civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
Here is an interesting article on possible Syrian
tactics;
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
Syria building 'death trap' villages
Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 21, 2006
Warning that Israel may face a "Syrian intifada," a high-ranking officer in Northern Command has told The Jerusalem Post that villages recently built by Syria along the border are planned to be used as "death traps" for IDF troops in Hizbullah-inspired attacks.
Since this summer's war in Lebanon, Syria, the officer revealed, has invested large amounts of money in replicating Hizbullah military tactics, particularly in establishing additional commando units and fortifying its short- and long-range missile array.
The idea is to draw Israel into an asymmetric war, the officer said, like the warfare the IDF encounters in combat against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as against Hizbullah in Lebanon.
Over the past two years, Syria has built a number of villages along the border with Israel, some inhabited and some not. At first, the IDF was not sure of their purpose. But now, following the war, the officer said, it was understood.
"Syria drew motivation from Hizbullah's surprise success this summer," the high-ranking officer said. "They now want to copy that type of guerrilla warfare."
While for years it was assumed that Israel had a major edge against Syria's military with regard to a conventional war - tank versus tank, jet versus jet - in an urban setting, the Syrian military would be able, the officer said, to wreak havoc against IDF infantry and armored units like Hizbullah did.
According to the officer, Syria has drawn three major lessons from the war and has begun to implement them. The first is that rockets - 4,000 struck northern Israel during the 33-days of fighting - can paralyze the home front. The second is that antitank missiles can penetrate the Merkava tank and force infantry units to abandon armored personnel carriers and trek into enemy territory by foot. And the third is that in villages and cities the Israeli Air Force's abilities are limited and IDF ground forces can be defeated.
During the war, the IDF fell into several deadly ambushes in southern Lebanese villages; one in Bint Jbail killed eight soldiers from Battalion 51 of the Golani Brigade.
The Syrian military, the officer said, was conducting urban warfare exercises in preparation for the possibility of a war with Israel. The IDF has also dramatically increased its training regiments and has, at all times, between two-to-three brigades training in the Golan Heights.
Lacking clear intelligence regarding Syrian intelligence, the officer said that the Northern Command's "working assumption" was that there was a possibility of war and there was a need to prepare accordingly.
While defense officials have crisscrossed in recent weeks concerning the sincerity of Syrian President Bashar Assad's offer of peace, the top officer said that, according to "all the signs," Syria was preparing for war with Israel. The Syrian military has beefed-up forces along the Golan Heights and Israel has done the same. In the Hermon, for instance, the IDF has doubled the number of troops.
"The feeling is unfortunately that another round is needed before we will be able to engage in a dialogue or peace talks with Syria," the officer said. "It is like with the Egyptians. The war in 1973 was what made it partially possible for [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat to come to Israel."
Syria, the officer said, has since the war ended, transferred truckloads of weapons and missiles to Hizbullah. Due to the convoys, Hizbullah, he said, was almost back at its full strength where it was before the war with Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881949707&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-
Rudel,
No worries, wasn't meaning to sound offended. I was just sitting on this stuff and I had emailed you a few weeks ago about it, and then again yesterday. No offense taken.
Re: the uniform issue, I just did a quick search in google images for "syrian soldier" and got like 70 hits, most being fairly modern pictures.
Steve,
If I did have access to classified info I certainly wouldn't give it to you. I like my freedom. I just have access to many research libraries that require significant cost to access.
-
John,
I just hope it serves as some utility to the designers. I have been pinging Rudel for weeks, but now I find he is blocking emails. And I freely provide the data and I don't even expect a free copy of the game, I'd gladly pay the $50 to help BF out. I've already bought every CM title, plus bought multiple copies of CMBO, CMAK, CMBB for both my brother and for my former roommate (Well, my roommmate only got CMAK and CMBB as CMBO had been replicated by CMAK while I screwed up and got CMBO and CMBB for my brother.), and for two other Close Combat Opponents who I gave copies of CMBB. But my brother fixed this with his own purchase of CMAK. All are poised to pick up CMSF.
