# Africa vs. Middle East



## Paranoid Android (Dec 1, 2010)

All the nations of Africa allied together against all the nations of the Middle East including Israel and Egypt.
Battleground: Geographical border of the involved countries.
Restrictions: No allied intervention, including merchant and military trade. Trade between allied nations is allowed. All weapons must be manufactured by the country of its troops or one of its allies.
Setting: 2010
Who wins?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 1, 2010)

Africa.  Not counting Israel's nukes they overwhelm the Middle East by sheer numbers alone.  The most populous continent on the planet right?


----------



## Federer (Dec 1, 2010)

Just to clarify the term 'Middle East',

countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Egypt consist of it?

Is Turkey included as well?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 1, 2010)

Oh wait, I misread Israel and Egypt's side, I thought they were with Africa.  

South Africa has a nuclear program though, I stand by my winner.  There would be no way for the Middle East to defeat Africa in it's entirety.


----------



## Bart (Dec 1, 2010)

Egypt is a part of African continent 

And the Middle East is a part of Asia.


----------



## Federer (Dec 1, 2010)

Bart said:


> Egypt is a part of African continent
> 
> And the Middle East is a part of Asia.



You ain't the OP, Bart. 

Egypt is Middle Earth East in this scenario. 

Do we count the American troops in Iraq for the side of the Middle East?


----------



## SageMaster (Dec 1, 2010)

Isn't Egypt part of Africa?


----------



## Mist Puppet (Dec 1, 2010)

Apparently in this scenario Egypt is part of the Middle East


----------



## Zaru (Dec 1, 2010)

All I know is that it ends with everyone having AIDS


----------



## Watchman (Dec 1, 2010)

Federer said:


> Just to clarify the term 'Middle East',
> 
> countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Egypt consist of it?
> 
> Is Turkey included as well?



According to Wikipedia, the traditional definition of the Middle East includes:

Turkey, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Cyprus (lolwat?), Israel, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Egypt.

There's also a Greater Middle East, which includes North and Northeast Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Caucasus and Central Asia, but I doubt we're using that.


----------



## SageMaster (Dec 1, 2010)

The Middle East have more nuclear weapons, so they win.


----------



## Red (Dec 1, 2010)

Depends, are the Africans in character an willing to stop their squabbles and unit to fight? If so Africa rape stomps.

Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA from now on) has a population of 800 million as as opposed to the Middle East's (ME from now on) 300 million. That means SSA's standing army would be several times larger than the ME's. At the unfortunate fact that children as well as grown men are enlisted, which from my understanding the ME doesn't do, would mean that a land/sea battle would eventually turn into one of attrition which with SSA having more land, more resources and more land power would win.

Next up is the geographical position. The ME is at a disadvantage, Egypt is completely surrounded by enemy forces and an extensive navel blockade of the Mediterranean would mean that ME's chances of making it to shore would be hard as hell.

Nukes are out of the question for this war. None of the countries of ME have a nuclear program, we looked for a didn't find WMD and the only one with a hint of one is Israel and even that's not definitive. Oh, and Africa produces a total of 9% of the worlds Uranium, the ME produces 0%. SSA has the resources to outproduce ME if it comes to actually manufacturing nukes if it comes to that. Plus population density of ME is a lot higher than the population density of SSA meaning, strategic nuclear strikes would be more effective against the ME as opposed to the SSA.

Lastly is the environment. Africa is just a giant pot of disease. Malaria, Sleeping Sickness, Typhoid, Tetanus etc etc are hilariously easy to catch. While this is not a problem in the beginning, if the war turns to one of attrition (which it would) limited medical supplies would hurt the ME badly. Africans are Africans, they knew how to cope and survive on their own continent long before modern medicine came into the picture. If they run low on modern medical supplies, a host of remedies would suffice for a time.

In the end if Africa got its act together it would be able to defeat the ME with moderate difficulty.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 1, 2010)

The Middle East has the richer countries who can buy more weapons and equipment, they also have the better militaries. Africa burns.


