BFC Please sketch the game from the Syrian point of view!

[Battlefront.com]

Combined arms and asymmetrical warfare are not necessarily exclusive. Here is a nice link to see what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetrical_warfare

You can fight asymmetrically with combined arms or without. The point is the tactics are not lined up with what the other side expects and/or the response is not as effective if the combat were symmetrical. Two examples:

Assymetrical - hiding members of a military unit all around a city in small groups armed with various light weapons. At one location there is a mortar. When some sort of condition is met, the members converge on a given point and the mortar opens fire. There is a battle and then the individuals break out and go back to their hiding places.

Symetrical - units are preassembled in defensive positions waiting for an attacker to come to them. When the attacker comes a call is made and a mortar fires in support of the infantry weapons. The defending force remains in place.

Same exact weapons, somewhat similar character of the battle itself, totally different in terms of the options for the force being attacked. In the Asymmetrical setting the force finding itself under small arms and mortar fire just starts to get its wits about it as the enemy melts away on its own terms. Because they are going in many different directions at once, an organized pursuit along traditional military lines is not possible (i.e. you can not concentrate force in 10 directions at once). In the symmetrical battle it is by the book suppress, eliminate with heavy fire, then close to finish 'em off.

If you were the Syrians and knew that a US Army assault force was coming into town, which one would you choose as more effective? Asymmetrical I hope. But there are problems with this approach, the most important of which is command and control. How do you know those soldiers will come to the right places at the right time? How do you know they will come at all? What happens if some of your guys think it is time to leave the battle too early and some too late? What happens if the US force sees this and acts quickly enough to take out the stragglers?

And who says this isn't interesting?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and I meant to comment a bit more on the motivation angle before. One thing I think is clear... the average soldier in Iraq didn't want to fight and die for Saddam. The average soldier in Iraq had little confidence that they would be able to stop the Coallition from coming in and winning. So even if they didn't look forward to a regime change, many saw orders to resist as being the same as suicide.

Now, unfortunately, the inability of US and British (primarily) forces to stomp out the insurgency is actually emboldening the would be enemies of the West. Now they see a glimmer of a hope that if they abandon their Soviet style tactics and pick up new ones that they might actually stand a chance of causing some harm instead of getting cut down well before could do anything.

I'd think that all else being equal, the US Army is going to find their next nut a lot harder to crack.

Steve

[Dillweed]

All hail the ASAK Wikipedia!

[Kurtz]

It will be a lot harder to attack if you're forced to drop the WW2 tactic of bringing up your assualt guns and level every building in sight where there might be a soldier.

[RSColonel_131st]

Hhmm. Seems to me a lot of emphasis for "making it harder for the US Player" is about allowing only limited casualitys.

Now, playing from the Syrian side, this will be a tad bit strange. Basically you'd play out a syrian ambush, lose all your men and weapons while only inflicting "some" casualitys to the american convoy - and then, when all or most of your men are dead, and the US drives on - you win the scenario because you inflicted more cas than the other side was allowed to have?

[Battlefront.com]

you win the scenario because you inflicted more cas than the other side was allowed to have?

Yes, that is one possible outcome, though certainly not the only (and I don't think the most common). Think of it like you having to box against Mike Tyson. You know you're going to get put into the hospital (if you're lucky) no matter what you do, but if you wake up 2 weeks later and through the haze of medication come to find out you at least gave him a bloody lip you'd probably think of yourself as being one bad MFer As a Saturday Night Live would say "Lowered Expectations"!

Steve

[panzermartin]

Really cant wait for CMSF, a mid east setting is a wise choice and will certainly prove to be a very immersive wargame environment.

I would just like to add my thoughts along with

those of the previous posters regarding the

equal represenation of the syrian side in the game.

Single player campaign as US might be challenging BUT emphasis should be put on

head to head play. This is where CM series really

shine and hope that BFC wont make the game leaning towards one side.

Please make the scenario and Quickbattle parameters unlimited beyond strickly realistic

borders for both sides. Dont dump the old style meeting engagment type of scenarios. Although unrealistic, many of us find this type of QBs

the most fun of all, allowing both players for

manuevering, attacking and defending at the same time. I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having

a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian

inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all, wasn't the kornet supposed not to have been shipped to Iraq?)

In other words I would expect the game to be fully moddable in terms of missions at least.

Wish we could have an operation tool for the syrian side too but I'm not very optimistic

about it.

