and the military balance in favor of Moscow, there was at least a precedent that simply isn't there for a country like Iran. So while it'd be disingenuous for me to say I'd have found, back in 2011, Russian annexation of Crimea to be believable, it'd have been perfectly reasonable for someone else, particularly one more familiar with the issue, to consider the risk of Russia annexing Crimea to be high, especially given the ongoing dispute since the fall of the Soviet Union. Like you imply, anything can be believable, but some things are more reasonable to believe than others.

 

As for there not being a major reaction from the West? Totally believable. Very few of Russia's aggressive actions, going back to the Soviet era, have been answered in any meaningful way by the West - Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in '68, Afghanistan in '79, Georgia in '08, so on and so forth. In fact, I remember having this very discussion with somebody back when the annexation of Crimea occurred. When asked what we thought the West would do, another person replied, "Nothing," citing the examples listed above. And you know what? He was right.

 

When it comes to understanding what's possible and what isn't, history is your friend.

 

Let me answer with a question. Why then - if Iran is as weak as you suggest - is it considered by a major threat by Israel, which is a nuclear power and is much stronger than Iran? Why would Israelis be so vehemently criticizing the deal? I think there is much more than just military power. If you look at the region you will see it is a very difficult terrain. You have Saudis and UAE (with others) fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen and, to lesser extent, in Syria. You have a big clash of definition of religions between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudis. And yes, Iranian regime is not mad, of course, but much more prone to less rational actions than any democratic government. So:

 

You answered your own question. Iran is an unconventional threat and I never suggested otherwise. Your scenarios suggest Iran has considerable conventional capabilities, which it would require in order to at least overcome the opposition it'd run into in an attempted invasion of the UAE. With the exception of ballistic missiles, Israel has never been under conventional threat from Iran, but it's certainly been under unconventional threat.

 

If Iran stood up so strongly against the US because of the economic sanctions and the burden they carried, it should be much easier to attack a rich neighbor to the south, wouldn't it? According to the article, the sanctions were tightened in 2011 - and what better way of really controlling and closing the SoH than being on both sides of it? And if you get some spoils of war along the way, that is even better... for me this is a good enough reason. Much better than they had in real life to escalate tensions with the US.

 

I've read your argument many times and there's still no logic or factual basis to it. I've no clue what you're trying to say about sanctions, but on what basis would attacking the UAE ever be easy for Iran? If you're not convinced, read the studies I've provided - they're from think tanks like CSIS, some of the best in the business of military analysis. Iran has limited amphibious capabilities and few means of effectively supporting such an operation; their chances of success are so low it amounts to a last-gasp suicide mission.

 

You also missed the part in the piece where it says it is unlikely Iran would've actually tried to close the Strait. Even if they could close it, they can't close it for long and would see their forces obliterated in response. It amounts to a borderline suicidal move that might be useful as a threat and for political reasons, but, like nuclear weapons, is rather useless in practice. Given that controlling the Strait for any meaningful length of time is a tall order for Iran, how much easier do you think it'd be for them to invade and occupy parts of UAE and then try controlling the Strait on both sides? They would've incurred serious losses by then that'd make such a move, again, suicidal. So no, it's not "better" from any perspective for Iran.

 

I don't really get the reference to Armenia here.

 

Somebody posted the following:

 

Having allied with Armenia, Iran forces are pushing across the border in an effort to secure the Black Sea port of Batumi before potentially moving northward.

 

The Russian Caspain Flotilla, lacking a large landing force, is scrambling to meet the Iranian threat from their main base in Astrakhan.

 

The Russian Black Sea fleet, however, has just finished a tense joint exercise with allied forces and is scheduled for a Port call in Novorossiysk.

 

In view of the threat to Batumi, the fleet is again joining with its allied forces to try and repel the Iranian threat by moving across the Black Sea to land a considerable force in vicinity of Batumi. Supported by an array of NATO and NON-NATO allies, the allied force moves towards open sea.

 

Something like that?

