Imperial Grunt

The only footage that the "Syrian-embedded" media could use towards a strategic end would be: 1. Dead civilians. Seeing as there are no civilians in the game, letting the other side pretend fallen combatants are civilians seems a bit unfair. Under the artificial victory conditions imposed by such a system, the Syrian player could simply choose to get all his forces killed as quickly as possible without even an attempt to accomplish a tactical goal or inflict U.S. casualties. The U.S. side then "loses" because there are 200 combatant bodies on the battlefied that the Arab media has magically transformed into civilians with their +2 Camera of Spinning. 2. Footage of U.S. casualties. Personally, the casualties are enough of a loss, and as a player, I don't really want to hear that I extra-lost because my casualties were filmed. Anyways, if you put media on the battlefield, you put civilians on the battlefield and now we're right back where we started. </font>

The Iraqis did not use them, and I MEF did not use them. Too much to clean up later. As it was, there were plenty of UXOs laying around from the cluster munitions. During OIF 1, the only indirect fire incoming that was anywhere close to my company was a large volley of 122mm rockets fired from a truck. The rockets impacted several clicks south of our company position, near, but not effecting the RCT CP. Very loud though and a road intersection got pockmarked with craters. But as far a putting down some FASCAM minefields, Syrian artillery would not be able to survive long enough to put the necessary amounts out to be tactically effective. Not sure if they even have that capability. If I was a Syrian general and the US invaded, I would dig in all of my arty to use in the direct fire mode, in coordination with infantry support. Make the invaders pay. 120mm arty piece in direct lay vrs Stryker...things that make you go "hmmm".

Well, as far as digitation goes, the Army is way ahead of the USMC. When I was in Iraq, for both tours, Marine battalions had one to a few Blue Force Trackers, tied in with higher. 3rd ID had them in most of their vehicles. 4th ID is a "digitized" mech division. And the Stryker brigades have this as well. So when TF Tawara was engaged in An-Nasariyah, only the BN HQ probably had these trackers. And with the confusion of war, bad **** happens. RCT-1 ran a "gauntlet", or a corridor secured by TF Tarawa through the east side of An-Nasirayah in order to push up Hwy 7. My company got into its first real engagement just north of that city. The scene there was unbelievable and I will never forget. The other RCTs of 1stMarDiv bypassed. Aircraft have mistaken friendly forces for enemy throughtout the history of CAS. And digitalization is not a cure all. I wish I could remember the specifics, but during the Gulf War there was a really in-depth new report about a Apache Squadron commander who decided to fly a mission personally and engaged an enemy vehicle after deciding that his GPS must be wrong. That vehicle turned out to be Bradley IFV. Friction, the term for things that have gone wrong, will always occur in battle. The Marine Corps wants digitalization, but it has to be salt water proof and practical for dismounted ops. And the whole budget thing rears its ugly head. The AAAV's are coming on line soon. They will have digital capabilities and will be a significant improvement over the current AAV's. And the 30mm gun and thermal sight will make Marine mech company's much more lethal. At least that aquisition program has been successful.

Which is why the game HAS to model civilians mixed in with the enemy somehow! There has to be a way. The Syrians would take advantage of every tactic they could to ensure regime survival. So anything the can do to survive and cause a political decision to stop the US and get the US to withdraw, is the Syrian's overiding goal.

I am really looking forward to how airpower is going to be represented in the game. I know that some firefights terminated simply because the enemy heard air come on station. The 101st had an ugly incident during OIF 1 with a bunch of Apaches getting shot up. I do not know the specifics, but helos are very vulnerable, no doubt. But a pair of cobras flying low were an awesome asset, and they are alot more flexible than fixed wing. Both are priceless.

Very true. The US is fighting an enemy that believes that Allah is going to guide their bullets and magic spiders ate scores of Marines during Fallujah 1. And that is no ****. But most insurgents do not fight until they are all spun up. The Sunni and Shia insurgents mostly just engaged with an IED, maybe stuck around for a few shots, and then take off. But there were times when they would fight. Just as stated, they were very motivated, but they just sucked as infantry. The Jihadists are the same, but absolutely fearless. And they tend to blow up. There are professional Islamic elements, such as mortar teams and snipers, operating and most are affiliated with AQ. But they are not in significant numbers. And these guys are being delt with as well. As far as the game goes, the Syrian player should have access to Syrian military, Baathist loyalists (like the Saddam Feedyeen), and some Islamic jihadists, some of which may be professional.

