Peter Cairns

I based 150,000 on the current front line of 250,000 or so given that at least a third won't be front line. Given the need to put some forces in areas that still need to be looked after but aren't likely to be attacked or even some kind of reserve/replenishment force, not to mention desertion, I don't think it's unreasonable. The problem with key positions is that from what I've seen of the maps ( the Berkely (?) ones posted a while back are excellent even if they are mostly in russian) is it's not like Iraq. There you were advancing up a narrow twin river route with obvious and necessary key bridging points where both attacker and defender knew the fighting would need to be done. The bulk of Syria, particularly the East, like in GW1 is open flat desert where a force like the US can avoid contact and move at speed to almost at a tactical level approach from any direction. This is in part what makes me tend to lean towards defence of larger settlements with a force with a significant footprint and size. In effect what makes something a key location is it's physical size and population rather than it's position. Unlike europe in WW2 there aren't that many key rivers or bridgeing points, it would be much more fluid, and like GW1, the Us might penetrate miles with a Stryker force before you even knew it was there. Peter.

THe point that sticks out for me is the one about micromanagement and the digital battlefield. This isn't just a problem for the US but all advanced forces. There are real dangers of information overload, where peopel are given more than they can handle, or where because they have all that information they start taking decisions that should be made at a higher level. there have been a few examples of air accidents involving aircraft with advanced MF screen navigation systems whrer when the screen information has been wrong, but the pilots have no realisied because they have come to be to dependant on them. In the worst case which i think was in greek airspace, the system mixed up to beacons and the jet ( I seem to recall was an Airbus) flew in to a mountain that the computer said wasn't there. All the technology is great, but if you become dependant it can be dangerous. One of the things I've noticed about powerpoint is that you tend to be given printed notes as well. this can mean ( partciularly in a long and or boring technical briefing), that people lose interest and think "well it's ok , I've got my notes, and then put their notes in abag and never look at them again, or at least until it's to late and they've forgotten the context. again I am ending with the same comment KISS. (Keep it simple stupid). Peter.

Apparently one of the largest cemetaries in the world is in Ciaro, and it's now got a resident population that makes it a virtual suburb. Just put that in to illustrate just how different these places are to live than what most of us are used to. Having said that I live in Scotland and I've heard tales that in some parts of the world, the sky is blue, not grey. Peter

Maybe it's just me but as elsewhere I was talking about the Syrians deploying in small combined arms units as a low tech Stryker force with SP guns deployed in support to give direct fire, rather vthan as artillery, then from what fytinghellfish just posted the Soviet 122mm SP Gun would be used pretty much like a Stryker MGS. Peter.

I think it should be abstarcted a bit like firepower to a general level of sighting ability rather than too detailed, although that said if you lost a man with akey piece of equipment, you could find your ability to sight really drop, just like the way your firepower drops if you loss your BAR in CM. I know that if you haver two different types with different discriminations (IR, II, TI) then in theory losing one should have a different effect from losing the other, but I'd go for a simpler points system rather that something complex. If a six man squad had four NV devices and it lost two even if they were different types it should loose half it's NV advantage. KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid. Peter.

Another issue for me is the size of the defensive footprint. If you are defending at company level then if we assume 150,000 troops out of 15million then thats 1 in 100. With a population density of 99 per 1km2, then 150man company would be spread over a 12km by 12km box, which is a bit daft. If we look at Singapore, the Vatican or Hong kong we get densities for cities of about 6,000 per km2, so town with it's proportin of infantry could on this basis have a population of 15,000 to support a company and cover about 1.5km by 1.5km. Now these figures would suggest two things, Firstly you can't defend anything smaller than 10,000 population an 1km2, and secondly that seems a lot of ground for a light company to cover. However if you assume your are concentrating in key urban areas and that anything under say 500m across doesn't give you enough space to move, a crucial factor as you can't survive if you stand still and let the US pummel you. So even if we assume lower population densities in rural towns and more space, I doubt if you can effectively defend small settlements especially in open country. That means that ( Iam making this up as I go along you do know that, sort of thinking out load), your probably activly only defending a third of the population at a density of somewhere between 3,000 ( smallish dispersed settlement) to 9,000 (Old Damascus) per km2. 150,000 troops defending 4.5million is 1 in 30, which on the basis of 3,000 and 9,000 be km2, gives us between 100 and 300 men. The big question is given these kind of ratios, ( yes I know this is very rough) what kind of force can cover, or rather should cover what size of town, too few and it's going to leak like hell, you won't have the troops to delay the US , however to many troops and you end up like fish in a barrel with no sppace to fall back or reorganise. SO the question is this, leaving out geographic position, ( yes I know thats crucial but we're not at that stage yet). What size of yown do people feel is the smallest you would make a stand in and what would be the optimum force size and shape to do it with ( bearing in mind that you can't have all the best weapons in your town but a realistic share). Peter.

