Alek
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alek
-
-
[i
...
With regards to US experience levels, we ARE talking about a conventional war and therefore I see no reason to set US forces at anything LESS than Veteran, except to play a game, as they really are much better trained than the Syrians. And besides, your government isn't going to stick untrained US units into a shooting war in the Middle East just yet.
My opinion
division at US Army - are very well trained and coordinatedunits
"Big Red One" or "Irone Horse" - it is very good trained, it is important - they have good fighting traditions which can help take training highly
But for example NG?
National Guards Division have the big role on CONUS - order protection, the help of police, the help when natural catstroha will be, other important and dangerous tasks
They have only few training.
But I do not think that name "weekend warriors" - has been received for NG for good training as result
No more than 100 days in a year on all milytary service per 1 NG-man.
I think Green - usual level for US NG.
But I as know - that nobody go to the battlefield - only simply goes
It will be necessary to prepare - especially for unexercised soldiers.
However divisions NG were in GW1 and right after Saddam take out.
It is a lot of guys from NG in Kosovo now .
I know, for an example, 28th Infantry Division NG "Keystone-Bloody Bucket", had a few months of training and have gone to Iraq.
(For an example, about 3-4 months on aktiveted, formation and training - was in whol enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Infantry_Division _ (United_States) #2nd_Battalion.2C_103rd_Armor
"In January, 2004, B and C Companies of the 2nd Battalion, 103rd Armor were activated and, with attachments from several other PAARNG units, reconfigured as military police companies and trained at Ft. Dix for deployment to Iraq. They were designated as companies of the 89th MP Brigade and left for Iraq in March 2004 with days of each other."
"In June 2004, the 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor was activated at Fort Bliss, Texas and deployed to Iraq in November in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom")
it is final a few months they had good training, but it was a little for to compare with 1st Cavalry Div.
Nevertheless - I cannot say that guys from "Keystone" as are good as well as "The First Team".
That Syria has training time (a legend for SMSF) the unexercised Syrian divisions will quickly try to prepare for war. As the National guards a unit now try to prepare to a trip to Iraq
PS
It is necessary to understand - that 4 years trainings - the unit in 4 times better than 1 year of training does not mean.
As in sports it is possible to look
At first the newcomer does exercises and trainings - and each employment is better and better.
But after a necessary line quickly to reach - then the basic skills are received.
Each step for a highest level becomes shorter and to take each step more hard.
To make good state of itself health - some weeks are enough to run. To win the city on employment on run - it is necessary to train some years. To become the champion - it is necessary to do sports all life.
As and in military employment
Beginner learns every day a lot of new and to study very quickly
Veteran does training not to forget that it is able already. And a little slightly does new skill.
-
I found this tidbit of info about ATGMs in “Lessons of Modern War Vol 2” by Anthony Cordsman
....
Anyway, just a few tidbits that I found that seemed relevant to this thread.
Well
I had see that book to
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap12.pdf
For Example
12.1 Combined Arms
Neither Iran nor Iraq began the conflict with any real mastery of the operational
art of war, and neither side developed a consistent capability to carry out combined arms
operations effectively, although Iraq made major imporvements in 1987 and 1988. Both
sides also learned that sheer mass is not substitute for combinaed operations.
....
Both sides lost large numbers of tanks and armored vehicles during the first years
of the war because they forced their armor to fight without proper support from artillery
and infantry, or because they used them inflexibly in static defensive roles and as direct
fire artillery
....
Like Iran, Iraq never claimed high kill probabilities from any type of ATGM. Iraq fired 6 to 8 Milan and HOT missiles per vehicle hit, and Iraq only scored about one hit per 20 to 30 Sagger or SS-11 missiles fired, although this may be more a function of tactics and training than technology.
....
Weapons with simple sighting, tracking, and fire control are essential. The complex method of tracking both the missile and the target used in most Soviet missiles greatly reduces effectiveness.
and than
approximately 8 reasons of no-shooting ATGM at vehicle - except this one reason "SCRAP Soviet ATGM" are still specified that you quoted here
Further, the Iraqis would like ATGMs with more
capability against infantry targets and bunkers, and note that they would like advanced
manportable mortars and grenade launchers. The need to provide forward infantry troops
with heavier and longer range firepower is a major lesson of the war.
Some additional insights regarding ATGMS which emerge from the Iraqi side,
are:
• Far more weapons are fired for effect than with a real hope of hit or kill. About three
to four times as many ATGMs and rocket launchers are fired for "harassment" as are
fired with a good hope of a kill.
• Many weapons must be fired from within buildings or relatively closed defensive
positions.
• AFVs are too vulnerable for use in firing ATGMs. Dismounted and concealed
infantry weapons are far more desirable.
• ATGMs must be usable at ranges as short as 100 meters in the open and at very short
ranges in cities and urban areas.
• As many ATGMs and rocket launchers have been fired at static defensive, mountain
and urban positions as at armor. These are the primary hard target kill weapon of land
forces.
• Effective night vision has generally been lacking in the ATGMs available to Iraq, but
would be highly desirable, particularly if an area warhead, as well as anti-armor, were
available.
