Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

undead reindeer cavalry

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,224

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

    Interesting defensive feature if you head towards Damascus where the main road runs roughly east west between the Airports at SAYQAL and DUMAYR from a height of about 25miles you can clearlt make out a long ridge with marked peaks running roughly parrallel and to the north....

    Maybe we should start a thread on Invasion routes using Google Earth, to plan the invasion.

    use those Soviet topographical maps of Syria that i have linked a couple of times. there's lot's of good defensive terrain. Syrian invasion would certainly not be just battles in flat desert. you will also soon notice how vulnerable the US logistics would be, unless new main roads have been built to Iraq.

    though of course from CMSF perspective it all depends on Steve's plans. if he wants a Desert Storm 2 thru the Syrian Desert, then it shall be just that. i just don't find such scenario realistic.

    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Nidan1:

    This was in 1991, what is the improvement curve between the U.S. Army and the Syrian Army in the last 15 years?

    US Army has gotten smaller, battle worn and is tied down in Iraq, while Syria has been training & studying & equipping herself for a semi-asymmetrical light force doctrine?

    IMO unless the Syrians race all of their tanks across the border into Jordan and hide them there, they will wind up as so much scrap as did the Iraqi armored force.

    unless Syrians send their tanks to the Syrian Desert, or just walk away, i have hard time seeing what Iraqi failures have to do with Syrians.

    Where could they possibly hide groups of tanks and other vehicles, from the prying eyes of infra-red, TV and Laser designation from on the ground assets?? They would have to bury them IMO and operate them by remote control.
    why did Iraqis manage to hide their tanks in plain desert, if Syrians can't do the same in urban or mixed terrain?
    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by dan/california:

    Attacking against even slightly dug in infantry with javelin quality atgms is simply impossible at any time of day or night unless you have overwhelming artillery support available.

    you just need to locate & suppress the defenders before you bring in the tanks, and there's plenty of good & cheap equipment for accomplishing just that.

    Otherwise those missiles take out at least one tank for every two shots.
    or one BRDM peppering them with fire from 1000 meters?

    The Syrians have at most 3000 tanks that would move under their own power before the air force drops pgm #1. How many Syrian tanks would even manage to move to contact?

    why weren't Iraqi tanks destroyed from air in the Gulf Wars? aren't Syrians expected to do better than Iraqis?

    Their would be lots of complications to taking out Syria. Its armored divisions are not very high on the list.
    very true & i guess that's why Syria haven't been paying attention to it's tank fleet, investing instead on light forces.

    I REALLY think the designers should have gone with the Taiwan scenario. There I can believe a standup fight. Syria is Iraq 2, easy to take but miserable to hold without either a lot more troops than we have committed to Iraq so far or the willingness to use Saddam's methods. Of the you won't do that again because your all dead variety.
    i agree that Syria would be more or less just Iraq 2. but luckily, at the level of CMSF battles, it would be most of all because US military is so much more skilled at all levels, and in CMSF it's the players' skills that make the difference.
    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by dan/california:

    Simpler question. Do the Syrian T72s have thermal imaging systems that are maintained and working? The javelin I am morally certain has a very good one. If the Syrians don't have good night vision equipment the Americans just rest during the day and have somewhat dangerouse target practice at night. T72s would be brewing up all over the map with no idea what killed them.

    i believe only the few modernized T-72s have proper thermals, the rest have the original night vision equipment that's really poor quality. modern Syrian ATGMs have thermals though, so nocturnal T-72 hunting won't be painless.
    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by flamingknives:

    Combined arms is obviously the way to go, with dismounted infantry ferreting out the AT teams.

    you need proper overwatch, indirect fire at likely ATGM placements and some cover for the leaping vehicles. none of these are a problem for the Syrian side, as Syrians have tons of good & cheap anti-infantry overwatch equipment and indirect fire assets. setting up a good overwatch is harder for the American player, as he will risk loosing expensive equipment right away.

