UK vs. Israel - Total War - Page 3




 
--
 
April 7th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: Ok


Our Glourios Admin wrote:
Quote:
and the scenarios are not too far out..
Well, you just killed my "Total War:Judean Kingdom in King Davids time Vs. The Egyptian Army of 1973" thread . I hope your pleased with your self....
April 10th, 2004  
Ben
 
Please can i just interrupt a second. The views posted here are largely Israeli/US views of the British military. I can assure you all that obviously is Isarel were the aggressors, we would win. If we were the aggressors, we would win. I know that is an unhelpfully blunt viewpoint but it is the only correct one. Just looking through the posts on this thread, there is a lot of bull and random speculation, e.g. "Israels attack helicopoters doing lots of damage etc." We have 16 Air Assault regiment for that (with better helis as well).
This scenario can only be looked at from a realistic POV but if it were to happen then, the UK would use allied arab nations to attack from, possibly the US depending upon the politics of it.
April 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: OK


Ok. Obvcours, as I said Israel cant be the agressor, since we have no landing capability(sure we could drop our paratroopers in london, but the brits would kill them all, not to speak of the RAF killing the transports on the way). Now, Ben, As to what you said- well as i am bias to the Israeli side you are to the british. Firstly, I dont think that you would want to use an Arab ally. They would do more damamge then good...Now, the british have(as I know, feel free to correct.) about 70(?) AH64 Longbow helies, and several dosen other attack helies(mostly SA341 and lynks). Israel has also a few dosen AH64s, that are being upgraded to Longbow as we speak. We also have a whole bunch of cobras. So, your Helies arnt much better. There are more of them, but the SA341 and the Lynks are not good helies at all(no offence). Now If you did use an Arab ally insted of a seaborn invasion, who would supply air supiriority? If your thinking about the Arabs(as in Syria, no other Arab nation is gonna do this for you right now), your screwd. The last time the IAF met the Syrians in the air it ended with about 100 syrian planes hitting the ground. If you intend on the RAF bringing its jets here, well that sounds better. Ok, so the RAf will bring every thin it needs here. But, Im acctually sure the RAF is smaller then the IAF(in fighter squadrons). And, i know we fly better planes. So, it's not that simple, is it?.
--
April 10th, 2004  
Ben
 
when using the arab nations, it never means using their troops, simply using their country's from which to mount land invasions from and from which to move our RAF to operate from. This is simply what i meant, as for the heli issue, the brits mainly use them in a ground support role and not alone. The planes, ours are good to excellent as are the pilots, and as we speak two new aircraft carriers are being produced for the navy and the implementation of the Typhoon aircraft (i hate "eurofighter") as well as the JSF aircraft mean that technologically and tacticaly the airforce will be able to take superiority.
April 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: Well


Well, as to the Typhoon, I dont see how its much better then the new F16I, or F15I, as the Typhoon is not really new(being "soon to be deployed" for almost a decade now....). The JSF is not even nearing entrance in the USAF yes, so how can you include it in a curent conflict?
The RAF (again correct me if im wrong here) has minly Tornados and Jaguars, with the Typhoon reaching operational capabilities 2006/2007. I dont consider the Harrier a match to a real fighter(Probably even the F4-2000 is supirior.) Personally, i think both the Jaguar and the Tornado are not as good as the F16 and F15. Now, this could go on forever, as both sides hav a good, well armed and well trained force, so it could go either way.My money is still on the IDF. As i said, your navy is the only thing im worried about...
April 10th, 2004  
Ben
 
The jaguar squadrons are being abolished to make way for the typhoon and JSF. As for the harriers, they are an excellent bit of kit that matches most fighters and ob. has the hovering capability. The RAF i'll agree is slightly outdated, but when the new fighters are brought in then it will put pretty much everyone else to shame. As for the typhoon itself, it is an excellent fighter, one of the if not the most technologically advanced planes in the world. But anyway i digress, i see the conflict more of a missle and bomb based affair to reduce casualties. Simple the navy and our subs would fire cruise etc. blast all the israeli infrastructure to impede and confuse israeli forces as well as destroying them. It would likely end up in a tactical nuclear strike on certain targets. All in all the amount of land fighting would probably end up being comparable with iraq with the exception that the palestinians would probably end up helping
April 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: well


I guss we just cant make terms can we Ben....

Well, I doubt the Land fighting would be as easy as iraq seeing the IDF is a modern army. I still think the Air will be ours, pretty much stopping a british win. Guss we will never know...Oh, and the palestinians would fight you the same as they fight us...Your just another bunch of forieghners on their land....
April 12th, 2004  
Ben
 
oh well, lucky we're on friendly terms then
April 12th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: mmm


April 14th, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
Royal Navy would mine and blokade Israeli ports.

RAF Tornado's, flying out of either Malta or Gibraltar with their Storm Shadow's and RN SSN's with their Tomahawks strike important goverment and military strucktures.

If its a total war, the Brits would most likely not even need to invade, just blokade and harass with crusie missiles. They would most likely give covert help to the Palestinians as well, getting them to make alot of trouble and disturbance, especially if they do plan to invade.