That is too bad that civies are not moving about the battlefield. They certainly were in OIF 1 and more so subsquently. And suicide bombers made their appearance in OIF 1. It was my Marines, and mine, greatest fear. We really wanted an Iraqi to shoot at us, we went everywhere looking for a fight (and got a few). But suicide bombers just suck. Im not sure how too difficult modelling civies would be. Just make a mob that hangs out in the middle of town and a few small groups that randomly move. If in the line of fire, then they attempt to move out of the way. Same for vehicles. And, a few of those civilian "units" could really be under the control of the Syrian player and could have a suicide bomber or hidden shooters. As far as penalizing the US player for excessive enemy casualties..umm...say what?

Concur. And Stryker units carry alot of javelins. Alot more than a Marine unit would carry. But, unless you are in a free-fire environment, target ID is still the kicker. Here is an real life example of how thermal sights can trick you. During OIF 1, one of the rifle companies in my BN (not mine), was in a blocking position. Intel had it that there was a slight chance of RG units attacking out from Al Kut into the division's flank as the division oriented along Hwy 6 towards Bahgdad. About 0300 a TOW critter (TOW gunner) reported that he had a tank in the open along the road leading towards Al-Kut. Keep in mind, we had been operating on 2-4 hours sleep a day and at this point on one meal a day. The FAC with the company called for air and the F-18 ID'd the target as a possible tank and the onslaught ensued. A manuever element was sent out and found...obliterated farm equipment. Oops. The BN Cmdr went out that next morning to survey the scene with the Co Cmdr. I was glad I was not there. And there is an example of US Marines ****ing up for all those worried about Marines always saying that they are perfect.

Copy all. But helo QRF's were used, although fast roping has not been necessary in Iraq as far as conventional units go. But the MEU's that operate in Iraq do use thier helos as does the Army's 101st and 82nd. Doing inserts may be difficult to simulate and having the troops appear on the ground still works. A MEU usually has its battalion landing team (a BLT is like a super reinforced infantry battalion) organized into a small boat company, a mech company (a reinforced infantry company mounted with AAV's with a section or platoon of tanks, and a section or platoon of LAV's, all depending on the MEU's load out), and a helo company. So if helo inserts are not part of game play, modelling a MEU will be difficult, except for that one light infantry (the small boat) company and the one mech company. Standard BN TF's as part of an RCT would be very similar to the Stryker/mech infantry model of CM:SF I suppose. During OIF 1, my BN was mounted on 7-ton trucks (an outstanding vehicle) and the other two infantry battalions (3/1 and 1/4) were meched up. 1st Recon BN had HMMWVs with .50cals and Mk-19's and 2nd LAR BN had its LAV's. The RCT was very mobile.

How much better are the thermal sights than the ones on the TOW? I heard they were bringing back the LAW but are they phasing out the AT-4 as well? </font>

Fast roping in not an antiquated tactic and Marine infantry and recon units train very frequently on this. Fast roping is also alot of fun and great motivational training. But this tactic should be allowed, especially if urban combat is the focus of CM:SF. The US player could then put troops on top of buildings to clear down rather than clearing up, the most preferred way to clear a building. Of course this exposes the helo to the risk of being shot down... I do not think that Stryker units do alot of fast roping though. It is mostly technique to get troops on the ground or platform quickly for a raid. Airborne quick reaction forces (QRF's) should be available to the US player in some scenarios. Soldiers or Marines being brought in my helo has been a hallmark of US forces since Vietnam, (the Marines started using helos for troop lift in Korea).

It also costs something insane like $125,000 for the launcher and $75000 per shot </font>

