Overall Overhaul!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      The EU has no SLBM Fleet

      Firstly, SLBM stands for Submarine Launch Ballistic missiles, nobody has a "fleet" of those... you mean a fleet of ballistic missile submarines.
      LOL, seriously? "Backdoor" retentive are we? (Love you censors)

      Yes, technically the EU as an entity in of itself has no actual military but its member states do. Perhaps when I said NATO that should had been a sharp clue. "Or since they are typically part of NATO" They meaning the nations that make up the EU, in part or whole.

      Secondly, of course I was referring to Boomers but they technically carry SLBMs and hence are a fleet of them. Kind of pointless if their tubes are empty. I guess naturally we both being English speakers that I obviously meant that the missiles float around In the water and do not have a launch vehicle? Surely the reply will not be well technically they will not float but understand the sarcasm over your unneeded corrections.

      Now since you mentioned two countries, ie UK and France (expense of individual units is irrelevant since my point was the US spends far more on Defense than many other countries combined. We are expected to carry a lot of things for other nations, ie do the heavy lifting.) how many other members of NATO have fleets of Boomers?

      So could the retirement of them have more to do with saving money than simply they being obsolete? That was my point. They are not cheap to maintain. The reply is not that boomers cost more in of themselves either. Boomer due to what they carry have other strategic importance one of them being able to launch with little warning to OpFor unlike standard land based fleets of ICBMs. So the cost of Boomers of which you only mentioned TWO countries vs the cost of non USA NATO members maintaining bomber wings or even just one squadron was not cost effective to keep both running at the same time. Again the USA, a NATO member, who has a defense budget that dwarfs is expected to carry that burden. We still maintain B52 Bomber Wings and more than likely in a NATO scuffle with someone else we will use them on that OpFor.

      Here are percentages of GDP spent by members of NATO, not this does not mean equal spending as countries have different GDPs. http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/



      Oceanhawk wrote:

      As for the bombers, dont have them in a group of 5. Always in multiplies of 3. 3,6,9
      To reply in kind, did you mean in game because those numbers are awful small for an actual bomber wing. ;) In game why 6 and 9 since beyond 5 they are over stacked and take penalties? Is there some special bonuses for powers of three? You did not put down your rationale.

      Thanks for your feedback.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • DevinMacGregor wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      The EU has no SLBM Fleet

      Firstly, SLBM stands for Submarine Launch Ballistic missiles, nobody has a "fleet" of those... you mean a fleet of ballistic missile submarines.
      LOL, seriously? "Backdoor" retentive are we? (Love you censors)
      Yes, technically the EU as an entity in of itself has no actual military but its member states do. Perhaps when I said NATO that should had been a sharp clue. "Or since they are typically part of NATO" They meaning the nations that make up the EU, in part or whole.

      Secondly, of course I was referring to Boomers but they technically carry SLBMs and hence are a fleet of them. Kind of pointless if their tubes are empty. I guess naturally we both being English speakers that I obviously meant that the missiles float around In the water and do not have a launch vehicle? Surely the reply will not be well technically they will not float but understand the sarcasm over your unneeded corrections.

      Now since you mentioned two countries, ie UK and France (expense of individual units is irrelevant since my point was the US spends far more on Defense than many other countries combined. We are expected to carry a lot of things for other nations, ie do the heavy lifting.) how many other members of NATO have fleets of Boomers?

      So could the retirement of them have more to do with saving money than simply they being obsolete? That was my point. They are not cheap to maintain. The reply is not that boomers cost more in of themselves either. Boomer due to what they carry have other strategic importance one of them being able to launch with little warning to OpFor unlike standard land based fleets of ICBMs. So the cost of Boomers of which you only mentioned TWO countries vs the cost of non USA NATO members maintaining bomber wings or even just one squadron was not cost effective to keep both running at the same time. Again the USA, a NATO member, who has a defense budget that dwarfs is expected to carry that burden. We still maintain B52 Bomber Wings and more than likely in a NATO scuffle with someone else we will use them on that OpFor.

      Here are percentages of GDP spent by members of NATO, not this does not mean equal spending as countries have different GDPs. http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/
      Yea, I kinda read that as if you were a little slow or a little child lol. Anyway, guess not haha. Yea, the bombers are not as strategically reliable as the submarines. The bombers dont need to be there when the subs can do the job much better!

      The bombers were retired more with being obsolete, but also because the military could work efficiently and continue its requirements without the need for the bombers. So the cost factor does play a big part. But I wouldn't say it was the driving force. That was for the brits. America need the bombers much more than the UK and France. And I do not recommend that the USAF Retire the bombers any time soon.

      Estonia and Greece meet their NATO requirements and France doesnt, pff...

      You are American?

      DevinMacGregor wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      As for the bombers, dont have them in a group of 5. Always in multiplies of 3. 3,6,9
      To reply in kind, did you mean in game because those numbers are awful small for an actual bomber wing. ;) In game why 6 and 9 since beyond 5 they are over stacked and take penalties? Is there some special bonuses for powers of three? You did not put down your rationale.
      Thanks for your feedback.
      More like, units are very effective when attacking or defending in a 3:1 ratio. 4:1 The 4 do a lot less damage and take more losses

      it is economically and military more efficient to have units operate in 3s for killing a single target. And if there a pair of enemy units, judge and see if its worth using a 6 stack or 2 stacks of 3. But usually I would keep things in 3s.


      Happy hunting, Ocean XD
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • @BoeingJet bro I will give u points for being really optimistic and not worrying how ur gonna look.... unfortunately that all I got for ya.
      As always just my 2 cents

      Use Helicopters, Special forces or Stealth. Use your head to play - not the missile button. - Germanico

      These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. - Marco Rubio
    • True, but nuclear weapons aren't commonly used (in fact it was only used in WWII and only in WWII because other nations doesn't have nuclear deterrence or the ability to bomb US mainland. Nowadays if you drop even the tiniest Davy Crockett at anything, you would still start a nuclear war. That's why bombers are still important. They are important for conventional warfare. You can't just roll out nukes in every war!
      Why no railgun?
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      More like, units are very effective when attacking or defending in a 3:1 ratio. 4:1 The 4 do a lot less damage and take more losses
      it is economically and military more efficient to have units operate in 3s for killing a single target. And if there a pair of enemy units, judge and see if its worth using a 6 stack or 2 stacks of 3. But usually I would keep things in 3s.


      Happy hunting, Ocean XD
      Great. Now I have to re-organize all my air troops. Moment please!
      Why no railgun?