Sgt Joch

I found a very interesting article dealing with the current state of the Syrian Armed Forces. Here are the interesting bits: -------------------------------------------------- Syrian Military Forces current posture "... Syria still treats Israel as an enemy power, but has had to abandon its search for conventional parity. As a result, it has had to minimize the risk of a future military clash with Israel, and make shifts in its strategy and procurement effort which include a new focus on “asymmetric warfare:” These shifts: • Emphasize the procurement of long-range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as a relativelylow cost offset to Israel’s conventional superiority while giving Syria a limited counterweight to Israel’s nuclear strike capability. • 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. • Maintain a large tank force both as a deterrent to any Israeli attempt to penetrate Syria and to maintain a constant threat to the Golan, even if Syria has no hope of achieving overall parity. • Use the Hezbollah and Amal as proxies to attack Israel and the SLA in Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and the Shebaa Farms area..." current procurement "...These shifts cannot compensate for the recapitalization crisis ... and a lack of modern arms and military technology. Syria has attempted to remedy some of its growing modernization problems by procuring upgrades and technology from Russia and the West, but Syria has not done well in obtaining such help. Its only major conventional force improvements during the mid and late-1990s were some Ukrainian modifications for part of the T-55 tank fleet and AT-14 Kornet anti-tank guided missiles. Some reports indicate that the Syrian Armed Forces did acquire an additional 1500 Kornets as well as upgrade packages for up to a brigade of T-72 tanks. The upgrade will boost the T-72’s armor while adding an attachment that would enable the tank to fire ATGMs.65 Yet it is important to note that Syria has tried four previous times to upgrade the T-72s with little success and past attempts to incorporate elements of the current upgrade package met with great difficulty... ...Syria and Russia held new highly level talks on military cooperation in September 1999. These talks seem to have again involved a $2-2.5 billion deal over five years, and the possible purchase of the S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system, the Sukhoi Su-27 multirole fighter, MiG-29SMT fighters, T-80 tanks, and more anti-tank weapons. Once again, however, the contractual status of such agreements, the weapons involved, and delivery schedules remained unclear..." officer corps "...Syria’s limitations will be further compounded by its problems in absorbing new equipment. These include the endemic corruption. They also include its politicized and compartmented command structure, inadequate military pay, poor manpower management, poor technical training, and poor overall training - particularly in realistic combat exercises and aggressor training. Syrian forces have inadequate combat and service support, equipment for night and poor weather warfare, long-range sensors and targeting systems, and mobile rapidly maneuverable logistics, recording, and combat repair capability. While individual Syrian officers have shown a keen understanding of many of these problems, Syria has never taken effective action to deal with them. Syrian Land Forces Syria organizes its ground forces into two corps that report to the Land Forces General Staff and Commander of the Land Force. The chain of command then passes up to the Chief of the General Staff and Deputy Defense Minister, Minister of Defense (Deputy Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The Syrian 1st Corps is headquartered near Damascus, and commands forces in southeastern Syria, opposing Israel. The 2nd Corps is headquartered near Zabadani, near the Lebanese border, and covers units in Lebanon. The command relationships involving Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq are unclear. The 1st Corps has two armored and three mechanized divisions. The 2nd Corps has three armored and two mechanized divisions. The Syrian army has a total of 215,000 active men and is organized into five to seven armored divisions, including the 1st, 3rd, 9th, 11th, and 569th. Syrian armored divisions vary in size. They have 2-3 armored brigades, 1-2 mechanized brigades, and one artillery regiment. A typical division has around 8,000 men. A typical armored brigade has 93 main battle tanks, and 30 other armored fighting vehicles like the BMP. The Syrian army has 3 mechanized divisions. They normally have about 11,000 men, but vary in structure. They have 1-2 armored brigades, 2-3 mechanized brigades, and 1 artillery regiment. A typical mechanized brigade has 40 main battle tanks, and 90 other armored fighting vehicles like the BMP. Syria also has 1 Republican Guard division, with 3 armored brigades, 1 mechanized brigade, and 1 artillery regiment that reports directly to the Commander of the Land Forces, plus a special forces division with 3 special forces regiments and eight independent special forces regiments. Syria’s other independent formations include