Of course, I understand that assymetrical type of battles will be the core of the gameplay I suppose (and really really looking forward to play these ones) but making the force balance and philosophy fully customizable wont hurt anyone I think.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'd think that all else being equal, the US Army is going to find their next nut a lot harder to crack.

And that's something that puzzles me about your approach to the tactical problems in CM:SF. I have the feeling that what you're aiming towards is almost a representation of the drive to Baghdad, or some variation on it. But then if the Syrians - regular and irregular - have been learning lessons from Iraq, and I assume they have, then it's precisely the things you're committed to *not* representing that would cause the US greatest difficulty, specifically suicide bombers.

[aka_tom_w]

Please make the scenario and Quickbattle parameters unlimited beyond strickly realistic

borders for both sides. Dont dump the old style meeting engagment type of scenarios. Although unrealistic, many of us find this type of QBs the most fun of all, allowing both players for manuevering, attacking and defending at the same time. I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian

inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all, wasn't the kornet supposed not to have been shipped to Iraq?)

I agree with this completely

Please consider:

" I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian

inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all."

Now "What if" scenarios like THAT could make the game fun and worthwhile.

-tom w

[Thomm]

I am still trying to figure out if this is correct, but it appears to me as if the Syrians, at least in the game, have to deal mostly with APCs that can be destroyed by everything heavier than 14.5mm and have (in most cases) only a MG for self-defense?!?!?

You do not need T80s for that task. I start feeling pity for the US ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I am still trying to figure out if this is correct, but it appears to me as if the Syrians, at least in the game, have to deal mostly with APCs that can be destroyed by everything heavier than 14.5mm and have (in most cases) only a MG for self-defense?!?!?

You do not need T80s for that task. I start feeling pity for the US ...

Well perhaps, in the single player campaign which will be crafted to be tough for the US player.

What about 2-player though? I'd like to play as Syrian in battles that are not only defensive/ambush/IED focused. Will this be possible if the majority of the syrian force

is slow in coordination,command delays and

most of its equipment is 30yrs old?

Anyway, I think players will come up with force balancing rules so I hope this wont be an issue.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I suppose they could do like Steve said above and just make the US side automatically lose if their loses exceed a certain percentage at any point. That could be jarring and frustrating, I think. Something similar they could to, at least for QBs, is make US loses count for more VPs than Syrian loses. So if an Abrams which costs 300 points to purchase is destroyed it counts as 600 VP points for the Syrians, for example. Of course if you go far enough with this you could theoretically end up with a situation where the US player destroys every Syrian unit and still loses on points. No Pyrric victorys for the US

Whatever they decide to do I strongly agree that the Syrians should be given the benefit of the doubt on capabilities and tech wherever reasonable, such as with the T-80 and BMP-3. Let's not make the problem any bigger than it has to be.

[Pandur]

I suppose they could do like Steve said above and just make the US side automatically lose if their loses exceed a certain percentage at any point

i think that could be their plan. but iam somewhat sceptic about the AI capabillitys to advance with just 5 or 10% casualies in QB (Human red vs. AI blue).

syrians against ai, meybe to easy in some ways... . its wild speculation, but with the AI from BB and AK i can see this comming

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I am still trying to figure out if this is correct, but it appears to me as if the Syrians, at least in the game, have to deal mostly with APCs that can be destroyed by everything heavier than 14.5mm and have (in most cases) only a MG for self-defense?!?!?

Best regards,

Thomm

Well, if they keep the US Force down to a Stryker Company, then yes, that's "all" you would see. And on a lowly infantry/armored car level, the two sides would be fairly equal (especially if we have have the BMP-3).

But as soon as they introduce a M1A4 in support role outside urban territory, and as soon as the US Players calls superior CAS/Arty, we got problems.

[MikeyD]

Stryker's MEXAS ceramic armor can withstand 14.5mm AP from point-blank. That's the equivalent of a full 56mm RHA! Most everything else in the west is protected against AK47 ammo. The M1114 armored Hummer, for instance, was originally protected against 7.62 from 100m but I think they may have got some added ceramic armor protection since I read that.

Stryker Brigade does look to be undergunned on paper. There were plans to refit old TOW rounds into straight HE bunker busters (maybe squash head warheads?) to help the TOW Stryker fill in for MGS unil it gets fielded. i don't know if that round was ever issued. I don't know what use the latest overflight Tow 2B rounds would be for infantry support.

