Vanir Ausf B

That depends on how close friendlies are and whether the shooter has a 20mm cannon or a 105mm cannon

One of the men who actually worked in Iraq's nuclear program would disagree with that assessment. http://cns.miis.edu/stories/040812.htm

Do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim that the US wants Israel to attack Iran? You can choose to believe what you want, but the undeniable and un-secret fact is that Israel has not attacked Iran, and the truth of the matter can be inferred from that alone.

Because you seemed upset over what you apparently perceived as poor and unjust treatment at the hands of the US, e.g. "publically kick them around about settlements, disrespect their leader". I felt a little perspective was in order. I don't care either way. Your connection or lack thereof does not make your statements any more or less accurate. Israel acts in it's own self interest. Like all countries it attempts to fix problems that threaten it to the extent it is able to do so, which are primarily within its own borders and to a lesser extent the nations bordering it. It is not the fixer of the wider Middle East to any significant degree. They do. Of course, policy can change and there is no guarantee the US may not decide at some point in the future that military action is necessary. But even in that scenario don't expect the US to look to Israel to do it because the US can do it much better. Iran is not an Arab country. Setting that aside, it would not be surprising at all for Israel to launch an attack on Iran. But that doesn't mean they won't have to accept a nuclear Iran anyway. If Iran wants the bomb bad enough to endure the economic and possibly physical pain to get it, they will get it absent removal of the government via internal revolution or foreign invasion, which the US is not willing to do and Israel cannot do.

Your contention that I responded to was that Israel was "whipping boy, and ME fixer all in one." Setting back Iran's program for a year or 2 does not fix anything, therefore the 3 statements I made that you quoted are not contradictory or meaningfully different from each other, but are just using different words to say the same thing. And I haven't even touched on the other half of your original statement that the US hoped Israel would deal with Syria and Iran. With regards to Iran specifically that is a provably false statement and is actually the opposite of what the US wants. I said don't worry, not do worry. The reason is that actions speak louder than words. Telling Israel to stop expanding settlements in violation of international treaty and long-standing US policy is words. Grants and loans are actions. Vetoing UN resolutions against Israel are actions.

I watched the entire video. The most interesting parts have already been shone in other videos, although the audio seems better in this one.

With vehicles you can kind-of do this by giving several short movement orders with pauses and target commands at each movement point. It's clumsy but it works most of the time, although the present bug that gives firing-while-moving accuracy to units with paused movement orders makes this of dubious worth until it gets fixed.

Pointing out what you are obviously doing is "hollering for air"? LOL. You really are something. An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Well don't stop now. By all means, write up a biography on me based on the information your imagination has given you. It's a simple statement of fact, you moron (see, I can do it too). I never said Israel would not try something. I said the best they could hope to achieve was a short delay in Iran getting the bomb. That is not solving the problem, and that article doesn't even begin to refute what I said.

A quick and dirty cut 'n paste from Wikipedia.

Probably. That was my point

Pathetic. It took you 3 whole posts before you went ad hominem. When all you have left is straw man arguments and ad hominen attacks you have nothing left. Find me a US President that has said it is acceptable. Well aren't you the military expert. Your knowledge of military matters is about as comprehensive as your knowledge of my "personal attitude". I listen to people who know what they are talking about. That does not include you.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they will, if only because they won't have a choice. Ballistic missiles could put a serious hurt on those facilities if they are nuclear tipped, but they won't be. Blocking air vents? Um, whatever. The numbers I have seen are 5 years delay for a US strike, 1-2 years for an Israeli strike, tops. We don't even know if we know where all the facilities are. Syria is much more doable militarily, but again you have to ask if the Israelis even know where all the chemical weapons are. I'm not sure why all the angst about Israel taking heat over the settlements. Their expansion is a rather blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the US and the UK are party. It also runs counter to the US stated policy of a 2 state solution. But don't worry too much. The checks are still being written.

No we are not, and no they can't, don't be silly. Best estimates are that a US air campaign would set back Iran's program a few years. Israel with their much smaller capability would have no chance. Nukes detonated underground by Mossad suicide teams? Someone's been watching too many movies.

You need to send GreenAsJade a Private Message (just click on his forum name) containing your email address. He'll hook you up.

Violent death is always "interesting"

No one is hoping Israel sorts out Syria or Iran. Israel is not going to invade Syria no matter how nice we are to them, and they are frankly not capable of dealing with the Iranian problem (absent use of nuclear weapons, of course).

...................

..................

....................

"Safety regulations" tend to error on the safe side. We know that in combat regulations get ignored when lives are at stake. We have significant amounts of empirical evidence that these types of weapons can and are fired with much less clearance than 10 meters.

It's not a mod. I just write it down, and eventually I'll stick it in a spreadsheet.

I keep track of every casualty I take and what caused it. So in our games I will be able to tell you exactly how many casualties your off-board artillery causes, if any

At 10:02 there's a GI firing a Thomson SMG at an airplane

From the sounds of it, selling their games for cheap wasn't generating the volume of sales needed to remain profitable. That means they will have to either increase prices or cut costs.

I've never felt the need to go into the editor to do it before picking units, but this doesn't otherwise seem much different than plotting a movement point anywhere on the map to check LOS. I thought everyone did that.