 

You are free to create your own campaign if you find current one lacking - and I would be the first one to play it and I'm sure I would enjoy it. Having said that, you claim with full confidence that UEA invasion isn't a believable scenario and I disagree once again. I think it could be believable, though probably not very probable, but these are two different things.

 

Again, don't take my word for it. There are people out there who get paid to study these things; see what they have to say. You have to be obtuse to think Iran could successfully mount an invasion of the UAE - it flies in the face of all the facts, one of which is that the considerable U.S. presence in the region acts as a deterrent against exactly such a move.

 

So the bottom line is - I will continue to do what I am doing, though I am open to changing some parts of the storyline if I see good ideas. But I will stick to the basic one I had regarding both outlined scenarios and I am certain then once the campaign is out, most of the people will find it entertaining and realistic.

 

I have no doubt it'll be entertaining. I'm merely pointing out where you got your facts wrong and I find it equally comical you insist on continuing to get them wrong. :confused: That said, I think I've made my point and, after all, game design is a form of art and is entirely a subjective affair. I'll chalk it up to creative license and see what you come up with!

Edited November 9, 2017 by CheckGear

[CheckGear]

Again, you are wrong as negotiations began in 2006.

 

Again, my entire post was about Iran's nuclear program. That's like me replying to your post asking if you were really talking about the Titanic; that is how absurd your position is.

 

And my post (and BalticDragon's reference) was about the Iran nuke deal, specifically, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015. The negotiations for that specific deal began in 2013. You can consider the negotiations in 2013 a resumption of previous attempts at negotiation in 2006, but in no way can you ever consider the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015 to be a result of negotiations that took place in '06, especially considering these negotiations failed, as you pointed out, not to mention they were conducted under entirely different presidential administrations on both sides. You really have to stretch the facts to fit your reality.

 

 

I did prove you wrong. I provided a specific instance where Iran did invade Iraq. You claimed that they weren't able. This is very simple, You are wrong as they had previously invaded Iraq. In no way did you qualify your original statement as saying invasion and conquer "X' amount of land.

 

So that one oversight on my part overrides my broader, more important argument? In your mind, there's no difference between a small-scale, largely-unresisted border incursion, versus an invasion of the UAE or a sustained land offensive into the Caucasus? Again, missing the forest for the trees, even if you "won" on this minor point. It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Simply driving across the border largely uncontested means absolutely nothing. It's like saying strolling into a house whose doors were unlocked makes me a good thief.

 

No, I focused on one statement because you were wrong. In fact I stated that I agreed with most of your post, what do you want me to cite the rest of your post and give you a pat on the back or the part I take issue with?

 

And by focusing on one statement that doesn't invalidate my bigger argument, you fail to address the important question - does Iran have the capability to invade the UAE or sustain a land offensive into the Caucasus? The facts say no.

 

See there you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never claimed they performed a large scale invasion, in fact I stated the exact opposite. Are you actually reading to understand or reading to respond?

 

Oh no, I've read every word you've typed. I could just as easily ask if you're responding to discuss or to be argumentative?

 

What you stated was the Iran COULD NOT, not that their efforts were essentially futile

 

Again, do you consider driving across an open border, largely uncontested, to be a sure sign of being able to invade another country (forget conducting a major operation for the moment)? This is precisely why I find your microscopic-level obsession with that one statement incredibly bizarre.

 

No where in your first post, the one in question, did you state they have limited capability and would likely be insignificant - however, I did. An invasion is an invasion, unless you qualify ahead of time. You don't get to come back later and state: (this is what we're talking about here) when you never qualified that as your stance. See, unlike you, I don't claim to know what you mean, I am taking you at the words that you typed.

 

Not worth addressing, because you have an unhealthy obsession with something that doesn't affect my larger argument in any way.

 

So I provided a link to show that they do practice amphibious landings into the UAE, you obviously didn't even check it out based on this dribble.

 

And you clearly didn't read all of it, as it says Iran would get walloped in the process, which makes such an operation futile and, therefore, unlikely. And makes me question exactly what you're so turned up about.

 

Wasn't ever part of my discussion, this is simply a distraction...

 

It was part of my discussion, which you were responding to. You're cherry-picking, at this point.