• Weapons with simple sighting, tracking and fire control are essential. The complex
method of tracking both the missile and target used in most Soviet missiles greatly
reduces effectiveness.
• Both launcher and missile numbers are critical. ATGMs and rocket launchers must be
provided throughout the force and to rear area and support forces.
• Rocket launchers remain a critical weapon in spite of ATGMs. It would be highly
desirable to have an area of anti-infantry rounds available for such systems to
supplement light mortars and machine guns.
There is no operative level in general and very bad tactical level to shoot (using ATGM-for an example here) - as I speak at this topic to
-
Yes. I'm just hoping we could dive bit deeper than that, sure it's probably pointless as well... What is average training and what is higher quality training than regular, who gets it, what are requirements etc. For a starter.
In my opinion in fact
Not war (as a whole a skvad-company):
1) Conscript: has about 2 months of diligent training (not simply military service!!!). Approximately 1-3 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)
2) Green: has 2-5 months of diligent training approximately and 6-8 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)
3) Regular: 6-10 months of diligent training approximately and 18-25 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)
4) Veteran: 10 + months of diligent training approximately and 30 + days of high participation of the doctrine (maneuvers, tactics, it it is a lot of shooting, a field the doctrine) the Veteran is necessary to study constantly - without training - again Regular
5) Crack and 6) Elite - it is impossible to make without war. There can be a diligent minority (no more than 5 %) can become Crack in the middle Veteran
It is the ready scheme - ONLY for such army - where there is already ready teacher (officers and / or NCOs) for training (Regular army, the Recruit Camp, the combat training Center)
In that case it is possible to do competent trainings.
But, for example the full recruit and the reservist of a part - equivalent Syria reserve BDE (or Soviet Division category D) , will spend three and more times for equivalent learning
As a whole typical consript army (service 2 years) average has REGULAR experience (to mix - 20 % the coscript , 30 % of green, 40 % regularand and a bit veteran - before dismissal home)
When the reservist is not trained every year (Israel MILUOM , for an example) - And past year or two it same as no-well as Conscript
But usual Conscript Army division will have an additional appeal in a wartime (Number of people - TOE for the peacetime and TOE for wartime a miscellaneous)
Number of people for typical Syria Armored Division - approximately 6-8 thousand - the peacetime, approximately 11-12 thousand for wartime
It is necessary to think - that there where few people in TOE for the world (Soviet TOE for division category C, for an example) regular soldiers сьанет sergeants for became reservists. It as will lower level - the man there was a good soldier - there was becam an average sergeant
But to consider if there is a war cloud - the consript army begins mobilisation and quickly to train at all level,- if there is time, ofcourse
In my opinion
Syria
SF - 80 % Veteran of 20 % Regular, a bit of Crack
RG 10 % Veteran, 70 % Regular, 20 % Creen
Army-20 % Regular, 60 % Green, 20 % Coscript
Reserv Divisions (best of Reserv Units)-20 % Green, 80 % Coscript
Reserv and Militia - 100 % Conscript, a bit Green and Regular
USA
Army-70 % Veteran, 30 % Regular, a bit of Crack
USMSC - 90 % Veteran, 10 % Regular, a bit of Crack
National Guard Reserv (after additional preparations at CONUS)-20 % Veteran, 40 % Regular, 40 % Green
My opinion - only for Land Forces
I do not know - as will be for aircraft
When unites at battle:
Transition from Level to level
Coscript-Green - 3 days for fight
Green-Reg-7 days for fights
Reg-Vet-30 days for fight
Vet-Crack-4 month for fight
Elite - very rare for talent men
When the person is wounded and there is back after long treatment-
Person there is back at unit - it has a minus one level - there was a Veteran became Regular, for example
When the unit goes to front-back - to have anew formation - a proportion for levels an skill same as well as above for training
Veterans mix up with recruits, green and further
Excuse me
It only my opinion
-
Alek, dude, you wrote this great essay but you still did not answer my question. What makes you think Syria will fight any better then Georgia did after Russian troops went across the border and went all the way to Poti? Or do you think Georgian tankers were really eager to fight but their high command ordered - "exit your tanks, leave them intact for the enemy to steal and run for your life!"
Well
i will answer
Im my opinion
There are three reasons
1) the organisation
2) tactics
3) emotion
first of all -this link at our russian-lang forum
http://cmbb.borda.ru/?1-0-0-00000219-000-10001-0#093
(Russian)
Here I has written the organisation component
Georgians fight quite well ,often - very well
But the problem was initially
If want I will write emotion a component ? and tactic component for small epizode?
But here my English bad
With what we will begin?
-
Alek, what makes you think Syrians will fight better than Georgians did in August of 2008? After all, Georgians were also protecting their land! And they were trained by US consultants for the last couple of years. And (wait for it!) georgian T-72 SIM-1 is actually a better equipped tank than any russian tank that went into Georgia. But as soon as russians crossed the border - georgian tankers simply climbed out of their tanks and fled. They Didn't even destroy their tanks, I am sure you are aware of all those trophies russians got.
What makes you think syrians, when facing US Army (and let's be honest, I'd worry even more about facing US Army than Russians) would not do the same?