And BF, I await any other OOB or technical questions; I have access to many military libraries the majority of the posters do not have any access to.
[ December 26, 2006, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
TURMS-T
Czech T-72M3 CZ and T-72M4 CZ
DYNA-72 Reactive Armor improves protection against HEAT by a factor of 3.6 and against SABOT by a factor of 1.3.
LARDIS radiation detection system that automatically deploys new-generation DGO-1 smoke grenades.
T-72M3 has native engine and final drives except two turbocompressors are added. Minor changes to tank running gear.
T-72M4 has Condor CV-12 1000 TCS four stroke V12 w/ liquid cooling and a power of 1013 hp. Also equipped with a blower and two turbocompressors. Also, XTG416-6 automatic gearbox with hydaulic transformer and positive displacement hydraulic transmission. 4 forward and two reverse gears.
Both versions equipped with a new passive night-vision system for driver.
Diagnostic system to monitor faults.
GPS and INS navigation systems.
BUA fire-fighting system.
TURMS-T itself
The FCS combined with gun stabilizer and automatic loader of the base tank (Not upgraded).
Same 125mm 2A46 gun w/ 2E28 stabilizer.
TURMS-T controls stabilization and auto-loading, automatically inputs initial firing data, automatically sets the sighting angles in accordance with firing data, lays the gun and the COAX on the target.
Gunners sight is monocular with independant, two-plane stabilization, built-in laser rangefinder and thermal imager. The gunners panel is linked to elements of the fire control system, the digital ballistic cpu, and the SKPDS (A bore monitor to correct for muzzle warp). There is a back-up manual sight.
The TC position is equipped with a periscopic panoramic sight of the binocular type with two levels of magnification, built-in thermal imaging chamber, and an independantly stabilized field-of-view in two planes. The TC can ID tgts for the gunner, independant of his direction of lay, pick ammunition, or take control of the gun to engage a target himself (The TC has to estimate range though).
Raises ability of tank to shoot accurately to 2000m while moving and can detect tank-sized object out to 5000m during day, and 4000m at night.
The author witnessed two firing trials and the upgraded tanks did not appear to be very accurate. The author surmised that it could be due the tanks having the same old gun and the same old stabilizer as prior to the upgrade.
Source:
S. Suvorov, T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Continuation of Series on T-72 Tank Development, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 10 Nov 2004
[ December 26, 2006, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
So to cap off, I have details on the following T-72s (Hopefully I get them all);
T-72
T-72K
T-72A
T-72AK
T-72M
T-72M1
T-72B
T-72B1
T-72BK
T-72S
T-72S1
(All of these are mentioned above)
Plus;
TR-125 (Romania)
T-72M1 (Slovakia)
T-72M1-A (Slovakia)
T-72M2 (Slovakia)
T-72M3CZ (Czech)
+ TURMS version (Firecontrol upgrade)
T-72M4CZ (Czech)
+ TURMS version (Firecontrol and powerpack upgrade) I have the details for both the TURMS updates, but alot of info there so let me proceed with the types;
T-72AG (Ukraine)
T-72MP (Czech, Ukraine, France)
T-72M1 (India)
M-84 (Yugoslavia)
M-84A (T-72M1) (Yugo)
T-72M (Poland)
T-72M1 (Poland)
T-72M1M (Poland)
PT-91 (Poland)
I think that's it. I'll try and get the TURMS-T description done sometime tonight (There are a couple of different versions).
