Peter Cairns

c3k, Your doing it again, assuming your opponent is stupid. In such a situation the US would almosst certainly surround the town and observe, with if time was sensitive, the main force bypassing. Hell they might just go round entirely. If they did enter it would be slowly and on foot with vehicle escorts way back and dsipersed. If you tried to use artillery on that from your disperesed positions it would be sporadic and not hugely effective. The infantry would split between getting back in the Strykers or in to cover, mostly buildings. They would then start the hunt for your artillery starting with UAV's and helicopters to hunt down the locations. As you are using multiple dispersed guns, they would know immediately that an MLRS response would be ineffective overkill so they would probably use the likes of A-10's, roving to select individual targets. Peter.

So far there has been a lot of talk about Damascus, but depending on the scenario, there is an obvious question should you try to avoid entering the city at all. web page Peter.

So far there has been a lot of talk about Damascus, but depending on the scenario, there is an obvious question should you try to avoid entering the city at all. web page Peter.

So far there has been a lot of talk about Damascus, but depending on the scenario, there is an obvious question should you try to avoid entering the city at all. web page Peter.

The Syrians are easily the most obvious culprit, though the action still doesn't seem to make much sense given the eyes of the world are on them. I tend to rule out Tom Clancey explainations of "it was rogue elements of the CIA trying to make it look like the Syrians", and go more for a vacumn. A bit like Milosovich in Serbian he didn't so much order genocide as much as loose his grip on the dogs that he had held on a tight leash as he climbed to power. If the Syrians are loosing control of the various factions, and if the various parts of the opposition satrt down the same path and start loosing control of there own people, then even if groups supposedly on the same side don't start on each other, we could be on a slippery slope. Like it or not pushing the Syrians out, even though they had overstayed their welcome long ago, might have opened pandoras box. Back to the law of unintended consequences, or another example of an administration that can't think beyond the next news bullitin. Peter.

John, there is knowing and doing. Since the mid fifties people have been saying that as the physics is fairly simple and well know you can build an atomic bomb in the basement. How many have been built, None. Why?, because it's a lot more difficult in practice than in reality, and thats the problem. You can build a plane in your garage with stuff you buy at the hardware store, but it won't be an F-15, let alone be able to fight one. There are lkots of clever little tricks, often low tech that a determined and resourceful enemy can deploy, look at the animal traps the Vietcong used. But thats a long way from the kind of thing you are talking about. A key issue is that of reliability, with these home made ideas you really don't know if they are going to work till combat , hell even ones that have been tested for years sometimes don't work. undead reindeer cavalry, everthing you said about Syrian artillery si true, but the big issue you have avoided is still that of communications and targeting. To hit a rapidly moving US force they have to observe target and relay the information. and then be able to lay down the fire on to the correct position. Add to that the fact that they will have to disperse their artillery for it to have any real chance of putting down a reasonable volume, and that really needs a sophisticated networked C3I system that is beyond them. If I had plenty of 122mm and 152mm SP's I'd be pretty sure I could take out more Strykers by using them as assault guns in the soviet WW2 way, hidden in the backstreets of Damascus, that by trying to use them as cinventional artillery. It's about looking at what a weapon can do and the circumstances you find yourself in and adapting. You Never Fight the Same War Twice, so I don't expect the US to be exactly like they were in OIF, and if I was SYria, I wouldn't loose all my heavy stuff in the open, I'd pull it back in to the towns and cities and make the US fight either on foot or with armour in amounst buildings, where their speed and accuracy can be countered. Peter.

Oh course they could really speed things up and get costs down if they did what the rest of the US computer industry seems to be doing, get all the coding done in India.... Peter.

If we attacked Iran because we thought they might be trying to produce what we already know Israel has ( because we helped them build it), the arab and muslim world would explode. If the US administration doesn't understand that, they really are living on a different planet from the rest of us. Peter.