Georgia did not protect the own land - has attacked Ossetia
The fact Ossetins lived separately from 1991 - operates the Political and demographic parties we will not discuss, I think
1) Georgians were proffesional army! To me have told here - that it very well, much better the consript army
However I wrote - not very well - professional army or conscript. The important thing a field level and a command level .
2) Georgians had:
- very good small arms - the western part (include M-4 Rifle, NEGEV MG, BArret sniper rifle)
- very good modernisation T-72-SIM-1 - by western science and indastrial
- very good signal systems - the western part
- very good system support artillery, and AD system (s modern warfare - BUK AD System and Spider AD System it was not used at war earlier)
Come on any Georgian military site - you will see gallant army, it looks not worse the American. Courageous faces, the good uniform, beautiful equipment.
Russian army had old Ak-74, old D-30 2S3, old system support artillery and old signal systems, old T-72 and T-62, the aircraft was very weak
there was no total superiority anywhere - there is equality a maximum
Tthe Result?
Really much defeats at the Georgian - instead of at Russian.
I have told here - important not the technical weapon. Command and a field skill is important. Really Ossetia war has not shown right part of this?
Ok,r eally Syria is bad - operative level bad.
But level SMSF will not be here operative.
Syria tactical level bad - but the player can do tactics here itself.
SMSF is a tactical range, for example Hearts of Iron-2 - an operative range.
What I offer?
will speak about tactical and command details of a small range basically here, and at forum HOI2 - to discuss operative level and disscuss at history of the Arabs wars.
-
Very good result for the review of distinctions
1) 3) 4) - strategic and operative level, this not modeleted in SMSF
2) - operative level or business for the player on fight
5) - distinction Vietnam and the USA in 60yy - only the infantry weapon and is a little technics against technics and aircraft (+ the ships)
Distinction Syria and the USA today - the old technics against modern warfare and the exact weapon
The proportion of huge distinctions is equivalent to
Really - SMSF it is tactical game for small-level fight, instead of a bomber aircraft simulator In SMSF I did not meet a card even a distance of 2000 metres (or may be 1 or 2 - whith some this distance), not doubt about 5000.
6) Level of all army - not modeleted in SMSF. Level soldiers of each scenario - set up by the designer can be put the veteran Syria and green USA - prevents to do nothing
Really we did not do a question here - "why the conscript Syria is not equal the veteran of marines"
It is not necessary to think about му the ardent apologist of old tanks
I DONT think that Syria army is better than Israel or old T-62 it is better than modern
For example - I read another topik "spotting changes in 1.11 " to
Veteran Abrams and sodiers do not see some rebels for 50 metres on rooftop. And I too consider it not so realistic.
Simply I represent a little on another - work pluses and work minuses - at operative level, in the field level, on the weapon level, on different distance, at the day or at night
As write about the weapon and tanks in CMBB - "overmodeled" and "undermodeled"??
And all have in view of technical model of parametres.
But write nothing about green or veterans?
For example:
Who speaks in CMBB - that the Soviet infantry cannot be a crack in single battle?
All understand that game is a game
For example:
In CMBB Germany very hard in 1941 - against КВ-1 and Т-34. But it is real 1941 is a big defeat of Red Army. Really good tank KV-1 couldnt make victory when strategic and operative miss is made more. However, CMBB tank KV-1 in 1941 - it the good tank, not cardboard.
But when it is told here, about Abmras or USMC, - the "western" guis give me the good book - to read about all Arabian wars. Thus to me explain - why Syria cannot be the good soldier, Dont because in the scenario Syria has good level.
PS About wings of a fly in the dark 5 km - can be strongly exaggerated, the fly not as the Dragon can? Why all flies are not killed in Iraq for 5 years?
-
Alek,
….
As others have stated, almost everything you asked about can already be done in CM:SF right now.
…
I will look so quickly - as there is an accessible patch 1.11 standard the version
))…
And most of the stuff written in Russian is written by the "losers", which is of course going to try and minimize damage to its reputation.
…
Yes, I know that much Soviet instructors their memoirs were silly also be filled by bragging
Can means - that it is not necessary to read them?
All memoirs Germany are filled by the same. For example, I read Manshtein and could not understand - why he has lost war - after wons at each battle.
….
What must be remembered is that there are a number of wars with this equipment to use for comparison. The forces equipped with Soviet/Russian equipment lost HORRIBLY against all forces using Western equipment. Heck, the IDF even used slightly upgraded WW2 US tanks better than the Egyptians used nearly brand new Soviet stuff.
….
[
Yes, I can compare
For example Vietnam –
When peasants used AK-47, Soviet communication systems and supports, a bit Soviet SA-2 and aircraft. They could battle so long - that could win. Vietnam had much less technics than comparison Egypt. The enemy for Vietnam – France Army (include Ligoniers), USArmy, US Marins and USAF - was much stronger than IDF.
My opinion it once again can show - that the main thing is tactical and command skill, instead of only a technological level.