-
I have no idea how to PM on this board, I don't even see the option. So here you go;
A guy by the name of Sergey Suvorow wrote a series of articles on the development of the T-72 in 2004 and 2005. Here's the list;
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Profile of T-72 Main Battle Tank, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 28 Jul 2004
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Russian Armor Veteren Critiques the T-72 Tank, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 11 Aug 2004
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Poland Adds Innovations to Russian T-72 Tank, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 31 Oct 2004
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Continuation of Series on T-72 Tank Development, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 10 Nov 2004
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Tank Production in India, Yugoslavia, Croatia Chronicled, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 06 Dec 2004
T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Continuing Series on T-72 Development: Ukraine, Belarus Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 28 Feb 2005
I have hardcopy translations. And do my citations pass academic muster? Let me know what you need. I have a bunch of other stuff also that I can't cite as it resides in databases that the general public doesn't have access to.
-----------------------------------
S. Suvorov; T-72 Tank: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, Profile of T-72 Main Battle Tank, Moscow, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye in Russian, 28 Jul 2004
T-72 ‘Ural’
Turret: Max 280mm conventional armor
Hull : Composite, max: 200mm, angled to be equivalent to 500-600 rolled (homogenous) armor.
The later O-72 modifications featured a higher turret and hull protection.
Commander’s hatch: TKN-3 day and night binocular-type vision block mechanically attached to the IR searchlight, OU-3GKU.
Main Gun: 125mm smoothbore, D-81TM (2A46).
Basic Load: 39 rounds w/ 22 rounds in autoloader and 17 rounds stored in turret and hull.
Ammo: Sabot (ZBM9), HEAT, and HE.
Gunners Sight:
Day: Optical periscopic rangefinder sight, TPD-2-49, with elevation stabilization.
Night: TPN 1-49-23 w/ IR searchlight, L-2AG ‘Luna-2’,range 800 meters.
Note: initial production tanks had IR searchlight on the left, which left the coax mg right behind the drivers hatch, and several drivers were shot that way. Later models moved the searchlight to the right.
Stabilization: Double-axis, 2E28M ‘Siren’.
NBC Protection: ‘ Rosa ’
T-72 ‘Ural-K’
Commander’s variant with increased communications equipment, tank navigation equipment TNA-3, and a loading device, AB-1 (Unk what the latter is). The tank also has with an additional radio, the HF R-130M, which could be used while stationary with a 10 meter antenna giving it a range of over 300 km. This extra equipment reduced the main gun basic load to 31 rounds.
Modifications:
T-72A
Circa, 1979.
Laser rangefinder sight, TPD-K1 replaced optical TPD-2-49
Later versions of T-72A had an aiming system, 1A40 which included the laser rangefinder sight, TPD-K1, lateral lead computation device [uVBU] with a display unit and a ballistic adjuster.
New gunner’s passive-active IR night site, TPNZ-49 with a new IR searchlight, L-4A ‘Luna-4’ resulted in increasing night range to 1,300 meters.
Basic load increased to 44 rounds.
Enhanced Protection: Front turret armor utilized new composite using sand core fillers increasing it to equivalent of 500mm rolled, homogenous armor against SABOT and 560mm against HEAT rounds.
Since 1980 T-72As have been equipped with the 902A ‘Tucha-2’ smoke grenade system (12 launchers) and the ‘Sota’ napalm protection system.
Chassis was upgraded for higher cross-country mobility and an improved diesel engine, V-46-6 was used.
Driver gets new active-passive night vision block, TVNE-4B.
T-72AK
Commander’s version of T-72A.
Same upgrades as T-72 ‘Ural’ with basic load reduced to 36 rounds.
T-72M
Circa, 1980.
Export model of T-72A.
Mostly manufactured abroad.
Differed in level of protection and the collective defense system (no details).
In 1982 T-72M upgraded based on lessons learned from local conflicts.
T-72M1
16 mm appliqué armor on the top front plate, and composite armor on the front turret with sand core fillers.
T-72AV
Circa 1985.
ERA of 227 elements added.
During PM and overhaul after 1985 most of the T-72A were upgraded to T-72AV. Also, since 1985 T-72M1 have been fitted with ERA.
T-72B (“obekt 184”)
Circa, 1985.
New turret armor package provided significant added protection (no details).
20mm of appliqué armor added to top front of hull.
