BF2S Forums The Situation in Libya

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Poor Germany indeed. But they did go do that WW2/Hitler thing, so I'd say we're even now.

UK/France are still dicks. Look at what they did to Czechoslovakia in '39.

Well UK/France were the real losers after WW2 anyway. They lost their status as world powers and began losing their colonial empires. America and Russia were obviously the real winners and Germany/Japan really ended the war pretty much where they began (minus a few million citizens).

EDIT: sorry I'll stay on topic now.

True, true.

Kmar wrote:

We also support the British, who were once at war with us. bullshit.

That was 200 years ago, not 2.

In any case, it was a mutiny, not a war.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-26 23:18:44)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

We also support the British, who were once at war with us. bullshit.

That was 200 years ago, not 2.

In any case, it was a mutiny, not a war.

My comment was a joke. However, strategic alliances, national interest, and enemies are constantly changing for various reasons. The obvious example is when the Italians switched sides in WWII... or at least tried.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

That was 200 years ago, not 2.

In any case, it was a mutiny, not a war.

1812 anyone?

I found it humorous that Andrew Jackon's big victory of that war was after the peace treaty was signed. Slow communication FTW.

I find it hilarious that he went from being censured to president.

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

We also support the British, who were once at war with us. bullshit.

That was 200 years ago, not 2.

In any case, it was a mutiny, not a war.

My comment was a joke. However, strategic alliances, national interest, and enemies are constantly changing for various reasons. The obvious example is when the Italians switched sides in WWII... or at least tried.

Its more that allies and enemies are subordinate to national interests.

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

They weren't rebels to begin with, if you followed this earlier as soon as it started. They were just protesting like they did in Egypt, except the violence that hit them back was like never seen before. They had to become rebels/armed militia, or die.

When it comes to real dictators and people like Gaddafi, it's hard to not sympathise with those who want him gone.

He keeps saying the same shit, bringing up irrelevant crap about Sandanistas and things as if it correlates with this shit. He doesn't even know what he's talking about, it seems like he's barely bothered to see what the situation is and is instead using history to jump to silly conclusions in order to justify whatever opinions he holds.

was like never seen before?

ok now you need to show me some proof.  have had about enough of this crap being tossed around with no solid proof.

wake up mekstizzle

11 Bravo wrote:

right so this is great aint it.  spending millions to fight these guys in iraq.  now spending millions to help them.  derp.

Shit, I wish. More like hundreds of billions.. or more.

I wish the endgame for western involvement were clearly stated. It is not.

Curious, http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3493018

They're gathering intel and lacing targets. Obviously they don't announce it to protect their safety.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its exactly the same threat, on the one hand pilots in aeroplanes are threatened, on the other soldiers in tanks.

So you're essentially admitting you haven't the slightest grasp on the difference in threat between air defenses to aircraft and ground forces to ground forces? Even though it's been explained to you.

The threat is as different as PGMs are to non-PGMs.

I'm not seeing a difference, maybe you're just not good at explaining.

I've explained it very clearly. I'll do it again...differently.

SAMs are essentially smart weapons. They are guided both by the ground (C2 centers, hence the targeting) and by themselves. They maneuver to hit their target, which is also maneuvering, attempting to NOT get hit. That same target, should it kinematically defeat one SAM, is now in a more vulnerable state, because it has depleted its countermeasures (chaff/flares) and its energy via maneuvers. The typical approach is to launch one or two SAMs, wait for the target to maneuver, then launch a couple more. If the first don't get it, the next ones will because the target will be much, much more vulnerable. The SAMs move much faster than anything else in the air, and are thus at a much greater advantage.

The only ground equivalent is the ATGM, but it's typically tied to the launcher by a wire, or the target must be lased. Either way, the launcher makes themselves a prime target at that point. Otherwise, the other elements of the ground war are all roughly equivalent, and thus do not pose an asymmetrical threat.

Does that make it any more clear?

If you have troops on the ground you can literally keep armour under lock and key or at least maintain surveillance on them so that if they do anything threatening they can be engaged. Whereas, a mobile AA unit can set up, target an aircraft and move again in a matter of minutes and often with the possibility that their location will not be pinpointed before they move.

It is also much easier to prove and interpret intent with ground forces. If a whole lot of tanks and troops are gathering and moving towards peacekeepers/coalition troops then that itself is threatening enough to warrant some sort of response (even if it is just reinforcing the peacekeepers as a deterrent). SAM systems remain in exactly the same posture until a missile is launched, and by that time it is too late to do anything except evasive manoeuvres/counter measures (which FEOS has already covered).