So it is not all theory, it is not just listening to what Westerns think would happen. There is actual empirical evidence to use. For example, how many tanks did Saddam lose compared to the Allies/Coalition in both wars? We should be discussing why so many Iraqi tanks were killed without doing anything useful rather than trying to explain how this never could have happened. Because it did
Yes, it is necessary to look still
1) Quantity of the total superiority of NATO in GW1 (Where was 3 to 1 aircraft, 2 to 1 armors, aircraft carriers, rockets, money and resources do not give in to recalculation),
2) Quantity of the air and technical superiority of NATO in GW2 (When Iraq has been exhausted 12 years by economic blockade)
And fairly think for itself
That could to make for example Israel as well?
If before war 1973 - had 12 years of blockade and hunger which have brought down the technical equipment and have exhausted hunger of people (and soldiers including to).
Of course IDF better than Iraq army in usual comparisons - I do not doubt else.
….
The Eastern Front is my primary area of study. The books I have read that I prize the most are the ones written with help from Russian historians and veterans. The overall picture does not change (the Red Army lost millions of soldiers to doctrine that did not care about individual life), however at the tactical level the story becomes a lot more interesting. Yes, it is fact that the Red Army often used "human wave" tactics, but later in the war there was much less of it and far more coordination of arms. Even during very costly offensives (like the inexcusably bloody taking of Berlin) small unit capabilities were often as good, if not better, than the Germans they faced.
….
Absolutely not correctly to do Red army incapable of adequate struggle and acceptance of good doctrines and tactical receptions only because it lost millions soldiers.
1)
Say « care about individual life» can made in America - to sit at ocean in 1941, but not in Soviet Union.
In 1941 Vermaht was the strongest army in the world.
Germany knocked out in defeat on continent - Poland, France, England.
Objectively - anybody before Red Army could not beat off an attack of Vermaht on own country. Probably you do not imagine to youself - what there was a severe Nazi occupation was here!
For example every THIRD person was lost and has died in occupation for three years in my Belarus. Every minute from nazists dies thousand peace citizens - in concentration camps, from murders and hunger. The Soviet infantry either went to attack or clung to houses in Stalingrad – and rescuing millions people in the own back.
When USA has prepared the strong power, trained divisions and massive aircraft, our Red Army battled to the strongest opponent in heart of the country. Some divisions of Rommel were in Africa. About 50-60 Vermaht divisions was in France, and more than 200-220 Vermaht (and also Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish) divisions were in Russia.
2)
Leave emotions….
I can say - that the Red Army was very young army. The country was recently country - still in 1928. It is not enough developments at science and the industries (it means armies) was before 1930yy.
It is a lot of in the industry, development and a science it has been made in 1930-1941.
But there were only 12 years after destruction from Civil war.
The weapon which was in WW-2 was numerous, but is frequent very simple - the Weapon was done by engineers whom back 5-10 years were peasants, soldiers used - which there were peasants yesterday.
Armies of Europe (as well America and Japan) could think about development of the doctrine and tactics on the basis of experience WW-1, but the Red army took children's steps after Civil war at this time.
When Vermaht has shatteringly struck - there was no experience of technical war.
Hundreds new divisions have been made for completion of losses. Rifl divisions have been made in many numeric - because physical readiness to make a firle (a machine gun, a mortar) and go on a infantryman to fight faster than physical readiness to make the tank or the plane and to learn tank-crew (or a pilot).
But there was no hundred competent commanders of divisions and thousand commanders of regiments for them and there was no time to learn divisions and brigades many months and years.
I read Hastings M. «Overlord. D-Day and the Battle for Normandy» - and read there many ugly moments in USA 79th, 83rd, and 90th divisions. I read as the American infantry could not pass bocage, there were hard battles for 100-300 meters per day.
Present now:
There is could train 79th, 83rd, and 90th divisions at 2 years (Jun-Aug1942-Jule 1944)- only 2-4 months (as typical soviet rifle division at 1941-42).
There was no ship-artillery as in Normandy
There was no thousand planes in the sky (thousand Germany planes were more true).
The 79th division could make fight better?
And on how many days remained fighting capable elite "Big Red One" in such situation?
Im leave off topic:
But I do not consider mush bloody a siege of Berlin in 1945
I can find contemporary records of the general losses on many battles in 1941-1945. Also there is a good book (Russian) A.Isaev. «Battle for Berlin-1945» (2006) with the indication of number is a lot of a division and a brigade, losses of people and tanks every day. The siege of Berlin will be bloody for comparison with US forces had few enemies before itself. The siege of Berlin does not look bloody for comparison any fights on East Front.
-
The M1 uberspotting is not a factor any longer. My tanks generally take three or four RPGs before they spot the firing team. ATGMs are a bit easier, being insanely huge in a majority of cases.
And Syrians suck at using the AT-3C because the AT-3C itself sucks.
Very well I will wait Paradox patch 1-11
You can have some errors?
AT-3B (Russian - 9M14M Malutka-M, 1st generation MCLOS Guidance system) AT-3B really ancient system and difficult in training
and
AT-3C (Russian - 9M14P Malutka-P, 2nd generation SACLOS Guidance system) is a system 2nd generation and is more easy in training
Also it is not Javelin or not AT-14 Kornet-E, but its accuracy of shooting is expected above (on level of a step forward from 1st to 2nd generation)
I had in view of AT-3C
-
Now, you can go on gut feeling, or you can go with Noted Middle East military expert Anthony H. Cordesman, and the author of Arabs at War.