----------



## Paranoid Android (Dec 1, 2010)

OP here. Egyptians are placed on the side of the Middle East because they politically identify with the Middle East more than the rest of Africa. They are already allies of many countries of the middle east. It is only logical to include them in the middle east.

Just to clarify, Israel, Turkey and Egypt are on the Middle East's side. Watchman has what i intended to a T.

I think the Middle East has this. I mean, they have more industrial and monetary power with much more oil and considerably more nukes. I think the technological and psychological advantage the middle east possess wins this thing.


----------



## Red (Dec 1, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> The Middle East has the richer countries who can buy more weapons and equipment





Paranoid Android said:


> Restrictions: No allied intervention, including merchant and military  trade. All weapons must be manufactured by the country of its troops or  one of its allies.


Also quantity > quality when your outnumbered 8 to 3. And considering that at any given time there's always some rebellion or what not going on in Africa the soldiers are pretty experienced in jungle warfare.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 1, 2010)

Red said:


> Also quantity > quality when your outnumbered 8 to 3. And considering that at any given time there's always some rebellion or what not going on in Africa the soldiers are pretty experienced in jungle warfare.



Aircraft>>>>Quantity. And the Middle East has _extremely_ better aircraft than Africa.

And that's just for starters.


----------



## Paranoid Android (Dec 1, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Aircraft>>>>Quantity. And the Middle East has _extremely_ better aircraft than Africa.
> 
> And that's just for starters.



Yeah. The israelis have top of the line stuff, the rest of the middle east has russian/ late soviet stuff. I don't think either side with the exception of Israel has the ability to manufacture fighter craft on their own without help, and consider that israel is an ally of the middle east here, can distribute the instructions on how to create and mass produce aircraft. The Africans, meanwhile, would probably do their best to imitate the old russian planes that they have and at best make minor modifications/upgrades. Air superiority means alot in war these days. air superiority won the war in Iraq for America.

Also consider fuel reserves. This could pan out to a large scale conflict and fuel might get hard to come by if the war lasts several years. unless the africans make a push into the middle east to gain some ground and reap some of the oil, they'll run out of gas much quicker than the middle east armies would. Fuel is a problem for the africans while it really isn't for the middle east.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 1, 2010)

The Middle East also has a _lot_ more money on their side


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 1, 2010)

Also, just to comment on this:



Paranoid Android said:


> Yeah. The israelis have top of the line stuff, the rest of the middle east has russian/ late soviet stuff.



Which are more or less comparable to an F-15...which is still one of the best fighter planes in the world....and better than pretty much anything and everything that any country in Africa has a substantial number of....




Paranoid Android said:


> I don't think either side with the exception of Israel has the ability to manufacture fighter craft on their own without help,



Fuck manufacture, just import like they have been doing for decades.



Paranoid Android said:


> and consider that israel is an ally of the middle east here, can distribute the instructions on how to create and mass produce aircraft.



Turkey and Israel are participants of the F-35 project 



Paranoid Android said:


> air superiority won the war in Iraq for America.



It's also the _only_ reason that Israel survived all the wars if fought and isn't a pile of ash today.


----------



## MrChubz (Dec 1, 2010)

Isreal has nukes and 100% air superiority. I'm giving it to the Middle East.


----------



## Red (Dec 2, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Which are more or less comparable to an *F-15...*which is still one of the best fighter planes in the world....and better than pretty much anything and everything that any country in Africa has a substantial number of....
> 
> Turkey and Israel are participants of the* F-35 project*


Jets in Sub-Saharan Africa are inefficient without suitable runways and SSA controls the entire landmass. That means the only effective  places for take off would be from  their military bases on the Mediterranean and the navel ships there which means that because of fuel capacity of the jets they can't strike deep into the heart of Africa without a lot of difficulty. they could do it if they tried to set up informal runways but that means they'd have to make land fall first, they could try to to circumnavigate the shores and attack from the sides but that would mean separating a large chunk of their navel fleet from their main bases in the north leaving their ships to be supply blocked if worst comes to worst.




