Yom Kippur War

[tyrspawn]

Does anyone know how the syrian orbat differs from 1973? Specifically, BTR, armor and special forces companies/platoons.

Also, does anyone know the TO&E for the Israeli forces? Any and all help would be invaluable lads, for google has failed me. I trust in this forum's ability to somehow produce answers to misc historical military information.

edit:

So after some searching I was able to find: http://www.armchairbrigade.org/module?game=HMWGame&name=ArabIsraeliWarsModule.ArabIsrael1973Module.SyIl1973Module

It has what seems to be accurate orbats for both sides, but not the specific TO&E - i.e. platoon personnel hierarchy and equipment assignments. I think i'm going to use the specifics from CMSF with the greater equipment orbats at that link if no one has any input.

[Frankster65]

Hey nice find. Thanks a lot for sharing that. I've been looking for similar information as well.

[tyrspawn]

As an aside, what are the billets in the syrian platoon hq? is the third man a radioman? Fourth a medic? What else?

[Michael Emrys]

I think the Israeli equipment of 1973 simply cannot be reproduced with anything from SF. A lot has changed in 40 years.

Michael

[JonS]

Michael,

you might be able to fudge it by giving both sides crappy Russian tanks, with the Israelis using slightly less crappy T-62 vs Syrian T-55 (or T-72 vs T-62)?

Jon

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I would give the Syrians lots of old T62s and T55s with very low experience (which would be historically correct) vs. old T55s with high experience for the Israelis.

IIRC the T62 didn´t work well in the Golan because of it´s lower ground clearance (lower than the T55) getting stuck on rocks all the time, don´t know if that is simulated in CMSF.

[hcrof]

The Syrians don't have a Plt HQ. Just the Lieutenant who attaches himself to a normal squad. The Soviet army was like this back in the 70's so the Syrians must have copied them.

CMSF simply attaches the Lt to a squad and gives it an extra RPG which is then split off to give the player a bit of flexibility.

Also:

I would give the Syrians lots of old T62s and T55s with very low experience (which would be historically correct) vs. old T55s with high experience for the Israelis.

This ^

[Michael Emrys]

Michael,

you might be able to fudge it by giving both sides crappy Russian tanks, with the Israelis using slightly less crappy T-62 vs Syrian T-55 (or T-72 vs T-62)?

I would not feel at all comfortable with that kludge. For one thing, the autoloader on the T-62 slowed down the rate of fire compared to the tanks the Israelis had. For another thing, its sights were reputed to be significantly poorer, so its accuracy, especially for the first round, suffered. The T-72 might come closer, but I don't know how much.

Michael

[hcrof]

There is no autoloader on the T-62, but the Israelis would be better with T-55s anyway. Yes the sights were worse than on the newer Israeli tanks but the guns and armour were similar.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Once NATO gets here, Leopard I wouldn't be a bad fudge for the Israelis.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

In my book on the Golan tank fighting the Israelis were always fighting with the hatch open, peering out with binoculars (leading to many commander casualties). They only closed the hatch when shelled by arty. I am admittedly totally ignorant of the spotting abilities of the LeopardII , but I presume that the canadian leo1 has quite good spotting abilities with the hatch closed, so i still think the T55 would be closer to the actual israeli abilities. Now if we had a early LeoI to play with...

[Damian90]

For one thing, the autoloader on the T-62 slowed down the rate of fire compared to the tanks the Israelis had.

Ehm nope, it was spent shell case ejector that automatically erected gun to eject case and load position, but it was not problem with that but with sight, sight was slaved to gun not opposite, so when gun was in load position gunner loose tracking capabilities and he must to find, track and fire to target one more without capabilitie to making corrections, so he will have more problem with hit target.

For another thing, its sights were reputed to be significantly poorer, so its accuracy, especially for the first round, suffered.

As I said, it was not problem with the sight but with that it was slaved to the gun, not the gun to the sight so after shot sight can still stick to the target.