227 ERA elements added, 118 located on hull.
Latest batches have neutron protection added to outside layer of armor (Added to T-72A also).
Guided missile system, 9K120 ‘Svir’ [W/ 9M119 missile, know in NATO as AT-11 Sniper] added.
New 125mm smoothbore gun, 2A46M w/ better accuracy and performance.
Gunners Sight upgraded to 1A40-1 based on the TPD-K1 laser rangefinder used on the T-72A, however, new sight utilizes an automatic ballistic adjuster that inputs differences in charge, air temperature, atmospheric pressure, angular velocities, tank movement, and other firing conditions. (This sight did not do these calculations on the fly, rather it used calculations fed into the system prior to combat or prior to firing).
Night Sight: 1 K13-49 sight that is part of the 9E 120 guided missile system.
Weapon Stabilizer upgraded to 2E42-2, hydroelectric in elevation, electromechanical in horizontal plane.
Engine: More powerful 840hp V-84-1.
T-72BK
Commander’s variant of T-72B.
Added second HF radio, and new tank navigation system, TNA-4, remote plotter, and had a smaller basic load.
T-72B1
T-72B w/o guided missile system.
T-72BM
Circa, 1992.
Modernized T-72B.
Built-in second generation ERA effective against HEAT and SABOT.
Fitted w/ fire control system with a weather ballistic sensor. (My understanding is this is an on-the-fly system that takes into account weather parameters in realtime.)
T-72S
Circa 1987.
Export version of T-72B.
Initially also referred to as T-72M1M.
ERA package of 155 elements on turret and hull that is identical to the armor on the T-72M1. Variety of rounds for 125mm main gun including 9M119 guided missile.
Since 1992 ERA fitted as built-in ERA as on T-72BM.
T-72S1
T-72S w/o guided missile.
-
Rudel,
Check your email, I sent you something. Hopefully it got to you before you cracked one of your latest nuts.
-
Oh, and before I depart for my XMas party, here's something sort of related;
http://www.globaldefenceforum.com/archive/index.php/t-398.html
-
In going back over that enormous thread on the Syrian OOB, I am mistaken. Syrian Special forces will be limited to smaller, company sized units, but they will be in there in the initial release. Airborne will not appear until a subsequent module. Obivously not all of the roles of Special Forces can be simulated in a game like CMSF, but obviously their ability to use small teams to ambush armor with advanced AT systems can be.
I'm also interested in how you are going to model advanced IEDs like EFPs- Explosively Formed Penetrators. Hezballah is the master at these things, so some will no doubt be in the Syrian T/O.
-
If I was wrong about the lack of Commando units in the initial release, forgive me for starting the rumors.
And one thing I forgot to add was that in fighting like Hezballah did in Lebanon, I don't mean the Syrian Commandos would be anywhere near as competent as Hezballah, they would just do their best to emulate them.
Another factor that affects the Syrian military is the fact that the leadership is all Alawite, while the rank and file is mostly Sunni. Many Sunnis don't believe the Alawites are even Muslim. This is bound to cause a lot of friction in the event of hostilities between the US and Syria.
-
F*cking sweet!!!
-
Sorry if I am regurgetating an old topic, but thus was I have only seen this discussed in the Syrian OOB thread. And there is a good chance the train has left the station on this issue.
But I had seen some mention that Syrian Commando units were not going to initially be included in the Syrian OOB. I think this is a big mistake, and I would argue that the forces a US invader would likely initially face would be primarily commando units. My reading has indicated that the Syrians will initially try to fight as Hezballah did in Lebanon, and use their commando units to conduct anti-armor ambushes against US forces, especially to allow the regular Syrian military time to get mobilized, and allow the identification of the US axis' of advance. I think this can be clearly seen as most of the most advanced AT systems have been issued to the commandos, vice, regular infantry units.
If necessary I can dig up some references. But as I stated, the game design has probably passed the point that this can be reflected, assuming I can prove it.
