Is there a reason why the Syrians suck so badly?

[meade95]

We are not any further forward in the Stan since when we started. We don't have the manpower to hold ground. Terry is just waiting for us to pull back and he fills the vacuum.

Iraq we could be making headway with hearts and minds.

We are not any further along in Stan than 01/02? That is just factual incorrect on too many levels......The standards of success that have been applied to Stan are just ridiculous.......On the whole the battle is being continually waged deeper and deeper into the enemy (where they are now even being chased / killed in the no-man lands on the Pak side of the border).

Gov't instituions, schools, medical facilities, modern road systems, "infastructure" are being established inside and moving out in 80% of Stan.......We now have active FOBs in areas (Nuristan and others) that were never there before....... There is a whole new Gov't in Stan. Women are allowed to go to schools. The notion that there has been no more progress in Stan since when we started is utter foolishness....

But we should take this private as was said....this is off topic. I'd be happy to have a private discussion with you. Hit me up on the private email side. Regards.

[meade95]

Meade95,

Military victory is when your army imposes your political will on the enemy.

one thing is clear, the situation in Afghanistan is nothing like a US victory. After all, if it were a victory the Americans could leave tomorrow, and their political will would be done.

Oh, and what are those troops doing in Japan and Europe for then? We lost WWII now didn't we....I forgot..........Or could there be strategic reasons for being there...and very real reasons (outside of the current conflict directly Vs Taliban / AQ) that are good for both the U.S. as well as those wishing to see the values of freedom and self-worth have a chance to take full root in this region of the world.

No, a military victory comes in the WOT not from your strict definition above (you are fighting a conventional war there)....but from a rouge dictator or nation no longer being an active threat against CONUS. And the Gov'ts of Stan and Iraq are no longer such. That is victory.

[MarkEzra]

Of course the actual reality is US troops can't be allowed to absorb casualties of EVEN 10% let alone 15% plus. There are a number of scen on www.CMMODS.com which specifically address this.

As a fervent Red PBEM player I often am required to make the setup for a balanced scen. I don't use the casualties perimeters, just "hold" Objectives, because I don't want to put my opponent in a possible straight jacket...Not too much fun for them. So I Often congratulate my blue opponent on their victory. In my head I look at blue casualties and the general difficulties I created and for how long. Then give myself an ataboy or back to the drawing board as needed.

[meade95]

Of course the actual reality is US troops can't be allowed to absorb casualties of EVEN 10% let alone 15% plus. There are a number of scen on www.CMMODS.com which specifically address this.

As a fervent Red PBEM player I often am required to make the setup for a balanced scen. I don't use the casualties perimeters, just "hold" Objectives, because I don't want to put my opponent in a possible straight jacket...Not too much fun for them. So I Often congratulate my blue opponent on their victory. In my head I look at blue casualties and the general difficulties I created and for how long. Then give myself an ataboy or back to the drawing board as needed.

Great way to go about it .....Makes much sense.

[Meach]

Soon as the troops pull out of Stan we will be back at square one. Terry knows this. Any gains made to infrastructure etc will be quickly disintegrated. It's pissing against the wind by claiming we are winning.

All we are winning is daily skirmishes which, inevitably will not win the war. The only hope is negotiation with the Taliban cos the ANA will fold without Coalition support.

[meade95]

Soon as the troops pull out of Stan we will be back at square one. Terry knows this. Any gains made to infrastructure etc will be quickly disintegrated. It's pissing against the wind by claiming we are winning.

All we are winning is daily skirmishes which, inevitably will not win the war. The only hope is negotiation with the Taliban cos the ANA will fold without Coalition support.

Wrong. Where freedom is established it has virtually always lasted. Especially when it is protected / defended until the newly established can defend themselves.

Your view is absoutely wrong in terms of history.........Much has been tried in the ME for centuries.......Establishing freedom and self worth however, isn't two of them.......

Lets both peg this thread and check back with one another in 10 - 15 years.

Best regards,

[JonS]

No, a military victory comes in the WOT ... from a rouge dictator or nation no longer being an active threat against CONUS. And the Gov'ts of Stan and Iraq are no longer such.

Of course, they weren't a threat to the CONUS before the WOT either. So, if your definition of victory is stomping on people who weren't threatening you, well, Great Job! Mission Accomplished!

[JonS]

Where freedom is established it has virtually never lasted.

Fixed that for ya.

Western Europe, North America, and Australasia are - historically speaking - gross aberrations. Most of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has experienced at least a brief period of 'freedom' since 1945. In virtually all cases that experiement has failed. Similar result for South and Central America, though you have to go back a bit further.

