Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,610 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
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.
-
Slightly off topic, but since CMSF is closer to release, I wanted to plug "Arabs at War, military effectiveness 1948-1991", by Kenneth Pollack.
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Hmmm... let's see what happens...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />not to reopen a can of worms, but is there any new development, good or bad, on the PBEM front?
Steve </font>
-
not to reopen a can of worms, but is there any new development, good or bad, on the PBEM front?
-
The other advantage I see to including suicide bombers is that it will make the US player a bit more cautious, since he will never know in any scenario if his forces are going to run into one, something which is very realistic in the middle east.
-
It is certainly open to debate whether suicide bombers would participate in the opening phase of a US invasion of Syria, but I would rather they were included and leave it up to individual players and scenario designers to decide whether they want to use them or not.
I think they will have very little impact in CMSF, remote controlled bombs however are a different story.
-
Suicide/terror bombings against civilians, although anathema to western/liberal thinking is usually carried out for political/military reasons and have a long history.
Under classic marxist guerilla theory, terror campaigns against civilians are supposed to force the State to employ increasingly repressive methods against the population which will force the population to rally to the insurgents either out of conviction or out of fear or intimidation. Additionally in multi ethnic/religious communities, terror bombings also have the objective of driving a wedge between different ethnic/religious groups. Iraq, of course, springs immediately to mind, but the same thing happened in Northern Ireland for decades.
The classic example of a successful guerilla/terror bombing campaign is, of course, Vietnam, where the Vietcong throughly undermined support for South Vietnam through terror and intimidation.
Sucide bombing is a newer development, but it is essentially a practical development. World/regional military powers, such as the US or Israel, have airplanes/missiles to deliver their bombs, which poor/insurgent forces do not have. The suicide bomber is basically a bomb delivery system. There is usually a whole insurgent unit supporting the bomber, from the bomb maker, usually the most valuable member of the team, to various handlers who will check out the attack route and send the "bomb" on its way. Suicide attacks are also not new, the 1968 Tet offensive was essentially a suicide mission which wiped out the Vietcong cadres but scored a political victory, which was the ultimate aim.
Furthermore, civilians, whether we like it or not, have always been military targets. In WW2, the US, UK and Canada carried out bombing campaigns in Germany to kill german civilians. In the pacific, the US carried out unrestricted submarine warfare against civilian merchant shipping. During the cold war, the entire military strategy of the US was based on wiping out the Soviet population with nuclear weapons. Of course, western powers have now renounced attacks on civilians as a valid military strategy, but we will see if that holds up the next time they have their back against the wall as in WW2 or the Cold War.
We can rail againt suicide/terror bombings all we want as being "uncivilized" or "unmilitary", but they are a fact of life to ground military operations in 2007.
-
Sounds like the Kamikaze Highlanders from Monty Python..Originally posted by MikeyD:Random exploding suicide bomber?
-
We already have basically the same thing in CMx1, when you send a infantry half squad ahead to reconnoiter the enemy position, its usually, for all practical intent, a suicide mission with a high probability the whole unit will get wasted.Originally posted by Rollstoy:I'd rather have a game without 'martyrs'!
Just imagine you play the Syrians and you have to decide where to send your martyrs to blow themselves up ... sick!
Best regards,
Thomm
Properly using or defending against operatives, martyrs or IEDs will add an interesting wrinkle to CMx2, as in real life.
-
I think this explains why the "Surge" was limited to 21,500, They knew "Robby the Robot" was on its way...
-
this looks weird, but interesting...
..is this something which might eventually appear in CMSF?
-
I would also buy any CMx2 Eastern front games/modules.
(I'm sure that statement will be a major factor in Battlefront's decision.
)
)should know that it would be quickly invaded and its leadership arrested or driven into hiding. 
New Syrian TO&E thread
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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?