Peter Cairns Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I was talking to a friend who was involved in GW1 and he said that both British and US service personnel were surprised and impressed by the quality of the Egyptians. That doesn't mean that the were brilliant, but a lot better than people had expected them to be. So I had a bit of a search and although I pretty much feel Israel would be the clear favourite and winner, it's not necessarily the mismatch you might expect. Recently I know there was speculation about Egypt trying to re-militarise the Sinai so a limited conflict could emerge. Anyway some rough figures that are relevant. Israel. 80 F-15's ( a big factor, Egypt has nothing close) 250 F-16's various types, but some new. 60 F-4's plus some in reserve and Wild Weasels. 100 A-4's Egypt. 220 F-16's most older than Israels. 20 Mirage 2000 a good plane but no F-15.... 60 Mirage 5's many refurbished. 70 F-7 Skybolts ( Pakistan/Chinese) 60 Mig 21MF ( not much use unless they get to the A-4's) Israel. 40 Apache , about a fifth Longbow. 55 Cobra Egypt. 35 Apache, no longbow as far as I know, 5 Cobra. Israel 1600 Merkava, all three types plus some Mk4? 500 M60A3, plus local enhancements. 700 M60A1, again upgraded. 500 M48A5, ditto 300 Centurion A41 Egypt. 800 M1 Abrams (possibly some A1 plus standard) 1700 M60A3 probably less capable than Israel's 450 T-62, some pgraded. 350 T-55 11, local upgrades. In a Sinai scenario Israel might not able to deploy it's full forces, as it's Northern borders could not be left undefended. A fair bit of the above could be upgraded from CM:SF, M1s, T-62's, Attack helicopter and F-16 strikes, plus at least some egyptian and Israeli artillary. The rest would need to be new but the main components aren't really that numerous. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 The operative state of USA-build weapons for Egypt would be lacking to say the least in a conflict like this, as they are dependent on USA for any spare piece or repair, and obviously in a event like this USA would withdraw any support. Indeed they changed from soviet equipment to american equipment because they have become an strategic ally of USA in the zone. So is very unlikely a conflict that this would happen, unless Egypt suddenly changed government. It could be interested but not likely, and I don't know if BFC would be intered in modelling this scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Originally posted by KNac: The operative state of USA-build weapons for Egypt would be lacking to say the least in a conflict like this, as they are dependent on USA for any spare piece or repair, and obviously in a event like this USA would withdraw any support.To be honest wouldn’t be be underestimating the Egyptians if we assumed this though? If we can guess that this would likely be the case then they are obviously well aware of the fact, and likely have appropriate measures in place to make sure its not an issue. Just a thought, anways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 But how long would a war have to last before logistics support from the OEM becomes a big problem? Presumably they have an operational inventory in place already, and could cannibalise rear echelon units. Unless JIT inventory planning has been implemented, which would be pretty silly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I would want to know how the sides balance out in other categoties, including: Officer corps professionalism Overall professionalism if reserves are mobilized ATGM types and supplies SAM types and supplies Missile operator skill Egyptian intell collection by sattelite, if any Syrian and/or Jordanian mobilization, if any This is assuming a relatively short war before the world intervenes, a la Yom Kippur. My guess if things came to shooting on those terms it would be a vehicle bloodbath, and then stalemate due to exhaustion. In a long war the critical issue is the degree to which the Americans decide to support the Israelis, obviously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
track Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Why not make it an internal Russo fight? Grozny would have a similar setting to the U.S. vs. Syrians. The savage city fight actually took place, not just some hypotethical scenario. Some Russian formations took almost 80% casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 As far as I am aware, Egypt has had a deal with Pakistan to service and upgrade it's F-16's, and it actually manufactures it's own M1's. But for me it would be a short war where production and support aren't the main issues. Neither issue seems to be part of the thinking for CM:SF. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Not for the direct scenaries but yes when presenting and making the game. I mean, look at CM:SF, BFC looked for a feasible (misspelling?) situation that could happen. Anyway, if it's done I'll buy it for sure, it would be an interesting w/o question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijis Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Last I heard Egypt just assembled its M1s from parts that were manufactured in Amreeka, although they may be making some locally now. I would not expect the professionalism of the Egyptian military to be particularly high in anything other than short-term, well-rehearsed operations (such as the 1973 crossing of the Suez Canal). Their training is supposed to be quite choreographed, and there's also the vast social gap between the officer corps and the conscipted and largely uneducated recruits. From what I've read about Desert Storm, the US and British thought the Egyptians moved extremely slowly towards objectives that were essentially undefended. This may have improved in the past 15 