 

Yes they do. If they are underestimated then yes they can. This was actually proven recently in a War Game where a retired general led OPFOR and decimated the Navy's Carrier Battle Group.

 

https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/

 

Again, underestimating your enemy will lead to a loss faster than any plan you can come up with.

 

And what does this prove? That Iranians are as capable as U.S.-led OPFOR in a training exercise? Millennium Challenge was certainly a wake-up call, but there's a certain degree of unreasonable alarmism that came from it. Ultimately, you have to look at what the Iranians are doing and what they have in their toolbelt. And I can attest, from personal experience, that the U.S. is completely aware of what the Iranians are capable of doing. A real shooting war would be the ultimate test of that and, of course, we hope that never comes.

 

No. You do not get to come back after a statement to qualify it and act like it was common knowledge or reasonably understood.

 

I get it, you're obsessed with a point that hurts your argument more than it hurts mine.

 

Now you could have come back and stated " I meant along these lines" and that would have been the end of it.

 

Of course it wouldn't have been the end of it. Your insistence that me overlooking the fact Iran drove across the border into Iraq in 2009 completely invalidates my entire argument shows you would've continued pressing the point for the sake of pressing it. Not to mention I never reacted harshly to your admonishment; I just bluntly pointed out the incident doesn't mean what you think it means. If anything, me not :worthy: to you seems to be the real sticking point, here.

 

No, again. You keep trying to say I'm missing something but that is a lie. Your statement, as it originally stood, has been proven false. I never claimed that they could conquer the world or the UAE; simply that they had the ability and that they were training for it. IN FACT, I even stated:

 

Again, where did I say that they would be successful, again I stated the opposite. I merely cited sources that say they could and that the trained for it where you said Iran could not. You didn't say Iran has amphibious capabilities that is largely irrelevant unless they get lucky. < THAT is a factually correct statement.

 

Like I said, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You concede Iran's chances of success aren't very high, yet you're fighting to the death over something so improbable that it's not even worth seriously considering? So what if they train and "could" do something? If it can't be done in practice, it means nothing in the real world. The U.S. "could" take out the North Korean regime. Does this mean we should consider it a desireable or likely scenario?

 

And excuse me if I didn't find it necessary to write a whole research paper covering Iranian military capabilities from every angle. This is a message board; I address issues and clarify things as I go along.

 

As much as I don't appreciate the ad hominems, I don't want to argue, especially if you agree with some of what I said. Feel free to have the last word because I can't make my points any clearer than I have.

[das Rindvieh]

Ladies... :argue:

[=DECOY=]

Seriously Chaps calm down and put the handbags away:lol:

[Isegrim]

Voted for Training and Campaign in Caucasus.

 

So people which are interested in this plane are not forced to buy an additional Terrain Module just to do the Training or the Campaign.

 

This simply would be fair especially to newbies.

 

Additional Campaigns for additional terrain Modules is the best way to go.

 

I for sure understand that normaly the training would match into the NTTR better.

[baltic_dragon]

Voted for Training and Campaign in Caucasus.

 

So people which are interested in this plane are not forced to buy an additional Terrain Module just to do the Training or the Campaign.

 

This simply would be fair especially to newbies.

 

Additional Campaigns for additional terrain Modules is the best way to go.

 

I for sure understand that normaly the training would match into the NTTR better.

 

Thanks. I think I will just do the training for both maps :) although in Caucasus the carrier landing will be on an actual one, not a set place on the ground.

 

First campaign will be in Caucasus, unless SoH is out very soon, which I doubt will be. Then the second one will be in SoH.

 

I have no doubt it'll be entertaining. I'm merely pointing out where you got your facts wrong and I find it equally comical you insist on continuing to get them wrong. :confused: That said, I think I've made my point and, after all, game design is a form of art and is entirely a subjective affair. I'll chalk it up to creative license and see what you come up with!

 

Let's agree to disagree on this then and move on :) I will have a look again on your references and ideas and if you are OK with that will be happy to use some of them. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

Also, coming back to one of the previous posts, once the SoH is out I'd be more than happy to get in touch with you and build a nice, big, multi-party and multi - asset MP mission together if you like.

