Agiel

I have the game for you: M1A1 (HA) TC's station T-72A/M1 Gunner's station Leopard 2A5 TC's station Game is Steel Beasts Pro: Personal Edition. Be warned, you'll have to pay $125 for it (though I suspect a lot of WoT players have paid a similar sum if not more).

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa. Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden? Norway was targeted by the Soviets as a secondary theater in the prospective Cold War-gone hot. Using naval bases there they could cut down on the transit times of Northern Fleet submarines from the Murmansk and the airbases could be used to launch maritime bombers against NATO convoys. Though Sweden is not a part of NATO, they were de facto members in the defensive context since the Soviets attacking Norway alone meant wading through a defensive bottleneck from Finnmark all the way down to Trondheim (then there's a fact that there was no way the Soviets would let a huge flank open to the probably sympathetic Swedes when they're fighting the war to end all wars).

I would have to ask him the next time we speak over Teamspeak. I should say given a certain character from a certain film, there ought to be at least a large number of mil-sim players who share that moniker as well.

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities). As for armour the Finnish military has pushed the T-72 out of service, fully replacing them with variations of the Leopard 2. Procurement of German Leopard 2A4s began following the end of the Cold War and recently they have purchased the last remaining Dutch Leopard 2A6es (which improve on the -A4 with advanced optics for the tank commander, inter-vehicular information systems, monolithic armour inserts, a turret wedge that improves protection against KE penetrators, strengthened roof armour against DPICMs, and most prominently, a lengthened L/55 gun over the L/44 of the -A4, which gives it a relatively spectacular improvement in muzzle velocity and long-range armour penetration over the already impressive L/44. As the L/55 gun is a 120mm smoothbore it is fully compatible with almost all NATO tank munitions save for those from the UK. It is theoretically possible to upgrade their existing Leo 2A4s to the KWS I (upgrade to the gun, the IVIS) Leopard 2A6 standard, though if this proves restrictively costly in money and time they can be upgraded to the KWS II (improved optics, add-on armour) Leo 2A5 standard (the KWS II upgrade package was implemented sooner for the German and Dutch Armies than the KWS I). The Finnish military has also purchased Swedish CV-90 IFVs to complement their fleet of Soviet-made BMP-2s, the former of which for my money I feel to be far better suited for the Finnish military's needs (the BMP-2 was built to roll through the Fulda Gap and the North German Plains, not the rolling, probably snow-covered hills of Scandinavia).

I think a 3800 would be the minimum for loading up the main menu screen.

http://pikdit.com/i/we-shall-camoflage-it-with-murica/ From my friends' and I's ArmA II server, Task Force 1776. Contrary to looks and the name of our gaming group, we aren't really that jingoistic and we count Limeys, Krauts, and a Viking or two amongst our ranks

There's a joke in the Finnish military: "If the enemy is attacking from a direction that is not East, then that means he has performed a brilliant flanking maneuver."

Not playing it myself, but a good friend of mine has taken an immense liking to Digital Combat Simulator: UH-1H Huey, such that he has read through "Chickenhawk," the autobiographical account of a former Huey pilot and taken this great .gif as his avatar on Teamspeak:

Oopsy daisy, here it is: *Edit* how about now?

As I sit at the edge of my seat for Dark Souls 2 (on the PC), I found this gem:

If DCS is still leaving you hankering for something that can cruise faster than 250 knots combat loaded, won't struggle to get above 15,000 ft MSL, and still pitch and roll on a dime, I would suggest picking up Jane's F/A-18 with the Team Superhornet add-on. The attention to avionics detail is only surpassed by DCS and Falcon 4.0. Also, the lead producer of Digital Combat Simulator, Matt Wagner, got his start in the industry working on this project. First glance at Amazon US showed a used copy for $13.42 USD, though I unfortunately could not find copies on European retailers, so if you're game you might have to pay the same sum for shipping and handling. As for alternatives... well... it's not available on GoG or any other digital retailer and I highly doubt EA in its current form is interested in re-releasing a dated-looking study-sim. So an alternative I would suggest is an alternative I *cannot* suggest

Plus there's the fact that though the EU needs energy, energy is all Russia has to give, as attempts to diversify have largely fallen flat. Though the 30% of energy that usually comes from Russia lost will be quite a loss, (relatively) short term alternatives exist for the EU.

