Is Arma 3 authentic?

[daellis94]

Why would they develop the Panha 2091 if it was not an improvement on the Ah-1T? I think you think I was saying that they are making better equipment than the west. That is not true. Modernizing designs from the 70s would categorically be considered an improvement, however.

Well, technically they copy it just so they can manufacture something similar. They are not like to be able to engineer and then produce equipment to NATO standards, unless, as you say, they are modernizing gear that is many decades old, though in some more specific cases I may resist that analysis even still.

Again, as I have said above, Iran would likely not just take the Merkava anyway. It's not a tank designed to fit what would appear to be Iranian armored doctrine. Iran's tanks are already designed to fit different criteria. Bottom line, I would go with and/or prefer the suggestion that Iran simply has this captured Israeli gear as a supplement to proper Iranian weaponry, though whether BIS will abide by that preference we have yet to see. Though, technically, we do know their plan is to have a different Iranian tank, as the Merkava is just a placeholder. Along similar lines, I really hope they add a more appropriate NATO MBT, something like the M-1A4 Abrams maybe, or the Leopard 3. Preferably something actually from NATO and fitting of NATO armies.

---------- Post added at 23:55 ---------- Previous post was at 23:51 ----------

Well, I added to my original post here, and my theory is that Iran has all this gear directly from Israel and NATO as supplies for their revolution, in a way similar to the Taliban, the CIA, and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

So by ending an evil, NATO unintentionally created a bigger one.

What do you mean by that? The US never backed the revolution in 1979. It was a revolution decidedly against our interests.

Another thing I have to be pedantic about, and forgive me for this but I see this mentioned far too often that I can rarely resist responding to it, if the Taliban is seen using large numbers of Soviet RPG-7D anti-tank rockets and AKM rifles, then they weren't armed largely by the United States. What the US gave the Mujaheddin (the Taliban is not strictly the same group, it rose after the Soviet war) was mainly training, I think communications abilities, funding, and Stinger missiles. When funding is cut, you don't really have money anymore, unless you are a very frugal resistance movement, and most of their front line gear is Soviet in origin, since that is very suitable in a region where well trained men are hard to come by, and where Soviet weapons and ammunition are abundant to keep supplied.

[Max Power]

Well, technically they copy it just so they can manufacture something similar. They are not like to be able to engineer and then produce equipment to NATO standards, unless, as you say, they are modernizing gear that is many decades old, though in some more specific cases I may resist that analysis even still.

These facts are easily varifiable. In the time it took you to post your reservations you could have easily looked it up for yourself.

Again, as I have said above, Iran would likely not just take the Merkava anyway. It's not a tank designed to fit what would appear to be Iranian armored doctrine. Iran's tanks are already designed to fit different criteria. Bottom line, I would go with and/or prefer the suggestion that Iran simply has this captured Israeli gear as a supplement to proper Iranian weaponry, though whether BIS will abide by that preference we have yet to see. Though, technically, we do know their plan is to have a different Iranian tank, as the Merkava is just a placeholder. Along similar lines, I really hope they add a more appropriate NATO MBT, something like the M-1A4 Abrams maybe, or the Leopard 3. Preferably something actually from NATO and fitting of NATO armies.

I am not talking about something fictional or arguing about something that may have happened. I am talking about actual reality. They have reverse engineered many weapon systems and currently produce them in new forms, period.

[InstaGoat]

What do you mean by that? The US never backed the revolution in 1979. It was a revolution decidedly against our interests.

Another thing I have to be pedantic about, and forgive me for this but I see this mentioned far too often that I can rarely resist responding to it, if the Taliban is seen using large numbers of Soviet RPG-7D anti-tank rockets and AKM rifles, then they weren't armed largely by the United States. What the US gave the Mujaheddin (the Taliban is not strictly the same group, it rose after the Soviet war) was mainly training, I think communications abilities, funding, and Stinger missiles. When funding is cut, you don't really have money anymore, unless you are a very frugal resistance movement, and most of their front line gear is Soviet in origin, since that is very suitable in a region where well trained men are hard to come by, and where Soviet weapons and ammunition are abundant to keep supplied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeqh#Operation_Ajax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir..._d%27%C3%A9tat

tl;dr: The US (trough the CIA) desposed the freely and democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadeqh (so much for defender of freedom), and established the dictatorial rule of the Shah (Pahlavi). Cue establishment of secret police (SAVAK), oppression, destruction of cultural values of the iranian people in favour of westernization.