three independent infantry battalions, two independent artillery brigades, and two independent anti-tank brigades. Its active smaller formations include 1 border guard brigade, 3 infantry brigades, 1 anti-tank brigade, 1 independent tank regiment, 8 special forces regiments, three surface-to surface missile brigades with an additional coastal defense brigade, and 2 artillery brigades. According to some reports, it has one reserve armored division, and 30 reserve regiments, including infantry and artillery formations. On paper, Syria has one low-grade reserve armored unit with about half the effective strength of its active divisions, plus 30 infantry and one artillery reserve regiment. Most of these Syrian reserve units are poorly equipped and trained. Those Syrian reserves that do train, usually do not receive meaningful training above the company to battalion level, and many train using obsolete equipment that is different from the equipment in the active units to which they are assigned. The Syrian call-up system is relatively effective, but the Syrian army is not organized to make use of it. Virtually all of the Syrian reserves called up in the 1982 war had to be sent home because the Syrian army lacked the capability to absorb and support them. armour force Although Syria now has a total of some 4,650 tanks, at least 1,200 of these tanks are in static positions or in storage. Roughly half are relatively low-grade T-54s and T-55s, and only 1,500 are relatively modern T-72s. Even the T-72s lack the advanced thermal sights, fire control systems, and armor to engage the Israeli Merkavas and M-60s on anything like a 1:1 basis. The T-72 also performed surprisingly poorly in Iraqi hands during the Gulf War. Its armor did not prove to be as effective against modern Western anti-tank rounds as was previously expected, and its sensors and fire control systems proved inadequate for night and poor visibility combat and could not keep up with Western thermal sights in range and target acquisition capability. Syria has some 4,600 armored vehicles, of which approximately 2,400 are BMPs. These armored fighting vehicles can supplement and support Syria’s tanks in combined arms combat, and increase its potential ability to overwhelm unmobilized Israeli forces with sheer mass. Only about 100 of these BMPs are the more modern BMP-2s, plus a limited number of BMP-3s. Nearly half of Syria’s other armor consists of low-grade BRDM-2 and BTR-40, 50, 60, and 152 reconnaissance vehicles and APCs. Even the BMP-2 has relatively light armor, and retains many of the ergonomic problems in fighting from the vehicle and using its guns and anti-tank guided missile launchers as with the BMP-1. The BMP has only moderate ability to escort tanks in a combat environment where the opponent has modern sensors and anti-tank guided weapons. US experts believe Syria has made relatively limited progress in improving its combined arms and armored warfighting capabilities since 1982, although it does have more advanced anti-tank guided weapons like the Milan, AT-10, and AT-14. They believe that Syrian exercise and command post training is weak above the battalion or regimental level, that Syrian tactics are rigid, and that Syrian reaction times are slow. artillery park Syria can mass large numbers of towed artillery weapons and multiple rocket launchers. Syria maintains an inventory of 150 122mm M-1938, 600 122mm D-30, 100 122mm M-1931 (mostly in storage), 600 130mm M-46, 20 152mm D-20, 50 152mm M-1937, and 10 180mm S23 towed weapons. Additionally, Syria employs 200 107mm Type-63 and 280 122mm BM-21 rocket launchers. This could have a major impact in an area like the Golan where ranges are relatively short and where Syria normally deploys much of its artillery. At the same time, massed artillery fire has only limited lethality against well dug in defenses and armor, and Syria lacks the sensors and battle management systems to concentrate its artillery fire with great precision and to rapidly switch fires. Syria will also have problems in maneuvering its artillery. Only about 28% of Syria's artillery consists of modern self-propelled weapons. These weapons include 380 122mm 2S1 and 50 152mm 2S3s. anti-tank assets Syria does have good physical defenses of its own positions on the Golan. Syria has spent decades in improving its terrain barriers and creating anti-tank barriers and ditches, and many of its units in the area between Damascus and the Golan have considerable readiness and effectiveness. However, Syria has not come close to Israel in developing the kind of capabilities for combined operations that the IDF takes virtually for granted. 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. Most of its systems are still relatively low-grade anti-tank guided missiles systems can hardly be ignored, but they greatly reduce the effectiveness of Syrian anti-tank forces both in the defensive mode and in providing mechanized infantry support for armored operations..."(p.35-38) -------------------------------------------------- the full article can be found here: http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/me_mb_ai.pdf [ October 20, 2005, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

