OPFOR discussion on possible Syrian tactics?

[Battlefront.com]

TheNathan,

My point was more about customer concerns vs. the reality of what CMBB actually was. We told people that there was nothing to fear about the challenge and balance, yet many were moaning and groaning all the way up until the first time they played it. I'm saying that there is a lot of that sort of glass half empty thinking about the potential challenge the variety of Syrian forces poses to the US player. You know, "if I'm not able to use a tank that can go toe to toe with an Abrams at 3000m, then what's the challenge?" sort of mindset.

Oddly enough, there is the opposite mindset too with regards to Stryker forces. And that is the "Strykers will get pulverized by 10 year olds with bad attitudes and rocks, so what's the point in playing the US?".

So in that regard, the comparison to CMBB is right on the money

Peter,

Leningrad and Stalingrad came under siege when most of European Russia was already over run, So I'd on't think I would count on them fading away.

Wow... what an utterly horrible analogy Damascus is like Moscow, not like Stalingrad. As you know, the Germans were unable to take Moscow and many historians speculate that if it had been effectively surrounded (not even taken) the war would have been over fairly soon (many also dispute this notion). And yeah, the Germans had a lot of terrain, but check out a map some time and see how little of it they actually got. The Soviets were also being supplied by the most powerful nations in the world. And all sorts of other factors that make such a comparison ridiculous.

My point, on the other hand, stands in stark contrast to your Eastern Front example. By the time Damascus is reached there would be no Syria, just a surrounded city in an arid environment. It can not hold out for any significant length of time even if no military action is taken. A siege, if you will, would be brutal and likely bad enough to cause the surrender/defection of the conventional forces inside. But I don't even think it would come to that.

Secondly if the regeme ( if there is one) decided to go for "God and Country", then pulling the Bulk back in to the "holy City" to " defend the People form the Invading Infidel", would

a) avoid it getting pasted in the open, whivh is pretty much inevitable if they stand let alone manouver. and

Plays to the people rather nicely.

Unless the people sense the departure of authority and force out in the country side and have their own coups before the invaiders even come into the province. Remember my comments above about reality dictating strategy and tactics, not wishful and insightful thinking. What you suggest is simply impractical and therefore it wouldn't ever happen.

And even if it did, so what? It won't change anything because with the rest of the country gone there is no country (see above). And there is a limit to how much stuff you can pack into a city and still have it function. If you move 100,000 troops into a city you need to have supplies for 100,000 troops. Even at one paltry meal a day, you're talking about 100,000 meals each day, every day, until the fighting ends. Then you have ammo and even fuel needs to consider. If it was such a hard nut to crack the invaider would simply seal off the city (a fairly easy thing to do with the rest of the country totally occupied) and wait it out. It wouldn't take long.

It also means that even if they only have 200 BMP-3's thats where you'll find them.

They would all have to be there ahead of time, and I very much doubt that would happen for practical reasons.

In that situation it would be firstly uncomfortable for the US and secondly besieging 1.5m civilians might not go down well internationally.

True, but I highly doubt it would ever get to that point because I don't buy the ability to defend the city as you say. It just isn't practical to do so.

Depending on the resistance to the US from the general population and the bulk of the army disperesed around the country I' d think going for the valiant siege and fortifying the big five is the way to go.

Again, I see no evidence that this is practical. Neither do I think the Syrians would do this, nor do I think it would work even if they did.

By my reading of the CIA world book, the road infrastructure off the main routes is a lot more like Afghanistan than Iraq, and there is as far as I can make out only one road to Iraq, hardly ideal for suppling a siege of a city.

As opposed to supplying the besieged city? I'll take the siege side any day of the week Also, there is a thing called air supply and the US/NATO have plenty of it. I'd also see them coming in via Lebanon by sea. That would be the shortest and easiest route, not to mention the one that offers the largest capacity (sea lift + short truck route).

Also if you can pull some stuff north of Damascus in to the mountains where they can move in to the Lebanon, you might be able to do what the Iraqi's are doing from Syria right now.