This is the reason why the Iranian military has so much US and NATO built equipment (Including F-14s, F-4s, F-5s, G3 rifles, UH-1 and CH-47s, etc, etc, etc). Or how else do you think the Islamic Republic of Iran got hold of then top-tier US Military aircraft? They certainly didn´t just copy them.

This is what Black Cat is referring to, specifically. Not the Islamic Revolution. Didn´t you have a history class in school?

Edit: Ditto for the army of chile after Pinochet deposed the (freely and democratically elected) socialist Allende government (again with the help of the CIA. Durr hurr do I see a pattern here?). Most of their equipment was supplanted by, again, top-tier NATO built equipment, mostly from germany and france.

[MissionCreep]

What the US gave the Mujaheddin (the Taliban is not strictly the same group, it rose after the Soviet war) was mainly training, I think communications abilities, funding, and Stinger missiles. When funding is cut, you don't really have money anymore, unless you are a very frugal resistance movement, and most of their front line gear is Soviet in origin, since that is very suitable in a region where well trained men are hard to come by, and where Soviet weapons and ammunition are abundant to keep supplied.

The Muj were supplied with Soviet weapons bought with US, Saudi and Pakistan funds. There are many reasons Soviet weapons are used. Among them, large black market/aftermarket supplies, easy availability of spare parts in that part of the world, Eastern bloc weapons tend to be relatively inexpensive, require less training to use, fewer specialized skills to operate, maintain and repair.

The US still supplies the Iraqi and Afghan national armies with Eastern Bloc weapons to this day.

[daellis94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeqh#Operation_Ajax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir..._d%27%C3%A9tat

tl;dr: The US (trough the CIA) desposed the freely and democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadeqh (so much for defender of freedom), and established the dictatorial rule of the Shah (Pahlavi). Cue establishment of secret police (SAVAK), oppression, destruction of cultural values of the iranian people in favour of westernization.

This is the reason why the Iranian military has so much US and NATO built equipment (Including F-14s, F-4s, F-5s, G3 rifles, UH-1 and CH-47s, etc, etc, etc). Or how else do you think the Islamic Republic of Iran got hold of then top-tier US Military aircraft? They certainly didn´t just copy them.

This is what Black Cat is referring to, specifically. Not the Islamic Revolution. Didn´t you have a history class in school?

Edit: Ditto for the army of chile after Pinochet deposed the (freely and democratically elected) socialist Allende government (again with the help of the CIA. Durr hurr do I see a pattern here?). Most of their equipment was supplanted by, again, top-tier NATO built equipment, mostly from germany and france.

Yes, we have a history class, but I misunderstood, as talking about a revolution in Iran typically means the Islamic Revolution of 1979, not the act of the CIA and British groups putting the Shah back in power, or rather the son of the former Shah who was deposed by the Allies in 1941 for not allowing supplies to pass through to the Soviet Union.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------

These facts are easily varifiable. In the time it took you to post your reservations you could have easily looked it up for yourself.



I am not talking about something fictional or arguing about something that may have happened. I am talking about actual reality. They have reverse engineered many weapon systems and currently produce them in new forms, period.

You are talking about other weapons and vehicles. Iran neither possessed in the past nor possesses now the ability to replicate modern Western technology. They can't even keep their F-14's operational any more. How then could they take any design they want and just improve it or make it at all as good as the real version? I understand they have many vehicles whose designs are taken from the West, but unless the original vehicles are themselves outdated designs, the Iranians have not been able to make anything quite as good. When you say new... well, I would agree depending on your use of the term "new." Obviously, reworking captured designs to take old vehicles up to "modern" Iranian standards makes them new only in the sense that this newest incarnation of the design is the youngest. However, I would not say they are new in the sense that they can compete with other contemporary vehicle designs of nations such as Israel or the United States, or even Russia. To use the F-14 example again, they had more than 80 of those fighters in their own inventories but were not able to copy them. For all of Iran's interest in improving its own technologies using outside sources, it is only capable of so much.

As for the Merkava... Well, I don't know quite what you mean. The Merkava was never copied by Iran. Even so, my argument was not to suggest Iran could not make use of or make its own ripoffs of the Merkava design, especially if we are talking about 2035 Iran, which appears to be much more powerful than Iran in the real world. I am saying that even if Iran took over all of Israel and captured enough Merkavas to be able to replicate the design precisely, I doubt they would like it very much. The Merkava isn't necessarily better than what Iran could make at that point. It simply fits Israel's need extremely well, but obviously Iran will have different needs as a result of varying strategic and tactical concerns. I highly doubt Iran holds the survival of its manpower to such a high priority as Israel, coming down, of course, to a simple question of population. Therefore, most of the design features of the Merkava would be completely unnecessary for the 2035 Iranian armed forces, and in some ways counterproductive, because design features of the Merkava in some ways detract from the effectiveness of some designs of other comparable Western tanks (counting Israel as "Western" because its military is very much European in character).