Against a dU M-829A3 "Silver Bullet" sabot the turret of the poor thing would be sent flying all the way back to Kharkiv

It may appeal to me if they were utilising information that was as exhaustive as this: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Main_Page#Technical_database http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics http://www.kotsch88.de/autolader.htm

Ah yes, fraternal love for all Russo-Baltic peoples... ...one headshot at a time. On a serious note, it would seem that the renewed impetus of neighbouring countries such as Sweden officially joining NATO was one of the second and third order things Putin hadn't really thought through with his recent escapades: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140316/DEFREG01/303160008/Russian-Threat-Re-Energizes-Sweden-s-Push-Join-NATO-Boost-Spending

Playing Steel Beasts this game seems to have precious little to offer to me beyond a more diverse selection of playable steeds. One of the things that form of game doesn't quite get down right is how a vehicle interacts in a combined arms environment as compared to Steel Beasts or DCS. For instance, the tank as a fighting platform did not come into its own until the problem of tactical mobility for the supporting infantry was resolved, embodied by the success of the Panzergrenadier concept of the Second World War. Will the game for instance model mechanised infantry dismounting from IFVs to secure an objective? If not then it's a serious misrepresentation of modern mechanised war of maneuver. Which isn't to say there's no place in the market for it, far from it insomuch as there are the Ace Combats of gaming to the Falcon 4.0s or the Warthunders to Il-2 Sturmovik.

That's the one.

I wouldn't be surprised given how they've been contracted to contribute art assets to another Russian MMO that I can't recall the name of off the top of my head.

Number 1 for dogs is as much the case with cats as well. Good on them that number six are the same for both. Whenever I'm at home from uni and I go into my room when the cat is in his "fangs out" state I have to be on my guard with a spray bottle full of water.

Well isn't this interesting? I guess people who have been waiting on a modern-day tank "simulator (use the term loosely if WoT and Warthunder are any indication)" without having to spend a *required* $100+ entry fee, exhaustively studying the ballistic tables of a 120mm DM-53 WHA penetrator fired from a Rheinmetall L/55 smoothbore, or brushing up on Field Manual 17-15 don't have to wait too much longer.

+1 As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

I think how some Russians are so quick to denounce the entire pro-Ukrainian movement as "Fascists" to be a hilarious case of calling the kettle black given how many Russians think "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again."

Where's Scharfschütze? http://simonmenner.com/pages/Camouflage.htm

Infrastructure is important for sustained operations, of which the campaign was successful in crippling. This is the essence of using air power as a maneuver element that embodied the AirLand battle concept; striking at command and control, logistics centers, bridges, and all the elements needed for high level operations. If Milosevics forces attempted to assemble in force to decisively defeat the KLA then they would have been hammered back to the Stoneage. He likely knew this situation was not sustainable and he soon sought a diplomatic out for his predicament.

We shot down 2 of the invisible planes with the third unconfirmed, do you find it that strange that we shot down "regular planes" too. The only reason it even came to bombing Serbia is because America couldn't force our soldiers from Kosovo, ie. they were losing. Really sarcastic answer: Ah yes. Let us have a moment of silence... for the entire air force of two that were lost over Kosovo. Semi-sarcastic answer: If you imply "winning" on the part of the Serbs as cowering under camo nets and bridges then sure. Serious answer: Stealth *does not* mean "invisible." It simply reduces the distance of which an aircraft may be detected (probably <25nm, which thus means there are now giant gaps in what used to be a formidable air defense system. I will freely admit that the Stinkbug shootdown was as a result of poor planning when they had them fly the same ingresses to the target area as when you put a search and track radars directly in its path, you will eventually get a return. When they began to vary their IPs over Yugoslavia, the only evidence of the passing of F-117s was the destruction they wrought. The B-2 is an entirely different story. It's RCS is a fraction of that of the F-117 despite being three times bigger and a former Hungarian SA-2 operator and current SME has relayed to me that nothing short of the SA-10 has *any* chance against it. For the Serbs to make any meaningful incursion into Kosovo, it would have immediately tipped off the E-8 JSTARS and Rivet Joints that were flying overhead. After that, then they would have the second largest military in Serbia.