years, however. The likelihood of such a war I'd say is quite low. Keeping out of economically disastrous armed conflicts (as opposed to debt relief bonanzas like GW1) is probably the single top priority in President Mubarak's foreign policy, and I expect that he would make sure that any successor also shared that priority. I would also rate any sort of Islamist-backed coup to be extremely unlikely, as the only opposition with any mass backing, the Muslim Brothers, are an extremely cautious lot. On the other hand, we don't really know who will replace Mubarak, and new Egyptian presidents are known for taking the country lurching in new directions. I'd definitely buy a game on the topic, although I suspect that Battlefront won't make one, alas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 <font color = red>Not</font> <font color = white> a</font> <font color = blue> chance</font> IMO another modern will not sell well. CMSF might sell well but I doubt it will match CMBB's success. Then another modern release, like CMIE will likely sell even worse than CMAK did. Even if it is only a module, I'm not if sure it would do that well outside of Isreal or a handful of middle east historians. Regarding Modules for CMSF, I could see Iranian and British troops being a decent Add-On. But I'm starting to really warm up to a CM:Vietnam for some reason. I'm not sure why, but I think the scale of play suits US vs NVA pretty well. I'm thinking of something like the boardgame Lock 'N Load: Forgotten Heroes Vietnam but in Wego or Real Time. But then... what do I know... :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Originally posted by track: Why not make it an internal Russo fight? Grozny would have a similar setting to the U.S. vs. Syrians. The savage city fight actually took place, not just some hypotethical scenario. Some Russian formations took almost 80% casualties. Not really that similar... Modeling the first Chechen war, with the incompetent and underfunded post-USSR-collapse army sending tank collumns into tight streets doesn't sound much more exciting then playing the second Chechen war; seeing bitter but better funded Russian generals kill a few million people and subdue the guerrillas through a mix of sheer brutality, bribery and assasinations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Originally posted by Ivan Drago: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by track: Why not make it an internal Russo fight? Grozny would have a similar setting to the U.S. vs. Syrians. The savage city fight actually took place, not just some hypotethical scenario. Some Russian formations took almost 80% casualties. Not really that similar... Modeling the first Chechen war, with the incompetent and underfunded post-USSR-collapse army sending tank collumns into tight streets doesn't sound much more exciting then playing the second Chechen war; seeing bitter but better funded Russian generals kill a few million people and subdue the guerrillas through a mix of sheer brutality, bribery and assasinations. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I'm wondering how much extra work it would be for them to offer up a 'wacky' CMSF module just for fun after all the 'real' modules have been finished and shipped. A small (even VERY small) 'wacky' module could be download only - no shipping of disks - to save on overhead. It might attract new players just to see what's up, and it would be a chance for BFC to 'let its hair down' after struggling all year with accurate historical representations. You know, add a few twenty foot tall soldiers or Godzilla monsters. Wacky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 MikeyD, As a taster I think a simplified " generic" game could work, sort of "Army Guys" style with "Green v Blue" I type of tank APC and unit each side plus basic artillary and airpower. Having said that, you could't do it till CMx@ was ready to go and as by that point you would already have the Strykers and BMP's etc ready, it would probably be more effort than a demo. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hi, It is worth remembering just how good, or close to the Israelis, the Egyptians have been for many years now. In ’73 they would have won the war on their flank if it were not for interference from the politicians ordering the Egyptians to launch what their military knew only too well would be suicide attack after attack out of the Canal Zone into the Sinai desert. This was done to keep the Syrians happy. Anyway… the point is that when used within their limits, the Egyptian military high command being well aware what these limits are, they are likely to put up a fine performance. Remember many generations of Egyptian officers, the brightest and best anyway, have been educated at Sandhurst and UK Staff College, no doubt US military collages too. A lot of them know that they are about. Good ideas… I will have ago building some such scenarios myself. All very good fun , All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Remember many generations of Egyptian officers, the brightest and best anyway, have been educated at Sandhurst and UK Staff College, no doubt US military collages too.Well, I know I have an Egyptian uniform that came off the back of an officer studying armor tactics at Ft. Knox After CM:SF is out we're concentrating on Modules within the same setting (i.e. Syria) and WWII. We won't be going back to revisit modern warfare for a long time. Well, at least in development terms (3+ years). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Though I've considered myself burned out on WWII games for years now, I've been playing the hell out of CMAK again and am looking forward to a new WWII CM. After I get my Strykers, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.