> Fuck manufacture, just import like they have been doing for decades.


OP said no imports, trades or purchases.

In my opinion you're putting too much emphasis on technology and not enough on man power, environmental and geographical factors and resources. 



Paranoid Android said:


> Also consider fuel reserves. This could pan out to a large scale  conflict and fuel might get hard to come by if the war lasts several  years. unless the africans make a push into the middle east to gain some  ground and reap some of the oil, they'll run out of gas much quicker  than the middle east armies would. Fuel is a problem for the africans  while it really isn't for the middle east.


Africa has 16 oil producing nations and a couple OPEC members. Fuel  won't be a problem for either sides for a couple hundred years.



MrChubz said:


> Isreal has nukes and 100% air superiority. I'm giving it to the Middle East.


See my previous post about the uranium deposits and the logistics of dropping a nuke.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 2, 2010)

at the end of the 6 day war (or was it yom kippur, i forgot)

The israeli airforce was confident it could take out anything from Baghdad to Khartoum just from Israel, and just about all the countries in that region had better anti air defenses then than the whole of africa has now.

The rest of the middle east are allied with israel, so the israeli airforce sets up base in southern egypt and projects air superiority over all of north africa, and the middle easterns sweep up said territory, build more air bases closer to teh front lines, rinse and repeat.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 2, 2010)

Red said:


> Jets in Sub-Saharan Africa are inefficient without suitable runways and SSA controls the entire landmass.



Jets have long ranges. Mid-air refueling gives every plane essentially unlimited range so long as you can supply oil...and the Middle East has a _lot_ of that.

Not to mention that once you capture land, building a military airport in it would be relatively trivial.



Red said:


> That means the only effective  places for take off would be from  their military bases on the Mediterranean and the navel ships there which means that because of fuel capacity of the jets they can't strike deep into the heart of Africa without a lot of difficulty.



Tankers make it a lot easier. And controlling the airspace makes getting tankers in a lot easier as well.



Red said:


> they could do it if they tried to set up informal runways but that means they'd have to make land fall first,



Once most of the enemy forces have been cleared from above, this is also trivial.



Red said:


> OP said no imports, trades or purchases.



Then they start spending some of their massive money on building military factories and manufacturing 



Red said:


> In my opinion you're putting too much emphasis on technology and not enough on man power, environmental and geographical factors and resources.



Air Power shits on number. That's the sheer fact of it. _No_ bloodl lusted country in the world has won a war (rebellions don't count) in the last 60/50 years without possessing air superiority, for rather obvious reasons too. Once you have the skies you can send in bombers like there is no tomorrow.

Again, I point to Israel who actually did this (won a war in this manner) just after being formed, despite being greatly outnumbered.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 2, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Africa.  Not counting Israel's nukes they overwhelm the Middle East by sheer numbers alone.  The most populous continent on the planet right?



No, thats Asia.

3 or 4 times as many.


----------



## Red (Dec 2, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Jets have long ranges. Mid-air refueling gives every plane essentially unlimited range


 Mid-air refueling is a process that greatly increases the risk of being shot down. Adding a refueling plane to a team is also decreasing their performance, see not only do they have to engage in a dog fight, they also have to protect their supply plane as well.

If a squadron of F-15s leave to do a bomb run, they're limited to a distance of 2,800 km. That's perfectly acceptable for short excursions into the continent when you have bases in allied nations within the continent. But they don't have that chance. The core of Africa's military is in the heart of Africa along with most of its production facilities and resource centers. The Sahara, Volcanic mountainous regions and Northern African States (From now on called NAS) act as a buffer between the MEs and the heart of Africa so getting there would be a monumental task.

On the other hand, using Ethiopia or South Africa or Lagos as a staging point, then having several rural areas and urban networks bases to react fairly quickly to a skirmish.

This is how I see it: the only two things NAS and SSA have to do is buttress the natural buffer zone (Sahara and Mountainous regions) between them and the ME which by extension protects the heartland.