Sure, but note that Iraq was defeated and is still only offering modest armed resistance. It isn't enough to defeat the conventional phase, nor is it enough (on its own) to defeat a determined occupation force.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

He should have made a car metaphor.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

if the Syrians have a particular weapon in significant quantities, the player will have them available. Something like the BMP 3, which they might have around 100-300 in total, will not make the cut.

any chance Kornet-E and Metis-M are included?

judging from the cost of the deals they made at the turn of the millenium they have currently only about 100 Kornet-E and 300 Metis-M launchers, but i read in Janes that they signed twelve further Kornet & Metis deals in 2004.

EDIT: even ~400 launchers is quite a lot. makes a good number of ATGM companies.

[ December 14, 2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[Battlefront.com]

We have no hard and fast threshold inventory number for what will or will not get into CM:SF. Part of it will depend on what system we're talking about. A Kornet-E missile system is a LOT more interesting than a BMP-3. The reason is that the Kornet has a very good chance of doing some heavy damage to the US player while the BMP-3 is more likely to be a fireworks display as it is brewed up.

And yeah, 400 launchers is quite a decent number. Spread out that could be 2 or 3 in each major anticipated conflict area with a few more in reserve. And unlike vehicles, the chances are they can be deployed and used.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Ok I am pre-ordering 11 Kornet-E and am now gonna put my stockpile of 18 BMP-3 on Ebay. Any takers?

On a serious note, this weapon is no joke. It has a high capicity to defeat reactive armor and an added bonus it can IIRC can even take out fortified bunkers.

But isnt it used as one of the weapons systems available to the BMP-3?

-Ray

[flamingknives]

I don't think so. The BMP3 has a 100mm gun-launched ATGM, but it's not a Kornet.

200 BMP3s is still more than the entire production runs of some of the German AFVs in WWII that we saw in CMX1

[Moronic Max]

200 BMP3s is still more than the entire production runs of some of the German AFVs in WWII that we saw in CMX1

Weren't there only around 250 Sherman Jumbos produced during the entire war? Or am I misremembering?

[Battlefront.com]

I don't think so. The BMP3 has a 100mm gun-launched ATGM, but it's not a Kornet.

Correct. And don't get me wrong. As a tracked scout vehicle it is pretty darned good. In fat, I almost bought a BMP-3, but that's a long story and it didn't have a happy ending (especially for the seller who went to jail and then back to Russia. At least I didn't lose any money!).

200 BMP3s is still more than the entire production runs of some of the German AFVs in WWII that we saw in CMX1

Correct. The BMP-3 falls likely falls into the same category as the Puma, Jagdtiger, and other WWII oddities produced in small numbers; ineffective and not worth our time to include. At least not with the prime release. Follow ups... who knows.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Hmm not the BMP-3? Maybe I have it mixed up or something. Been a while since we have ran anything that is related to this. Maybe it is based on a BMP-3 model. I cant have this bad of a memory.

-Ray

[Battlefront.com]

Well Sixxkiller, your memory isn't that bad. There is the "BMP-3 Kornet SP ATGM" built on the hull of the BMP-3. I forgot all about this sucker. It is the BMP-3 hull with major modifications. The turret is replaced by a single turret with two 6 barrel "revolver" style launchers, one generally loaded with Kornet and the other with FAE (a high explosive missile). A total of 16 missiles are carried. There is a crew of 2 or 3 (contradictory evidence) which is able to reload the launchers from within the vehicle.

A nasty little bastard if I do say so myself. This is not what the Syrians have, however.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

sort of like this:

[Battlefront.com]

To get back to the topic of this thread...

I think another Thunder Run style move will be anticipated by the Syrians. The two reasons it worked in Iraq was a) they weren't expecting it (few could say they were!) and there was little indication that the Iraqis could do much against it. Both elements are lacking now, at least in theory.

What is the counter to a Thunder Run style attack? Easy... ambush teams armed with heavy ATGMs, RPGs, grenades, plentiful small arms, and perhaps a few other nasties like IEDs positioned along likely routes. I think it is highly likely that some urban areas will see these types of defenses waiting for an invasion. It is easily within Syria's current means, and therefore should be considered plausible.

The way I would do it is prepositioned, assigned teams along the main routes. These guys would have the heavy stuff (the Kornet is NOT very portable) already deployed and ready to go. Their only job is to delay the run, not to destroy it. Once the run has been stopped a second line of defense would move into the area to finish off the column. The second line would basically be light infantry, armed to the hilt with automatic weapons and fragmentation weapons.

