CMSF 2 BETA AAR #2 – Syrian Probe (Quick Battle)

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Chops said:

Bill, you were setup to fail in this Scenario -

Not intentionally - by me anyway

 

1 hour ago, Chops said:

The Map was poorly designed, as Blue had setup zones that were very close to the Red setup zone.  

It was a probe but I agree that the red setup zone was very small but...

 

1 hour ago, Chops said:

Your opponent had a sniper team with line of sight observation into your setup zone on one side

Nope, no location on the farm had eyes into Bil's setup zone. They were able to see Bil's side of the start hill and the further ridge line so they did / could see any movement onto the high ground. The guys I pushed up onto the south ridge did get eyes on the setup zone but they had to drive / crawl there.

 

1 hour ago, Chops said:

, and armor in close proximity on the other side of your setup zone. 

Yep, but again they did have to drive there. Admittedly due to the setup zones my forces could easily get there before Bils so perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.

 

1 hour ago, Chops said:

Additionally, your Red side was not allocated enough points in which to adequately purchase Red equipment in order to use realistic Red doctrine.

This has merit to watch out for. But force selection was likely an issue as well. We picked a probe because that, usually, leads to the most balanced attack defend game. I personally find that to be true in the other titles. I am also personally not willing to declare it not true in CMSF2 just because of one game.

[Bil Hardenberger]

23 hours ago, Chops said:

Bill, you were setup to fail in this Scenario -

The Map was poorly designed, as Blue had setup zones that were very close to the Red setup zone.   Your opponent had a sniper team with line of sight observation into your setup zone on one side, and armor in close proximity on the other side of your setup zone.  Additionally, your Red side was not allocated enough points in which to adequately purchase Red equipment in order to use realistic Red doctrine.

Thanks for putting in the great effort in both of your CMSF2 AAR's....although both ended badly due to different reasons, neither one was your fault.

Well, if that's the case I did it to myself... we chose the map together (though I did give @IanL the final choice) and I chose my own units and have already acknowledged that I made a huge error in the purchase phase of the scenario.  That is where I lost the battle and that is 100% on me.. but to be honest with the other advantages he enjoyed, I don't think even a perfect force of Syrians could have won this one.

I do agree that with Red on the offense in a Probe that they do not get enough points... Ian and I had a similar force size and his units were far more capable than mine... perhaps the point values for the Syrians should be looked at as I feel they might be about double, in some cases, what they should be.

It is true that I never had a chance to compete in this one due to the very close setup zones he enjoyed.. something I didn't notice until I was in the setup phase (again that is on me, I failed to do a proper pre-game map analysis), he was able to deploy very close and as he said he was able to get a team with eyes on my setup zone early in the game... I would have had to clear the ridge that covered the entire width of the map in order to keep that from happening, and I did not have the resources for that. 

Bil

[MikeyD]

I recently fired up a Blue-on-Blue QB (to test out my Turkish Leopard 2 mod). Leopard2A4 versus Brit Challenger 2. The scenario was short and painful. Its not just Syrian tanks who can find themselves painfully over-matched. There's a lot of available armor in CMSF but the real meat-and-potatoes of the sim is infantry-heavy combined arms. If your force is too tank-heavy the scenario's in danger of being very brief indeed, one way or another. Especially the way I play.

[LongLeftFlank]

On 8/14/2018 at 2:10 AM, IanL said:

Kind words in deed - Guess where I learned a lot of my techniques? That's right from @Bil Hardenberger . Bil has been raising the bar on tactics since the beginning. I read his posts carefully and his blog too. Thanks Bil

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book! 

As for a RED force counter to BLUE open country mech, all I can think of is some of the 1941 Ariete tactics during CRUSADER, where their best offence was a good defence (i.e. a feint), and their short guns bushwhacked the advancing British tanks on reverse slopes and wadis.

Hezbollah provides the only successful  modern example of course, but they had the singular advantage of defence in depth, in a long-prepared zone. Still, they had some interesting tactical ideas.

2006 Lebanon war

Hezbollah deployed their tank-killer teams in a thin but effective defensive scheme, protecting the villages where the organization’s Shiite members reside; villages where their short range rockets were positioned and where command infrastructure and logistics support was set up. An estimated 500 to 600 members of their roughly 4,000-strong Hezbollah fighting strength in South Lebanon were divided into tank-killer teams of 5 or 6, each armed with 5-8 anti-tank missiles, with further supplies stored in small fortified well camouflaged bunkers and fortified basements, built to withstand Israeli air attacks.

Due to mountainous area, engagements were encountered at ranges below 3000 meters. Hezbollah tank-killer teams would lay in wait in camouflaged bunkers or houses, having planted large IEDs on known approach routes. Once an Israeli tank would detonate one of these, Hezbollah would start lobbing mortar shells onto the scene to prevent rescue teams rushing forward, also firing at outflanking Merkava tanks by targeting the more vulnerable rear zone with RPGs.

In general, Hezbollah demonstrated rather slow regrouping and response rate, since their mobility and command links were severely restricted by the IDF dominating the open areas. However, even this slow pace was fast enough to match the slow and indecisive movements of the Israelis forces.

... Benefiting from its superior night combat capability, the IDF conducted most movements at night, minimizing exposure of forces during day time.... 

Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah... engaged these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29.... the TOW as well as non tandem RPGs, were considered obsolete against tanks, but proved quite lethal against troops seeking cover in buildings.

Overall, almost 90% of the tanks hit were by tandem warheads. 

The IDF employed several hundred tanks.... about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated.... 

Hezbollah aimed their missiles to the sides, and rear, when possible.... An armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle.. hundreds of antitank missiles were fired... only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

My biggest question about the force balance in this battle pretty much amounts to "Why were the Syrians probing a NATO force anyway.....Are they mad?". 

I really can't see even the Republican Guard mounting a counteroffensive in the face of a US led NATO assault, it would be utterly suicidal.....Far better for Syrian forces to retreat into the bigger towns & cities where NATO's ROE will limit the effectiveness of airpower. 

C'mon guys, give us a battle we can really get our teeth into! 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sequoia]

Ah, cause it made a cool demo...

[sburke]

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

My biggest question about the force balance in this battle pretty much amounts to "Why were the Syrians probing a NATO force anyway.....Are they mad?". 

Bil lost a bet in the Beta tester club to Ken and in doing so was required to take on a totally unfair fight publicly.  Ken is lucky, you should have seen what was required if Bil had won the bet.