> See
> 
> Not to mention that once you capture land, building a military airport in it would be relatively trivial.


You're under the assumption they'd make it past the Sahara which would be the primary war-front.



> Tankers make it a lot easier. And controlling the airspace makes getting tankers in a lot easier as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Once most of the enemy forces have been cleared from above, this is also trivial.


Before you control the airspace you're going to have bases on land, which means you'll have to over win over the African side of the Mediterranean. Easier said than done.





> Then they start spending some of their massive money on building military factories and manufacturing


I'll give you that. But money is not a factor here. All the resources they need is already on their continent, no need to pay for imports or exports when you have the material on hand. And in that regards, Africa being more populous and with more natural sources and man power, has higher manufacturing potential than the ME.





> Air Power shits on number. That's the sheer fact of it. _No_ bloodl lusted country in the world has won a war (rebellions don't count) in the last 60/50 years without possessing air superiority, for rather obvious reasons too. Once you have the skies you can send in bombers like there is no tomorrow.
> 
> Again, I point to Israel who actually did this (won a war in this manner) just after being formed, despite being greatly outnumbered.


Doing the above to win a war with a country does not mean they can do the same to a continent. Post the numbers of how many aircraft the Middle East has vs that of the African states, if we compare the numbers then we can come up with a definite answer.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 2, 2010)

masamune1 said:


> No, thats Asia.
> 
> 3 or 4 times as many.



Yeah I dunno where the hell my mind was when I said that.  Still, Middle East population has nothing on Africa's.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 2, 2010)

Red said:


> Mid-air refueling is a process that greatly increases the risk of being shot down.



That's why you have escorts....



Red said:


> Adding a refueling plane to a team is also decreasing their performance, see not only do they have to engage in a dog fight, they also have to protect their supply plane as well.



And planes don't fly by themselves either. They fly in formations made up of squadrons. And one tanker has enough fuel to service a few planes, but it can only fuel them up one at a time.



Red said:


> If a squadron of F-15s leave to do a bomb run, they're limited to a distance of 2,800 km.



...F-15s don't do bomb runs...they are Fighter Aircraft. Even F-15E Strike Eagles (the Attacker Variant) don't do bomb runs as much as they do Close Air Support.



Red said:


> That's perfectly acceptable for short excursions into the continent when you have bases in allied nations within the continent.



Are you suggesting that this power house wouldn't be able to take over enemy lands and airports as it goes along?



Red said:


> The core of Africa's military is in the heart of Africa along with most of its production facilities and resource centers. The Sahara, Volcanic mountainous regions and Northern African States (From now on called NAS) act as a buffer between the MEs and the heart of Africa so getting there would be a monumental task.



Are you seriously suggesting that said military is unable of capturing enemy land and would be retarded enough to clear out enemy airports and then leave them be/destroy them instead of repairing/building/requipping it for themselves?



Red said:


> On the other hand, using Ethiopia or South Africa or Lagos as a staging point, then having several rural areas and urban networks bases to react fairly quickly to a skirmish.



If the ME is bloodlusted, there won't be a city to fight _in_.



Red said:


> This is how I see it: the only two things NAS and SSA have to do is buttress the natural buffer zone (Sahara and Mountainous regions) between them and the ME which by extension protects the heartland.



Because all those silly wars in the past have shown that natural borders are just impenetrable, right? 



Red said:


> You're under the assumption they'd make it past the Sahara which would be the primary war-front.



It seriously wouldn't be that hard.....



Red said:


> Before you control the airspace you're going to have bases on land, which means you'll have to over win over the African side of the Mediterranean. Easier said than done.



It's really a _lot_ easier when all their aircraft are floating down the Nile in tiny pieces and most opposition of any reasonable scale has been bombed down to insignificance against any well armed force that may come up against it.



Red said:


> I'll give you that. But money is not a factor here. All the resources they need is already on their continent, no need to pay for imports or exports when you have the material on hand.



Money has a lot more say than just imports... And it also helps when you start trading with your allies. Because, you know, that stuff your allies give to you, it isn't exactly free.



