Syrian TO&E thread

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh yeah... and any sign of how 60mm Mortars are distributed? Normal Soviet TO&E gives an Infantry (not Mech Infantry) Battalion a 9x60mm Mortars divided up into three sections of three each. Yet I don't see them in your TO&E outlines.

Thanks!

Steve

None that I can find

[Battlefront.com]

C3K,

As Rudel said, there isn't much info out there to double check against. We experienced similar problems when doing CMBB. While it is true we generally had 3 different sources for each nation, for some specific formations we had very little to go on. Romanian Engineers comes to mind, for example. All we can do is go with our best guess.

The only thing I can compare Rudel's information against is typical Soviet organization from the 1980s. While much of the information presented by Rudel so far conflicts with the details of the Soviet TO&E, it is still overall very close. There are, however, two major expceptions:

1. Command and Control. The Soviets are notoriously poor in this department, so it is fair to expect the Syrian forces to be even worse. The elimination of Platoon HQs is surprising as a Western observer, but it makes sense when you look at it from Syria's perspective. They don't have radios at that level, apparently, and initiative at that level is soundly frowned upon by cultural and regime mentality. Therefore, flattening the command structure is rather pragmatic.

2. Support weapons are in short supply. I'm a bit surprised by the slimming down of MGs, but not surprised about reduced numbers of mortars, grenade launchers, and recoilless rifles. These things are fairly expensive to purchase, use, and train soldiers to use. Much easier and cheaper to go with RPGs. And guess what? The Syrian formations are stuffed full of them, so although it is suboptimal it all makes sense.

Now, if some Earth shattering new information comes into my hands which conflicts with Rudel's info, I'll have to sort through things again. Fortunately, this is fairly easy to do with the CMx2 game structure. Until then, though, I am continuing on with Rudel's TO&E research as the prime source.

Thanks again Rudel!

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Machine guns are very common in reserve formations.

The main Syrian army has three functions.

To attack Israel

To counter attack Israel

To move into Lenanbon in case Israel does or is a civil war breaks out

Machine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.

Reserve formations would be formed during mobilization and would get the larger defensive weaopons like MGs, RRs and AGLs

Those have alot of use in the defensive role.

These formations would either sit in place or move in behind the main army to hold what was taken and prepare for the counter attack and keep supply lines open.

That is where most of the support weapons are.

The trade off is that these formations are straight leg infantry without alot of special weapons or vehicles.

Their tank defenses are RPGs and some very old ATGMs.

They are expected to fortify a posistion as best they can and then sit in place and die and slow down or stop an attack.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, Charles is going to make some code changes to allow for "Super Teams", which means a Squad of up to 21 men in a single Team. This allows us to have the Syrian 9 man squads act as a single "mob" rather than giving them more flexible Fire Teams like Western Units. I presume Syrian Airborne and Special Forces divide up into Fire Teams, so we'll allow them to be exceptions.

The one thing we can't work around is the 9 man HQ. The UI is only capable of handling a 7 man HQ. Therefore, we're going to have to break up the Platoon's Command Squad into two pieces. It would seem to make the most sense to section off the Platoon and Assistant Platoon Leaders into their own unit and have the remaining 7 combat soldiers be their own. This will make a Syrian Rifle Platoon look like this:

Rifle Platoon

1 x HQ Team (2 men)

1 x Small Squad (7 men)

2 x Squads (9 men each)

The other option would be to have the HQ Team be 7 men and leave the RPG Gunner and Assistant as their own Team as such:

Rifle Platoon

1 x HQ Team (7 men)

1 x RPG Team (2 men)

2 x Squads (9 men each)

I think the first method is the way to go.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

I think the first method is the way to go.

Which option would make more sense for playing the game?

:mad:

Option 2 may seem a little gamey, but then option 1 just annoys me.

Now is option 1 the early option or the later option and if the second option is the new option and the old option is option 1, is there any room for a new-new option that resembles the old option, sort of an option-classic option. Because while option 1 has its merits, option 2 has its benefits, and I personally can't fathom an option that doesn't have benefits.