[Looney]

Oh well, to keep it lightly, I merely shot from the hip for a Caucasus map scenario, never said the UAE were invaded, but Armenia, a mere geaographical difference :D

 

Anyway, keep doing what you do Baltic, the Harrier has amphibious roots so and landing on a beach is a good one I guess. Looking forward to it.

[Revelation]

And my post (and BalticDragon's reference) was about the Iran nuke deal, specifically, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015. The negotiations for that specific deal began in 2013.

Baltic makes no mention of the deal signed in 2015. Let's say that is what he meant, you have a habit of moving the goal post after you are proven wrong.

 

The JPOA, Joint Plan of Action, was signed in 2013... When did the negotiations take place for the interim agreement? The JPOA was the prelude to the JCPOA, which was preceded by negotiations since 2006 which was also preceded by the NPT.

 

They didn't, in 2015, just decide to have an agreement all of the sudden...

 

 

 

 

So that one oversight on my part overrides my broader, more important argument? In your mind, there's no difference between a small-scale, largely-unresisted border incursion, versus an invasion of the UAE or a sustained land offensive into the Caucasus? Again, missing the forest for the trees, even if you "won" on this minor point. It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Simply driving across the border largely uncontested means absolutely nothing. It's like saying strolling into a house whose doors were unlocked makes me a good thief.

Where did I say there's a difference between large and small scale incursions? In fact I said the opposite.

 

I pointed out that you were wrong in your initial statement that "when does Iran have the ability to invade anyone?" Again, I pointed out where they have. You cannot qualify your post afterwards by moving the "goal post" and saying: see I'm right... You are being disingenuous with your assertion.

 

I have also provided a link to where Iran trains to invade the UAE via amphibious means, when you said they couldn't Again, you cannot accept when you are wrong, and you keep moving the goal post afterwards.

 

Funny that you bring up a burglar, because a better metaphor would be: If a burglar breaks into your house, but only goes into your living room and then leaves, did he still break into your house?

 

 

 

And by focusing on one statement that doesn't invalidate my bigger argument, you fail to address the important question - does Iran have the capability to invade the UAE or sustain a land offensive into the Caucasus? The facts say no.

YES, Iran has the capability to invade UAE. Again, you haven't qualified what "invade" means in this context. Go ahead and move the goal post again....

 

You keep brining up Caucus when I have made no mention of them at all. Is that your go to straw-man argument?

 

 

 

Again, do you consider driving across an open border, largely uncontested, to be a sure sign of being able to invade another country (forget conducting a major operation for the moment)? This is precisely why I find your microscopic-level obsession with that one statement incredibly bizarre.

Did Iran invade Iraq? In other words, did Iran's military cross an internationally recognized border and seize control of another countries land / assets?

 

Again, move the goal post. You were speaking in absolutes in the first post, when you were wrong. You did not qualify your stance until afterwards and no your are backtracking.

 

 

 

 

Of course it wouldn't have been the end of it. Your insistence that me overlooking the fact Iran drove across the border into Iraq in 2009 completely invalidates my entire argument shows you would've continued pressing the point for the sake of pressing it. Not to mention I never reacted harshly to your admonishment; I just bluntly pointed out the incident doesn't mean what you think it means. If anything, me not :worthy: to you seems to be the real sticking point, here.

Your statement in the first post was "when has Iran ever been able to invade anyone?" Again, you were proven wrong. That is fact. You wanted to move the goal post on what an "invasion" was afterwards. That is shameful on your part.

 

 

Like I said, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You concede Iran's chances of success aren't very high, yet you're fighting to the death over something so improbable that it's not even worth seriously considering? So what if they train and "could" do something? If it can't be done in practice, it means nothing in the real world. The U.S. "could" take out the North Korean regime. Does this mean we should consider it a desireable or likely scenario?

Whether Iran is successful or not depends on many factors. That is a lengthy discussion on tactics, mis-information and that would go on and on and we would probably agree on a lot. You keep saying that possibility must equal success.

