Sgt Joch

I meant in terms of range and payload. I agree the AT-14 is less mobile than the Javelin, but in CM1 terms, it is probably as big and as mobile as a 81mm mortar team. The time from firing to impact (assuming the target is at 2 km or less ) should be less than 10 seconds, not enough time for the target to acquire and suppress it. Tankers on the board have stated that the chances of spotting a firing ATGM team on the battlefield is almost nil. In CM:SF, the AT-14 should be as effective as a Javelin.

What about the AT-14 Kornet? On paper, it should be equal or better than the Javelin. Will it also be "very,very nasty"?

I thought wearing black socks while having sex was the Canadian way. </font>

Hah yes, the art of the challenge ... but is'nt that a bit of an oxymoron, to be effective, a challenge must be a threat, brutish and to the point, like a punch in the face, not very artful. To be an art, it has to be rythmic, like a dance, or a Muhammed Ali fight where your opponent does not know what is going on until you land the knockout punch. The true art of the challenge would be to get your potential opponent to agree to a rousing, good PBEM game without him realising that he is being challenged... that is the canadian way.

Sure is nice to be referred to as a "young fellah", haven't heard that in years... so potentially interested new individuals should challenge individual serfs or squires for a duel? .. sounds like the feudal system. As I recall, serfs were poorly armed peasants, while squires were young lads who were usually paralysed by fear in their first battle, sounds more like target practice than a duel. sure is hard to get a PBEM game going around here..

I must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to be posting here...but I was wondering if any of you Pengers would be brave or bored enough to take me up on my challenge... challenge I realize you gents may not have the attention span required for an OP or you may not want to see your virtual soldiers being booted all over Stalingrad screaming in fear like little children, but I thought I would ask...

will that be modeled in the game?

From a military resources viewpoint, invading Syria in 2007 would be difficult. The U.S. army/USMC are already stretched to the limit. Just to get enough boots on the ground in Iraq, they have had to make extensive use of reserve/national guard units, keeping them in country much longer than was planned. To invade Syria, (assuming the political will was there), one of two things would need to happen, neither of which is very likely: 1. a substantial withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2006; or 2. increasing the number of combat units, which could only be done if you bring back the draft, since young americans are not lining up to join.

I read recently (although now I can't find it)that the decision to go with the .50, as for example the decision to leave out air conditioning, was part of the overall plan to keep the strykers' weight down so it would be airportable.

reality check: we are talking about a game. I don't see the relevancy of discussing whether the US should or should not invade Syria. If it does'nt, we are not going to get CM:SF If president Bush orders an invasion of Syria in 2007, how would the US and allied forces go about it, what should be modeled, what should be left out, that's the only thing that is relevant. Alot of US officers were against the Iraq invasion (for military reasons) , but once the decision was made, it was Sir!, Yes Sir! , how can we do the best job possible. It's the same thing here, the decision has been made, Battle.., err the UN is invading Syria, how would they do it, what forces would they use, how would Syria react, that's what we should be discussing.

Syria has WMD's? :eek: Does anyone have a link. I would like to find out more about these skirmishes.

I found this in the U.S. army's internal evaluation report on RPG performance against Stykers deployed in Iraq: If I read this correctly, the Anti-Tank RPG can penetrate a Stryker. http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-StrykerBrigade-12212004.pdf (at page 48 of the report)

I wonder if the showgirls will be modeled or are they considered to be civilians.

I have a question about the web page I posted earlier: The is the first scenario, which is what the Stryker Brigade was designed for. This is the second scenario, war with Syria. Does anyone know what...with augmentation...mean. Is it bureaucratese for.. we are going to give you some tanks so you don't get your behind shot up? .. and does anyone have any idea what the possible other roles would be?

Here is some additional information I had found on Stryker Brigades: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/brigade-ibct.htm The comments on the off-road capability are from the U.S. army's dec.2004 evaluation report, although it's true it will probably have limited application to CM style battles. As I said, I am looking forward to the tactical challenge of commanding a Stryker combat team in CMSF...but I would feel more comfortable if I had a M1A1 platoon backing me up

Actually, I was commenting on the article posted by RMC in the first post. But yes, I am not convinced by the Stryker Brigade concept. My understanding is that it is a first reaction team which can be airlifted and deployed quickly on the ground, (in theory, 96 hours), until heavier forces can arrive. It will utilise the latest technology to monitor enemy forces, which it can then bypass with it's superior mobility while it calls in air/artillery assets to neutralize the threat. However, firstly, the stryker has limited off-road capabilities, and would be mostly confined to the road net. That would make it easier for the Syrian forces to predict where they will advance and set up an ambush. Secondly, even with the greatest intelligence capability, there will still be situations where enemy forces are not detected. I can just see so many situations where a Stryker Brigade can run into trouble during a Syrian invasion. In CMSF, I'm sure it will be tactically challenging to command one, but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations. However, I don't think it is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria. [ October 19, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

Great article. Thanks for posting that, looks like the authors are not jumping on the Stryker Brigade bandwagon.