:mad:

Machine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.

This statement annoys me even more than option 1. :mad: It makes me want to take on the persona of Gunny Sergeant Hartman, rip your head off and poop down the neck-hole. I don't know who's army attacks without the effective and professional use of 'machine guns', specifically I would not want to 'attack' without one of my great Canadian brothers laying down covering fire with a C9 and targeting sand bagged eejits with a C6 GPMG. Attacking without effective support of either a SAW or GPMG is like bungie jumping without a bungie cord. It might be fun and seem like a good idea, but you're only going to do it once.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[hellfish]

I vote for option 1. Allows a little more flexibility for the Syrian player to position his key leader.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

I'd choose option 2. It seems that the Syrian HQ can only use 2 maneuver elements or itself.

Splitting the CC and 2ic out, then using 3 squads, as stated in option 1, would be a grosser distortion than option 2.

(Option 2's extra maneuver element is the RPG team - a much lighter unit than a 7 man squad. I can see a Platoon Commander specifically positioning an RPG team at will, but not breaking SOP's to create a third squad.)

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

It's a tough call because either way gives the Syrians something a little better (and I emphasize LITTLE) than what they in fact have. Hmmm... having thought about it some more, I think the second option is the way to go. By forcing the HQ to be with the bulk of the firepower this makes sure that the player has to put his HQ in harms way. The first method allows him the possibility of keeping it under cover, which shouldn't be the case.

Having said that, in reality I assume the Platoon Leader does move around from Squad to Squad at least a little bit. Therefore, if we went with the first option we could limit the C&C radius to such an extent that you wouldn't get much benefit from the HQ unit unless it was basically right next to a Squad.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The one thing we can't work around is the 9 man HQ. The UI is only capable of handling a 7 man HQ.

It may be a minor point, but I thought the whole point of rewriting the CMx1 engine was due to its inflexibility, but now it seems the CMx2 engine can't handle a simple thing like a 9 man HQ. :confused:

Could you explain what the problem is Steve, if possible?

[Battlefront.com]

There are limits to any system. User Interface is the most difficult thing to make flexible. The game engine itself can handle an HQ up to probably 1 million men, but that doesn't do much good if the UI can only show up to 7.

When I did the research for the Syrians I based it on Soviet and Western formations, neither of which have HQs larger than 7 men. In fact, HQs are much smaller, ranging from 1-5 men for Soviets, 2-6 or so for Western forces. Now, the HQ itself might be a lot larger, but they are divided up into different teams or squads, not jammed togetehr in one unit. The information Rudel dug up screws up things quite a bit

Even if I could snap my fingers and redo the entire UI to accomodate more than 7 men for a HQ I wouldn't. My harddrive is full of designs that attempted to do this and none of them are very good. The way it is now is much better.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Even if I could snap my fingers and redo the entire UI to accomodate more than 7 men for a HQ I wouldn't. My harddrive is full of designs that attempted to do this and none of them are very good. The way it is now is much better.

Steve

You lost me on that one, but hey, if you want us to just take your word on it, so be it. You've got a game to finish!

[Sgt Joch]

My concern is not really on CMSF, since we could easily assume that 2 of the 9 syrians went AWOL.

But I seem to recall from CMAK that some U.S. HQ squads had 10 men. I presume the UI can be modified when we get to CM:Normandy to accomodate that.

[rudel.dietrich]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Machine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.

This statement annoys me even more than option 1. :mad: It makes me want to take on the persona of Gunny Sergeant Hartman, rip your head off and poop down the neck-hole. I don't know who's army attacks without the effective and professional use of 'machine guns', specifically I would not want to 'attack' without one of my great Canadian brothers laying down covering fire with a C9 and targeting sand bagged eejits with a C6 GPMG. Attacking without effective support of either a SAW or GPMG is like bungie jumping without a bungie cord. It might be fun and seem like a good idea, but you're only going to do it once.

