Lampshade111

The M833 105mm APFSDS (in service during the mid 1980s) could penetrate most T-72s in the Warsaw Pact inventory at the time. It would probably run into trouble against the T-72B and T-80B/U but it could deal with any Iraqi tank. The original M1 or M1IP would still devastate the Iraqis. The differences in the monkey models are often exaggerated a bit. The export versions were usually a model behind what the Russians were using at the time, although the fire control and composite armor were somewhat simplified compared to the tank the export model was based on. For example the T-72M was pretty much an original T-72 but with a laser range finder and a few things found on the T-72A the Russians were using at the time. The T-72M1 was very similar to the T-72A but at the time these were becoming common Russian T-80Bs were entering service, soon to be followed by the T-72B. The Kh-29 would certainly knock out or destroy an Abrams with a good hit as it is a huge missile. While the Maverick is quite a bit smaller it is still large compared to most missiles such as the Hellfire or TOW. Expecting any tank to survive a direct hit from either the Kh-29 or AGM-65 (or a 500 pound LGB or JDAM) is rather foolish. The USAF, USN, and Army air defense systems are supposed to prevent this however. Most of what the Iraqis had were original (export) T-72s. Although they had some T-72Ms and T-72M1s. Their home built model was supposed to be comparable to the T-72M. They may have also used some captured M-84ABs which formerly belonged to Kuwait. At one point (after the war I think) the Russians were going to sell the T-72S (export version of T-72B) to the Iraqis but this never occured.

There are a few books about armored combat in Vietnam, I can't seem to find the one I have. While crew training was a very big factor I think the M48 often held it's own.

You could probably put those two bow MGs under the light fire category. However they should only be operational when the two seats next to the driver are filled. Meaning they won't work once the infantry sqaud disembarks.

To my knowledge none of the countries using the T-90/A/S currently use Arena on the tank. I am not even certain if it has been demonstrated on the T-90. I am guessing they will probably have the Shorta system, although it is not very effective against newer anti-tank missiles. Looking for a few good fights between them and my M1A2 SEPs.

Doesn't it seem rather unfair that all of these country's would be kicking Syria's ass at once? I agree that some different countryside would be nice.

It was not underarmored or undergunned back in it's day. It's high profile was a result of American tank design practices of the time, as well as the manner in which it was expected to be used. Also removing the cupola reduced it's silhouette quite a bit. One nice thing about the M60A3 was that it had very good fire control systems (especially the M60A3 TTS.) Hell, the Sabra Mk.III developed for Turkey can hold it's own against many newer designs.

I believe the best solution would be more C-17As. While it may not match the C-130J it can still take off and land on short and rather unfinished runways and it is has proven very successful. It can also carry much more than any C-130. The C-5M upgrade program will also help move heavier assets. In my opinion the Stryker is a fine vehicle for what it was designed from and for. While it may not match dedicated "light tanks" like the cancelled M8 Bufords or Russian 2S25 Sprut it was a good design considering limitations involving the Stryker (LAV III) chassis and weight.

"DICMP: Already banned by almost every Western country, US shouldn't be too far off." More politically correct BS. Luckily the United States has no plan to agree to such a ban as such weapons which can be very useful when deployed correctly. Plus we are constantly reducing the dud rate of the submunitions. FASCAM could end up being banned, but a replacement could take it's role. The AC-130 would be quite nice for maps against unconventional forces but I don't believe there is any way it could be restricted to that.

This happened to be once before during the campaign on one of the city maps towards the end. I was in the middle of the battle and once again the game locked up. But instead of ending the program and restarting my computer I messed around with the task manager a bit and got it running again. To be greated by lag, the sound of a huge ass explosion, and the whole city consumed in a crater besides for the demolished buildings. The battle immediately ended in a draw. Almost all of my force and that of the enemy was destroyed. I took some screenshots (or at least pressed the print screen button) and eventually redid the scenario but I have no clue where those screenshots ended up.

Sounds like a good idea. I hate it when one of my squad sees another unit for a second, fires a few shots, but then is stuck standing there after that unit dissappears.

BigDuke those men in the attack choppers are far braver than the insurgent filth we are fighting. If you are implying our helicopter pilots are not brave then you are insulting those who have given their lives performing that role or who are serving today. As for accuracy I agree that the rockets are a bit too inaccurate at the moment. I suppose the accuracy might be somewhat realistic if there were SAMs and AA guns everywhere and the choppers had to fire their FFARs from very long range. Yet Syria does not have large numbers of modern anti aircraft systems to begin with. Plus the USAF and USN would be running SEAD missions from day one. So I imagine Apaches and Cobras would typically be making much more accurate attacks with their rockets, unless there were a few SAMs or AA guns on or near the map area which had not been destroyed.

I thought Syria already ordered some Pantsyr S-1 systems awhile before that Israeli airstrike? Perhaps they thought the played too much of this game?

I believe the IL2 series of flight sims had some sort of system where "external" groups could submit appropriate (aircraft that were actually used) models with a skin/skins that were checked for accuracy and other details. These then were added in the next patch. Perhaps some sort of system where you could assign interested modelers a certain project they could create/assist you with? Glad to here ERA for the US is coming. Does that include the Stryker ERA kit?

While still used among some reserve and national guard forces my opinion is that the M113A3 should be a rather low priority. M1114 and M1151 armored HMMWVs are usually more popular for patrol use anyway, as are all the MRAP "trucks" in service. Much of their use earlier in Iraq was because many units were stuck using old unarmored M1025s and M1043s for patrol use. I would rather see ERA for American vehicles before this.

Regardless of the dud problem I imagine that DPICM ammunition would still be used in the open stages at of a war against Syria. At least when dealing with the better quality units. The main problem I can think of is not dub rates or anything like that but just it being too powerful.

Nice. I was wondering if a Stryker without the slat armor would show up eventually.

Good point. Perhaps for mechanized infantry training the U.S. Army should stuff the guys in back of a BMP and drive around for awhile so they learn the Bradley is not that bad to be inside of in comparison. I would give the edge to the Bradley here but the BMP-3 would be more effective at dealing with infantry thanks to the 100mm low velocity gun.