Syrian Army capabilities

[Andreas]

Just thought I'd ask. I have looked at the usual sites (FAS, Globalsecurity.org), but there is not a lot except for some very basic info. The only analysis I read of Syrian performance related to the 1982 war in Lebanon, and it was dire then.

I am not talking about kit, but training levels, etc. Even if Syrian MBTs are more of a thread than Iraqi ones were, this won't help the Syrian army very much if the skill level of the soldiers manning them is not a lot better too. The Iraqui army was not really a major issue in GW1 and 2, while now the mass-murderers commonly called insurgents are. BFC does however seem to expect that the Syrian army would be able to hold its own a bit better.

So, does anyone have some info on what the Syrian army is actually capable off in terms of combined arms/MOUT warfare? Has pretty constant exposure to the IDF helped them in staying keener than the Iraqi army?

Thanks a lot in advance for any comments.

All the best

Andreas

[flamingknives]

Google 'Syrian military', first link:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0108_s1.htm

It's a primer on the Syrian Military, written in 2001

[undead reindeer cavalry]

actually Iraqis did quite well against Americans when they got to fight in urban areas. at some places relatively weak units held important key points for days against US forces. the key for Syrian "success" would be ability to draw UN forces into urban areas. and that seems to be what CMSF is all about.

[Andreas]

Thanks a lot Mike!

All the best

Andreas

[flamingknives]

Fear my Google-Fu powers.

[roqf77]

hi mum

[Wicky]

er what's upset you with this thread? pray tell...

Seems relevent to CM-SF if I'm not mistaken

Originally posted by roqf77:

hi mum

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As I happens, if we are to play the role of any Third World/developing nation… the Syrians have always been my favourites. The reason I am a fan of the Syrians is that they have a consistent record as a stubborn, tough bunch. Their special forces are very competent and can/have given all comers a run for their money.

When it comes to weaponry they do have the latest/contemporary generation Russian anti-armour weapons such as Kornet ATGMs and RPG27/29 which use a devastatingly effective tandem, 105mm warhead. These weapons alone make it all a far more challenging than was the case against Iraq, an entirely different matter.

Whenever such an encounter looked likely the Russians would send small numbers of their latest kit to battle test it, prove it in combat for advertising purposes if nothing else. “You too can have the missiles that knocked out the US M1s…” that sort of thing. In Iraq this may already have happened with one indecent of an M1 being penetrated straight through both sides of the hull leaving a knitting needle like hole. The belief is that it was a smuggle RPG 27/29 from Syria. That was one theory anyway…

Syrians are about the only Middle Eastern nation I could get into playing the role of… so greatly look forward to CMSF. When you think Syrians, do not think Iraqis. (They also happen to be more secular than most Middle Eastern nations.)

“The” book in the subject, but sadly a very dry book , is Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollack.

I think of CMSF as a form of supper realistic OPFORs game. Fought over real Middle Eastern terrain, against a huge range of possible OPFORs. Even those with NATO/US equipment… great

The best link for the weaponry, or one of the best, is

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/

Greatly looking for ward to CMSF,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Emrys]

To get back on topic, the Israelis have handed the Syrians their asses nearly every time they've gone head to head in open country. They (the Syrians) turned in their best performance at the beginning of the '73 war, but even that wasn't so hot. In the years since, the discrepancy has only widened as the Israelis are better at applying new technology.

Would the Americans do as well? Probably not right away, as they are still learning how to fight in the Middle Eastern environment and, as has already been mentioned, any such fight will almost certainly devolve into city fights where the Syrians would be their strongest. This is not a fight that I for one would be in a hurry to pick.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just to add to the above, try this.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm

The general rule is that contemporary Russian anti-armour weapons will penetrate, with ease, the side armour of even the heaviest US armour. That is mid and late ‘90s weapons. Very different from the ‘70s designs normally encountered by US forces. The launcher, and RPG 7 tube for example, may be the same, but the latest tandem warheads are very different.

In fact have a very good search around in defense-update.com. Of the free sources it is by far the best on most/all contemporary defence equipment matters. Note, it is Israeli, so if it is polite about Russian equipment it is because it does in fact work as advertised, there is no pro-Russian bias.

All the best,

Kip.

[flamingknives]

Part of the problem, at least according to the primer I linked to above, is that up until '83/'84, the Syrians relied heavily on Soviet Doctrine and the associated centralised C&C. Following the fairly disastrous 1982 Lebanon conflict, they seem to have adopted a more modern way of fighting. How much this has taken root is unclear.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Fear my Google-Fu powers.

There's a reason I did not google for this.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

MOUT is certainly going to be a central part of CM:SF, but that isn't the only thing we have access to in the "bag of tricks". With CMx2's ability to scale down to smaller unit actions better than CMx1, and the far more powerful scenario victory options, we have all sorts of interesting non-MOUT situations to play around with.

For example, a small recon patrol ambushed. A trailing unit detoured to clean out a small village (MOUT in a sense, but not really), collision with a fairly large force at night, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

The major limitation, if you want to think of it that way, is you won't see scenarios where there is 3000m of open terrain and a couple of companies of Syrian Armor and Infantry on one side and a similar sized force on the other side. The conclusion of such a battle is not assured to be lossless on the US side, but it will be so close to that it really won't be all that interesting to play. At least I think not. Perhaps one scenario like that every so often might be interesting, but I doubt more than that.

Steve