Red said:


> And in that regards, Africa being more populous and with more natural sources and man power, has higher manufacturing potential than the ME.




Population and Resources don't mean much if you can't amount to much more than mainly obsolete models that are highly outclassed by what your opponents have (and if you _do_ have anything nice, it will likely be in numbers far too small to actually make a difference).



Red said:


> Doing the above to win a war with a country does not mean they can do the same to a continent. Post the numbers of how many aircraft the Middle East has vs that of the African states, if we compare the numbers then we can come up with a definite answer.



Because numbers mean everything, right? That must be why the small Israeli air force was lolstomped by the Middle Eastern Air Forces a few decades ago, right? 

Right before they got overrun by the equally larger Middle Eastern armies that far outnumbered them and had more gear than them, right?


----------



## Red (Dec 3, 2010)

Did a quick research and the number of Air Crafts the African Stand by force has as well as the models are abysmal. I'll have to concede this one because of Air superiority.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 3, 2010)

Red said:


> Did a quick research and the number of Air Crafts the African Stand by force has as well as the models are abysmal. I'll have to concede this one because of Air superiority.



Oh, Red, silly you. You should've know I knew what I was talking about. After all, I'm an expert in this field


----------



## Cygnus45 (Dec 4, 2010)

Money don't mean shit. The rich Arab kings won't be able to buy weapons from their American allies like they usually do.

Red's post on page 1 was pretty accurate, but Israel's airforce would be a bitch. They could get all the fuel they need from the Arabs.

How are the navies/marines for these nations? The mediterranian might be a factor here with Turkey and Egypt's involvement.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 5, 2010)

Cygnus45 said:


> Money don't mean shit. The rich Arab kings won't be able to buy weapons from their American allies like they usually do.



Money does a LOT more than just regulate international trade, hence why even more-or-less isolationist countries like North Korea have money; or why even empires that have covered spread across entire continents had money.



Cygnus45 said:


> How are the navies/marines for these nations? The mediterranian might be a factor here with Turkey and Egypt's involvement.



Navies don't mean much. Aircraft still shit over ships. The only real ships that matter in modern naval warfare are Aircraft Carriers and small Destroyers used mainly for AA purposes and some Anti-Ship warfare, however, Africa wouldn't have the capabilities to get any of these to make a difference, if at all.


----------



## Paranoid Android (Dec 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> That's why you have escorts....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good point. keep in mind monetary motivations can be crucial for innovations in military technology. if the people are barely getting by at home, they won't be able to afford the high end weapons because more funds will be needed to fuel the manufacture of necessities, and development would be limited to what they already have. however, if a country has a strong economy and a large wallet, they can afford to pay scientists and developers to help them make weapons that would be effective against specific enemies. For example, in world war 2, submarines became a large problem and the west, being quite economically stable, were able to develope world changing technology like Sonar, the atomic bomb, the internet, and many many more. Only rich countries like nazi germany and the USA could've made anything like that. compare that to how China and Russia fared in the same war. They were poor and could barely afford to outfit their own troops. The Russians won through sheer numbers and geographical advantage, and lost many more men than they killed germans (in combat). same story with the chinese. poorly equipped, easily devastated by the japanese, saved by the USA.

I just don't think that Africa, by itself, has the economic power to wage a full scale war against the middle east, which is already a war-hardened zone. the middle east has alot more money and access to means of production to give them significant advantages on the battlefield. Africa will struggle economically just to field tanks and to arm their soldiers with guns. the middle east can afford to furbish all of that plus invest more money on advanced technology like stealth planes, aircraft carriers, nukes, you name it.

however, you have to keep vietnam in mind. a determined defender entrenched in a jungle isn't easy to fight. the americans, with technological advances half a century beyond what the vietcong were using, while enacting a draft, fighting with all their might, was forced to withdraw, technological advantage might not mean as much as we think. Red had a good point earlier about the many diseases that happen in africa. combine that with entrenched positions across the Sahara and the forests and jungles all across africa, africa might not go down so easy. after all, you can't bomb what you can't see, right? 'Nam proved that.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 9, 2010)

Paranoid Android said:


> however, you have to keep vietnam in mind. a determined defender entrenched in a jungle isn't easy to fight.