EMP effects have been detected with FAE ( fuel Air explosive) type weapons, where, as well as the normal thermobaric effects the detonation creates a pulse. This has lead to speculation that a MOAB type weapon could be optimised to produce a localised Blackout, as an alternative to conventional bombing. Same effect, less physical damage. The best delivery method for this available to the Syrians, could be a Scud or similar, however given the re-enty speed it is doubtful that a FAE would work as the vapour would be dispersing at 1,000mps. The US has been developing a microwave antipersonel weapon for some time, currently being tested on a modified Cobra helicopter. ( a recent article in New Scientist warned of the dangers to civilians with the likes of pace makers), and these do seem to open the way for directional battlefield weapons. Perhaps the most obvious would be as a defencive aid for armour which when alerted by a laser or IR detector, directed a microwave beam to disrupt an incoming ATGM or it's firing unit. However I doubt that these are within Syrias graps for decades. The uS on the other hand is probably pretty close to being able to integrate something similar in to JSTARs to allow them to disrupt individual vehicles they locate at long range, it can afterall already detect the EM from a vehicle engine . What the Syrians may be able to do is jam GPS signals close to the ground, as this can be done fairly easily although it doesn't do much more than increase the CEP of an incoming bomb back towards conventional accuracy. A possible urban way to do this would be to fit domestic satallite dishes with a transmitter as well as a reciever and to turn them all on across Damascus using a transponder system. This could also make hundreds of dishes across the city appear to be ZSU type radars. Oh course this relies on the city still having power. Well John, Happy now. It's not that we don't know about this stuff, it's just that we don't see the Syrians as being able to deploy it in any meaningful or effective way. Peter.

Heres some stuff on the Uk's COBRA Radar, I don't know what the US has. COBRA is considered to be the world's most advanced weapon location system, comprising a high performance radar, advanced processing and an integrated, flexible command, control and communication system. The design includes state-of-the-art digital processing and an advanced active, solid -state phased array antenna comprising several thousand transmit/ receive modules based on GaAs-MMIC technology. The COBRA mission is to locate mortars, rocket launchers and artillery batteries and to provide information for countering their effectiveness. With a detection range of 40 km COBRA is capable of locating and classifying up to 40 batteries in two minutes. Don't know what they mean by a barrery but it's capable stuff. undead reindeer cavalry, The Syrians just won't be able able to deploy there artillery in any meaningful way. They will loose the EW battle before it's strts and to use indirect fire in any useful way they need to be able to quickly and accurately locate a mobile enemy and get that information to a position which can accurately and quickly put down a substantial volume of fire on an opponent. I'd forget trying and disperse what I can and use it for direct fire, If you are only going to get a couple of shots off you might as well have a decent chance of hitting something. In a way what the Syrians need to do is abandon large mobile unist and break down to lower level combined arms forces, a sort of low tech Stryker model, with every infantry platoon having a T-55, a D-30, or a quad ZSU. Keep these spread out hide them and let the US get as close as you can before you open fire. Peter.

The syrians could use sound ranging to good effect given prepositioning and the kind of lead times Sieve has mentioned, but there is the range issue. For Stryker mortars it might work but if they are dispersed and mobile it would need to be large volume fire to be effective and anything that does that the US would pounce on. You could of course put some SP's in a SAM zone, and then shoot and scoot to avoid counter battery, and try to hit any aircraft sent to take out the artillery, but given US air and technical superiority it's unlikely to work. As to long rnage uS artillery. I doubt sound ranging would be that effective, and even if it was, you would be unlikely to have enough in one place with the range to do much damage, and again the uS response would be vicious. As to UAV's they have low visual IR and radra signiture s but can be configured to detect radra, so as the US would be actively sweeping for any active radar and the Syrians would probably have to use active radar to find them, then I think again the Syrians would loose. Also I am pretty sure that the US can detect Air Defence Radar of any significant strength from satalite these days, so I'd avoid using it. They also allegedly have the ability to intercept up to 90% of the worlds telephone traffic, so don't count on falling back on mobile phones either. Peter.

Don't forget UAV coverage the US would have Optical and radar coverage out to about 50miles of the Stryker spearhead, so I still doubt artillery could be used effectively no matter how much they have. Peter.