[Splinty]

Fixed that for ya.

Western Europe, North America, and Australasia are - historically speaking - gross aberrations. Most of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has experienced at least a brief period of 'freedom' since 1945. In virtually all cases that experiement has failed. Similar result for South and Central America, though you have to go back a bit further.

The "experiment" failed because Great Britain and France left in 1947 and took the government infrastructure that allows a democracy to function with them. (at least in the case of the Middle East and Africa)

[Rob Ross]

Damn, there's so much wrong in this thread but all I can think of is Saddam in lipstick...

Carry on!

[dan/california]

We may conclusively consider ourselves off track.

[dan/california]

In an attempt to get back on track..

If you give the Syrians Kornets they suck a whole lot less. In fact they suck so much less I am absolutely convince we should buy the Israeli Trophy antimissile system immediately if not sooner. No painful personal experiences their or anything.

If Lockheed ever gets theirs to work we can always upgrade in five or ten years.

[JonS]

The "experiment" failed because Great Britain and France left in 1947 and took the government infrastructure that allows a democracy to function with them. (at least in the case of the Middle East and Africa)

Sure (ie, in general I agree, in lieu of diving down irrelevant case-by-case rabbit holes), but the contention is that freedom (can I have fries with that?) is inherently 'sticky'.

That is not correct.

[dan/california]

I must report that the attempt to get back back on track failed, oh well.

[JonS]

My bad

Ahh ... where were we. Kornets?

Yes, Syrian ATGMs can be lethal, in a reach-out-and-touch-you kind of way. As always, it HIGHLY depends on the quality of the operators. I've watched scads of missiles spud in when driven by Pte Achmed Numbnuts, but I've also seen US forces all but wiped out when the operators have a few more clues. Heck, even RPG7s can cause some carnage in the right hands.

[meade95]

Sure (ie, in general I agree, in lieu of diving down irrelevant case-by-case rabbit holes), but the contention is that freedom (can I have fries with that?) is inherently 'sticky'.

That is not correct.

Last one.....So not to hijack this thread...... But you must have missed the part in which I included "Especially when it is protected / defended until the newly established can defend themselves."..... (a la, not cutting and running before the new quasi-democracy is up and established)...

[JonS]

especially =/= exclusively

[MikeyD]

If you give the Syrians Kornets they suck a whole lot less. In fact they suck so much less I am absolutely convince we should buy the Israeli Trophy antimissile system immediately if not sooner.

A more cost-effective solution, rather than equipping all our vehicles with TROPHY, may be to not invade Syria at all. Recent experience seems to suggest the net accrued savings coming from not invading small Arab countries might eventually reach into the trillions!

[dan/california]

You funny, funny man MikeyD!

[Scipio]

Talking about Syrian AT - am I the only one who thinks that the AT-3 Sagger sucks completly??? Firstly, it has minimum range of 500+ meters, and all rockets I've seen flying so far went into the ground long before they reached the target. I already wondered if it's a bug...

[birdstrike]

Yes, the minimum range is a real pita. As for the target accuracy, I think that might come from the inexperience of the crews - AT-3s usually end up with the low end of Syrian troops.

btw. has anyone noticed the BMP-1 in the game sporting an AT-3 on a rail above the gun? Looks like B.A. Barracus built that thing

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Talking about Syrian AT - am I the only one who thinks that the AT-3 Sagger sucks completly??? Firstly, it has minimum range of 500+ meters, and all rockets I've seen flying so far went into the ground long before they reached the target. I already wondered if it's a bug...

In good hands, it doesn't suck too much if placed properly. I once had an RG unit with one that took out two BMPs and two technicals in a Red vs Red scenario.

[Cpl Steiner]

In good hands, it doesn't suck too much if placed properly. I once had an RG unit with one that took out two BMPs and two technicals in a Red vs Red scenario.

Try my "Laurel and Hardy" scenario if you want to see Saggers used to good effect. If they stick to the road your forces will get hammered by Saggers.

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, this thread got back on track again. Neat

Before we went off track the point was made that, generally speaking, having a 1:1 matchup between Blue "good quality" and Red "poor quality" troops are likely to wind up in a Red defeat if both are tasked with the same goals. I'd go even further and say that 1:1 matchups between Blue "poor quality" and Red "good quality" is likely to wind up in Red defeat. The simple reason is that Red is generally using weapons designed in the 1960s or 1970s, the Blue forces use things generally designed (or at least significantly redesigned) in the 1980s, 1990s, or even 2000s. Sometimes in war the thing designed yesterday is enough to overmatch everything made the day before and earlier. So having decades old equipment is just... well... not good for the forces that have to use it.