:eek: :eek:

Here is a summary AAR I found in an official friendly fire investigation report (it's amazing what you can find on the internet). It shows a typical confused small unit action, unfortunately with tragic consequences, which raises several CMSF questions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unclassified Executive Summary On 23 March 03, 1st Battalion 2nd Marine Regiment was assigned the mission of securing two bridges over the Euphrates River (the southern bridge) and Saddam Canal (the northern bridge) in An Nasirayah. These bridges led to a critical intersection, which was also to be seized. The Battalion consisted of Team TANK, which lead the way, followed by Team MECH (Bravo Company-task organized as two tank platoons and a mechanized rifle platoon), the Forward Command Post, Alpha Company and Charlie Company. As this offensive began, Team TANK engaged in protracted combat operations. As a result, they had to break off to refuel in the rear. After Team TANK withdrew, Team MECH was designated as the lead. Bravo Company's offensive led them across the southern bridge. Bravo Company then maneuvered off the main road, to avoid the threat associated with "Ambush Alley," and into the eastern section of the city where muddy conditions halted their advance (note: two AAVs, two tanks and a Humvee sank in the mud). The Forward Command Post element, in trace of Bravo Company, also got stuck. During this maneuvering, Alpha Company secured the southern bridge and maintained a defensive posture at that location. As these forces entered the city, their situational awareness became clouded due to deviations from the planned scheme of maneuver, the urban environment, and problematic communication links. Because of communications problems throughout the Battalion, Charlie Company thought Bravo Company had pushed straight up Ambush Alley, through the city, and seized the northern bridge. Accordingly, Charlie Company crossed the southern bridge and started to maneuver through Ambush Alley to the northern bridge. In the course of this maneuver, Charlie Company began to take heavy fire. Additionally, unbeknownst to either Charlie Company or Bravo Company, this maneuver put Charlie Company in the lead. Charlie Company proceeded just north of the northern bridge and seized it. Then, realizing they were in the lead, the Charlie Company Commander called the battalion commander, located with the Forward Command Post, to notify him of their position and that they had taken the objective. After a brief lull in enemy fire, Charlie Company again began taking heavy enemy fire from artillery, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), mortar and small arms. At approximately the same time, the Air Officer, located with the Forward Command Post, called Bravo Company Forward Air Controller (FAC), requesting close air support (CAS) to combat the enemy forces attacking their location. A two-ship formation of A-10 aircraft responded to the call. Based on the information he possessed concerning the scheme of maneuver, the Bravo Company Commander, collocated with the FAC, identified their company as the lead element. Therefore, believing that only enemy forces were ahead, the Bravo company commander cleared the FAC to engage the enemy targets north of the canal. The A-10s targeted what turned out to be Charlie company ground assets, making multiple passes against them. Eventually, the A-10s were informed to cease fire, which they did. Eighteen Marines were killed during this engagement. The evidence, primarily witness statements and/or forensic reports, indicates that eight marines were killed due solely to enemy fire. The intensity of the enemy fire, combined with friendly fire, makes it impossible to conclusively determine the exact sequence and sources of fires that killed the other 10 marines. During this same period, 17 marines were wounded in action; 13 solely by enemy fire and one by distinct rounds of enemy and friendly fire. Three marines, one of which had a prior distinct injury from enemy fire, were simultaneously hit be enemy and friendly fire, the intensity of which makes it impossible to conclusively determine the exact sequence and source of these injuries. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- issues: 1. How will friendly fire incidents be handled in CMSF?. Friendly fire incidents in CM1 were limited, but in Syria 2007, the massive firepower of U.S. forces could lead to some very nasty friendly fire incidents. (The summary is non-commital, but if you read the Charlie Company individual interviews, it's pretty clear the A-10s killed and wounded alot of marines). 2. terrain & bogging: from the above"...into the eastern section of the city where muddy conditions halted their advance (note: two AAVs, two tanks and a Humvee sank in the mud)....". The U.S. invaded Iraq, in what was supposed to be the best season for the attackers and here you have two tanks, tracked vehicles, sinking in the mud, going through a city! What's going to happen to the overweight, wheeled Stryker when it tries to go off-road in rural Syria? 3. command & control. It's pretty clear the battalion and company commanders lost track of friendly forces in the heat of the action, something which happened regularly in WWII and which will no doubt happen often in Syria 2007. (the summary is a bit dry, but in the full report, you find out that the leading company ran into 9 Iraqi T-55s, an event which would tend to rattle most commanders). Other than minimising Borg spotting, adding target memory, playing with command delays and command radius, will CMSF be very different from CMAK? I see Steve alluded to alot of new stuff in this respect in another post. For those who are interested (or have a lot of time to kill), here is the link to the full report. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/a-10-friendly-fire_centcom29mar2004.htm [ October 18, 2005, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

That's good to know. I have my doubts about the Stryker brigade concept, but I am looking forward to commanding one in CMSF ... as well as lighting up a few with Syrian ATGMs.