Us intervention in Iran would be both politically and militarily insanity, different country different terrain different people. You don't have to like or agree with Iran to know that a US intervention is just plain muts. Peter.

I think the Serbs "claimed" to have state of the art defences in the hope that we wouldn't attack them, unfortunately for them we didn't believe them. Saddam admitted he didn't have WMD, so we wouldn't attck him, but we didn't believe him either, thing is He was telling the truth and the Serbs were lieing. Moral. Don't try to Bluff someone who thinks your a liar. Peter.

I think the learning curve for CM is a bit like Chess, if you put a bit of thought in It doesn't take long to get the hang of what all the pieces do. However it doesn't make you a good player, that takes a lot of hard work practice and a good many beatings. Peter.

On Global security I came across a reference that stated that as many as 1,000 of Syria's 4,000 plus tanks are in static positions, probably mostly T-55's and although there was no refernce to it probably also facing Israel, so depending on the US game plan, probably out of the reconing. What it does show however is that the Syrians may already have put a fair bit of thought in to static defence in depth. John, As I understand it the current targeying time for a MLRS is under 30'sec, now when you add that to counter battery location time and add flight time it's probably about 2 minutes from D-30 fire to counter rocket impact from 30 miles plus. Given that an MLRS uses bomblets to cover a wide area, I can't see indirect fire in any way being highly effective. To move a D-30, you have to unpin the three legs, draw them all forward fix them and then in your case either slide it on rails or drop the wheels and roll it backwards. Even a well trained team would take a minute. That leaves you one minute to either push it by hand or hitch it and drive it. Driving would be fastest but counting acceleartion and roads, 30 secs at 40mph, is at best 500m from your firing point. Even if you survive, by the time you move off, re-deploy and reestablish communication,what have you got, an effective rate rate of fire of two or three rounds every of five to ten minutes. If you had a good EW hardened Comms network that would link independent designator teams to a force on independant and dispersed SP guns who could calculate the approximate relative position of a target and then shoot and scoot, fine you could do some damage. But I don't see the Syrians having that in place for a decade, not in two years, and it's what the US can do now with heavy artillery from the rear and to an extent the Stryker forces own 81mm. Likw Steve said, don't take him on where he's strong and you are weak, and an artillery contest is a classic example of that. As to finding a warehouse, or corner building where a D-30 deep inside can swing through say 270', and fire at atrgets through windows dooors or holes to cover more than one route of advance. I am all for it, especially if you can get it deep enough to hide flash and smoke to a degree and especially if it is shielded enough by other buildings/ terrain so that most of the US force can't see the or engage your position. My origninal idea had been cover one arc and bore sight down it, I hadn't reallt though about utilising it's fast 360' turn , although it might mean using to open or obvious firing postions. Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, The type of decoys that have worked have been dispersed and static, so i don't buy the idea that you can effectively hide a battalion in a way that it could function as one in an open battle. you could of course hide/disperse one in a town or less likely wooded hills. But as the US would almost vertainly approach any town or terrain large and dense enough to hid a battalion as if it did hide a battalion, I don't really see where it gets you. It's sound for a hedgehog defence if you want to make every town a fortress and force the US to clear them or bypass. The problem is that given US Mobility. Recon, C3I and the large size and low population density of Syrian, the US will have more bypass options than you can cover. In talking about a zonal defence to company level I suppose I am talking about lots of little hedgehogs but It's to push up the cost and prolong the conflict, certainly not to go toe to toe with the US. In this scenario, engaging as close as possible and in close terrain does to an extent negate US airpower. But as we saw first in the Falklands with harriers and much more recntly with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Kurds in Northern Iraq, small ground based designating teams can pick out individual buildings and vehicles for precision attack even with friendlies in pretty close proximity. Even if you fortify a town with a bridge the US needs and lead them in, in a full war scenario like CM:SF, they still have the option to flatten everything but the bridge if needs be. As to Syrian Artillery again I just don't see them having the command and control and responsiveness to us any volume of firepower for any length of time except in the most obvious places like the defence of Damascus, and even then as i've said most would be better deployed as AT than firing randomly and blindly at US Forces. Peter.