    Nonetheless, it seems likely that Syrian armour will still be safer closer in to US forces than further away.
    intially yes, but you need to consider that US side needs to deal with lighter Syrian vehicles & infantry that advance ahead of the tanks. T-series tanks way back in good keyhole positions are perfect for supporting those forces. let ATGMs and close range infantry deal with those imperialist tanks if they show up. when your mechanized infantry is within the defender's positions those T-series tanks with sweet HE power will come real handy in mopping up defender's (somewhat suppressed but determined) strongpoints.
    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by flamingknives:

    The difference, in my mind, is the prevalence of extremely deadly ATGMs in the US arsenal. To compare it to a WWII battlefield, the Javelin is at least as common as the bazooka, but it is ten times longer ranged and orders of magnitude more deadly and accurate.

    Added to which, they are manueverable, present anywhere one finds infantry, and cannot be surpressed like Command-to-line-of-sight weapons.

    i don't know what kind of TOE & scenario BFC has created for Syrians and Americans, but i can't see any meaningful difference between the two sides what comes to ATGMs. i dare to say that this is the field where the Syrians and Americans are most balanced, as ATGMs is what Syria has invested in. Kornet-Es and Metis-Ms will KO tanks just like Javelins. the only difference is that Javelin is fire-and-forget, but i don't think it makes any real difference with likely CMSF ranges.

    i think it all boils down to good tactics. equipment is more or less equal.

    0

    On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    just use standard combined arms tactics. if you suspect ATGM defence, do recon, have overwatch ready and move the tanks in quick leaps.

    both sides have modern ATGMs able to KO all tanks in the game. it doesn't matter if it's T-55s advancing against infantry armed with Javalins or Abrams advancing against infantry armed with Kornets or Metis-Ms. it's more a question of how to deal with ATGMs in general.

    the weakness of real-world Syrian forces is the bad commanders, but in CMSF you are the commander and thus the greatest Syrian weakness is neutralized.

    0

    Question for the Battle of Budge experts

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bigduke6:

    Which puts into question the German strategy of attacking big in the Ardennes in the first place. The battle took place for two reasons: (1) The German leadership, i.e. old Adolf, was searching for a war-winning target, a sort of magic wand to reverse the course of the war.

    German strategy was sound. they acknowledged that it contained great risks, but it was practically the only thing they could do in that situtation.

    All of which was pretty much in la-la land.
    :rolleyes:

    The other factor driving the German decision to attack in the Bulge was, of course, their main tool for warfare was a tactically efficient army, by which I mean ground force.
    the lack of resources was the other driving factor, the key one being 100% certainty of coming succesful enemy offensives at all fronts.

    Oh sure, there was plenty of hoping and wishing, but the bottom line at the time was Germany's leaders had only one usable card left to play: The ability to defeat Allied forces of roughly even numbers on the tactical level, due to German small unit skill and equipment advantges.
    the card they had left, which they played, was to stablize the fronts one after another to prevent enemy offensives, gain initiative and buy time to man divisions and thus live to fight another day (and, less importantly, to get rid of the unconditional part of the peace terms, if you are after such things).

    This German advantage was the direct result of around two centuries of military tradition, and also recent wartime experience.
    the German advantage was that Allied commanders, decision-makers and soldiers were incompetent for most of the war. no need to credit Germans for the senility of the Allies, unless Allies were so demented just because Germans put something in their drinking water.

    Throughout the war, the Germans achieved their major successes by assembling forces sufficient to win on the tactical level, and then rolling the dice in hopes of an operationally decisive result.
    that's true, they never had operational, not to say strategical, targets. all they planned were isolated battalion-regimental-divisional sized battles. right?