The ambush would not require significant command and control, nor would it require much in the way of assets. 20 major entrances into a city could be covered by 1000 men and 40 launchers. The second line would be mobile, to some extent, and therefore 5-10 reserves (depending on proximity to the 20 ambush sights) of a few hundred each is all that would be needed. That means an investment of about 2000-3000 men and tiny amount of equipment would effectively seal off an entire city from a Thunder Run attack.

To recap why I think this is a probable tactic:

1. Identified threat - Thunder Run unglued the remaining resistance in Baghdad. It was a major blow to Iraq and a huge PR gain for the Coalition. It would be quite tempting for an attacker to gamble on it working again, and therefore it should be expected.

2. Existing tactics - ambush tactics, as described, are well established doctrine. I'd have to check into my Soviet books, but I am sure they have been doing stuff like this since well before WWII started.

3. Existing weapons - the Syrians could pull this off with stuff we know they already have. No need to fatasize about stuff they might get in the near future. What they have will do just fine.

4. Fits in with character of the region - ambushing is something very familiar to the Islamic culture of warfare. This is not some alien concept that they would have to force into action. Nope, this will come natural.

5. Minimum investment - small up front "cost" with no strategic implications. In short, it is managable.

6. Robustness - not likely to come unglued when contact is made. Central control is not needed. Direct communications between the ambush location and the reserve is needed, but that can be done using small radios, cellphones, or even by foot messanger.

So there you go... an example of how a Syrian force could put some serious hurt on an invaiding force.

Steve

[ December 14, 2005, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom, that is not quite it. That is a competing design which is based on a different missile system. But you are correct that one is also based on the BMP-3 chasis.

Steve

[MikeyD]

There are three schools of thought on how to survive a fight with a bully on the playground.

The first is you try to make friends with the bully. Honestly, when has this ever worked?

The second is you stand up to him publically and give him a good hard punch in the hope the bully's all bluster and will back down. On the downside the bully may simply murder you in retribution.

The third is you go aggressive, but not on the bully himself. You construct your own reputation for being ruthless to those you know you can whip. Hopefully the bully will get wind of your reputation and decide to go elsewhere for easier prey.

Okay. You're Syria. The world's last major superpower is making threatening noises. Which of the three strategies do you adopt?

In tactic one you invite as many UN inspector into the country as the local Mariott will hold. Any site they want to visit. Any document they want to see. We all know how well that tactic worked for Saddam in 2002.

Tactic two. Show of force. VERY hard to do. The only thing I see that'll really scare the U.S. is if you can knock down his air arm. Level the playing field (the U.S. really disliked losing an A-6 Intruder over Lebanon back around '82-ish). If you can't keep at least nominal control of the skies then any assault will just turn into another Kafjhi.

That leaves three. The U.S. has got to be convinced that you are such a bad-ass MF that every leaf on every tree is going to be hiding a bomb. You know the old Soviet-era saying "quantiity makes up for quality". In this context the saying should be "ruthlessness substitutes for tactics". That is basically the current Iraqi jigadist strategy. And following the playground rules you don't go for the tough kids. Leave the Abrams and Bradleys alone. Let the 82nd Airborne be. But hit everyone else in-theater, as often as you can, everywhere that you can, as hard as you can.

[Sixxkiller]

Ya this was back in '96. Was stationed in Korea at the time and I cant even remember why we even needed to know about it considering China and NKorea didnt use it at the time. Now I am betting this has changed though, especially since the Iraqis and Syrians have it.

-Ray

[Sixxkiller]

Hi Mikey,

Well we are the bullys on the playground but that doesnt mean we can control all aspects of said playground. We dont control the access to the playground and that is essentially why we are having so much trouble in Iraq at the moment.

If we do go to Syria I am thinking we plow right through but with much higher costs.

And we are the last major superpower? Might want to let China and Russia in on that one, atleast in terms of what thier military capabilities are or will be.

-Ray

-Ray

Originally posted by MikeyD:

There are three schools of thought on how to survive a fight with a bully on the playground.

The first is you try to make friends with the bully. Honestly, when has this ever worked?