While searching for information about the Stryker, I came across some interesting documents, dealing with the weaknesses of the vehicle. Stryker Brigades versus the reality of war This is a document written for a U.S. congressman, who was trying to have the program killed, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. However, this second document: Initial impressions report - operations in Mosul, Iraq is an internal U.S. army report from dec. 2004 assessing how the Strykers are doing on the ground in Iraq. It confirms alot of the same problems: -the additional slat armour that was added to the Strykers only stops about half of the RPG attacks (p.48); -The weight of the additional slat armour (about 5,000 lbs.) significantly impacts handling off road during the rainy season (p.49); -The vehicle encounters soil bearing difficulties when operated off of an improved road and frequently becomes mired (p.50); -The rear hatches are over exposed to enemy ground fire (p.53); -The Stryker features a Head-Up display used by the vehicle commander. However, commanders do not use use it in potential combat situations since it has a blind spot which interferes with situational awareness and it's too large and difficult to use inside the vehicle (p.54); -The FBCB2 computer (which displays current orders and the location of friendly and known enemy units) is too slow and frequently locks up (p.56); -The digital systems overheat in the desert. Air conditioners are required (p. 56); -The Machine Gun is not stabilised and cannot be fired accurately while the vehicle is on the move (p. 58); Now some of these problems are obviously teething issues with a new weapon system, however some appear to be basic design flaws(i.e. inadaquate armour protection, poor off-road capability). I presume Battlefront will model the Stryker accurately, warts and all. It looks like the best tactic for the Syrian player will be to pick them off with RPG's once they're stuck in the sand. [ October 13, 2005, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

the CMSF backstory may be closer to reality than people realise: Assad on the rocks U.S. consults Israel over Syria regime change I should add that whatever you read in middle east media has to be taken with a grain of salt, since information and disinformation are happily mixed in, but if this issue is being discussed in both the Jerusalem Post and the Arab News, it means most countries in the region think it's a serious possibility. [ October 10, 2005, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

I agree that, in real life, they would probably ask Israel to stay on the sidelines, but CMSF is a game, I hope the IDF is added in a later module.

That is a very offensive comment. Equating all arabs as terrorists shows a total lack of knowledge of the region. It is like lumping U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Australia and the I.R.A. together because they all speak english and look the same. Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., all have their own diverging cultures, customs, histories. I personally would have no problem commanding virtual Syrian forces against an invading U.S. force, just like I had no problem commanding virtual Soviet forces against an invading German force. It does not mean I support eithed Assad or Stalin.

1. What is the rationale behind not having a Syrian campaign. Personally, I would like the option to play both sides. 2. Will it be possible for the user to create additional campaigns for the U.S. side?

A follow up question, what assumptions are being made about Syrian air defenses? This could have a significant impact on the game. Since 1965, SAM's have been the crucial component in air defences. In 1973, egyptian SAM's effectively neutralised the IAF which of course led to many tank battles since IDF forces were now the main line of defence. However in 1991 and 2003, U.S. and allied forces ruled the sky and most Iraqi tanks were destroyed from the air before they even came in contact with coalition ground forces. In CMSF, if we assume that Syrian air defences are on par with the Iraqis, there will be very few Syrian tanks left for U.S. ground forces to engage, which means most scenarios would be attacks on infantry forces.

If you look at 1973, the IDF had the most trouble with the egyptian army. The syrians, however, were seen has the most urgent threat and the IDF initially mobilised their forces against Syria. The IDF did beat the egyptians and the syrians decisively, but they suffered significant losses in the process, which was what egypt and syria were shooting for. There is a good overview here, although it deals mostly with the suez front: "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: The Albatross of Decisive Victory" by Dr. George W. Gawrych web page The Iraqi's performance was even worse. They committed a armored brigade of T-55's which were ambushed and destroyed by IDF super shermans at Tel Maschara.