Rune
I thank it really very interestingly The matter is that «reaction time slowly»
slowly-5 minutes?
slowly-10 minutes?
slowly - 1 hour ?
is not told anything?
We never consider - that Syria the best card in a card-pack
In my opinion is lacks Syria Land Force is
1)
Bad operative management (Bde and above) even to the Soviet standards.
Became worse - when the Soviet instructors left Syria in 1990yy.
In real war it was a consequence when highly operated American BCT went in territory and step by step broke badly operated Syrian regiments and brigades. In each allocated battle BCT was stronger then each separate Syrian brigade.
But level SMSF – «battalion-level» max!
The designer of the scenario does features of battle. There is no possibility to affect on global battle (as CM: campaign for example). SMSF-level does not consider Bde, Div and above. Battalions management -level which Syrian can be incompetent, but player should present it and PLAYER is a commander of a battalion
2)
Very bad technical condition. Not to have it is more than deliveries of spare parts - Syria loses every year fighting means because of breakages. Syria assorts a part of fighting means to repair other fighting means ( «technical cannibals»).
How it is realized in SMSF?
If the portable radio set is broken it does not mean that the signal bad - a signal is not present.
If a gun it is broken does not mean that shooting bad - a gun in the battlefield is not present.
If the tank is broken - does not mean that it will be bad to battle, the tank remains in barracks or on road.
But for example old portable radio set R-159 SERVICEABLE it as can do a signal as well as modern «Motorola» or «Kenwood»
3)
The organization and condition Air Defense and Aviations very bad. Syria has no planes in game, modeling they are destroyed by excellent strongest USAF. This is correctly and logically. In real life probably major work would be done by aircraft and cruise missiles, instead of Abrams.
Is the SMSF as a bomber simulator, instead of tactical game?
4)
USA the army has many bonuses in recon and investigation - system of space satellites, pilot less flying machines. There is no such devices in Syrian army. USA Army has excellent systems radio-recon, electronic warfare. They can break operational system managements. Syrians operational managements bad - see my p.1
As in SMSF modulated the space satellites, investigation system - tactical and operated simulated work?
How in SMSF the blue commander can do EW operations?
5)
To be the most bad place is the bad field training.
It is aggravated with conscript military system
Half from an active division should be filled up by the reservist before war. Reservists have forgotten training and they underestimate level active divisions. Even if reservists will have time to learn - that they make only in active divisions, are not present in full-reservist brigades.
The Green - really indicator for army.
The conscript - it is real indicator for a reserve forces.
Regular - for Guards, who has only few reservists
SF have trainings, good newest arms and have the veteran.
However it is possible quickly to learn monkey to shoot - there is a desire to make it.
The field training of a platoon, a company even a battalion - is quite simple. If you really whant to do this.
Certainly anybody told a result "Why Syria Green Conscript not such good soldier as the American veteran?"
Experience of Syrian units is set by the designer of the scenario. When ATGM AT-3C have veteran-level in the scenario - it is impossible to explain badly shooting as bad training Syria crew. Veteran Level - it is good training and good skill
6)
Very bad - that Syria has bad command level (a brigade and above) and high-tech warfare.
Military skill is clearly visible at this level. Preparation of good school of pilots is very long time. Preparation EW forces is too long.
Many years of staff employment are necessary for readiness of the good commander of a brigade.
There is no artillery and infantry joining, only a template artillery prep-fire, bad maneuver, bad action together different kinds of force is depends from a bad operational management too much, but it is not a lot of tactical training.
All operative lacks have much worse a consequence (War 1973, War 1982) than tactical misses. For example
"Long reaction arty time"
The fact does not follow that FO cannot cause fire of the battery
In fact - the staff a brigade (division) follows the decision cannot quickly make apply artillery Is artillery a staff cannot to make quickly the organization massive arty barrage or to send FO to a proper place.
In concept SMSF (30-60 min for one battle) more times take request of reinforcements behind a card - artillery, tanks, and aircraft.
I say about reinforcements - which was not present on a card initially. The call command FO of already available batteries - designates that batteries are already directed to a place of a card and does not take a lot of time, as in SMSF
Excuse me!
But it seems to me that much the higher lacks is are lowered on the bottom tactical level.
You have good sources US Army- the open and inside data.
Blue are made very well in all details. On red you has no Syrian commander at itself in sources.
You use analysis USA and Israel in own work basically. It is good stuff, but it is actually written by the enemy or from an opposite side.
Equally things to think about the Soviet army only under messages of German generals at once and after WW2. You had then almost always "the Mongolian hordes" and "human waves".
We have at ower forum - some officers of the Russian army, much of us was in the Soviet (Russian) army . We have a lot of the Russian information - opened and semi-confidential. The Russian army is more close to Syria than IDF. It is a lot of doctrine and receptions used equally. The greatest part of secrets of the Soviet army did not give Syria (aircraft, AD-system, EW) - it not used in that place where works SMSF.