The second is you stand up to him publically and give him a good hard punch in the hope the bully's all bluster and will back down. On the downside the bully may simply murder you in retribution.

The third is you go aggressive, but not on the bully himself. You construct your own reputation for being ruthless to those you know you can whip. Hopefully the bully will get wind of your reputation and decide to go elsewhere for easier prey.

Okay. You're Syria. The world's last major superpower is making threatening noises. Which of the three strategies do you adopt?

In tactic one you invite as many UN inspector into the country as the local Mariott will hold. Any site they want to visit. Any document they want to see. We all know how well that tactic worked for Saddam in 2002.

Tactic two. Show of force. VERY hard to do. The only thing I see that'll really scare the U.S. is if you can knock down his air arm. Level the playing field (the U.S. really disliked losing an A-6 Intruder over Lebanon back around '82-ish). If you can't keep at least nominal control of the skies then any assault will just turn into another Kafjhi.

That leaves three. The U.S. has got to be convinced that you are such a bad-ass MF that every leaf on every tree is going to be hiding a bomb. You know the old Soviet-era saying "quantiity makes up for quality". In this context the saying should be "ruthlessness substitutes for tactics". That is basically the current Iraqi jigadist strategy. And following the playground rules you don't go for the tough kids. Leave the Abrams and Bradleys alone. Let the 82nd Airborne be. But hit everyone else in-theater, as often as you can, everywhere that you can, as hard as you can.

[Battlefront.com]

Mikey,

I'd more or less equate it to the bully has confronted you on the playground for something you've done (like take lunch money from one of his friends). All the other kids are either held at bay by the bully's reputation and/or the bully's friends. There is nobody that is going to help you. You know that this guy means business and is going to pound the living crap out of you. You also know that he'll come at you swinging conventional boxing moves. What do you do?

1. Take the punches and just hope to merciful God (and or a school administration figure) that he stops smacking the crap out of you before you are out of the running as junior school bully for good.

2. Try to mount a conventional boxing defense and hope that you can at least score a few pokes before you black out on the pavement.

3. When the first puch is thrown, duck and pop him one in the nuts as hard as your fist can strike, then headbut him in the nose, then knee him in the gut, then puch him in the head on his way down.

From a military standpoint, #1 is passive resistance, #2 is active conventional defense, #3 is "playing dirty" in order to survive. Which do you think works, short term, the best? I'd say #3.

The problem with #3 is the others standing around that you aren't paying attention to. Perhaps while you go to one knee to get the shot off at the 'nads, one of the other bullies kicks you in the head. Perhaps you sorta land one good hit to the inner thigh, but the end will be the same... a good thrashing.

And even if you do knock the bully down, then what? Unless you killed him that guy will be coming back at you HARD. And if he fell for the dirty tricks the first time, he is certainly going to be ready for you the second time.

In short, if the bully wants to beat the crap out of you, and is clearly capable of it, then you're toast unless someone outside has power to separate and exercises that power.

Personally, I would go with #3. Then, after I got solidly beaten to all Hell, I would do a covert campaign to get back at the bully. You know, spray paint the inside of his locker through the door's vent holes, coat the underside of his desk with a sticky substance, put stink powder in his gym sneakers, spread tantilizing rumors about his sexual experiences with the 58 year old fat math teacher, etc. I would probably get pounded a bunch more times, but at least I'd be able to hit back. And who knows, perhaps I do enough things to make the guy look so foolish he starts leaving me alone in exchange for me knocking it off. At least that is something to strive for.

Steve

[ December 15, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Another option to keep the bully away would be to get hold of a weapon to be able to hurt him if he gets at you. Of course the bully also has weapons at home, but he's hesitant to bring them to the playground because using them may mean losing all of his friends who don't want to see excessive bloodshed, especially if it's caused by somebody who could win without them anyway. Now the bully obviously doesn't want anybody except for himself to posess weapons and will try to prevent everyone from getting them, but once he knows that you have one, he will be very reluctant to go after you.

You won't make any friends that way either, but since it's the only means of defence that actually succeeds at keeping the bully away, more and more weaker kids start copying your strategy. And after some time the playground is a much more dangerous place than ever because of all the weapons floating around. And all that only because the bully once thought it was funny to beat up weaker kids...