Well that was messed up. See, an example of a US Marine making a mistake. Anyways... Some of the "stratagic objectives" should be: 1) Not violate the ROE. (Hopefully the game simulates civilians moving around and even approaching US forces, to include armed civilians) 2) Not take alot of casualties or, worse, have soldiers/Marines captured by the enemy. 3) Not cause excessive collateral damage. More can be tailored to specific scenarios and they should be kept measurable. Ambigious operational and stratagic objectives, such as the level of local support for insurgents, should not be an objective. From the Syrian side, the operational and strategic objects should be the following: 1) Cause as many US casualties as possible, things like helos and tanks are especially valuable. 2) Capture US soldiers, especially HQ elements 3) Keep leadership alive to continue the fight later. So if the Syrian player loses all tactical objectives, which will occur often, then there is still a chance he might win the game if he caused excessive casualites or if the US player used excessive force. In game terms, the Strykers rescuing the pilots might have been a draw. The soldiers did a good job of accomplishing their tactical mission, but a Stryker vehicle was destroyed. Lets say a TOW missle was fired and missed and traveled down range and blew up a school and killed a bunch of Iraqi kids. That is excessive collateral damage, something that the US player has to avoid. So, in all but the most kinetic scenarios (and I hope there are Fallujah 2 type scenarios for the pure fun of it), the US player cannot simply sit back and use barrage after barrage of airstrikes and rotary wing. In most scenarios the US player should not even be able to engage until one of his units positively ID's the enemy or is fired upon. And only units that have positive ID can engage. Just because one unit was shot at by group X, does not neccessarily mean the US player has cart blanch to engage everythinge else that moves. Every spotted enemy unit must be positively ID's as enemy. During OIF 1, the ROE that was established stated that any Iraqi in uniform was a legitmate target. Any Iraqi that shot as US forces was a legitimate target. But a little mob with AK's slung could not be engaged immediately. So when the Saddam Fediyeen showed up in civilian clothes, this made target ID more difficult. This will negate alot of the firepower advantages. I can't wait to play as the Syrians. Especially if alot of asymetric tactics are in the game. Hide a couple of tanks in houses next to a mosque. Put my conventional troops in camoflagued attack positions, while I send out my fanatic Baathists out to fake surrender and run away (US troops cant shoot them, but they can chase them if they want to), and have a car bomber drive up to a Stryker to stop them in my kill zone... If the game is done right, playing as the US will be very difficult most times...

Well said. Being a field grade officer I have seen some careerism, but fortunately never in Iraq. I am sure it happens though. When my civil affairs team worked with 1-32 IN, I was very impressed with the professionalism and leadership of the Bn Cmdr. He has a great BN staff and great CoCmrds as well. On the officer level, the biggest difference was how Army lieutenants are treated as compared to Marine lieutenants. Just a different service culture. The war in Iraq is not Vietnam, especially in I Corps. And it is not a high intensity conflict like Korea and WWII. Same for Afghansitan. There are intense moments for sure, but not the sustained combat that I have studied and read about so much. Modern war always evolves. The victory conditions in the game have to be focused on tactical objectives given the missions of each side. But, in my opinion, these tactical objectives should be held in the perspective of the operational and stragetic objectives for each side. For example, the US player has to accomplish the stated mission given in the scenario. Usually that mission is going to go and get some key location or to secure something. Simple and cut a nd dry and if not held in the operational and strategic context of the US strategy, the US player would win every time against Syria. But accomplishing the mission within the operational and strategic parameters make the mission much more difficult. The game should have a standard set of "strategic objectives* for every scenario. This will capture the "strategic corporal" effect. Some standard objectives that the US player must keep in mind while crushing insurgents with M-1 tanks and Stryker vehicles should be the following: Some

1) This sounds like a precarious threat. 2) You weren’t there either, nor was anyone on this thread who’s offering not particularly careful “analysis”. Opinions are being offered based on a posted AAR, to suggest one had to be there to inject a not so suitable or accurate “analysis” is preposterous. Lest anyone forgets, this ain’t no military intelligence, DoD or NORAD debriefing, it’s a consumer orientated forum which hosts consumers interested in a product. 3) If “careful” means massaging, stroking and burnishing every action the US forces undertake, few will partake. 4) The Marines instead of Army boys oversight was my bad, I’m guilty on this one. In future, I will be careful with the accuracy of US organizational aspects, but not with your implied definition of “careful”. 5) “Those soldiers did a fine job”. Well, this thread’s views on their performance vary, some agree, some believe they stunk, and some believe it was the F16s and TOWs that “did a fine job”. 6) Will you respectfully delineate the consequences that’ll beset those who post without having fought battles in Iraq and aren’t “careful”? 7) The notion that everything Marines merits worship, is beyond reproach and should be awe-inducing will be destroyed, it’s unrealistic, non representative of the Iraqi theater’s realities and akin to fanaticism. So you be “careful” too. </font>