John Kettler, big problem with the Syrian player using the D-30 or anything else indirectly is communications and targeting. I think that their ability to use it in open batteries would be excluded due to US airpower, and as to the odd, PG round anda designator on the ground, I doubt that would be the way to go, as they'd have to few designators and far too few with the skill to use them. So I go for using it like avery big RPG. If the US as going to advance at you then get in their way and try to do some harm. In a way it's wahat the Soviets did with a lot of field artillery at Kursk, used it for something it wasn't primarily designed for to good effect. Peter.

There seems to be a double split here. Some are talking tactical some strategic, I don't mind both because I think the strategic defence plan dictates a lot about the tactics you use. The other is between those who are advocating a general strategy (fytinghellfish, Colin, Dillweed and I) and those who have an idea for a scenario and are trying to scale it up to fit a whole country (Iron_man , c3k). It goes without saying that I don't think you can take a single situation like BHD and scale it up as a blueprint for fighting a war. Colin, I have a problem with your comment on manouvering to the flanks. The key assets of a Stryker force are mobility and networked C3I. I this situation the Syrians would be at a huge disadvantage in terms of battlefield mobility and command. I just can't see you being able to flank effectively and maintain the unit cohesion to be effective. By all means suck them in and have if possible concealed units that can be activated to launch flank attacks, but trying to out manouver a US force with inferior troops and leadership, is just asking for trouble. Peter.

Most kids these days can't tell a tiger from a PZIV, and I blame the decline in models. In my day ( 25 years back) If you wanted a decent toy tank you needed to go out and buy a model and build it. So most kids bought models and as WW2 dominated by your teens you could pretty much identify most aircraft and vehicles from WW2. I remember there used to be a lot of specialised model shops and stacks of kits in the average toy shop. These days is hard to find models at all in most shops and as to specialised shops they are just disappearing. I suppose that's just change. Peter.

As I understand it there is an idea to "paint terrain" so that you van priorities areas for defence or attack. As to an individual, well how would you find him, or react. If it worked , and it would be ahuge AI task, it would be fine but not essential. If it didn't and had Force A walk in to Force B's killzone to get the guy on the other side of the hill it would just be silly. Peter.

