Plot deficiencies

[billytran 0]

Uh... ok... why would the US attack Russia? They are becoming a part of NATO. We would have fought them during the Cold War, had they made a move on Europe.

As for Afghanistan and Vietnam, they were very similar. In Vietnam the US lost about 50,000 troops and the NVA/Vietcong lost millions. In Afghanistan the Soviets lost 15,000 and killed about a million Afghans. In both cases they were facing a guerilla opponent backed by larger, more powerful countries. And in both cases I believe the Soviets and Americans won every major battle. The major difference was that the US was actually fighting another country (North Vietnam). And in the end, both countries decided it wasn't worth it and pulled out.

[Paratrooper 0]

A war betwene Ameerica and Russia would be a nuclear one, they would both be obliteretaed, no-onw wins this.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ July 25 2002,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it just me, or is the plot for resistance really contrived?

First, Nogova had no armored forces. So why did the Soviets bring an incredible amount of RPG's and other AT weapons?

Second, why did Guba decide to use the Su-25's? The Mi-17's could have destroyed Petrovice and Lipany in 15 sec with the 57mm rockets. And why didn't the Russians use the helos more effectively? They could have struck at any known resistance camps very quickly...maybe 5 minutes transit time

Victor was able to get to the airport, so why can't you put craters in the runway? It would really slow down any effort to used fixed-wing A/C.

And what value was there on Nogova? It has no apparent industries, no strategic value, just nothing. And why was there a deserton an otherwise lush island?

Just a few of the inconsistencies I've noticed.<span id='postcolor'>

Well just want to comment on the original statement.

'First, Nogova had no armored forces. So why did the Soviets bring an incredible amount of RPG's and other AT weapons?'

In one of the opening cut-scenes you hear the president calling for Nogovas armed force to lay down it's weapons. However, I do not believe this to mean armour, but small arms. But you must remember that RPGs and other 'Anti-tank' weapons are not used by armed forces solely as anti-armour weapons. They are also used against bunkers and temporary and permenant structures.

Also I believe the attack on Nogova to be the first step on a full scale attack on the nearest main land (wherever that may be), a step stone if you like for a full campaign. By setting up your armed forces hear you limit the risk of having to transport troops and equipment those extra miles to the intended location. They assumed on no resistance and for a take over to be very easy. They assumed wrong, and the resistance took advantage of all the equipment the Russians brought with them.

'Second, why did Guba decide to use the Su-25's? The Mi-17's could have destroyed Petrovice and Lipany in 15 sec with the 57mm rockets. And why didn't the Russians use the helos more effectively? They could have struck at any known resistance camps very quickly...maybe 5 minutes transit time.

He used SU-25s for fear factor. A very large percentage of war is psycological. You needent have the best trained soldiers or the most technological equipment, but show an impression of force and severity and the the enemy moral is sapped and victory is marginally easier. Many enemies may even flee. For example...Why did the Spanish send the airforce and battleships to that small island no bigger than a football pitch just north of Moroco the other week? They reoccupied it with just six soldiers...but they did flybys with jets and itimidated the hell out of the Morocans with a hell of alot of Navy power. This show of power, ultimately probably prevented further conflict. The Morocans weren't going to have anything to do with it after the Spanish had showed off alittle.

Also, as some have already said. The resistance may have AA weapons which would make short work of any low and relatively slow flying helicopters, just like in Afganistan. Maybe they had learnt from the mistakes made in Afganistan a few years before when hundreds of Soviet Mi-24s and Mi-17s had been groundred by Afgan rebels with American Stingers. After all, they had underestimated the resistance force on Nogovo, who was to expect such a backlash...if all had gone to plan then transporting by foot soldiers, trucks and armoured colomns would have been perfectly adequete and far cheaper. Transprt across such a small island by chopper is economically unsound.

'Victor was able to get to the airport, so why can't you put craters in the runway? It would really slow down any effort to used fixed-wing A/C.'

Putting substantial craters in a runway would require some sort of depth charge. Satchel charges blow in a specified direction away from the back plate and would only render negligible damage to tarmac that could be fairly quickly retified.

Besides the mission you are on about is an anti-helicopter mission.

'And what value was there on Nogova? It has no apparent industries, no strategic value, just nothing. And why was there a deserton an otherwise lush island?'

It is a launch pad for further campaigns on a nearby mainland...as previously explained.

The reason there is an apparent desert is because of a band of rock with ony limited topsoil that is regurally weathered by the coastal climate meaning that little to no vegetation can grow in a reasonable wide area...this does happen in real life, like in limestone areas for example. Convienenty for the inhabitants it is big enough to home a runway and small airport.

That'll do,

Jubs

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ July 27 2002,19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like, why do you need an F-22 when NATO tactics involve taking out all aircraft on the ground?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not really interested in getting into your whole post, but just for your general education, the rule of thumb for military planning is that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."  Sometimes, the enemy is inconsiderate and doesn't act the way he's "supposed" to.

Semper Fi

[PFC_Mike 2]

Jub-Jub, I think you have a lot of good points, especially regarding psychological warfare. Really didn't consider that one before. And as for Russia vs. NATO, the West won the cold war through a better economic and poltical system. Communism was and will always be a failure. In Cuba the USD is legal tender, North Korea is undergoing economic reforms, China forgot Communism 20 years ago. BTW Ford Motor is building a MASSIVE plant in Russia...huge contribution to the economy.

America does have the most effevtive and technologically advanced fighting forces in the world, mostly due to its economic and technological prowess. Any Moderators out there, feel free to close this topic as asked and answered.

M-dawg OUT!

[Harnu 0]

I have a question. If posts are asked and answered, that would mean that everything is settled. So why close something no one would reply to again after a certain point?

[Warin 0]

This really is going too offtopic

And we close them so that some dumbass wont decide to ressurect them in 6 months and tick everyone off