Comparison
Field-glass gives good representation on a long distance than simple eyes. There is no additive for the field-glass on distance in 20-50 meters. Only stupid men thinks that field-glass sees than eyes on a distance in 20-50 meters is better
But in SMSF is valid so - for tanks in a frequent case.
Good optics Abrams gives additives on long distance . In SMSF Abrams the sensor control such that Abrams became the telepathist on short distances (I have no patch 1-11)
-
How do you know that there is no night vision on the T62 tanks in the game?
The boxes seem to be equipment independent of and above and beyond the equipment included on the tank.
So the Abrams crew has Night Vision Goggles in addition to the thermal viewers on the tank and the T62 crew has binoculars, in addition to what is on the tank.
I think concerning other Syrian units
Example in RealLife
AT-4 Spigot (9K111 Fagot in Russian ) has night sight 1PN65 or 1PN86-1 «MULAT» – ThermoVision(the device of night vision)
AT-14 Kornet-E has night vision - 1PN-79 «Metis-2» – ThermoVision
And сrew AT-4 and AT-14 have night sight in stock in SMSF- as the ATGM ? not own?
I think, as crew of Т-72 will have night sight in stock - as well as the tanks??
I can be wrong?
In reallife have passive night vision for soviet infantry - 1 PN63 "Kvaker", they are very extended in SPECNAZ, whether also I really do not know they are used in the Syrian infantry
But in infantry also very used the field-glass of night application : BI-8, BN-3, Voron-7,-8, night sight NSPU-?NSPU-M ?
Here is TOE recon company Motorifle/tank divsion times Afghanistan war (Russian)
http://ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/orgstruktures/inf&tank_sovet/podr_bodivizii/ORG_ORB/org_MS (T) Div_ORB_rdr_4.htm
Each platoon has 3-6 night devices
Here TOE recon company for usual Motorifle regiment - 1985-90 (Russian)
http://ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/orgstruktures/inf&tank_sovet/podr_polks/rrpolk/org_MS (T) Reg_rr_3.htm
One Platoon 24 (or16) men has approximately 14 devices of night vision (BI-8, NSPU, NSPU-M, BN-1,2)
Syrian army - it is a copy Soviet Army ?
How in game presence of similar devices is considered?
At least in elite Republican Guards?
In my opinion it is not considered in any way!
-
Again with baseless arguments! What are you 10 years old?!
You show a picture of a tank that says it has night-vision device and then you complain that T-62 is not as good as today's Abrams. Unlike most of the other forum members here you are very lucky to be able to read Russian. So why don't you use it? Do the actual research where it says what kind of device that is and how far does it let tanker to see. That information is available out there in Russian and I could probably find it in 5 minutes. But I think it would be a very good exercise for you to do. It is called - Research.
Now, about your attachment. What is all that? Bunch of missions, bunch of documents. How is it related to the artillery problems in CMSF? What am I suppose to do with that? Spend 2 days reading through them trying to guess what it is they are supposed to prove? You need to show me exactly the page in a document that specifies how long the artillery request should take.
I told all you guys on the russian forum and I will repeat here - if you don't "grow up" (even if you are teenagers) and become serious with your claims no one is going to take you seriously.
- No one will make T-62 NV same as on Abrams just on the basis of picture that says T-62 has some kind of night vision device.
- No one will change artillery arrival time just by you attaching a bunch of russian documents without specifying what we are supposed to read in there.
1) Im not your son, I did not take your money, and I am much more senior 10, NOT to be pleasant to me you with me so talk
2) We draw a picture when we think that things in game sometimes not correctly. You write, that we have made test scenarios, did not draw children's pictures
3) We give test scenarios. You write that they not clearly or are incorrectly made (Im not a tester for games and I do not know as it is necessary to do test scenarios)
4) We give the open data about the Soviet technics or the doctrine. You write that it incorrectly, it is inexact.
5) we give half-secret data of the Soviet documents. You write that it is insufficiently powerful arguments
we want - game made really, there can be at us an erroneous representation about a parity aching
I do not represent as to carry on dialogue whith you
My opinion: you have made the picture about the Soviet weapon - almost only on the basis of the American sources - military and opened. Now that we tell all besides a representation picture - "insufficiently powerful argument"
Excuse me
-
Active IR has its utility but its not exactly latest generation technology anymore. It would be pretty much suicide to turn that big spotlight on during a night tank battle.
I know that the old device of night vision primitive, it is much worse than the modern device on Abrams.
I know to include a projector - differently there will be a bad picture of vision But I see that in game the Syrian tanks have even no such devices
There is a choice at the Syrian tank -
1) easy to wait in the dark while the American tank will find the excellent night sight and will kill?
2) or to include the primitive device and to try to kill the American tank
I think that the person without-what or chances to survive in this war will make inclusion of the device
Rat driven into a corner will shoot jumps very highly
By the way devices of night vision at infantry in NATO for example in Afghanistan use an active operating mode, but nevertheless - they are used
-
Still I wish to tell what incorrectly to do any Syrian tank without devices of night vision Any Soviet tank type (even Т-72 Turms) has no night vision in square inventory.
Only the field-glass in inventory is available.