 

Actually your point on the North Korean Regime is actually true, it is practiced and it becomes more likely each day

 

 

And excuse me if I didn't find it necessary to write a whole research paper covering Iranian military capabilities from every angle. This is a message board; I address issues and clarify things as I go along.

You didn't "clarify" - you spoke in absolutes and when proven factual incorrect you moved the goal post by trying to prove that you were right all along. That is disingenuous on your part.

 

As much as I don't appreciate the ad hominems, I don't want to argue, especially if you agree with some of what I said. Feel free to have the last word because I can't make my points any clearer than I have.

I have not used ad hominem attacks at all. I have always pointed out where you were wrong and then YOU tried to re-qualify your position and act like that was what you typed all along. You also keep adding context to my posts, incorrectly, and tried to play it off.
Edited November 9, 2017 by Revelation

[CheckGear]

Ladies... :argue:

 

Seriously Chaps calm down and put the handbags away:lol:

 

Sorry gentlemen, just having a heart-to-heart over a glass of whiskey. I'm all good here! :drink:

 

Say... care to join me??? :megalol:

 

Let's agree to disagree on this then and move on :) I will have a look again on your references and ideas and if you are OK with that will be happy to use some of them. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

Also, coming back to one of the previous posts, once the SoH is out I'd be more than happy to get in touch with you and build a nice, big, multi-party and multi - asset MP mission together if you like.

 

Copy, like I said, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I never questioned the fun-factor of your work, so I'm sure it'll be worth a look, either way.

 

Oh well, to keep it lightly, I merely shot from the hip for a Caucasus map scenario, never said the UAE were invaded, but Armenia, a mere geaographical difference :D

 

The UAE reference was made by BalticDragon.

Edited November 9, 2017 by CheckGear

[DZShizzam]

So... just for clarification, there will ultimately be training missions on Caucasus, but not right away, but no campaign releasing with the module.

 

Eventually once Strait of Hormuz is released then there will be a paid campaign for that map.

 

Do I have this right? If so, can't wait for SoH :D

[CheckGear]

So... just for clarification, there will ultimately be training missions on Caucasus, but not right away, but no campaign releasing with the module.

 

Eventually once Strait of Hormuz is released then there will be a paid campaign for that map.

 

Do I have this right? If so, can't wait for SoH :D

 

SoH is definitely the map I'm looking forward to most. It's the first "real-world" theater in DCS, at least from a U.S. perspective. In fact, I can't remember any combat flight sim taking place in the Strait.

[DZShizzam]

SoH is definitely the map I'm looking forward to most. It's the first "real-world" theater in DCS, at least from a U.S. perspective. In fact, I can't remember any combat flight sim taking place in the Strait.

 

I think Combat Air Patrol 2 has a Strait of Hormuz map, but it's not a "simulator" to the same degree as DCS.

[baltic_dragon]

So... just for clarification, there will ultimately be training missions on Caucasus, but not right away, but no campaign releasing with the module.

 

Eventually once Strait of Hormuz is released then there will be a paid campaign for that map.

 

Do I have this right? If so, can't wait for SoH :D

 

There will be training done for both NTTR and Caucasus with the module - and I will try to get a more interactive and immersive feeling to it than normal training missions, so player will be voiced over, together with the instructor and some other flights. And yes, not straight away - it does not make sense to make training missions for an alpha stage module with some of the functions missing.

 

Then while waiting for the SoH there will be a DLC campaign in Caucasus.

[WildBillKelsoe]

A

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Capn kamikaze]

I'd hold off until the Strait of Hormuz is released, its perfect for a campaign.

[sze5003]

More immersive than they are currently? Very excited for this! I've always thought your missions are the most immersive.

[baltic_dragon]

Thanks! Always striving to make them better and better ;)

But what I meant here is more immersive than normal training missions

[CheckGear]

I think Combat Air Patrol 2 has a Strait of Hormuz map, but it's not a "simulator" to the same degree as DCS.

 

Combat Air Patrol 2 actually has some real good graphics. Nothing beats DCS, though.