-
Thanks Mike, that is a new one for me. I need to get the local library to pick up a copy. And my local library is the Pentagon, so I may be successful.
-
BigDuke I will say that the troops in Iraq are thrilled with this new capability. The accuracy and responsiveness are better than any system they have. And the reality is, we don't know what the thing costs. As someone pointed out, the cost guess may be based on research and development costs, and as more are produced, the costs will come down.
Planes break, bombs hang, and the weather doesn't always cooperate. And a success rate well over 95% (The 95% is based on both weapons that won't fire, ie; duds, and weapons that stray just a few feet from the target.) is pretty darned good.
So you got some jihadist firing at you, are you going to send some soldier/marines in, to what is freqeuntly a booby-trapped building? What's a life worth? Most are carrying around 400 grand of SGLI, plus if they die their families get their salary for life, and their kids goto state schools for free, not to mention their health benefits. And we are talking about a life here. But in sheer monitary costs the death of a married military person with two kids is definately going to cost more than a million dollars.
And in the one example of multiple firings we had what, 6 fired that killed 48 terrorists? And in the video it wasn't just one guy, it says 'insurgentS', so more than one was taken out.
So, IMHO, your cost-benefit analysis is silly. And rolling foreign or military policy vis-a-vis Iraq is even sillier. Some squad leader is under fire and he and his men are in danger. And 2 minutes later the threat is dead, and they are all safe. I'm sure he would have problems with your argument.
-
Is the Cavanaugh book the tour of the Bulge Battlefield one? I was paging through it in the library recently and now I may go pick it up. And Dupuy and McDonald I have read and own, but 'The Green Book', what is that?
-
It is unrealistic to put guns on the reverse slope such that they can still engage targets over the crest. In military terms it is sheer lunacy. This is due to the fact that the gun, in every model I am aware of, extends above the barrel of the gun. Thus, you are silhouetting you gun against the skyline. You put it on the military crest, you put it on the reverse slope (such that it cannot be seen from the front of the hill), you put it on the ground, put you do not put it on the crest, which this gamey tactic is essentially doing.
Just my $.02.
-
Mortar crews were trained to adjust onto targets without a Fire Direction Control team. Atleast mortars up to 81mm. They could either 'eyeball' it, or use a semi-crude firing data generator called a 'whiz whell'. Artillery did not operate that way, they required an FDC. While there are certain procedures that well trained FOs could use to direct artillery fire in the event the arty's FDC was knocked out, it still required the use of a trained artillery FO, and it was rather crude. So when you get a few on-board arty pieces you aren't getting an FDC. Personally, I think the game gets it right. Do you want to have to add a combat ineffective soft unit like an FDC just to allow on-board arty to fire indirect? Sure, an arty unit can start firing in a hip shoot in 5-10 minutes. But that is with a built-in FDC, Comm Section, and the whole command element of an arty unit.
Now if you want to attack an arty unit that is dug-in into a firing position, be aware. Even back in WWII an arty battery had more firepower than an infantry company, even if you subtracted all of the arty pieces. Arty units have a pretty large density of crew served weapons, especially .50 MGs and .30 cals. Nowadays IIRC, a USMC Arty Battery has like 6 Mk-19s, 6 .50 cals, and I don't know how many M240Gs.
-
Are you going to model the 'Jindi-rokim-tisa'? That's the 9th man in an 8 man Syrian rifle squad. He is the 'comfort' soldier and usually the smallest/weakest/youngest soldier in the squad. His duties should be self-explanitory. And no, I am not making this up. It's actually an Egyptian thing, but I wouldn't be suprised if Syria had something similar.
Different cultures, different customs.