    There were more rational strategies out there, but the Germans intellectually were unable even to consider them.
    that's true, they never managed to come to think about, not to mention *gasp* actually doing in reality, the kind of strategies you are suggesting, like trying to kill Hitler or fight a defensive war :rolleyes:

    A pure defensive strategy forcing the Allies to pay the maximum price for space gained made more sense for Germany, than late-war offensives like the Bulge or Balaton.
    not one step back, that makes such a great strategy. isn't it puzzling how Germans never came to think about that? or what's even worse, if we for a short la-la-land moment imagine they did, they thought it would not be sufficient in itself. makes one really wonder what they were thinking. or rather, why did they not think at all!?!111

    A German army coup killing Adolf and suing for immediate peace in the West
    yes, how strange that those German generals never came to think about that! :rolleyes:

    also would have saved millions more German lives, than the strategy (fight to the bitter end) elected by the German leadership.
    huh, for a while i thought you were just suggesting a defensive fight, but i guess it would have rocked for some other reason than saving "millions more German lives". it's always better to farm cows in deindustrialized Germany, cut trees in Siberia, die of famine or just get nuked in the cities (you find misuse of hindsight cool, so i thought i'd use it a bit as well).

    Heck, if the interests of Germany were really predominant, and rationally considered, in the minds of the German decision-makers in December 1944, the logical move was at minimum, surrender unconditionally and immediately.
    gee, what an interesting "at-minimum" strategy. what was this la-la-land you were talking about earlier, and could i hear some of the non-minimum strategies? is there a book about the subject? "The Art of Surrender-Monkeys"?

    None of that washed with the German decision-makers, in part because a certifiable nut case was in charge, but also - and this is the bit that the revisionist panzer-lovers have trouble accepting sometimes - because the German military staked the war on tactical superiority automatically, and always, trumping attrition strategy.
    i am more a fan of Soviet tanks, and i am a bit annoyed about any kind of revisionism, but i must agree i have trouble accepting what you are suggesting above, not least because Germans so clearly thought that they couldn't win a classical attrition war aginst the Allies.

    Which was wrong. That was an (just) effective approach during the days of Frederich the Great, but the German General Staff carried on with that hope - German quality will allow us to fight and to win two front wars - to achieve disastrous results in two World Wars. (Which kinda calls the supposed brilliance of the German General Staff into question, but that's another thread.)
    the above doesn't deserve the rolleyes graemlin. you get F- for this "WW2 101" class.

    The Bulge is a classic example of what was wrong with German military strategy. It was (yet another) knee-jerk attempt at winning the war by obtaining an operational victory due to advantages on the tactical level. The bottom line about the Bulge offensive was that it was a stupid idea put into effect by a military incapable of considering strategies besides "winning battles = winning the war".

    The lesson of the Bulge is that, if you let your army limit the strategies available to a nation in wartime, the nation can lose the war, often disastrously.

    oh yes, it would be an error to try to evaluate the actual military reasons that lead to the failure. let's just say it failed because of the general German military STRATEGY and continue enjoying our pleasant aristocratic cup of tea or ponder the merits of Socialistic Realism.
    0

    Weird picture from Kursk battle

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    treating his wounds? are you insane?!? they are trying to strangle him! can't you see he is already blindfolded?

    here's another SS picture that is misleading at first. you need to realize that what is being poured into the victim's mouth is in reality poison! or perhaps acid?

    edit: damn you axishistory. copy & paste: http://forum.axishistory.com/files/ss_mans.jpg

    [ April 21, 2006, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

    0

    "Nazi Fan Boy" Scenarios

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Billy Prior:

    This was raised in the 'Wittmann in the East' discussions and, I think, is a wider issue that I'd appreciate people's views on.

    I share other correspondents' views that there are scenarios out there that, for want of a better phrase, are neo nazi in sympathy in that they are set up to allow the Axis player to win easily regardless of the Allied player's response. I fully accept that there are historical scenarios where this will occur but the example being discussed (Wittmann in the East) is ahistorical.

    Personally, I'm uncomfortable about ever playing as the Axis (and this is not to say that I shouldn't feel uncomfortable about playing as the Soviets given the character of Stalin's regime), and haven't modified my edition of CMBB (or CMAK) to display swastikas for this very reason.

    I'd very much like guidance on 'scenarios to avoid' that are ahistorical vehicles for neo nazism.

