Sgt Joch

200 M1A2s are better than 200 Strykers, until they run out of gas 200 km into Syria, at which point they become 200 targets to be turned into 200 bonfires by 2000 Syrian ATGMs. note:edited to keep my favorite modder happy, although I am not sure Syria has 2000 ATGMs [ March 21, 2007, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

this may be of interest: IDF applying lessons of war to improve use of tanks

I have reinstalled windows XP pro 8-10 times. I do it whenever I do a major hardware upgrade. I have exceeded my renewals, but that just means I have to call microsoft each time to get a new free authorization, adds about 5 minutes to the process since they are open 24 hours a day, so that is nothing to worry about.

So hurry up and get the game out so we can see for ourselves. My sense is that combined arms tactics will be even more important in CMSF since Abrams will not dominate the game the way Tigers and Panthers do in CMx1.

Acording to the Israeli press, Syria is close to acquiring "several thousand" ATGMs from Russia: Stories of a Russian Arms deal with Syria have been going around for years, but now apparently Iran is providing the financing, up to $500 million according to some reports. Of course, its hard to know how much of this is information or disinformation, but in a worst case scenario, several thousand AT-13/14s in Syrian hands would make the life of an invading army a bit more difficult.

Syria has apparently been receiving generous funding from Iran to acquire new weapons, including Scud ballistic missiles and new anti-ship missiles. They have also apparently redeployed troops closer to the Golan Heights. Iran helping one of its few allies to improve its military capability makes sense, especially since the moves seem to be aimed at Israel, perhaps to dissuade Israel from intervening again in Lebanon or from striking Iran's nuclear facilities. It is a bit of a gamble on Iran's part though, if Iraq slips into a full blown civil war, Syria would be more likely to support the Sunni side. It's not CMSF related, but it is interesting to speculate.

Any idea on the numbers? I presume these numbers are hopelessly out of date: Syria - Army equipment According to Arabs at War , all arab armies have major problems with accurate weapon delivery, presumably due to poor training. Results of the 1982 war showed that this was a problem even for Syrian SF/commando units. Again according to Arabs at War , after their poor showing against the IDF in 1973 and against the Lebanese militia in 1976, Syria started pooling all their best men in SF/commando units. This gave Damascus some relatively good units, but at the expense of lowering the overall quality of line infantry units. The SF/commando units even scored some modest successes against the IDF in 1982. It looks like they might be doing the same thing with their tank units. Of course, the unanswered question in all this is why the buildup? The chances of an attack by the U.S. ( in real life http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png' alt=';)'> ) are fairly low,the chances of war with Israel are also low ,the Assad regime seems fairly secure from internal enemies and Syria is going through some major economic/social difficulties due to the estimated 1,000,000 Iraqi refugees crowding into Damascus.

I agree with that assessment, nuclear/dirty bombs are the next frontier in terrorism and it's only a matter of time before it happens. No one knows if the "when" is tomorrow or 20 years from now, but when it does happen, I fear the resulting shock waves will be several degrees worse than what happened after 9/11.

Interesting article on the issue of Nuclear Terrorism: The Unthinkable Scary stuff.

I came across an article that Syria is rearming with funding from Iran, but the article does not give details on what new toys they are getting: Syria rearms Was this caused by the CMSF website going live?

Flamingknives, I'm not sure which MILAN Syria has, although I remember Steve saying that most of them should be non-operational due to lack of maintenance. Regarding the AT-14, from what I recall, they can penetrate up to 1.2 meters of armor. From what I have read the Abrams front armor can in theory provide more armor protection, this site M1 main battle tank , says that, in theory, the front armor of an Abrams can provide the equivalent of up to 1.6 meters of protection. Therefore, in theory, the AT-14 cannot penetrate the front armor of a M1 turret. However, I would think a AT-14 striking the front of an Abrams would, at least, knock out the main gun, probably immobilize the tank and quite possibly convince the crew to abandon ship, which would knockout the tank in CM terms. If it is hit anywhere else, the AT-14 should penetrate the armor and destroy the tank, although it will admit I am not a modern weapons expert.

There should still be room for some interesting conventional tactical matchups. ATGM equipped Syrian infantry, especially special forces/commando units should be able to put a serious dent in attacking U.S. forces. Syrian forces supposedly have 800 AT-10/14 and 200 MILANS which, in theory, should be one shot/kill on anything the US/NATO has, including the Abrams, in the ranges typically found in CMSF. The big question mark will be the dud rate, since Syrian maintenance is supposedly very poor and the accuracy, since Syrian marksmanship supposedly leaves a lot to be desired.

Moving out of Lebanon was a shrewd move. However, the reason they had to leave in the first place was a major miscalculation, and therefore a big screwup. Killing Hariri (and it looks like they did) was supposed to make their position in Lebanon stronger, not untenable. So no, I don't think Syria was too smart about Lebanon. </font>

Yes, States, like people often act irrationally, however in all the cases you mention, the leadership had valid reasons to believe they could get win their gamble. In 2007, any government involved directly or indirectly in a 9/11 type of attack against the USA or western europe (since it is not clear what would happen if the bomb only took out Tallinn )should know that it would be quickly invaded and its leadership arrested or driven into hiding. That does not mean it could not happen, since governments like people, often make stupid/reckless/suicidal decisions, but since it is a very high risk move, it has a low probability of occuring. Syria, for example, has been very smart in its handling of Lebanon, backing off when the international pressure is high and moving back in when no one is paying attention. However, I think it is a excellent choice for a backstory, since it is one scenario where you could be certain that NATO would get together to invade and take out the "rogue" syrian regime. Plus, it has a "24" feel to it, which leads me to my next suggestion for a marketing slogan: "Jack could'nt stop the Terrorists this time, can you clean up his mess?"