[Snow Leopard]

I am bit confuse and how good it will be since we already have Ghost Recon with MOD Syrian to play. (I know it is different way to play) Also Ghost Recon 2 will come out to play in Middle East as well we have more PC games base on fight at Middle East. I feel bad for some International players who like play different national like Finland, Hungary, Romania, Soviet, German, USA Britian and more. Unless if we can create campaigns in Middle East from 1948 to 2000 as many nationals had been there.

[Snow Leopard]

Do you think CMSF is in "water ski jump over shark"?

[Dogface]

HUH?

[Sgt Joch]

I found a very interesting article dealing with the current state of the Syrian Armed Forces. Here are the interesting bits:

--------------------------------------------------

Syrian Military Forces

current posture

"... Syria still treats Israel as an enemy power, but has had to abandon its search for conventional parity. As a result, it has had to minimize the risk of a future military clash with Israel, and make shifts in its strategy and procurement effort which include a new focus on “asymmetric warfare:” These shifts:

• Emphasize the procurement of long-range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as a relativelylow cost offset to Israel’s conventional superiority while giving Syria a limited counterweight to Israel’s nuclear strike capability.

• Give priority to elite commando and special forces units that can be used to defend key approaches to Syria and spearhead infiltrations and attacks. Many of these forces are equipped with modern anti-tank guided weapons and other modern crew and manportable weapons that allow them to disperse without relying on armored weapons and other systems Israel can target more easily. They are supported by attack helicopters.

• Maintain a large tank force both as a deterrent to any Israeli attempt to penetrate Syria and to maintain a constant threat to the Golan, even if Syria has no hope of achieving overall parity.

• Use the Hezbollah and Amal as proxies to attack Israel and the SLA in Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and the Shebaa Farms area..."

current procurement

"...These shifts cannot compensate for the recapitalization crisis ... and a lack of modern arms and military technology. Syria has attempted to remedy some of its growing modernization problems by procuring upgrades and technology from Russia and the West, but Syria has not done well in obtaining such help. Its only major conventional force improvements during the mid and late-1990s were some Ukrainian modifications for part of the T-55 tank fleet and AT-14 Kornet anti-tank guided missiles. Some reports indicate that the Syrian Armed Forces did acquire an additional 1500 Kornets as well as upgrade packages for up to a brigade of T-72 tanks. The upgrade will boost the T-72’s armor while adding an attachment that would enable the tank to fire ATGMs.65 Yet it is important to note that Syria has tried four previous times to upgrade the T-72s with little success and past attempts to incorporate elements of the current upgrade package met with great difficulty...

...Syria and Russia held new highly level talks on military cooperation in September 1999. These talks seem to have again involved a $2-2.5 billion deal over five years, and the possible purchase of the S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system, the Sukhoi Su-27 multirole fighter, MiG-29SMT fighters, T-80 tanks, and more anti-tank weapons. Once again, however, the contractual status of such agreements, the weapons involved, and delivery schedules remained unclear..."

officer corps

"...Syria’s limitations will be further compounded by its problems in absorbing new equipment. These include the endemic corruption. They also include its politicized and compartmented command structure, inadequate military pay, poor manpower management, poor technical training, and poor overall training - particularly in realistic combat exercises and aggressor training. Syrian forces have inadequate combat and service support, equipment for night and poor weather warfare, long-range sensors and targeting systems, and mobile rapidly maneuverable logistics, recording, and combat repair capability. While individual Syrian officers have shown a keen understanding of many of these problems, Syria has never taken effective action to deal with them.

Syrian Land Forces

Syria organizes its ground forces into two corps that report to the Land Forces General Staff and Commander of the Land Force. The chain of command then passes up to the Chief of the General Staff and Deputy Defense Minister, Minister of Defense (Deputy Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The Syrian 1st Corps is headquartered near Damascus, and commands forces in southeastern Syria, opposing Israel. The 2nd Corps is headquartered near Zabadani, near the Lebanese border, and covers units in Lebanon. The command relationships involving Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq are unclear. The 1st Corps has two armored and three mechanized divisions. The 2nd Corps has three armored and two mechanized divisions.

The Syrian army has a total of 215,000 active men and is organized into five to seven armored divisions, including the 1st, 3rd, 9th, 11th, and 569th. Syrian armored divisions vary in size. They have 2-3 armored brigades, 1-2 mechanized brigades, and one artillery regiment. A typical division has around 8,000 men. A typical armored brigade has 93 main battle tanks, and 30 other armored fighting vehicles like the BMP. The Syrian army has 3 mechanized divisions. They normally have about 11,000 men, but vary in structure. They have 1-2 armored brigades, 2-3 mechanized brigades, and 1 artillery regiment. A typical mechanized brigade has 40 main battle tanks, and 90 other armored fighting vehicles like the BMP.

