No C-300 ?

thelizardofdoom
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby thelizardofdoom » Tue 5 Sep 2017 14:57

Markenzwieback wrote:Reducing Patriot to regular AA range and making it a wheeled AA options for Germany and Japan (in addition to the US) could really help the coalitions those two are in. Especially the motorized elements.


I don't think the range is the worst thing. I think the most unbalanced thing about the patriot is it's acc. The thing is a critical machine.
Yes im aware my grammar and spelling are dreadful. Email complaints to android for having terrible software or eugen for having a mobile unfriendly site.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6700
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Tue 5 Sep 2017 14:59

Mike wrote:
ilias wrote:
Mike wrote:Source for that reasoning?

?


What comment from the developers leads you to you to think that the Patriot was added because of the S-300?

I never stated anyting like that. If you think this you simply misinterpreted what I said.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6700
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Tue 5 Sep 2017 15:03

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:It's the same with the S-300, USSR would have it, but also East Germany and Czechoslovakia had S-300 sites on their territory before their dissolution. China could be argued that it should be in too

It also meant that smaller countries like North Korea and Sweden etc. Would be completely in the dust when it comes to AA.

Patriot was far too much of a con of worms, S-300 would just make everything worse off.


S-300 export and export plans

• Bulgaria 1989-1
• East Germany 1989-1 after reunification was given back to USSR
• CZ 1990-1
• Hungary 199x-2,order was cancelled, the sites have been prepared with barrack and rest of stuff
• Poland 199x-1 order was cancelled
• China 1993-4 (the ex EG. + cancelled HUN + POL)

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12407
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Mike » Tue 5 Sep 2017 15:18

molnibalage wrote:
Mike wrote:What comment from the developers leads you to you to think that the Patriot was added because of the S-300?

I never stated anyting like that. If you think this you simply misinterpreted what I said.


I never said anything to you or about you. I'm asking him were he gets this idea that the Patriot was added because of the S-300 or something. I can't half understand him.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Wed 6 Sep 2017 02:28

Sorry for missed respondings;
molnibalage wrote:..

thanks for plenty of info about the theme all the time, i really appreciate the detalisation )

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
ilias wrote:if you mean in ..

It simply made it too hard to b..

Adding patriot made things more realistical, that what it wasn't added to other countries which used it: i think its kind of ..(it could be added), but can be understood; no idea why you think adding it's Redfor alternative can make anything worse

Mike wrote:What comment from the developers leads you to you to think that the Patriot was added because of the S-300?

I said: "S-300 was in reality, was used in reality, you do not think it's reason for adding the S-300 to game?"

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Wed 6 Sep 2017 05:00

servers have fallen again?

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Wed 6 Sep 2017 06:28

Back alive, that moving in direction to become usual

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6700
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby molnibalage » Wed 6 Sep 2017 11:34

ilias wrote:I said: "S-300 was in reality, was used in reality, you do not think it's reason for adding the S-300 to game?"

Nope.

1. Please forget such kind of statements, that "S-300". Is not S-300. Is S-300P variants and S-300V variants which are totally different animals

2. Was no any S-300P outside USSR until 1989-90, and it was not Soviet. (PMU was exported 75 km range with 5V55R missiles) Maybe as prototype would be available for some NSWP, but it would be insane... Why? Because they also planned to use as homeland defense SAM and not for troop defense because of lack of armor and NBC protection. Also would be funny where NSWP had better long range SAM than USSR. So from my standpoint S-300PMU is a no go for NSWP.

3. Only one or two S-300 brigades were done until 1991. One of them was likely V1 and the full V with ABM was sent into EG because of Pershing II. From PRC was not such kind of BM threat, up to M3.0 2K11 Krug could be used. The only stuff is within timeframe is S-300V.

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Wed 6 Sep 2017 12:55

molnibalage wrote:..

Thank you for good straight description,
so there was at least 1 s-300v brigade which could present in active army ?
(please cut amount of abbreviations)

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby steppewolf » Wed 6 Sep 2017 13:20

7 pages arguing about a missile which is not in a game that nearly hit abandonware category :shock:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests