Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,559 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
Dieseltaylor is the resident guru, but I use PBEMH F&T mode often. It seems to kick up like that every now and then even when you follow all the instructions. I usually switch back to non-F&T mode and switch back to F&T mode after a 1-2 turns, it always seems to work.
-
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
After suffering heavy losses to Hizbullah anti-tank missiles during the second Lebanon war, the IDF Armored Corps has changed its mode of operations and now intends to defeat the enemy using its two major advantages - speed and firepower.This week, Armored Brigade 401 took to the hills of the Golan Heights for its fifth week of training after completing a brigade-level exercise last week at the IDF Ground Forces Training Center in the Negev.
The brigade uses the most advanced tank in the IDF, the Merkava 4, and spent the entire war inside Lebanon. It participated in what has become known as the Battle of the Saluki - the last battle of the war, in which eight tank crew members were killed.
For the first time in close to a decade, the brigade - which is traditionally the first armored unit to be called up to fight on Israel's three fronts - is training for 12 weeks, spending time drilling urban warfare but mostly sharpening the skills needed for armored combat.
"Our advantage is our ability to move fast and our firepower," Brigade Commander Col. Itzik Turgeman told The Jerusalem Post Tuesday.
"The tanks are now driving faster and are using smokescreens - something they didn't use during the war - since we now understand that the threat of anti-tank missiles is 360 degrees."
According to Turgeman, a tank cannot sit "statically" inside enemy territory. The brigade sustained a number of casualties in the last days of the war as they waited for the government to decide whether to launch the last-ditch operation in southern Lebanon.
"If you sit and don't move, you are an easy target for the enemy," he said. "You need to know how to use the tank and the topography to your advantage."
-
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.Originally posted by Pzman:Two times, wow, thats crazy. I'm still using the factory installation on my MBP. Don't do that with Windows XP, because you can only activate the key two or three times before the license expires.
-
So hurry up and get the game out so we can see for ourselves.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:As I have said countless times already, most people playing CM against the Syrians will have their asses handed to them since CM is a TACTICAL wargame.
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.Damascus close to multi-million dollar deal to buy modern anti-tank missiles from RussiaBy Amos Harel and Aluf Benn
Damascus is close to concluding a large deal with Russia to procure thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles for the Syrian army, according to information received in Israel recently. Such a development suggests that Israel's diplomatic efforts to block the sale have failed.
According to various estimates the deal is worth several hundred million dollars and involves several thousand advanced anti-tank missiles.
For years Syria secured anti-tank missiles from the Soviet Union and later from Russia. During the war in Lebanon last summer Israel found proof that Syria had transferred to Hezbollah advanced Russian-made anti-tank missiles from its arsenal.
Evidence of the existence of these advanced missiles, the Kornet AT-14 and Metis AT-13, came in the form of crates discovered in the villages of Ghandurya and Farun, close to the Saluki River. The shipment documents showed that they had been procured by the Syrian army and transferred to Hezbollah.
Until Israel was able to produce such evidence the authorities in Moscow refused to acknowledge that advanced Russian-made weapons were being transferred to Hezbollah.
But after the war, an Israeli delegation that included members of the National Security Council and the Foreign Ministry presented the evidence to senior Russian officials.
The Russians promised to reevaluate some of the planned arms deals with Syria to ensure that advanced weaponry would not make its way to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.
However, there are now concerns in Israel that Russia will not keep its promise and that the deal with Damascus for the anti-tank missiles is near being finalized.
Syria stepped up its efforts to convince Russia to make the sale following the lessons it reached from the war in Lebanon. The fact that Hezbollah succeeded in delaying an Israeli armored column at the battle near the Saluki River with accurate fire from anti-tank missiles was noted favorably in Arab armies.
In retrospect, and following an IDF study, the number of tanks that were actually damaged during fighting in the war did not exceed several dozen, and in some of them the damage suffered was very minimal. But missile types like the Kornet and the Metis proved their destructive abilities and in some cases even penetrated the armor of the Merkava Mark IV, which is considered to be the best protected tank in the world.
The IDF found it difficult to counter this threat, particularly since the weapons could be fired accurately from distances of five kilometers.
One of the lessons of the war for Syria was that it needed to improve areas in which it had a relative advantage against the IDF, like the anti-tank missile, and surface-to-surface missiles that can threaten Israel's home front.
In addition, Palestinian militant groups have intensified their efforts to smuggle anti-tank missiles from Sinai to the Gaza Strip.
Armor and infantry units in the IDF are now undergoing training in tactical maneuvers that will enable them to counter anti-tank missiles. In addition, there are efforts to upgrade the anti-tank missiles in Israel's arsenal.
-
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:Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:Kornets and Metis missles seem to be flowing into the country in very large numbers.
Many of these are probably finding their way in Lebanon
But it appears both Hezbollah and Syria have a significant stockpile of these missles and their launchers
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.The accuracy numbers from the Hezbollah teams using these weapons agaisnt the IDF is pretty applaing (unless your the IDF)A shiny new tank busting Kornet missle is pretty useless unless you can hit a target with it
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.The Syrians seem to have slightly went over to the idea of 'quality over quanity'They are picking the best tanks and crews and focusing on that small % of their armoured force for upgrades.
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.It's not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. -
Interesting article on the issue of Nuclear Terrorism:
"The term “dirty bomb” can refer to a wide variety of devices, but generally it describes one that would use a conventional explosive such as dynamite to release radioactive material into the air. The initial explosion and its subsequent plume might kill or sicken a dozen or perhaps as many as a few hundred people, depending on such factors as wind and the bomb-maker’s skill. If the weapon was particularly well made, employing one of the most potent and long-lived types of radioactive materials that are used in medicine and in the food industry, it might also cause considerable economic damage—perhaps rendering a number of city blocks uninhabitable. Radioactive ground contamination cannot easily be scrubbed away, so it might be necessary to tear down scores of buildings and cart the rubble to disposal sites. It’s easy to imagine what the impact of such an attack would be if the contaminated area was, say, a quarter of the East Village, or the Seventh Arrondissement of Paris.""It is common, in defense studies, to evaluate an adversary on the basis of capability and intent. Pakistan has a nuclear-weapons capability, but its government, however fragile it may be, is presumed to have no hostile intentions toward the United States. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has demonstrated hostile intentions but has little known nuclear capability. Osama bin Laden has declared that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is a religious duty, and it is well documented that he tried to buy uranium during the mid-nineteen-nineties while he was living in Sudan. (Like many other would-be purchasers of black-market nuclear material, he apparently fell victim to a scam.) After September 11th, bin Laden met with Pakistani nuclear scientists to discuss weapons issues. More recently, Al Qaeda-inspired radicals have sought nuclear materials. “We know they have a significant appetite and they have been searching for different materials, in different venues, for the past several years,” Vahid Majidi, an assistant director of the F.B.I., who is in charge of the bureau’s newly formed weapons-of-mass-destruction directorate, told me. “The question becomes our vigilance and their ability to execute.”Last September, the Nuclear Threat Initiative posted a translation of a message that appeared on the Web and was attributed to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The speaker called for experts in “chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences, especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts.” He continued, “We are in dire need of you.… The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them.”
The available evidence, then, suggests that while jihadi leaders might like to acquire a proper fission weapon, their pragmatic plans seem to run to dirty bombs—a more plausible ambition. Among other things, the international nuclear black market holds more promise for dirty-bomb builders than for those who are interested in fission weapons. In all the cases of nuclear smuggling reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency since the collapse of the Soviet Union, none have involved significant amounts of fissionable materials. (There have been at least two cases in which a seller possessing small amounts of highly enriched uranium promised that he could get much more but was arrested before the claim could be tested; the most recent of these occurred in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, in 2006.) By comparison, the I.A.E.A. has recorded about three dozen black-market smuggling incidents through 2004 involving radiological isotopes in quantities that would be useful for a destructive dirty bomb, according to European diplomats who have analyzed the records. It would not be simple to build a damaging device with these materials. Still, Peter Zimmerman, who served as the chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2001 to 2003, said, “I think there are Al Qaeda people who, given finely divided material, could think of very creative and malicious ways to use it. Why hasn’t it happened? The answer is we’ve been lucky.”
"The Bush Administration’s fixation on radiation sensors has not been accompanied by a comparably ambitious drive to fund, for example, increased inspections of companies that hold commercial nuclear material that could be used to build dirty bombs, and, as a result, the country’s regulatory system in this area remains strikingly weak. For decades, the purpose of government regulation of trade in portable nuclear materials was to protect workers and the public from the effects of accidental exposure to radiation; much of the day-to-day responsibility rested on compliance by private businesses. Until September 11th, the possibility that a terrorist might mount an attack using commercial radioactive isotopes received very little attention. In 2002, after it had become clear that Al Qaeda or its followers might be seeking radioactive material, the N.R.C. and the Department of Energy formed a task force of physicists and engineers to study precisely what kinds, in what amounts, might be used effectively for dirty bombs. The I.A.E.A. conducted a similar study. The scientists who participated struggled with questions of bomb engineering and malicious intent which they had never before considered; among other things, they had to decide what level of skill could reasonably be attributed to an attacker. Edward McGaffigan, a commissioner at the N.R.C., said they assumed that they would be dealing with someone who knew some science— “Not super-smart, but certainly well above Jose Padilla.” The result, in 2003, was a new system for identifying which materials were truly dangerous.The final official list contains only fifteen risky isotopes. (Other commercial isotopes, such as polonium, which was employed in London last autumn to murder the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, can kill individuals or small groups but cannot cause damaging long-term ground contamination; these materials are not classified as a security risk.) Because of their widespread availability and their potency, the isotopes of greatest concern are cesium, cobalt, and americium. There are, for example, several hundred irradiation machines in the United States that employ large amounts of cobalt and cesium, and thousands more of these machines are scattered around the world under light control—Ethiopia has at least one, and Ukraine has at least a hundred. Investigators in Markey’s office, searching the Web, found one such machine, with its entire stockpile of cobalt, available for free, provided that a customer would haul the material away; the machine was in Lebanon."
Scary stuff."Fifteen years ago, many feared that a nuclear weapon might be bought or stolen by terrorists in the former Soviet Union. The country had large stockpiles of fission weapons and highly enriched uranium that were, in some cases, so poorly inventoried that nobody could say for sure how much material existed. Although Russia’s resurgent security police and years of investment in nuclear security by the United States and other countries have reduced the dangers, international organized-crime networks still thrive in Russia and the smaller countries on its southern rim. The A. Q. Khan case has led some in the American defense bureaucracy to conclude that Pakistan is now a greater problem than Russia. India has large amounts of fissile material at civilian facilities and is a site of recurring, violent terrorist conspiracies. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, has a record of kidnapping and other erratic acts. A gloomy mind (edit note: Battlefront? )can readily devise plausible scenarios for nuclear terrorism in which any of these places might be a source of weapons or materials. As for potential targets, Al Qaeda’s long-standing interest in New York, and its status as the largest seaport on the East Coast, has made the city, along with Washington, D.C., the focus of continual attention by the federal government since September 11th." -
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:
"The Syrian armed forces are being strengthened in an unprecedented way in recent memory with the help of generous funding from Iran. The Syrians are bolstering their forces in all areas except the air force, which has been believed to be weak for some time. The main emphasis of the efforts has been missiles and long-range rockets to compensate for the weak air force."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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
</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 TallinnOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:In short... if you study history you will see that states more often than not behave poorly and irrationally. They often pay for it. Whether it be Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union, Argentina challenging the British militarily, etc. etc. the common thread is nation looking to expand its power in a way that in hindsight was extremely stupid and self defeating. To think that Syria, a country that already made a dramatic mistake in Lebanon recently, is above such state sponsored stupidity is hard to defend.
Lastly, the backstory is not saying that Syria engaged in the attacks, rather they aided the ones who did and then overplayed their position when caught. Just like the Taliban.
)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 thatOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Sgt.Joch,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed.
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>
-
"In a nutshell, the war is triggered when a number of "dirty" nuclear bombs explode in several major Western cities in 2008. The terrorists are clearly traced to Syria. A US-led invasion force is put together and the player is part of that task force, which is built around the US Army's new concept of a highly mobile Stryker Brigade.
What is remarkable about the story is that it has evolved over time, not only as real-world events in Iraq developed (we began plans for the game in 2003), but also because we've deliberately entered a public dialogue with our fans on the Battlefront discussion forum about what the most likely scenario for a future conventional war could be. This story has been collectively agreed upon by us and our fans, which include casual gamers as well as former and current military personnel."
I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed. However, the backstory is the least important aspect of CMSF.
-
-
And yet ground involvement in Vietnam lasted until 1973. Combat troops--I'm sorry, advisors--had been present since, what, '61?Originally posted by Moronic Max:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
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.Originally posted by John Kettler:While I agree that well trained, experienced, light elite forces can indeed accomplish wonders, my issue is equating such top combat specialists' performance with what their less martially gifted, equipped and trained line unit bretheren could accomplish, with all other things being equal. This is not to say the U.S. doesn't have great troops compared to practically everyone, but that to expect Ranger performance from line infantry is not terribly bright, IMO, let alone than in the hell that was Mogadishu.
-
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.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:Did they not have to give ALL their high value prisoners back to get Durant free? (Just a question.)
-tom w
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:It is a great book for sure. The section on the Syrians was extremely instructive and is one of the major inspirations for how I see the Syrians conducting themselves in CM:SF's setting.
Steve
I will have to read the Syrian chapter very carefully to see if I can pick up any gameplay hints.
Please FEED US
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Considering the brewing backlash surrounding the Silent Hunter IV release which was rushed out the door not quite ready for prime time, a too common occurence these days, I wholeheartedly agree with BFC's approach, take your time and release it when it is ready, although hopefully that will be in 2007.