Syria also has 1 Republican Guard division, with 3 armored brigades, 1 mechanized brigade, and 1 artillery regiment that reports directly to the Commander of the Land Forces, plus a special forces division with 3 special forces regiments and eight independent special forces regiments.

Syria’s other independent formations include three independent infantry battalions, two independent artillery brigades, and two independent anti-tank brigades. Its active smaller formations include 1 border guard brigade, 3 infantry brigades, 1 anti-tank brigade, 1 independent tank regiment, 8 special forces regiments, three surface-to surface missile brigades with an additional coastal defense brigade, and 2 artillery brigades. According to some reports, it has one reserve armored division, and 30 reserve regiments, including infantry and artillery formations.

On paper, Syria has one low-grade reserve armored unit with about half the effective strength of its active divisions, plus 30 infantry and one artillery reserve regiment. Most of these Syrian reserve units are poorly equipped and trained. Those Syrian reserves that do train, usually do not receive meaningful training above the company to battalion level, and many train using obsolete equipment that is different from the equipment in the active units to which they are assigned. The Syrian call-up system is relatively effective, but the Syrian army is not organized to make use of it. Virtually all of the Syrian reserves called up in the 1982 war had to be sent home because the Syrian army lacked the capability to absorb and support them.

armour force

Although Syria now has a total of some 4,650 tanks, at least 1,200 of these tanks are in static positions or in storage. Roughly half are relatively low-grade T-54s and T-55s, and only 1,500 are relatively modern T-72s. Even the T-72s lack the advanced thermal sights, fire control systems, and armor to engage the Israeli Merkavas and M-60s on anything like a 1:1 basis. The T-72 also performed surprisingly poorly in Iraqi hands during the Gulf War. Its armor did not prove to be as effective against modern Western anti-tank rounds as was previously expected, and its sensors and fire control systems proved inadequate for night and poor visibility combat and could not keep up with Western thermal sights in range and target acquisition capability.

Syria has some 4,600 armored vehicles, of which approximately 2,400 are BMPs. These armored fighting vehicles can supplement and support Syria’s tanks in combined arms combat, and increase its potential ability to overwhelm

unmobilized Israeli forces with sheer mass. Only about 100 of these BMPs are the more modern BMP-2s, plus a limited number of BMP-3s. Nearly half of Syria’s other armor consists of low-grade BRDM-2 and BTR-40, 50, 60, and 152 reconnaissance vehicles and APCs. Even the BMP-2 has relatively light armor, and retains many of the ergonomic problems in fighting from the vehicle and using its guns and anti-tank guided missile launchers as with the BMP-1. The BMP has only moderate ability to escort tanks in a combat environment where the opponent has modern sensors and anti-tank guided weapons. US experts believe Syria has made relatively limited progress in improving its combined arms and armored warfighting capabilities since 1982, although it does have more advanced anti-tank guided weapons like the Milan, AT-10, and AT-14. They believe that Syrian exercise and command post training is weak above the battalion or regimental level, that Syrian tactics are rigid, and that Syrian reaction times are slow.

artillery park

Syria can mass large numbers of towed artillery weapons and multiple rocket launchers. Syria maintains an inventory of 150 122mm M-1938, 600 122mm D-30, 100 122mm M-1931 (mostly in storage), 600 130mm M-46, 20 152mm D-20, 50 152mm M-1937, and 10 180mm S23 towed weapons. Additionally, Syria employs 200 107mm Type-63 and 280 122mm BM-21 rocket launchers. This could have a major impact in an area like the Golan where ranges are relatively short and where Syria normally deploys much of its artillery. At the same time, massed artillery fire has only limited lethality against well dug in defenses and armor, and Syria lacks the sensors and battle management systems to concentrate its artillery fire with great precision and to rapidly switch fires. Syria will also have problems in maneuvering its artillery. Only about 28% of Syria's artillery consists of modern self-propelled weapons. These weapons include 380 122mm 2S1 and 50 152mm 2S3s.