We didn't have thermal sensors in Vietnam. Today even the average attack choppers and bombers have it as standard equipment.

That and we decided not to bomb every town and city down to the ground when it was occupied by the enemy. There is a huge difference between a civil war/rebellion and a full on war. Seeing as these countries would be bloodlusted by default, they won't get far.



Paranoid Android said:


> with technological advances half a century beyond what the vietcong were using,



Actually, not really. During Vietnam the US and the Vietcong were more or less equalized. The US bombers were useless due to thick forests and no form of IR sensors; choppers didn't have them either and an attack chopper usually took the form of a Huey with side gunners; and US armor was essentially useless as it couldn't navigate through the forests.



Paranoid Android said:


> Red had a good point earlier about the many diseases that happen in africa.



Vaccines.



Paranoid Android said:


> after all, you can't bomb what you can't see, right? 'Nam proved that.



IR Sensors.


----------



## Paranoid Android (Dec 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> We didn't have thermal sensors in Vietnam. Today even the average attack choppers and bombers have it as standard equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that the American and European military cannot get involved in this scenario. Would all of the aircraft of the middle east have IR sensors? Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel might have them but what about the poorer countries who can't afford to outfit their equipment with IR sensors. I dunno. I'm no expert on military aircraft.


----------



## Bioness (Dec 10, 2010)

Since many people in Africa are dying of deadly,horribly diseases as well as starving, I'll give this to the Middle East, (and this is before they nuke it)


----------



## Agmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Anyone see the depressing theme of this thread?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 10, 2010)

Oh God the last two posts




Paranoid Android said:


> Keep in mind that the American and European military cannot get involved in this scenario. Would all of the aircraft of the middle east have IR sensors? Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel might have them but what about the poorer countries who can't afford to outfit their equipment with IR sensors. I dunno. I'm no expert on military aircraft.



Doesn't Kuwait, Saudi, Egypt, Jordan's military arsenal get supllied by U.S.?


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 10, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Doesn't Kuwait, Saudi, Egypt, Jordan's military arsenal get supllied by U.S.?



Just about everything they have is supplied by the U.S. and Europe.

Anyway, Middle East would be able to demolish Africa via airpower. Israel alone has more modern combat aircraft then the rest of Africa combined. However lack of power projection capabilities for all Middle Eastern countries would make an occupation or the like impossible.

Fyi here's an older diagram showing Middle Eastern Airpower:



Turkey is the only major air force missing here, with 335 Fighters (210 F-16's and 125 F-4E's/2000's). Though Kuwait (35 F-18's), Oman (12 F-16's), Yemen (23 MiG-29's, 27 MiG-21's/J-7's, 30 Su-20's, 11 F-5's), Bahrain (17 F-16's), and Qatar (12 Mirage 2000's) all have better air forces then any single African country save Algeria or Morocco. Not to mention things such as Middle Eastern attack helicopters and Israel's fleet of electronic warfare aircraft, which can wreak absolute havoc (as demonstrated in the 2007 Syria raid).

Meanwhile, the only modern fighters in Africa (the definition of Africa in the OP at least) are 68 Algerian MiG-29's/Su-30's, 24 Moroccan F-16's, 11 Sudanese MiG-29's, 14 Ethiopian Su-27's, and 15 Eritrean MiG-29's/Su-27's. That's 2,410 Middle Eastern Fighter Jets to 132 relevant African ones, and if we're talking non-obsolete aircraft it's 1,497 Middle East to 168 African (excluding the fact that Ethiopian Su-27's for instance are barely flyable and 20 years old). 

And yes, lots of African countries have tiny barely-operable fleets of MiG-21's or F-5's but those aren't particularly relevant. The usually lack air-to-air weaponry (they're lucky if they even have Soviet AA-2's, nevermind a modern air-to-air missile) and that's if they can even get off the ground. I'd say Africa would only go up to like 200 anyway if you included all of them.