I actually started this as like artillery deployed mines, I was thinking about things the Syrian might have that they could use against the US which either you might not immediately think of as useful, or you could use in a different way. I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but Burning vehicles or indeed just petrol soaked tires seems as obvious thing for MOUT. Peter.

I'd say that if the AI works as i think it should then a unit should be able to determine what is the higher risk, staying put and being killed soon or being killed now. As far as I am aware, everyone runs from fire in CM no matter who they are, so if that feature is in CM:SF in some way, then in theory there is a method of calculating "Threat v Fear" which could allow it to happen. Sometimes in CM it's abit like the end of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".... Peter.

Steve, joking aside, I have woundered to what extent the bwhole UN nato part of the CM:SF story , when the game will only have US forces is a bit PC. Sorry for being cynical, but is it not the case, that whether it be endorsement let alone purchases the DoD won't touch a game where the back story no matter how realistic doesn't have the US government as the good guy leading the good. Peter.

I don't think we need something like "Green Screen" for night fighting as it's abit "Gamey" for me and it's not a FPS after all. Big chnage that make SPecial Op's more realistic will be relative spotting, as this will automatically give the elite force with NVG's the advantage of seeing more of the enemy that it will see of them. If you play the defender you will be at a huge disadvantage. The skill will be in the way you take advantage of this. You will need to be able to somehow judge whether they haven't seen you, or are just holding their fire. This could probably be done by watching the target graphic. At present units are either actively targeting or in overwatch mode, there isn't an unaware mode as such. This is perfectly understandable in a tactical game that starts on the basis that "The battles begun". Such a "sleep or rest" mode isn't exactly restricted to a SPecial Op's game, as fast advancing forces like Stryker can catch people of guard ( the same is said of M1's because of the much quieter gas turbine). The issue may be that a lower awareness level might be something that needs to be hard wired at this stage in to the game engine and could be difficult to add at a later date. I suppose thats one for Steve in that I can't recall any info on levels of situation awareness and troop compatence or scenario. In aware is suppose relative situation awreness and how you are trained and actually exploit it is much more the basis of special op's than exotic weapons and kung Fu ninja stuff you get in the movies. In my 9km2, 1km2 target game it's where in the margins you come in and how you approach the target is where much of the challenge lies, just as in CM it's deployment , troop choice, and the basic plan of attack that really can win or lose you the game before contact. And that as I've said is why I love it, the command element. Peter.

Just looked at the Apple web site and if steves comments about end of spring are true then I'd say a similtanious launch is just a possible. Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry D-30's kept back for indirect fire would be totally ineffective. In order to put down an effective volume of fire on pre set positions you either need to have them grouped and in that case they are more than likely to have been taken out before they fire a shot, or disperse them in which case your chance of controlling them in an effective way is extremely low. A D-30 firing a half dozen rounds a minute in to a 1km box with manouvering US forces is umlikely to hit anything, even a full battery won't slow them down much, (unless using mines). Even if you did try to use them the US counter battery capability will make short work of them. Unlike a tank a D-30 can be very easily concealed at a 1,000m has agood chance of getting the first shot and taking out it's target. Even if only 1 in 10 of the D-30's disperesed in to cover hits a Striker, thats still 60 Strykers. Static defence is only a death trap if the US can bring it's firepower to bare, and that might mean flattening whole towns, which is unlikely though possible. I have no doubt that a T-55 in a town kept in a warhouse or so room until US troops are in sight will last longer than one manouvering in the open or trying to counter attack. I also have little doubt that a 152mm SP gun used as an assault gun, will last longer ,do more damage, and be of more use, than one kept at the rear and used as long range artillery. Hell. Why do so many americans on this forum, insist in trying to make the Syrians fight the US as if they were Americans. It's like having a force of tired peasant pikemen at the top of a muddy hill, and ordering them to charge down on to the hard open plain to surround a force of well trained fresh veteran lancers. If you try to have the Syrians attempt any type of manouvering combined arms warfare even in counter attack they will get flattened. Oh and as to holding mountains, in gereral they give you a better chance of survival and more chance to hurt the US than the open desert, and specifically if you don't hold the spine behind Damascus, you can forget about either holding damascus or escaping in to the Lebanon. Peter.