That is an interesting question about the AT-3s. According to this site, AT-3 SAGGER Most of them were manufactured in the 60s and 70s. There is apparently a newer model, the AT-3d which came out in the 90s. However, I had read in a different article that Syria has had problems acquiring equipment since the collapse of the Soviet Union and that the only missiles acquired by Syria in the nineties were the AT-10/14 and MILANs. This article has a lot of information about the current state of the Syrian army: The Military Balance in the Middle East on page 38, the author states: "For example, Syria's only modern third-generation anti-tank guided missile launchers consist of 200 Milans, 40 AT-5s, and an unknown number of AT-10s and AT-14s out of total holdings of some 3,390 anti-tank guided missile launchers." [ October 16, 2005, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

This site lists an estimate of the equipment Syria has. syrian equipment Syria is rumored to have about 800 AT-10/14 and 200 MILANs. These should be in CMSF and will be the weapons that give the U.S. player the most trouble. In all likelyhood, they will be fielded be Syrian commando/special forces units, which are the best trained and motivated Syrian troops. The AT-14 has an effective range of 3,500 meters, can penetrate up to 1.2 meters (i.e. 4 feet) of armour and has an optical/thermal sight. This troop/ATGM combo should be the greatest threat/challenge to U.S. armour in CMSF. Syria has 3,000 AT-3s, but they will probably be fielded by second line infantry/reserve units who are not well trained and motivated and therefore should be a much smaller threat.

According to soviet reports, the AT-3 SAGGER knocked 800 Israeli tanks (M-48s & M-60s) out of action for at least 24 hours in the Yom Kippur war, so they are a real threat, since Syria is supposed to have 3,000. Having said that, they require a lot of training on the part of the operator, something the Syrian army is'nt strong on. The best troops will be equipped with the newer stuff, AT-14s and MILANs. Also all the Syrian SAGGERs are at least 30 years old, we have no idea what conditions they are in or even how many can still fire. I would be surprised if it's an effective weapon in CMSF.

I, for one, am alot more psyched for this setting than normandy 1944 redux. In 2007, Tank v. Tank warfare will be alot less important than in WWII. In 1991 and 2003, most Iraqi tanks, including the vaunted T-72s, were knocked out from the air or by U.S. tanks before they fired one shot. The situation should be the same in 2007. Tank v. Tank battles will be very one-sided and will get boring very quickly. If you look at the article I posted above, these will be the Syrian units that will give the U.S. invading force the most trouble: "• Give priority to elite commando and special forces units that can be used to defend key approaches to Syria and spearhead infiltrations and attacks. Many of these forces are equipped with modern anti-tank guided weapons and other modern crew and manportable weapons that allow them to disperse without relying on armored weapons and other systems Israel can target more easily. They are supported by attack helicopters..." The most feared weapon in the Syrian arsenal will not be tanks but Anti-Tank missiles such as the AT-14 Kornet. In the 2003 invasion, the most feared anti-tank weapon in the Iraqi arsenal was the AT-14. In march 2003, Iraqi commandos armed with AT-14 missiles were reported to have knocked out several Abrams tanks and Bradley AFVs, which surprised and worried U.S. commanders, although later U.S. studies attributed these kills to either friendly fire or RPGs. The AT-14 is a wire guided weapon. The operator aims a laser beam at the target, fires, and keeps the beam on the target until impact. The missile rides the beam with input from the wire which has a maximum length of 3,500 meters. It has an optical and a thermal sight, which means it can be used day or night. The launcher weighs 19 kg (about 40 lbs) and the missile 27 kg (about 60 lbs) so it's comparable in size, weight and mobility to a WWII infantry mortar. The AT-14 packs quite a punch. It has an effective range of 3,500 meters and contains a shaped charge that can penetrate up to 1.2 meters (i.e. 4 feet) of armour and foil reactive armored systems. To put it in CM1 terms, if a AT-14 team has a clean LOS to a King Tiger, it's dead. The Kornet can also carry thermobaric explosives. These incendiary munitions release a fine spray of fuel before detonation, creating a fireball. Thermobaric explosives are designed to target infantry as well as light- or non-armored vehicles, such as trucks or Strykers. Syria is believed to have up to 1,000 of these. Having said all that, I hope the M1, T-55, T-62 and T-72s will all be included and fully modeled.

I own CMBO, CMBB & CMAK. I enjoyed them a lot and I am really looking forward to CMSF. Based on past experience, I have no doubt that Battlefront will do another great job. So when is the demo coming out?