:mad: :mad: :mad: [/QB]</font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Option two is best

In fact I have read some doctrine that seems to indicate that the HQ squad would break off the RPG team to put into a better location to either support an attack or take up a good ambush posistion.

So option two in a real war might actualy be a realistic option.

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt.Joch,

But I seem to recall from CMAK that some U.S. HQ squads had 10 men. I presume the UI can be modified when we get to CM:Normandy to accomodate that.

No, the UI is not going to be modified. It would require a massive redo, which is not necessary because we of course were keeping WWII in mind when we did the UI

Yes, a few WWII HQ units did have more than 7 men. However, these were usually subdivided into various functions. There would be a "command team" and some sort of "support team" or "support teams". For example, the commander, a radio operator, and perhaps two riflemen. The others would be divided up into some sort of security squad, first aide, etc.

In CMx1 we did a lot of aproximations because the TO&E was quite inflexible. In CMx2 we'd break these guys up into distinctly different teams. We're also going to be a lot more picky about would would actually be at the front. With CMx1 we were probably overly generous with the various extras that would stay back with the "trains".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

Don't take J Ruddy seriously. First of all, he is Canadian. That pretty much says it all right there. Secondly, he is part of the "Special Needs Members", collectively housed in the Peng Challenge Thread. When they try to participate in the "outer Forums" they sometimes get confused by discussions about things other than hampsters and who is supposed to "sod off". Oh, and they also tend to use a LOT of UBB smilies because it's allowed here. They're kinda like children, except for the hope that they might one day grow up and make something of themselves. For Pengers there is no reason to hope for that.

So, did that clear everything up? Any questions?

Steve

[vincere]

OK, Charles is going to make some code changes to allow for "Super Teams", which means a Squad of up to 21 men in a single Team. This allows us to have the Syrian 9 man squads act as a single "mob" rather than giving them more flexible Fire Teams like Western Units. I presume Syrian Airborne and Special Forces divide up into Fire Teams, so we'll allow them to be exceptions.

Nice bone. Look forward to seeing how this affects tactics.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

People who go off on others without understanding the context of what they are reading annoy me

(Snipperamma!)

I am talking about tripod mounted 7.62mm PKM MMGs or 12.7mm NSV

Neither are suited to the attack

Yes, but what about tripod mounted Brens!?

:mad:

Don't take J Ruddy seriously. First of all, he is Canadian. That pretty much says it all right there. Secondly, he is part of the "Special Needs Members", collectively housed in the Peng Challenge Thread. When they try to participate in the "outer Forums" they sometimes get confused by discussions about things other than hampsters and who is supposed to "sod off". Oh, and they also tend to use a LOT of UBB smilies because it's allowed here. They're kinda like children, except for the hope that they might one day grow up and make something of themselves. For Pengers there is no reason to hope for that.

Me a MrPing worshipper? The cesspool is a nice place to visit, drop the kids off at the pool so to speak, but I wouldn't want to live there...!

You are right about one thing though, the last person to take me seriously ended up writing a book in the CMAK forum on how the Sherman tank is superior to the T-34. :mad:

bwaa haa haa!

Jim

[edited to fix UBB code ]

[ November 14, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[cassh]

rudel.dietrich said

Machine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.

and

People who go off on others without understanding the context of what they are reading annoy me

You are talking about LMG and SAW which are MG in technical terms but not considered MGs in modern army terms.

I am talking about tripod mounted 7.62mm PKM MMGs or 12.7mm NSV

Sorry, but you cannot make statements that tripod mounted SFMG are mostly useless in attack - this is entirely wrong and crassly inaccurate. They are integral to any infantry formations offensive capability.

If the Syrians are using a modified version of Soviet doctrine as all their past combat indicates then second echelon and reserve formations are not merely designed to hold captured ground - but actively pin and hold the enemy line through offensive action to allow mobile forces freedom to exploit any breakthrough.

Any even mildly proficient army will use a variety of supporting arms in the attack - down to the lowest levels - it is a basic tenet of command-arms doctrine. You think a machine gun company or platoon sits about doing nothing when it's parent battalion's rifle companies are putting in attack - of course not.