“Outgunned” with what? Here’s with what according to BFC, How anyone can claim that a non mechanized insurgency, with Paleolithic Russian armament, can outgun a US Stryker force with American gunnery, TOWs and state of the art communications is beyond me. The insurgents didn’t have UAVs reporting enemy numbers, location and formation. They didn’t have the morale boosting knowledge that the cavalry and pulverizing air support were minutes away. Their only advantage? Mild surprise, modest numerical superiority, for they were on offense (after the helo), and a reckless willingness to die. If one carefully reads the battle’s AAR, a US combatant expresses fear of overrun should reinforcements and air support be delayed much longer. The AAR clearly shows the tide only turned after F16s dropped precision ordinance, strafed insurgents’ positions and TOWs were introduced into the battle. Yet even with the F16s, here’s what was reported, “but it turned out that even JDAMs had not put an end to the attacks that day.” Until debilitating air support arrived, the insurgents exceeded expectations mano a mano vs. Marines. So if put into perspective, you’ve the most trained, most equipped and mightiest army on the planet that can’t end an infantry battle without aerial bombardment and a prodigious supply of TOWs. Ultimately, yes, the US had the day, but with what assets and against whom? With F16s against suicidal maniacs with Soviet trinkets. No wonder Rumsfeld no longer talks about North Korea. I think, and I could very well be wrong, duke was unimpressed with the assets and doctrine employed to secure that bird. In this instance, Bigduke wins. </font>

Not a problem. Now, make it happen! Few games that I have seen model the USMC very well. And the Marines have a different warfighting doctrine that is similar, but distinct from the US Army's. US Marines are elite shock troops designed to conduct expeditionary operations. The Army is more tailored for long campaigns. Marines help out with the land campaign, but the Army controls that piece. Of course, the Army and the Marines are very complementary and they can perform each other's mission, in their own ways. I highly recommend the book "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks for those who want a great perspective of the Corps and how it ticks. It is also a very good read.

TufenHuden, I don't know if would say that I "respected" the NVA and the Viet Cong. The word respect indicates a lot of things. I think your SSGT used that word in hindsight and based on the tempering and aging of his memories over the years. I hated the little ****s with a passion, I dont think I respected them, probably as a 20 year old I had no idea of what respect was really, or how it was earned or given. All I wanted to do was see them dead, they we trying to kill ME, after all. The Marine Corps back in those days was given missions far beyond the capabilities or supply structure needed to properly support them. We were always living on a shoe string, stealing gear, hordeing stuff, because you never knew when the next supply mission would come along. We had gear left over from the Korean War, and we were told to make do because we were after all "Marines", we could do anything with nothing. The NVA were better supplied than we were in most cases, and they carried everything down the trail with them. During 66-67 when I was there, it was always a case of "too little too late" . We would send in companies against battalions with predictible results. We very rarely initiated anything, we reacted to what they were doing. We tramped around in the bush hoping to pin down large NVA units to be pulverized by arty and airpower. It always ended up with us getting ambushed, lose a few guys, and by the time the arty and planes arrived they pulverized the surrounding ground, but no enemy forces. The Marine Corps held the line in the northern provinces, but we were not geared for that type of mission. In the logic of the day "its the only war we've got" so no way was the Corps to be left out. By the time you learned what you were doing, you were ready to rotate home, or you were in the hospital or worse. There was very little in the way of passing down "lessons learned" If you were lucky you had a decent company commander who put your safety over his own career goals. Looking at things today, I get the feeling that the Marine Corps is a lot better equipped and supported than it was in my day. Instead of being neglected and misused, there seems to be a little more thought taken before these fine young men are sacrificed, at least I pray that is the case. BTW, its Capt. Dale Dye, he was a sergeant and a combat correspondent when I knew him, I dont know how he made Captain, but he's a movie star now. </font>

Well, if the US President and British PM stood in front of the cameras and spouted off a lot of half truths and unsupported reasons for going to war against Syria... I don't even think the US could rally support, not to mention Britain or Germany. As a general statement... For the 1000th time... people have GOT to stop thinking that the Iraq scenario is the ONLY possible thing that might happen ever. The short memories of people might remember a little something called Afghanistan, where there are currently US, British, German, Belgian, Norwegians, Romanians, and a dozen or more other countries currently involved in. Why is it that the ONLY thing (or at least the first thing) people can picture as a backstory is the half assed and devisive Iraq type scenario instead of the no-brainer unified Afghanistan scenario? Sheesh Steve </font>

On a minor note, Marine rifle squads do not use the M-4,like Army light infantry and Stryker squads. The USMC chose to use the M-16A4 as its standard infantry rifle. When evaluating the M-4, the Marines decided that the M4 was slightly less reliable and, most importantly, lost too much muzzle velocity at 300 yards and beyond. In tests at Quantico, M-4's, firing standard mil ammo, would not reliably penetrate a steel helmet at the 300 yard line, while a M-16A2 and M-16A4 would, every time. I am not sure if there is a measurable difference in lethality in terms of squad on squad gunfighting, but all those wise Master Gunnery Sergeants and Marine Gunners at Weapons and Training Battalion in Quantico thought so.... Recon and LAR (Light Armored Reconaissance..ie LAV's) units do use the M-4, but their primary mission is usually not "close with and destroy the enemy" as the grunts do. Plus, the Marine Corps would have to redo all those purty qual ranges it has had forever, since the standard Army qual course goes out to 300 yards and the Marine rifle qual course goes out to 500 yards. The M-4, with its shorter barrel, is not quite as accurate as a standard M-16A2 or A4 at that range.