It was the central answer to the question "we're Euroweenies and we don't like going to war, so how do you expect us to be in Syria with Imperialist American and Britain?". Or somefink like that The answer was to up the ante of things like the Madrid and London bombings to something that couldn't be blown off. Anybody that knows anything about the spread of domestic militant Islam in Europe knows that these were just the opening shots in a much longer, and unfortunately bloodier, war yet to come. Still, some have rejected the notion that even dirty bombs would be enough to get Europe's militaries mobilized and deployed in the ME. It certainly is possible, but I personally doubt it. When downtown Berlin and Paris are off limits to Human habitation for 1000 years, me thinks people are going to be a tad bit more than upset with whomever was behind the new urban planning initiative. Steve </font>

I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed. However, the backstory is the least important aspect of CMSF.

Beauty.

And yet ground involvement in Vietnam lasted until 1973. Combat troops--I'm sorry, advisors--had been present since, what, '61? There was a significant anti-war movement for the better part of a decade before American involvement ended. For that matter, there was a significan anti-war movement inside the military (enlisted, not officers) for half a decade before the war ended. These, um, 'issues' did not end the war. Not in anything like a timely matter. </font>

The 150 or so Rangers/Delta Force prevailed against an estimated 5-10,000 somali militiamen, odds of roughly 1:50. The U.S. line infantry invading Syria would not be as good and the Syrian defenders would be better, granted, but the U.S. would invade Syria probably with overall odds of 1:4 or 1:3 with odds approching 1:1 where battle is joined. The U.S. would be backed by air and artillery support. In those circumstances, we can expect the U.S. to cut through Syrian defences with ease, depending of course on the number of casualties they are willing to suffer.

I would differ with your analysis of the facts. Certainly in the major wars, such as the American Civil War or World War II, the American public and politicians were willing to accept high casualties since losing the war was not an option. However, since 1945, there has no been any war/mission where the American public or politicians were willing to accept high casualties. In both Korea and Vietnam, support for the war eroded as casualty figures rose. In Vietnam, the U.S. suffered about 60,000 combat deaths. Quite before they reached that point, public opinion had turned against the war. In the same war, the Vietcong & North Vietnamese combatants suffered about 1,000,000 combat deaths to secure victory. Would the U.S. have been willing to suffer 100-200,000 combat deaths to achieve victory in Vietnam? I dont think so. In Iraq, there have been about 3,000 U.S. combat deaths since 2003 and support for the war is very low. U.S. politicians and the public can't even agree on whether Bush should send another 21,500 troops for about six months. I think you would have a hard time convincing the American public/politicians that any post 1945 limited war, whether its keeping Korea or Vietnam non-communist, liberating Kuwait or bringing democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria was vital enough to U.S. interests to justify high casualty figures... ...and if you apply that to CMSF, casualties should be a much greater concern to the U.S. player than to the Syrian player. [ February 08, 2007, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

I dont know the answer to that question, but it would not affect the result of the battle, only the wisdom of undertaking the mission in the first place. I edited my original post to take into account your useful comment. However the battle does point out the achilles heel of U.S. forces, namely the unwillingness to take casualties. The battle was considered a defeat in the U.S. because 19 americans died, even though in strictly military terms it was a victory since U.S. forces killed an estimated 1,000 somali militiamen. That is why guerilla warfare is the preferred route against U.S. forces. No Arab army can defeat the U.S. in conventional warfare, but Arab guerillas/insurgents know that if they cause enough casualties, U.S. troops will eventually leave.

"Black Hawk Down" is actually a very good example of what the U.S. forces can accomplish. You have well trained, well equipped light infantry force, which: 1.accomplishes their primary mission of capturing high value prisoners; 2.are capable of switching mid mission to secure new objectives (i.e. the crash sites); 3.advance and operate in a hostile urban environment where they are outnumbered 10-20 to 1, with no armor or artillery support (although light armor shows up late in the battle), and only helicopters as air support, yet achieve kill ratios of 50 to 1; and 4. are able to leave the area with full unit cohesion and having lost NO prisoner. If a german Kampfgruppe commander had done the same thing on the eastern front in WW2, he would have been flown to Berlin to receive the Iron Cross personally from Adolf Hitler. (edited after aka_tom_w pointed out I could improve the story ) [ February 08, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

I had not realized this was one of the source books for CMSF, although it is a logical choice. I will have to read the Syrian chapter very carefully to see if I can pick up any gameplay hints.

Slightly off topic, but since CMSF is closer to release, I wanted to plug "Arabs at War, military effectiveness 1948-1991", by Kenneth Pollack. Arabs at War It has been mentioned before and I finally picked it up a few weeks ago. It is a great overall primer on the military history of the region since 1945. It covers the major Arab powers: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lybia. It discusses in detail the military capabilities, strength and weaknesses and tactics of the vaious armies. It covers all the major wars with Israel and Gulf War #1, but also covers lesser known wars such as the Iran-Irak war, the war in Yemen, the Kurdish uprising. But the big plus for me is the fact that it is a very easy read, for a military history. The author writes in a very clear straightforward style. A lot of authors get tripped up on their own words and reading them is more homework than pleasure (cough...David Glantz ...cough) So this is a great book to read to get ready for CMSF.

Yes, there is news. Yes, there is PBEM. Steve </font>