Besides this Israelis were impressed with night fighting capabilities of T-62, it's fire power and armor.

[Michael Emrys]

There is no autoloader on the T-62...

This is contrary to the information I had on it at the time. The problem with the autoloader was that it required relaying the gun after the round was chambered, thus slowing down the ROF.

Can you provide a source for your statement?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Ehm nope, it was spent shell case ejector that automatically erected gun to eject case and load position, but it was not problem with that but with sight, sight was slaved to gun not opposite, so when gun was in load position gunner loose tracking capabilities and he must to find, track and fire to target one more without capabilitie to making corrections, so he will have more problem with hit target.

Okay, this is the same thing as what I was thinking only phrased differently.

As I said, it was not problem with the sight but with that it was slaved to the gun, not the gun to the sight so after shot sight can still stick to the target.

Perhaps I need to explain. The Israeli tanks used a coincidence or stereoscopic rangefinder and the Soviet/Arab tanks used a stadiametric rangefinder, which I am informed was not as accurate.

Do you have information to the contrary?

Michael

[Damian90]

Okay, this is the same thing as what I was thinking only phrased differently.

But mechanical spent shell case ejector is not the same as mechanical loading system for the gun (autoloader is not correct therm because there is nothing common to automatic process similiar to... let's say system from firearms).

Perhaps I need to explain. The Israeli tanks used a coincidence or stereoscopic rangefinder and the Soviet/Arab tanks used a stadiametric rangefinder, which I am informed was not as accurate.

Do you have information to the contrary?

Hmmm, maybe it isn't as good as two above but I think situation isn't that bad at all, problably bigger problems were with training and this was case of poor accuracy.

[Sakai007]

Thx for the link, wasn't aware there were rule sets for board games out there that were free to the public, amazing stuff, no some one around here is gonna have to learn to play so I can smack them around! lol

[JonS]

I would not feel at all comfortable with that kludge. For one thing, the autoloader on the T-62 slowed down the rate of fire compared to the tanks the Israelis had. For another thing, its sights were reputed to be significantly poorer, so its accuracy, especially for the first round, suffered. The T-72 might come closer, but I don't know how much.

Yeah, or that. TBH, I know about this much WRT 1960s/70s AFVs:

--->| . |<---

The point I was trying to convey, and which seems to have been picked up, is that that era of Sov tanks is probably a generally better proxy for Israeli kit than even the worst of the current, Gen III+, Western AFVs available in CMSF. Especially given the advances in electronics and surveillance kit over the last 10-20 years.

And, of course, like any analogue, picking the points of difference between a proxy and it's parent is a trivial exercise Whether the points of difference outweigh the points of similarity is often a matter of taste rather than a matter of fact

[Michael Emrys]

But mechanical spent shell case ejector is not the same as mechanical loading system for the gun (autoloader is not correct therm because there is nothing common to automatic process similiar to... let's say system from firearms).

We seem to be having a language problem. I do not dispute the accuracy of your statement. It is of no importance to me whether the problem lies with the autoloader or the shell ejector. My point was that after reloading, the gun required relaying, which was time consuming. We are agreed on that, are we not?

Michael

[Damian90]

We seem to be having a language problem. I do not dispute the accuracy of your statement. It is of no importance to me whether the problem lies with the autoloader or the shell ejector. My point was that after reloading, the gun required relaying, which was time consuming. We are agreed on that, are we not?

Yes and not, currently many tanks need to relay for loading, like on Leo2, but the problem is if: the gun is slaved to the sight, then when gun is relayed sight stays on target. In T-62 sight was slaved to the gun tube so when it was erected for loading procedure sight is useless because it is also "looking" in air. :-)

[tyrspawn]

sooooo... anyone have an orbat for syrian rangers/airborne in 1973?

BTW this is not for a shockforce mission, but for ARMA II mission i'm working on. However, you guys typically know military stuff that I can't find anywhere else. Hence, I ask for aid.

Trying to do a battle for mount hermon mission.