Steve said

Don't take J Ruddy seriously.

Why not - he's right.

It is volume of fire (and that means all support weapons - HMG, SF GPMG, LMG or SAW, RPGs, LAW, mortars, arty etc) that delivers suppression - the prerequisite of movement. You cannot attack effectively without winning the firefight - and tripod mounted machine guns are integral to that.

I think we do the Syrians and the game a disservice by under playing their capabilities...

[Battlefront.com]

Cassh,

I think we do the Syrians and the game a disservice by under playing their capabilities...

Who said we're doing that? The fact is that Syria has a fairly modest sized force that is capable of offensive action. The rest, and we're talking about the vast bulk, are for static fighting only. At best they would move forward in the wake of the maneuver elements, dig in, and hunker down. Syria tried to use their 2nd Line stuff as maneuver elements before and it had disasterous results.

As for tripod mounted MGs... even the Soviet Mech forces have hardly any. The reasoning is that they are too slow to move and deploy, which is what Rudel was certainly talking about. Meaning, the firepower is not irrelevant to an attack force, rather it is (according to Soviet doctrine) impractical to bring into action before the engagement is already decided. The armored AFVs, such as BMPs and BTRs, are supposed to make up the firepower difference.

Remember... Soviet doctrine is all about specialization whreas Western doctrine is about well rounded combined arms units capable of pretty much any mission. Some are a little more specialized for one thing vs. another (Airborne and Marines, for example), but their doctrine is quite flexible.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by cassh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steve said Don't take J Ruddy seriously.

Why not - he's right.</font>

[Sequoia]

Steve, haven't you sold this thing to the DoD yet? They should be giving you Syrian TO&E.

[Battlefront.com]

J Ruddy,

In Steve's defence, I think (or rather hope) he was referring to the acrid tone used

Yup, especially because I didn't understand a bloody thing you said. Well, except for somehow managing to bring Canadians into a discussion about Syrians! You Canadians are all about subtle imperialism, afterall

Sequoia, DoD is very much a "show us" or "bribe us" organization. We can't bribe due to a lack of funds and sleezey guys in $5000 suits, so we're just going to have to wait until the game is done before we can wow them. We exect good results once the game is mostly done. Most of our testers are current or recently ex military and their certainly chomping at the bit to get testing it!

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

J Ruddy,

???

My friends at the DoD are screwing me everytime we go out to lunch then!

I always have to pay since I am making the 'big bucks'

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by cassh:

rudel.dietrich said </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Machine guns are useless in most of those roles since they are not very usefull during the attack.

and

People who go off on others without understanding the context of what they are reading annoy me

You are talking about LMG and SAW which are MG in technical terms but not considered MGs in modern army terms.

I am talking about tripod mounted 7.62mm PKM MMGs or 12.7mm NSV

Sorry, but you cannot make statements that tripod mounted SFMG are mostly useless in attack - this is entirely wrong and crassly inaccurate. They are integral to any infantry formations offensive capability.

If the Syrians are using a modified version of Soviet doctrine as all their past combat indicates then second echelon and reserve formations are not merely designed to hold captured ground - but actively pin and hold the enemy line through offensive action to allow mobile forces freedom to exploit any breakthrough.

Any even mildly proficient army will use a variety of supporting arms in the attack - down to the lowest levels - it is a basic tenet of command-arms doctrine. You think a machine gun company or platoon sits about doing nothing when it's parent battalion's rifle companies are putting in attack - of course not.

Steve said

Don't take J Ruddy seriously.

Why not - he's right.

It is volume of fire (and that means all support weapons - HMG, SF GPMG, LMG or SAW, RPGs, LAW, mortars, arty etc) that delivers suppression - the prerequisite of movement. You cannot attack effectively without winning the firefight - and tripod mounted machine guns are integral to that.

I think we do the Syrians and the game a disservice by under playing their capabilities... </font>