The will to fight is an amazing thing. One of my favorite books is "Phase Line Green", it is about the battle of Hue. One chapter describes the fight for the citadel and how a Marine company took it, but then the NVA c/atkd and took it back. Air was called in and a pair of F-4's dropped "snake and nape" (500lbs bombs and napalm). The author (a platoon commander at Hue) said that green tracers raced up at the jets as they came in, paused for a second during the explosions, then green tracers chased the planes away. One F-4 even got some engine damage and had to RTB. After the airstrikes, another Marine company took it with another assualt. That is the will to fight and you have to respect the NVA for that. During OIF 1 I served with Echo Company, 2/23 as the XO. I had read "Phase Line Green" before heading over so I thought that Baghdad was going to be a real bitch. But God was definetly on our side. Even still, An-Nasiriyah got ugly and there were some good scrapes along HWY 7. But nothing like the fights in I Corps, RVN, or in Korea or in the Pacific.

I did not say that the Army does NOT uses air or combined arms, they just do it differently than the Marine Corps. For example, AF CAS usually never operates when arty is firing nearby. It is standard SOP for Marine TACP teams to control Marine air with arty and mortars firing simultaneously using deconficted max ords and trajectories and giving the aircraft either a stay above or a stay below altitude. That is what CAX at 29 Palms is all about. I personally witnessed several occasions where all indirect fire (mortars and arty) had to cease fire before AF jets attacked. It might be different with the A-10 drivers, since CAS is their primary mission, like Marine air, but I have never worked with them. I LOVE seeing A-10's work though.

There are alot of differences between the units, primarily in dismount strength and mobility. Marine rifle companies by T/O and T/E are like US Army light infantry companies, just bigger. Marine rifle squads by T/O consist of 13 Marines organized into 3 fireteams and a squad leader. US Army light infantry squads have 2 fireteams and a squad leader. Both services fireteams are identical, with a rifleman, SAW gunner, grenadier, and an assistant SAW gunner. The grenadier is also the team leader. Marine rifle companies also have a seperate weapons platoon, which consits of an assault section with 6 SMAW teams, a machinegun section with 6 M-240Gs, and a mortar section with 3 60mm mortars. Light infantry companies have the machineguns, but they are not organized into a section and the mortar squad has 2 mortars. They do not use the SMAW. Marine companies get around either by 1) humping, 2) on AAV's or trucks, or 3) helos (and by small boats if that counts). The rifle companies will also have assets from their battalion's Weapons company, which will be task organized out according to the mission. The Weapons company has a Heavy Machinegun platoon with 6 .50's and 6 MK-19s, an Anti-Armor platoon with 12 Javelin teams and 8 TOW's, and Mortar platoon with 8 81mm mortars. The Anti-Armor and Heavy Machingun platoons have HMMWVs and they are usually task organized into Combined Anti-Armor Teams (CAAT's). Marine infantry battalions are continually task organized with assets to suit the mission. A MEU is a very typical way the Marine Corps task organizes a ground combat element with an avaiation element and a logistics element, but with that being said, nearly every MEU is slightly different. It all depends on the AO, the anticipated missions, and the MEU commander's input. A Stryker company has its own armored vehicles and more mobility. But their dismount strength is less than that of a Marine company and a Army light infantry company. The Stryker units are also fully "digitized" which has several postive )and negative, in my opinion)effects regarding command and control. Each unit has its own basic mission and this was probably alot more than you wanted to know.

"LTC West, did you happen to spend some time with a MAJ Baker (USMC, Active) while you were working with the Iraqis? IIRC he was there for most of 2004. [edit, not 2003!]" Unfortunately I did not run across Maj Baker. My team and I spent most of our time during my second tour in Iraq with 1-32 IN, a battalion of the 10th Mtn that was attached to RCT-1 of 1stMarDiv, and then with BLT 1/2, 24th MEU. We operated in the North Babil area and the west and southwest side of Fallujah during the first Fallujah push. My tour was from March 04-Sept 04.