Well I was planning to go to bed but seeing as it's a challenge I'll have one more post. Your Scenario Had Micheals Canadians Invading your country, and you engaging him as he advanced. Now given the limited amount i know about the Canadian army I am assuming a Stryker type force with LAV's and Grizzly and the like. So before I start on your list I'd like to remind you that I just refuse to accept that he'd be daft enough to move to contact in convoy using outriders to stop traffic. It's a war not a bloody cavalcade. Lets deal with the first five. Subject " Blowing away civilian vehicles". Q1) Does he have the firepower, A1) You can blow away a civilian vehicle right up to a semi or JCB with a .50 cal, of course he has the firepower, who do you think your fighting the boy scouts. Q2) They can target. A2) Moving Cars,SUV's and Buses etc, are a easy to spot and to target, not really an issue. Q3) They are allowed to engage. A3) You have already engaged him he is alert and cleared to fire unless his rules of engagement were written by the Pope. Q4) All his forces have had this order to fire communicated. A4) Thats what ROE's are for so that units know when and what they can fire at what without having to be told. Q5) They'll fire on civilian vehicles. A5) Once a potential target is spotted it will be assessed given the situation. Any potential enemy unit will be engaged if it is seen as a threat and as we have seen in Iraq if it is deemed so it's engaged and with force. Okay lets go on to the next batch. Q6) The traffic are moving in the same direction. A6) Civilians universally move from danger particularly combat or go to ground, you stated that you were moving to contact after engageing with LR ATGM's that means you will almost certainly be moving in the opposite direction. Q7) Civilians are moving away. A7) Civilians do not move towards a battle or fighting, the run or hide. Q8) The civilians know where he is. A8) Given you've engaged him and caused casualties I think that would be pretty obvious even if your average citizean is no smarter than you. Q9) The civilian traffic can move. A9) Well given that your defence depends on moving amongst it, if it's a traffic jam your tactics just failed, so as you said you'd be moving amongst it them being able to move to seems reasonable. Q10) Moving in an obvoius manner. A10) What did you have in mind, revering so they think your going the other way, drive casually. A professional army ( and the Knucks are a very professional army), know how to protect themselves and don't make silly mistakes. So we're on the home straight... Q11) Mechael has a mech force. A11) This is based on Syrian tactics used against Stryker and the Canadians have similiar medium weight forces, reasonable assumption I'd say, after all if it's not mechanised why are you using ATGM's on a mobile infantry force. Hell I kind of assumed it wasn't being fought under water, was I wrong about that too. Q12) It's a meeting engagement. A12) you said you engaged his forces moving towards you and then you moved to engage him, thats not an assumption on my part it's your scenario. Q13) Their aware an attack is imminent A13) Again yu said you engaged them, and they've taken casualties, I'd hardly think thats something they fail to notice. Q14) Non convoy movement is allowed. A14) Well as you had the range to engage at distance with ATGM's and that you could mix with civilian traffic and that he could deploy outriders, and that their were coffeehouses etc. So I kind of ruled out it being fought inside the Channel Tunnel, Like I said I never bought the column idea as realistic so if he couldn't deploy off road because of terrain then being Canadian he'd advance on foot, and your running about in civilain vehicles is nonsense. Q14) ROE restrict him to convoy. A14) Where on earth did you ever get the notion that anyone would produce ROE's that said when advancing towards the enemy you must remain in convoy, what just in case you run over any of those pretty flowers by the side of the road. Q15) Tempo dictates Convoy movement. A15) There is Tempo and there is Insanity, if the tactical situation means that you have to sacrifice speed for safety then you do it. If you think that thats a realistic propect, and you are basing a defence around it then you are making one of the most basic mistakes. Assuming your opponent is Stupid, and that assumption shows who the stupid one is. And with that as it's Midnight in Scotland and my wife is away and I have three kids to get up dressed feed and out to school in seven hours I am calling it a night. Oh and Dorosh, Hows about fighting your own battles ( although as your post said maybe with your experience of posting her you spotted this as one to avoid and decided to leave it alone). Peter.

Terence, The TOR is actually a variant of the SA-15, which has been about and used for about a decade, as far as I know because of the arms embargo Iraq didn't have any and it's not in Syria so I don't know if it's been used in actual combat. However given that the ones that Iran are buying are the options that Greece didn't take up from it's order, I am pretty sure it works. True Greece didn't take up the options on Just under 30, but it did buy 25 or so in acompetiton that included a range of western systems, so I'd hardly dismiss it. Russian standards are generally poor, but now that they have to export or die the days of producing junk for a captive home market seem to be over. The package they have put together for the MIG-35 for India, seems to show that they are now being driven by customer need. Peter.

c3k, I am all for innovation and novel tactics but that doesn't mean I can't spot a flawed idea and point it out. Your scenario relied on unrealistic behaviour from both your Canadian opponent and your own civilian population. He wouldn't just roll up in column, and your non combatants would just sit about eating ice cream to watch the battle or drive around as usual to get the shopping. The tactics you are talking about have their place as we can see in Iraq today, but they wouldn't work during an invasion which is what we are talking about in CM:SF. Hell if you want to have a pop at my suggestions so far be my guest, I am an easy target as I tend to give fairly strident, clear posts. Peter.

I read on the BBC news web site they were talking about the next generation of console titles growing fron $3 to $5m to develop to more like $8m, and the number of companies that can handle them dropping, add to that they though big name titles could drop from 100-120 a year to more like 60-80. With the price of games for the likes of the XBOX360 set to climb by 60%, I can see the console wars ending in at least one big name casualty and being a pirates paradise. Peter.