-
It's the one that deals with the Operation on the Syrian border dealing with the towns of (IIRC) Karabila and al-Ubaydi. You can clearly see an unarmored HMMWV in one of the reinactments, as well as HMMWV .50 call mounts w/o gun shields, as well as one scene were a Marine is just standing up in the back of the unarmored HMMWV, which has an open bed (Which is how you can tell it is unarmored), in the midst of a firefight.Originally posted by John Kettler:civdiv,
I don't believe I've seen the one you singled out, but I'll definitely keep a weather eye out for it. Usually, the Shootout episodes have very good footage (only the occasional howlers) and beautifully equipped service member reenactors, who get all their kit from a special secure depot in
Anniston, Alabama. The people there are mega anal about getting weapons, uniforms and equipment right.
Lightning War,
If you like fighter combat, Dogfight is a must see.
Regards,
John Kettler
-
Hate to split hairs on the Shootout series, but I saw several of them for the first time today. They are extremely low budget. In particular, the USMC one dealing with an Operation near the Syrian border in Iraq was pretty simplistic. I know they needed the military to provide the actual men and equipment to film the reenactment scenes, and both are in particular demand. But watching them switch back and forth between about 30 percent actual footage, and the 70 percent that was filmed at 29 Palms and used inappropriate equipment. Soft skinned HMMWVs and unportected crew serve mounts were not present anywhere in Iraq during the period covered.
But I admit that is hair splitting and due to very limited forces on the part of the military to film a documentary during a time of war. And I immediately called a buddy of mine who participated in the actual operation (If you were watching it he was a teammate of the USMC Interrogator who was shot in the leg.), and he said he had just watched it also and DVRd it. He really liked it.
-
Two thing, LW,
In reading your post you did one thing backwards, but the end results were essentially the same.
1. You moved your tanks and then rotated your hulls. Ideally you move your tanks and then rotate your turrets. The preferred method is to start your movement at a 30 degree oblique to the enemy, and then rotate your turret (via a covered arc command) when you get to your firing point. This avoids both your own dust getting kicked up by movement from interfering with your own spotting and shooting, and a rotating tank counts as a moving tank and adversely affects the accuracy of your own shooting. And the dust getting kicked up can be seen at a greater range than your actual tank.
2. 'Borg Spotting' is that everything one unit spots can be instantly 'seen' by every other unit. So two tanks are moving towards you. The first spots you. There is no 'virtual' communication delay where the one tank radios to the other that it sees you. The second tank also instantly sees you, and will start firing if it thinks it can do damage.
-
I completely understand it was a tank mounted flamethrower. In my mind;Originally posted by John Kettler:civdiv,
Helpful, but I believe you've misconstrued the meaning of the first quote. My read is that it refers to mounting flamethrowers on tanks, not using flamethrowers against tanks.
1. It was a big tank, like the thing carried on the back of a flame thrower guy.
2. It is filled with the same stuff.
3. It got hit and exploded.
4. Immolating the crew.
So, in at least one case, a flamethrower exploded when hit. Plus, is roasted the crew. I'm not sure if the tank is under armor or not, anybody know?.
Now, before I get flamed, I understand this is a tank that contains at least 20 times what a personnal flamethrower contains, that it could be under armor (hence in the tank with them), and that obviously this is roughly equivelent to the fuel tanks exploding. Probably even worse since the crew may not be seperated from the flamethrower fuel by a bulkhead. I am not equating 200 gallons of napalm exploding possibly INSIDE a tank with some infantryman with his face buried in the mud squirting 5 gallons of fuel on a tank 20 meters away.
-
A friend of mine is a Marine and in the intel field. I asked him about the drug thing and he said that in his two tours over there he never heard of it.
-
Syrian TO&E thread
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
You said you were set on the tank stuff, but I found an article that mentions that 122 T-72 tanks had been upgraded to the TURMS-T standard. It also says that "T-90 tanks have conducted successful tests 'in a Middle Eastern country'" It talks a lot about new weapon acquisitions and various tactics to be used against, in this case, Israel.
I have a hard copy translation, but if anyone speaks Hebrew (I don't), the article (in Hebrew) is somewhere on this site;
http://epaper.maariv.co.il
The article is by Amit Kohen and it is called 'No Longer Rusty'.