Example Т-62М on Russian picture shows that two devices of night vision is available in tank T-62M - 1)the replaceable device for the driver and
2) device in a tower
Maybe these devices not so fine as in Abrams 1A2SEP , but the Soviet tanks have night vision and they not blind kittens as in SMSF
-
http://www.rapidshare.ru/876340
Here there are some military Russian manuals on artillery
and as some test scenarios
where we tested ATGM, tanks and RPG-7 (patch 1.10)
-
Feel free to post the scanned методичка in here, even in russian.
http://voiska.ru/index.php?ind=downloads&op=section_view&idev=3
-
Thanks for support were not valid the superiority of pipes at Russian artillery T
here was anti battery struggle, it was heavy to conduct Russian.
Russia has no pilotless planes, was not LOT of number tubes to knock down as Germans in 1944-45
Interesting fact advertising of the American training for the Georgian, bad training for Russian soldiers (and Syria too ))))))
Also Georgians had very good radio-electronic systems which to them were put by Americans
Russia had such systems only of the Soviet sample
Georgian have modern M-4 rifle, Negev machineguns, Russian –only 30-s years ago - AK-74 rifle, PKM machineguns
And the result became opposite,
Very well that SMSF was not about Georgia – urgently it should to do a patch )))))))
I know that armies of Russia in South Ossetia – may be the best that is in Russia, they much trained also some were at war in the Chechen Republic (71 MRF for example)
Result of 5 days of war was unexpected even for us )))))
About AD-systems I will tell following
Position 08.08.08 was very difficult – Georgia has attacked and had the initiative of approach and the superiority in a scope
Anything could be directed to Georgia- only planes, and were directed quickly
was not experience to organize SEAD actions,
There was no time to specify conditions
Therefore the big losses of planes
At Us speak about 6 planes (4 SU-25, 1 SU-24, 1TU22m3), 1 of which is destroyed in air the nose could to land, officially-4 is
Not enough preparation of pilots in comparison with USAF, it is not enough planes.
At Iraq have directed 1000 or more planes, 1500 helicopters, 1000 cruise missiles
To Georgia could be directed 60-70 planes, 50-70 helicopters
AD of Georgia are stronger than at Iraq (on territory which should be protected and to quantity of installations on territory kilometer)
Gerorgian have:
SA-11Gadfly (BukM1–SA-11c, Ganges) average radius-4 batteries-8 Launch System, standard tactical unit – a battalion (3 batteries) – Iraq and Serbia at all had no such http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-11#9K37M1_Buk-M1_. 28Ganges.29
SA-8d, SA-8b Gecko. (The OSA-AKM, the OSA-AK), small radius, – approximately 15 Launch System (it is an antiaircraft regiment for MRD) – Iraq had a little similar, Serbia had no such
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-8
There were 2 batteries SA-3 (С-125) – average radius, 7 stationary Launch System – Serbia and Iraq had ONLY such systems
As were much small one-men AD rocket systems, Shilka, an antiaircraft artillery etc
Russia has gone to the aid of the ‘keepers of the world’
Iinstead of NATO attacked the first as to Iraq or Serbia under the ready plan
08.08.08 – time some pilots and planes has come to offer rescue hundreds infantrymen in Tskhinvali
It can be condemned in the USA- cant to be condemned here – death of 5 officers in air has saved a life of hundred and hundred soldiers on the earth
In the same way in 1941-45 in the Great Patriotic War daily death of thousand and thousand our soldiers have rescued hundred millions lives of Soviet Union
the Georgian system AD was not broken also planes were lost
But all planes were brought down in first 1-2 days
Then have begun blows by a radar, On positions AD, applied OTR-21 Tochka (4 Launch System) and SS-26 (2-4 Launch System) across Georgia then planes began to fly better and more freely
-
In Georgia all has come to an end for three days.
Georgia had at the order an artillery brigade and battalions from the infantry brigades (1,2,3,4,5).
This is 90 How 122 mm D-30, 13 152 mm How (2A65, 2A 36), more than 50 SPGun 152mm (Dana, 2S3), 6 203 mm SpGun (2S7), 40 MLRS (BM-21 Grad, BM-30 Uragan and Orkan)-about 200 total.
Russian Arty OOB:
292 ArtReg of 19 MRF Div (36-SpGun 2S19 Msta, 12 MLRS Grad)
artDivs of 135,503,693 MRF REGs (about-11-SpGun 2S19 Msta, 24 SpGun 2S3, 15 How D-30, 4 MLRS Uragan)
, 1415 MLRS-Div (4 BM-30 MLRS Smerch, 4 MLRS BM-27 Uragan),
artdiv 205 MRF BDE (12 SPGun 2S3, 12 MLRS BM-21 Grad)
1065Airbone ArtREg (18 120 mm2S9, 12 How 122mm D-30)
Total 180
944 ArtReg of 20 MRF DIV - has come after the termination of 5 days war
Obviously Russia had no any huge advantage on number of tubes
Certainly Russia have SSM Tochka and aircraft (about 3 Summary regiment ,may be 60-70 aircaft vs 14 at Georgia, and Georgian AD systems more powerful either Iraq)
But Georgia had perfect system of dispersal, radio means, pilot-less aircraft devices
Georgian soldiers are good- trained on the American training system, by the way
Besides Georgia has attacked the first and swept advantage of the first days, and Russia approached by turns on one road
But have not helped Georgia any new means
Actually Russia has achieved an impressing victory and a panic at Georgia as Israel won Arabs in 1967.