----------



## Fang (Dec 10, 2010)

5000000 tribals rushing 5000 guys with machine guys is still a slaughter for the latter. And no Egyptian or Libyan is going to turn their backs on fellow Arabs for Africans.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 10, 2010)

Fang said:


> 5000000 tribals rushing 5000 guys with machine guys is still a slaughter for the latter.



Eh, things such MLRS, cluster bombs, mines, etc. can easily dispatch that. Keep in mind that a single M270 MLRS can completely blanket 1 square km with cluster munitions. Israel has 36 such systems and Egypt 15, so a single volley by them would instantly obliterate 51 square km's. Then there's also the fact that multiple ME countries have MLRS' with similar capability. Egypt's North Korean BM-11's, Israel's Lynx and GRADLAR's, Iran's Fajr-5, Saudi Arabia's ASTROS, and so on. And that's just on the rocket artillery front.



> And no Egyptian or Libyan is going to turn their backs on fellow Arabs for Africans.



Well the very concept that Israel would unite with Iran against Africa is silly to begin with. Not to mention this entire war and the ways in which it is fought are all utterly ludicrous. I figured that dismissed such concepts. 

Though lol@that last comment. Egypt and Libya fought a war against each other and the former nearly went to war against Algeria last year over a football game. Egypt used chemical weapons on Yemen. Libya arms insurgents to go massacre people in Chad. Egypt arms rebels to massacre people in Ethiopia so the Ethiopians can't develop their portion of the Nile River. I think history has demonstrated Egypt or Libya really don't give a flying fuck about their "fellow Arabs and Africans".


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 10, 2010)

Israel would fuck everyone in their ass to be honest.

Add that to them getting that Arab Oil money pumped into them...hoo boy.


----------



## Fang (Dec 10, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Well the very concept that Israel would unite with Iran against Africa is silly to begin with. Not to mention this entire war and the ways in which it is fought are all utterly ludicrous. I figured that dismissed such concepts.



*shrugs* Its not like Iranians and Persians hate Israelis, just  the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard, which the Iranian people universally hate, both in the country and abroad.



> Though lol@that last comment. Egypt and Libya fought a war against each other and the former nearly went to war against Algeria last year over a football game.



Didn't know that.


----------



## Table (Dec 11, 2010)

What about Northern African countries?  Are we putting them in with the Middle East?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 11, 2010)

Paranoid Android said:


> Keep in mind that the American and European military cannot get involved in this scenario. Would all of the aircraft of the middle east have IR sensors?



Most attack choppers and bombers/fighter-bombers introduced slightly post Vietnam have them. Any country able to field a modest airforce would have them.



Paranoid Android said:


> Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel might have them but what about the poorer countries who can't afford to outfit their equipment with IR sensors.



They are standard on most late-mid Cold War era aircraft and are also standard on most aircraft upgrade (of aircraft of relevant roles, of course), so most likely...yes.



Fang said:


> 5000000 tribals rushing 5000 guys with machine guys is still a slaughter for the latter. And no Egyptian or Libyan is going to turn their backs on fellow Arabs for Africans.



The three As of Warfare:

Artillery. Aircaft. Armor.


----------



## Paranoid Android (Dec 12, 2010)

Table said:


> What about Northern African countries?  Are we putting them in with the Middle East?



no. north african states are all part of africa, excluding egypt.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 12, 2010)

Israel has nuke, but so does South Africa. They're obviously the two biggest players here. If Africa and the Middle East are in character though. Then most of the African countries will be fighting eachother. And the Arab countries will gang up on Israel. Then it's South Africa (and several other African nations) vs. the Middle East (who are warring against eachother). I say Africa wins this one. Although Israel has one of the best militaries in the world and one of the best if not the best military record.

Or, Israel starts attacking Africa which is bad for Chinese buisness and the Chinese begins to nuke the middle east and when it's done takes their oil as it's own.


----------