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

The Muj were supplied with Soviet weapons bought with US, Saudi and Pakistan funds. There are many reasons Soviet weapons are used. Among them, large black market/aftermarket supplies, easy availability of spare parts in that part of the world, Eastern bloc weapons tend to be relatively inexpensive, require less training to use, fewer specialized skills to operate, maintain and repair.

The US still supplies the Iraqi and Afghan national armies with Eastern Bloc weapons to this day.

I know, that's just a matter of their use of our funding to buy weapons on the black market. Legally, foreign weapons cannot be manufactured in the United States. For instance, the 120mm main gun on the M-1A2 Abrams is very much a German design. However, it is, technically speaking, not the same Rheintenmall 120mm gun found in Germany. It is, very formally, the M-256, manufactured in the United States, under license. In the same way, what may be "foreign" weapons built in the US are actually licensed versions of foreign designs. So, the US wouldn't actually have Kalashnikov rifles to give the Afghani fighters (assuming we are talking about their use of actual Soviet/Chinese AKM and Type-56 rifles, etc.), but obviously those funds would be put toward purchasing such weapons elsewhere.

I just try to point that out because too many people seem to think we directly gave them all the arms that we are facing today.

[Max Power]

You are talking about other weapons and vehicles. Iran neither possessed in the past nor possesses now the ability to replicate modern Western technology.

You are the only one who is talking about modern western technology, and I'm not sure where that came from. I said they have a history of copying and altering or improving weapons systems.

They can't even keep their F-14's operational any more. How then could they take any design they want and just improve it or make it at all as good as the real version?

Dude, why are you putting words into my mouth? How in hell did you get that I was saying they can copy or do whatever they want? Perhaps you read 'many' as 'any'?

I understand they have many vehicles whose designs are taken from the West, but unless the original vehicles are themselves outdated designs, the Iranians have not been able to make anything quite as good. When you say new... well, I would agree depending on your use of the term "new."

Laser beam riding TOW. Something that never existed before, ergo something new. I think that's pretty much the universal definition of new.

Obviously, reworking captured designs to take old vehicles up to "modern" Iranian standards makes them new only in the sense that this newest incarnation of the design is the youngest. However, I would not say they are new in the sense that they can compete with other contemporary vehicle designs of nations such as Israel or the United States, or even Russia. To use the F-14 example again, they had more than 80 of those fighters in their own inventories but were not able to copy them. For all of Iran's interest in improving its own technologies using outside sources, it is only capable of so much.

What's your point?

As for the Merkava... Well, I don't know quite what you mean. The Merkava was never copied by Iran.

No, I don't know what you mean. I never mentioned the Merkava at all.

Even so, my argument was not to suggest Iran could not make use of or make its own ripoffs of the Merkava design, especially if we are talking about 2035 Iran, which appears to be much more powerful than Iran in the real world. I am saying that even if Iran took over all of Israel and captured enough Merkavas to be able to replicate the design precisely, I doubt they would like it very much. The Merkava isn't necessarily better than what Iran could make at that point. It simply fits Israel's need extremely well, but obviously Iran will have different needs as a result of varying strategic and tactical concerns. I highly doubt Iran holds the survival of its manpower to such a high priority as Israel, coming down, of course, to a simple question of population. Therefore, most of the design features of the Merkava would be completely unnecessary for the 2035 Iranian armed forces, and in some ways counterproductive, because design features of the Merkava in some ways detract from the effectiveness of some designs of other comparable Western tanks (counting Israel as "Western" because its military is very much European in character).

At this point we don't even know which side the Merkava is on. Again, I am not talking about anything from the game, just that their military industry does actually take existing things and copy them or alter them. They have even created a weird mash up of two (very similar) helicopters.

[Slatts]

cant we all have a little bit of fun with the railgun and stop bashing it? most of us know the pros and cons of having one...

[DM]

Laser beam riding TOW.

Isnt that, by definition, no longer TOW? :P

[Max Power]

Isnt that, by definition, no longer TOW? :P

I was thinking about that when I was writing it. I think it's not longer optically tracked, too. TLBR doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

[OnlyRazor]

TLBR doesn't have the same ring to it, though.

Toolbar sounds kind of catchy, actually.