    Billy Prior

    i can hear you! i myself am most deeply offended by scenarios which depict Soviet attacks against Finnish forces. i can't fanthom what kind of morbid human beings can make such scenarios! why would anyone want to play as a Totalitarian Communist Stalinist who tries to destroy some tiny nation and deport the population to camps in Siberia!??!111 and what's with the undermodelling of Finnish weapons?! i have read that Finns were able to penetrate KV front turret with 37mm AT guns by aiming at the MG port, but my AT guns won't destroy KV platoons even when i give clear target orders!11 why do Finnish tanks suck?! i think Combat Mission is made by Communists! and what about those freaks who like to play as Brits or Americans? aren't they aware that they are fighting to help Stalin kill, burn & rape all the Finns? we must stop these Satanists & Sodomites before all is lost! how can i mod CM so that Soviet side doesn't have that horrible red flag? it makes me cry every time i see it. when people use words like "Comrade" in their AARs i can't take their inhuman totalitarian filth anymore and must shut down my computer immediately! please help!
    0

    Big Cat vulnerability + ISs vs. Tigers

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Dook:

    Having said of of this, one must still also wonder about just how accurate the German victory claims in the east really were.

    And it is also hard not to assume that the same pattern of overclaiming seen in virtually every other phase of air combat in World War II would not be operative here as well. After all, the Luftwaffe pilots flew the same numbers of missions-- and had plenty of targets--in the west as well, and don't seem to have done nearly as well. That brings us back, full-circle, to the theory that not only the numbers of targets, but the quality of the opposition (in terms of tactics and training,especially, as by 1944 the Soviets had some very good fighter planes in operation with the La-7, Yak-3, and even the La-5FN, the latter introduced mid-43) was central to the paradigm of why Luftwaffe pilots ran up such high scores in the east."
    regarding overclaiming, you can always compare German numbers to how other nations did against Soviets. for example Finns managed to score 16:1 kill ratios against Soviets with such aircraft like Fokker D XXI (with better planes like Brewsters the kill ratios were twice higher). this when Soviets had enormous numerical superiority.
    0

    Nashorn and Marder- endangered species?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by John Kettler:

    Am working from memory here, but I believe the control method in Cobra at least was to simply draw a box on the map covering the designated target zone, mark it visually on the ground in some manner (seem to recall landmarks were involved; couldn't be seen because of smoke and dust once the bombs started hitting) and make sure the troops were X hundreds of yards back from the target area with recognition panels out. If you were in the impact box, you were screwed. Ditto if you weren't and the bombers dropped short--as happened. Twice.

    it's been years since i read about Cobra, but in Totalize they used artillery and recon planes (?) to mark targets with signalling shells (coloured smoke).

    bombing missions were quite inaccurate, some bombed Allied troops even as far away as Caen. sometimes a leading bomber of squadron would get hit before the target area, forcing it to empty its load which caused the rest of the squadron to empty their loads as well - sometimes right on Allied forces concentrated for attack.

    the rigidity of Allied practices allowed German forces to evade some of the bombings by attacking the Allied forces concentrated at launch areas. i believe Wittmann got wasted in one such attack.

    0

    Nashorn and Marder- endangered species?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    it's hard to spot anything unless you have time to look for it. you don't spot a Tiger firing from 500 meters if you don't expect it to be there. it's just the same still today with all the fancy equipment.

    i don't think allied bombers in Totalize targetted the 89th infantry division as such. didn't those ~1000 bombers at least initially target just those villages on path of Allied units? much could be written about how various units performed in Totalize, but it would certainly make me a Nazi fanboy par excellence. better just drink some vodka, it's Sunday after all.

    [ March 12, 2006, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

    0

    MLRS

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Peter, a blunt but honest question: have you ever seen a Maverick or RPG hit mark? smile.gif

    EDIT: ok, here is another, 100% confirmed, Maverick hit for you to compare. notice the typical "splash" marks.

    209.jpg

    [ February 27, 2006, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

    0

    MLRS

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Maverick hit the turret straight on from the front, just below the rangefinder (if i recall correctly) - it did not hit stowage bins, era or anything. the hole looked like a very typical Maverick hit - a huge hole with those "splashes" radiating mostly to a specific direction.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...