anti-tank assets

Syria does have good physical defenses of its own positions on the Golan. Syria has spent decades in improving its terrain barriers and creating anti-tank barriers and ditches, and many of its units in the area between Damascus and the Golan have considerable readiness and effectiveness. However, Syria has not come close to Israel in developing the kind of capabilities for combined operations that the IDF takes virtually for granted. For example, Syria’s only modern third-generation anti-tank guided missile launchers consist of 200 Milans, 40 AT-5s, and an unknown number of AT-10s and AT-14s out of total holdings of some 3,390 anti-tank guided missile launchers. Most of its systems are still relatively low-grade anti-tank guided missiles systems can hardly be ignored, but they greatly reduce the effectiveness of Syrian anti-tank forces both in the defensive mode and in providing mechanized infantry support for armored operations..."(p.35-38)

--------------------------------------------------

the full article can be found here:

http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/me_mb_ai.pdf

[ October 20, 2005, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[Snow Leopard]

It got me confuse...that information is about war between Israel and Syria however If US going to attack Syria, they use bombing campaign from air against "keys" targets for a week or two then ground force go in. Ummmmm...Also I am sure spy recon may already do often even with CIA help as US may already knew where all stuff are to attack to destroy to make US ground force easier go in. I am sure that in 2007 US force may have more advanced UMV flying stealth drones in tiny size to give US ground force all seeing eyes. I wonder if CMSF have spy drone?

[Battlefront.com]

And that's something that puzzles me about your approach to the tactical problems in CM:SF. I have the feeling that what you're aiming towards is almost a representation of the drive to Baghdad, or some variation on it.

Luke can trust his feelings, but I would suggest you don't I've made it pretty clear that there will be a big difference in how the Syrians fight compared to the Iraqis. I've also made it clear that CM:SF is not OIF in disguise. We are using the opening phase of OIF, and some of the subsequent events that followed, as a meaningful starting point. What else are we supposed to use? WWII Africa vs. Rommel? Just because we're looking and talking about something that has a lot to learn from doesn't mean we're attempting to duplicate it. Far from it.

But then if the Syrians - regular and irregular - have been learning lessons from Iraq, and I assume they have, then it's precisely the things you're committed to *not* representing that would cause the US greatest difficulty, specifically suicide bombers.

Er.. no. First of all, the Syrian Army wouldn't be messing with suicide bombs. So not including them has nothing to do with anything. Since this is the only thing we are not including, I don't know what else you can be thinking of that will be missing. In fact, the Syrians will have a lot of stuff that the opening phase of OIF didn't have to deal with.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Er.. no. First of all, the Syrian Army wouldn't be messing with suicide bombs. So not including them has nothing to do with anything. Since this is the only thing we are not including, I don't know what else you can be thinking of that will be missing. In fact, the Syrians will have a lot of stuff that the opening phase of OIF didn't have to deal with.

Steve

So the question is how can this whole "what if" game/battle/title work if you don't simulate 2-3 weeks worth of US bombing and cruise missile strikes? Surely in a real what if scenario the Syrians would feel the power of the US bombs and cruise missiles leading up to the "walk over" by US ground forces.

BUT to make a "good" game the Syrian's what have to have something left to do battle with.

oh well ... I guess somehow that may all be abstracted "or something". :confused:

-tom w

however If US going to attack Syria, they use bombing campaign from air against "keys" targets for a week or two then ground force go in. Ummmmm...Also I am sure spy recon may already do often even with CIA help as US may already knew where all stuff are to attack to destroy to make US ground force easier go in. I am sure that in 2007 US force may have more advanced UMV flying stealth drones in tiny size to give US ground force all seeing eyes. I wonder if CMSF have spy drone?

[hellfish]

OIF didn't really see a bombing campaign before the ground invasion. Granted, US jets had been patrolling the extreme southern and extreme northern airspace for over 10 years....

[junk2drive]

Tom think of this story.

The current secular regime cooperates with the US and pulls back from its borders. It gives the UN/US permission to seek and destroy radical groups along those borders. The radicals decide to occupy the major cities and overthrow the government. THe US/UN assists the current government in removing these undesirables.

Are the US/UN going to bomb friendly cities first? No.

[Thomm]

What role will smoke play?!?!

I guess modern warfare knows some pretty potent smoke dispensers. SO, given that I *know* as a Syrian commander that a US attack will take place in the next 30 minutes, can I not force the US troops to close with my troops by laying (and keeping up) a smoke screen, thus, at least in theory, negating the effects of target designation?

Best regards,

Thomm