I also have questions about CMSF: 1. will helicopters, like Apache's, actually appear on board or will they be off screen; 2. regarding airplanes: - will we see them carrying out strikes or will it be abstracted as in CM1; - what about SAM's? how will that be handled? 3. will tactical doctrine be implemented. In 1973, Syrian armour closely followed Soviet doctrine and fought with their tanks buttoned up. This put them at a disadvantage against the IDF which fought opened up, will this be modeled? 4. What about the desert? presumably, the U.S. forces will be coming from Iraq. Will the environmental charcteristics of the desert be realistically handled, i.e heat haze, sand storms,etc. 5. what about the Syrians? why not have a campaign from the Syrian side? I would like to be able to play a Syrian general to see if I could hold off the U.S. forces.

Even though I was predicting normandy 1944, I was secretly hoping for middle east 1967, 1973. To me, this is the next best thing. Battlefront does modern desert warfare! :eek: M1 Abrams v. T72 & T55's! F-18E's and F-16's flying CAP missions! Apache helicopters riding shotgun! :cool: And anyone who thinks the Syrians will be pushovers should study the Yom Kippur/Ramadan war or ask a current member of the IDF. So yes, I am really looking forward to this game and I am very happy that Battlefront realises there is life after 1945! [ October 09, 2005, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

Hey can you tell me which thread Steve stated this in? I haven't seen him officially say this so I'm really interested to see what else he said. It's a shame, really, but the Israeli wars could be a lot of fun as well. Not so sure about small time guerrilla-esque conflicts though... </font>

BF has stated that a modern game will not have a cold war setting, which rules out NATO v. Warsaw pact games. If BF sticks to historical games, that leaves the following usual suspects: 1) Korean war(1950-53); 2) Vietnam war(1945-54 & 1964-75); 3) India-Pakistan (1965,1971) 4) Middle east(1956,1967,1973); 5) Falklands (1982) 6) Desert storm(1991) This list ignores guerilla wars and third world conflicts. To me, the choice is obvious (hint: it took place in october 1973) [ September 22, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

Don't be afraid to throw pebbles and shout at Grogs, they are very nearsighted and will scatter easily. Although the Falklands is interesting, I personally think the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War, October 1973 would be very interesting... a highly trained and motivated Israeli scratch force fielding an assortment of british, american and captured soviet tanks hold off and ultimately triumph over less well trained Egyptian and Syrian forces fielding soviet equipment. pure tank battles, fought in ideal tank country...what else could you ask for? [ September 22, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

If Battlefront wants to choose a safe route, and I believe they will for the first CM2 game, then it's hard to go wrong with WWII NW europe 1944, which covers normandy to the Battle of the Bulge and beyond. I have no doubt that they will eventually do more modern conflicts, if CM2 is a success. One of my favorite board games in the 70's was Arab-Israeli War by AH, which was basically, tank combat during the Yom Kippur war (1973). T-55's vs. M-48's. I would love to see that game get the CM treatment.

:cool:

just make sure you spell my name correctly

It may be a dead horse, but honestly, what else is there to discuss until the announcement comes. Discussing the details of a game until the subject matter has been announced seems pointless to me. If you read Steve's various comments on this forum, it's pretty obvious what the first game will be...unless Steve is a master of deception :eek: my prediction stands!

Based on everything I have read, I would say: 1. Game 1: Americans in Normandy; 2. Module 1: Commonwealth in Normandy: 3. Module 2: Battle of the Bulge.

I personally would love a ACW game. Over the past year, I have been re-reading Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Army of the Potomac: "mr. Lincoln's Army","Glory Road", and now, I'm halfway through "Road to Appomattox". So you have my vote.

It would be nice to get some feedback on this issue. I hope it will be coded in Open GL.

I have not seen this question discussed. Is CM2 being programmed so that it will work with both ATI and NVIDIA cards? There was some mention at one point that the game might be programmed in Open GL. Is this still the case or will it be Direct X?

Hmmm, I will probably be crucified for this, but I just can't resist... I KNEW IT! NW Europe 1944-45. :cool:

If you read through the lines and squint a lot, you will see he just confirmed the first game will be set in NW Europe 1944-45.

No, not exactly. Right now, CM can field up to a brigade on each side on the same map, and many scenarios have entire battalions depicted. Steve has said that a reinforced company will likely be an upper limit in CMX2. So CMX2 will be substantially smaller. </font>