I know BF have all but ruled it out but I'll stick this in anyway. One of the reasons I am a big CM fan is that for 25 years I've like small unit ( squad up to Company) games, and especially self contained ones such as raids. For me the whole designing your force, organising it and the planning of the mission were all as much a part of the fun as the actual battle. For me CM was the first and in my view the best toallow it, and I suspect like most people I've created a good few bridge assalts with British or US paras in CMBO. An ideal for me is a 3km x3km map with the target and the defence in the central 1km2, with you free to deploy a designed force anywhere out with it. I like the way in which the whole thing is self contained and not part of a larger battle, or even you at one side and them at the other. I am not particularly in to the Super elite troops or special exotic weapons bit, it's more the way it lets you do self contained missions, whether they be rescuing hostages/POW's? downed crew, or siezing/destroying Bridges/fuelbumps/HQ's. I just prefer it that way, true you can do it with all the CM games and CM:SF will be particularly good for it, but it just seems that as most players will either design or play "Raid" scenarios, it would be nice to see one, and i suspect it would be a really good seller from the commercial point of view. Equally particularly in the current climate special ops seem to be a more prominant feature than in the past, even WW2. That's my Tuppence worth. Peter.

When doing the search for WMD's Iraq declared and the UN found, ( and as far as I am aware allowed them to keep) large quantities of CS gas, some of which could be fired from RPG's IF ( any info welcome) Syria has a similiar capability then it could well be used to force US forces out of buildings etc, or at least to fight in gas masks. Oh and on the same subject I'd certainly experct the Syrians to have learned enough about Iraq to be checking the shelf life of their WP rounds. Peter.

Oh course disguising themselves as americans with hispanic accents might also be worth a try. it's not as if US kit is particularly hard to come by. Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, I think your four tear plan is a receipe for disaster. The start is Okay but as to the rest the cahnces of anything far back and not disperesed let alone trying to manouver even getting a shot off are virtually zero. All the indications from GW1 and OIF show that the old adage " In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" holds true, US recon, C3I, and airpower may have it's limits and not be perfect but it is so far beyond what syria or any third world force can muster, that it is just no contest. As one US airforce commander put it, "Airpower is like Poker, a second best hand is no hand at all". As stated here before avoid your enemies strengths and exploit his weaknesses. You seem to be trying to match him for firepower and manouver at every level even though the higher you go the more obvious the US advantages become. To be honest I can hardly think of a set of syrian tactics that would more delight the US more, with the obvious exception of surrender. For me as I posted elsewhere the best policy is hedgehog defence of population centres and possibly mountainous terrain, with a low tech striker approach, break up the armoured and artillery regiments and higher and disperse them down to company level. If we assume 200,000 in the army of which about 125,000 are combat troops with 4,000 tanks 4,000 armed APC's and 1,000 towed artillery and 500 BM-21's, then a 130 man company would get 4 tanks, 4 apcs, an AT gun and maybe a short range MLRS. Keep these in key towns in cover on expected US routes of attack and try to avoid engaging US units until they are under 1,000m and preferably 500m. Even though your ATGM's can hit at over 2,000 hold fire to much closer. If you have a couple of BM-21's kep them if you have a big enough area to defend, up to 1,ooom from the front line so that at minimum range of 1,500m you can put rounds on to disembarking strikers or over them to delay follow on or supporting units. Use things like D-30's as deep as you can in towns with a limited arc so that they engage a targey a 1,000m without exposing themselves to multiple attacks from the attacking force. Trae your SP artillery as assault guns, thing of a 122mm as a STUG, and hope to get some side shots when they enter in force or just use he on the first buildings the US occupy. In short a prepare for a house to house infantry battle and deploy everything else for the direct support of it, the closer the better. It still won't win the war but it will do more damage and last longer to better effect. Peter.

Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and Austria are all members of the EU and not one is in Nato. Nato membership doesn't effect EU membership at all. Malta and Cyprus just joined and they aren't in Nato either. The idea that a Nato member won't get in to the EU if it decents from An american view is just plain daft. Given the current view in berlin and Paris, not to mention the change in government in spain and soon possibly in Italy some would argue that Turkey distancing it self more politivally from the US has actually strengthened it's EU prospects. Me I think EU membership will be decided regardless of Nato. Generally Turkey though it didn't allow it's territory to be used For OIF was more supportive than France, in addition as far as I was aware for political reasons neither Turkish nor Greek forces played an active lead role in the Balkans. Indeed one of the reasons that Nato involvement in the Balkans was such a long and difficult process, was the need to come up with an intervention that everyone could sign up to without a split. Thats partly why it seemed to little to late. Nato has a great ability to fudge things and compromise to preserve the fascade of unity while covering up a messy compromise. Peter.

Odd responses so far in that I was most interested in how people thought rightly or wrongly it would effect US domestic support for the war, and no one seems to have picked up on that. When a war in response to an attack costs more in lives than the attack itself will peoples oppinions change. I don't really buy the WW2 anology as Bin Laden is hardly Imperial Japan. Peter.

Theres politics and there is political analysis. This topic is pretty borderline, but you can, I feel anyway, express and opinion on whether the point that one passes the other will have a psychological effect whether you are for the war or not. Peter.

AKD. I was making a general point about the discussion when I said I an sceptical about reports from a country about there own weapons, and you challenged that. When I reponded to your post I wasn't talking about your post in particular. People tend to quote the things that support them. Hell throughout the nineties i continually read that the M1's armour could withstand all fielded anti tank weapons, while the Hellfire could destroy all known armoured vehicles, well if someone wasn't telling Porkies they were certainly being less than objective. Oh and an evaluation of performance in a war you weren't in is not the same as actually firing the things yourself. US experience with captured and or purchased soviet equipment has given us far better understanding of it's true performance than looking at second had results. To be honest I tend to just put in general comments rather than wade through every line with a microscope , I like a discussion not an academic debate, I tend to deal in general principles rather than the sepcifics particularly when it's hard to know the providence basis for much of what appears here, and especially as the worst topics are the ones where people get in to circular arguements over minute deatils. Peter.

Well AKD there is the fairly obvious difference that the US wasn't invading Iraq at the time. Any Israeli attempt to sieze more ground would undermine the basis of the whole operation and endanger US lives, hows about this for a reason for the Israeli's not getting involves, the US president phoning them up and saying I'll block every aid or funding request for Israel that comes across my desk. Israel is totally dependant economically on the US so hate it or not it would keep out unless the US invited it in, which is pretty near never. Peter.

John, To discribe Steves comments as Taylorism is just plain nonsense, Taylor proscribed a system of demarcation of labour far more acute than steves example. You comparison with self employed people fails to take account that whether it be US or UK peacekeeping or war fighting the arverage field officer or NCO does a similiar range of tasks. An NCO commands men but he also deals with personal issues logistics supply. and a constant stream of verbal and written reports. As to your claim that specialisation is now frowned on in manufacturing, well just try telling that to the Chinese who are currently creaming the rest of us. And I'd add what i said about two wars in the same country, when the black Watch went north to support operations near fallugia they sure as hell weren't handing out sweets and wearing Tam o Shanters, while I've seen plenty of picture of US units in Afghanistan in caps and shirt sleves playing with kids. At worst I'd say the US is behind the UK on the learnibg curve, and I've already said that's because we learned the hard way in Nothern Ireland. Peter.

akd And just how would israel do this, send it's aircraft in to US controlled Syrian airspace and hope the US airforce just ignored them or something. On land what do you envisage, US M1A2's been overtaken by Merkava racing past them to the front. Logistical and militarily it's a daft scenario. Peter.

akd, Russian information like old soviet information always tells you how great there stuff is, even in to the ninties they were claiming M1 style performance from the T-72. I'd much prefer to see waht a us test shows about the performance of a soviet AT round than the Russians. Steve. all the info seems to be based around penetration and destroying the vehicle and or killing or injuring the crew, stripping the exterior of all those fancy electronics doesn't seem to be mentioned. Peter.

Drusus, But if you want the US to have a larger force, you just give it more points to reflect that and allow it to Buy more stuff, you needn't deflate the values for it's equipment. If you can only buy three M1A2's for a 1,000 points and twenty T-55's and you want the US to have Numerical parity, then you give the US 7,000 points and Syria 1,000. It might mean that the parameters for battles well need to be changes, but for me anyway, thats better than skewing equipment values. Peter.