[MikeyD]

Of course there's the fourth option that's well outside of the scope of CM. The Ghandi approach. Let the bully hit you, beat you, stomp on you. Offer no raction, no resistance, but give him no gratification either. The bully will eventually get bored and go home, and after the bruises heal you can continue as you had before.

This would make for really dull gameplay, though.

Oh, by the way, I feel a couple of you squirming slightly over my equating the U.S. with the bully. Remember, the topic is supposed to be from the 'Syrian' perspective! Do you think the Syrian government sits around saying to eachother "We're the bad guys and someday the U.S. will bring justified retribution on our heads"?

[ December 16, 2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[aka_tom_w]

recap

1. Take the punches and just hope to merciful God (and or a school administration figure) that he stops smacking the crap out of you before you are out of the running as junior school bully for good.

1b "The Ghandi approach. Let the bully hit you, beat you, stomp on you. Offer no raction, no resistance, but give him no gratification either. The bully will eventually get bored and go home, and after the bruises heal you can continue as you had before."

2. Try to mount a conventional boxing defense and hope that you can at least score a few pokes before you black out on the pavement.

3. When the first puch is thrown, duck and pop him one in the nuts as hard as your fist can strike, then headbut him in the nose, then knee him in the gut, then puch him in the head on his way down.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

3. When the first punch is thrown, duck and pop him one in the nuts as hard as your fist can strike, then headbut him in the nose, then knee him in the gut, then puch him in the head on his way down.

Obviously Madmatt was consulted for option 3!

His style is clearly recognizable!

Best regards,

Thomm

[KNac]

Most of the talking I've read deals with strategical/operational scope of warfare, but not much talking about tactical warfare that it's what we will have to deal with.

The way the enemy acts operationally & strategically will define what kind of tactical battle we will have to play (from either side), the only thing I got clear on here is that we will have to play a lot of ambush battles (let the convoy advance & hit them), or permantly delaying/attriting actions so when the unit advaces gets hit by an other ambush, but only that?

[ December 16, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[MikeyD]

At CMx2's scale (even smaller than CMx1?) there should be plenty of opportunities for an overlooked Syrian tank company on a rainy day to put up a valiant defense of a local bridge against a roaming Stryker recon group. The fact that a half hour after the game's over they'd probably get cluster-bombed into oblivion shouldn't be a factor in gameplay, unless you want to play every scenario where you make contact, withdraw, and wait patiently for the airstrike to come. Unfortunately it'll be rather difficult for Syria to commit to a large scale stand-up fight when its opponent has B52s circling overhead!

I'll bet we'll see more than a couple "could never happen in real life" scenarios designed just for the challenge, where a dozen Syrian T62s overun a sleeping Stryker company parked in laager at night. Sure, it'd never actually happen but how would you handle it if it did?

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

At CMx2's scale (even smaller than CMx1?) there should be plenty of opportunities for an overlooked Syrian tank company on a rainy day to put up a valiant defense of a local bridge against a roaming Stryker recon group. The fact that a half hour after the game's over they'd probably get cluster-bombed into oblivion shouldn't be a factor in gameplay, unless you want to play every scenario where you make contact, withdraw, and wait patiently for the airstrike to come. Unfortunately it'll be rather difficult for Syria to commit to a large scale stand-up fight when its opponent has B52s circling overhead!

I'll bet we'll see more than a couple "could never happen in real life" scenarios designed just for the challenge, where a dozen Syrian T62s overun a sleeping Stryker company parked in laager at night. Sure, it'd never actually happen but how would you handle it if it did?

Wouldn't it be preferable to have a setting where scenarios "could happen in real life"?

[MikeyD]

KNac seemed to be worrying that the game would be nothing but ambushes vs airstrikes. I was just trying to assure him that 'creative' scenario design would still be possible.

If you want to expand the idea of what 'could happen', who's to say in 2007 massive solar flairs won't knock out more GPS satellites than can be replaced? I understand during the Iraq invasion we had fewer functioning GPS satellites than we wanted, but we had enough redundancy built-in to pull through. No GPS would put a bit of a damper on U.S. precision airstrikes, to say the least! And maybe that would cause enough confusion to make that dozen-T62s-overrunning-Strykers scenario a little bit more plausable