It seems that the Russian artillery has won the Georgian as because of the Soviet system of centralisation, is better itself has shown in battle about the identical sizes of armies –not have a total lot of tubes
-
Why specificity and Israel fired at Sinai when Egyptians could not hide in desert at random in those few places where it was possible to take cover is transferred on battles in cities or bushes in CMSF?
I cannot understand why when wish to explain use - weapon non-use, people here wish to show level of equipment start to recollect or Iraq with which exhausted with blockade of 13 years (1990-2003). Blockade did not allow to organise use and repair of the most difficult means. Iraq could not repair difficult kinds of the tool which itself did not make - planes, rocket, an armour. Iraq could not buy anything abroad.
Syria can buy AT-14, repair and modernise tanks, conduct constant contact in respect of use of the tool and spare parts.
Iraq had blockade and humanitarian accident, had hunger and measure children for hunger. Therefore to it have allowed to sell an oil part in exchange for deliveries the foodstuffs. About what development or use âûñîêîòåõíè÷åñêèõ means and training there could be a speech?
I do not understand, why Iraq result as the standard by level consideration about - the pro-Soviet army.
Why when speak about use of the weapon at Syria, recollect low level of training?
Low level of training is modelled by low level of experience – Conscript, Green. In game Conscript cannot get a rocket on Abrams. When in game there is a level of Reguliar or the Veteran, it seems to me that there is no sense to recollect about low training
level the Veteran means that training at good level.
-
Not necessarily at training carrying out to let out expensive ATGM in thousand and in thousand as the rich countries allow to do it to themselves, such as America.
For AT-14 Kornet there is a set of standart training apparat:
the field training apparat 9P163-1VGM
the class training apparat 9F660-1
according to the directory of indexes ГРАУ of the Joint Staff of the Soviet Army For older ATGM as is available a standard set
for example
9F618 training apparat ATGM 9К11М "MALUTKA" (АT-3)
9F619 fire training apparat ATGM 9K111 "Fagot" / "Faktoria" (АТ-4, АТ-5)
9F640 fire training apparat ATGM 9K115 "Metis" (АТ-7, АТ-13)
9F660-4 a class training apparat of operators ATGM 9K115 "Metis", "Metis M" (АТ-7, АТ-13)
As I know from American FM that the training apparat is and for "Javelin" alwais awiable
which one rocket of Javelin costs as 5 installations of AT-4.
All these training apparatus are delivered together with fighting means ATGM., also there are they cheaply even in comparison with 1-2 rockets from AT-4. It allows to organise training to fighting skills of operators ATGM, without spending millions dollars for thousand rockets. Training of operators can be conducted both on range and in a computer class. For example, in the same way? x as well as any country trains experts SAM (S-300 or Partiot, is unimportant) in fight conducting, using training apparatus and without shooting expensive SA a rocket for hundred thousand and millions dollars of one.
In case of ATGM or SAM, practical shooting by combat missiles only finishes a curriculum and fixes the skills received on training apparat.
-
Very well, road zmoney that you read many books about the Arabian wars. But there can be you will look in the stocks for some data about a small episode. 162 tank division of Israel spent counterattack on the Egyptian armies in 1973 on October, 7-8th. This counterattack has been broken almost completely at the expense of use AT-3 which here is considered the defective weapon. Why you transfer actions of Egyptians on actions of Syrians? You will not transfer action the Romanian in 1942 at Stalingrada on actions of Hungarians in 1945 at defence of Budapest? For example you can compare the general losses in war of 1973 (8 thousand against 78 thousand) and losses particularly on the Syrian front (3200 against approximately 10500). I will not deny a victory of Izralija in the Arabian wars, but Syrians least approach for a role of whipping boys from all Arabs.
-
have no-logical problem
1.03 patch
Syrian inf. company TOE (Guard,Reserves,Mech.inf) have 1X2 120-82 mm mortar section at deployment
but company HQ have not any one FO
and Syrian Company Comander didnt take FIST of own mortar section duiring battle
may be soviet doctrine central-use artillery support should not stir at company commader take fire support of own mortars ?
Help needed translating a Russian map
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
"bO-4op" = "БО-4ср" = "Боевое охраненние - 4-я стрелковая рота" - "Forvard recognized troops-4-th rifle company"
"1c6-aeaHzupd" = "1сб авангард"="1-й стрелковый батальон-Авангард"= " 1st Rifle Btn -is Avant-guard"
"NAT-280 (Artillery Regt of 280th Guards Rifle Div?) Gun symbol" = "ПАГ-280" ="Полковая артиллерийская Группа-280" = "Regimental artillery Group-280<th Rigle Regiment>"
"NT pe3 cn" -"ПТ рез сп" = "Противотанковый резерв стрелкового полка" ="AT reserv by Rifle Regiment"
"Powa "TemHaK" = "Роща Темная " ="Grove 'Dark' "- this is codename of geographical point on a battlecard