The way around this is, indeed, asymmetrical use of Red Forces. This is not just asymmetric concepts of weapons positions and small unit tactics, but also what is considered an acceptable loss. Phyrric victories are a possibility for the Red side, NOT a possibility for Blue. When people make scenarios they should keep this very much in mind.

As for the thought about Red never being able to attack (which includes counter attack, mobile defense, etc), using the logic I wrote down on Page 4 or so, is simply not correct. What is correct to say is that Red doesn't have the freedom to attack as the Blue force does. Open, sweeping mechanized maneuvers will almost always result in failure for Red. The weapons available to even the lowly Blue Rifle Squad are simply too big of a threat to risk.

Blue has to be careful when it conducts such moves, but the ability to fire on the move accurately by just about every Blue vehicle means that once Red exposes its firing positions it can be effectively shot at without the Blue's attack grinding to a halt.

Back to the point... Red forces can maneuver, but the moves must be fairly well thought out in advance. By that I mean planning routes which offer good cover and a good idea of what the unit should do once it arrives there. For example, if there are three possible avenues of approach for the Blue force, and you only have enough mobile assets to deal with one, then put them in a place that won't come under immediate fire. That's first priority. Ideally that place would offer covered routes to engage the Blue in any one of the three possible advance routes. If that isn't possible, then take what you can get. The most important thing is to not have your mobile assets exposed at the start of the battle if you want to retain them for use later on. If they can be seen at the beginning by Blue, then they will most likely die before they can achieve anything beyond spooking the enemy at best.

Now, if Red is actually on the move from the start, then things become much more difficult. Most likely impossible in open terrain, actually, unless the Blue force is quite small and generally unprepared. MOUT is a whole different thing. But in both cases knowing where the Blue forces are is even more important than knowing where Red is from the Blue's perspective. Why? Because Blue has a ton more flexibility to react to the unexpected, while Red basically has to get it right the first time or it's over and done with. So if you are Red, have a simple plan that is executed with good recon and conviction. Anything less than that will almost certainly fail.

To recap... the Red has a lot of things going against it when it comes to maneuvering. But once it gets in close, it can easily knock Blue out of the running for Top Dog Award at the end of the battle.

One quick comment about the M-16 vs. the AK. As far as CM factors are concerned, the M-16 is a superior weapon to both types of AKs. The most important of these is the aggregate accuracy superiority (longer barrel, better firing mechanics, aiming devices, etc) and greater effective range. Here's an interesting side-by-side comparison of the original M16 with an AK-47. Note that most of the cons of the AK-47 are carried over to the AK-74, along with the smaller caliber ammo which is one of the big cons of the M-16.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

AT-3 (Sagger) does in fact "suck" The guidance system is really bad and to get decent results out of it you need to have a very well trained and calm gunner. Since most gunners in practice aren't, then performance is even worse. The estimated hit % for a good gunner in optimal conditions is about 25%.

I dug this up from an internal discussion about AT-3 accuracy (source - US military weapons assessment document):

The engagement envelope is a 3 km, 45 degree arc centered on the missiles launch axis. At ranges under 1.5 km this arc reduces, until at 500 m range the missile can only hit targets 50 m either side of the center line. It should be noted that accuracy falls off away from the launch axis—falling to approximately half its optimal accuracy at the extremes.

While early estimates of the missile hitting the target ranged from 90% to 60%, experience has shown that it is really between 25% and 2% depending on the situation and skill of the operator. MCLOS [the type of aiming system] requires considerable skill on the part of the operator: reportedly it takes 2,300 simulated firings to become proficient with the missile as well as 50 to 60 simulated firings a week to maintain the skill level.

So, who here thinks the average Syrian AT-3 gunner has undergone 2300 simulated firings and maintained 50-60 simulated firings a week?

The first paragraph spells out the primary reason why accuracy is so low. The problem is that aiming really starts at 500m. The closer the target is to that point, the lower the ability to correct aiming. The further out the target is the better the chance is that the gunner can make course corrections. The problem, though, is that the controls are VERY sensitive. Driving the missile far off course, or into the ground, is very easy to do. Uneven terrain, obstacles, etc. make things even worse. But the big one is incoming fire.

The primary problem with the AT-3, after the control sensitivity issue, is that the missile is VERY slow. So slow that the targeted vehicle often has time to engage the launch position. Once rounds start to hit in and around the gunner, concentration is at the very least disturbed, if not broken completely. In theory a closer shot would be more desirable because it would cut down on enemy reaction time, but the problem is that the guidance system sucks even more when range is reduced. Therefore, in reality a shorter shot is probably even less likely to be effective than a longer one.

Steve