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

[Snow Leopard]

I mean when gunfire, cannon firing and mortar attack going on that all civilians will be gone out their way on "gameplay clock". I am sorry I should be more clear what I mean at first. Just like when we are in CMBB as we play on village/farm/urban map we noticed all civilians gone as we rumble in.

[Sirocco]

That reminds me of an incident, I believe involving British troops, where two women were crossing a road, with children, oblivious to the firefight that was going on around them. People don't always behave as you'd expect them to.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I am speaking w/o any special knowledge of Syria, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that the Syrian forces would endanger their own civilians? I realize the question involves irregulars, but wouldn't the connection between people and army be important? As I said, I don't know if the Syrian people would accept this or not?

any arab civilians caught in the crossfire will be martyrs.

many would readily serve as human shields, but even if they didnt want to, any syrian mother and children unhappy enough to be killed by such tactics would surely be portrayed as slaughtered by the evil enemy GI murderers.

if anything, such massacres would only help the agitators.

dont you think that if Bush can pull it off re. one of the most enlightened and schooled nation on earth, the syrian leadership (political or, more likely, religious) can not fanaticize the people to tell them the evil american baby-eaters are coming, and they are killing the civilians?

if they show the slaughtered corpses and blame it on the US do you not think the people will readily believe it?

it is not a syrian thing.

governments are lieing and deceiving to aid their goals. works all the time so far as I can tell from history and news.

what makes you think the syrians were any smarter than, say, the americans, the russians or the germans?

[ October 18, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[mazex]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

dont you think that if Bush can pull it off re. one of the most enlightened and schooled nation on earth

To loose the topic completely - I couldn't stop myself from posting this little CNN link commenting a test set up by National Geographic regarding schooled nations:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/

Take the test yourselves (not all questions):

http://geosurvey.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html

I honestly don't get it how one could fail at any of these questions... It's kind of shocking don't you think?

/Mazex

[M Hofbauer]

Steve,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If BTS wants to re-do the drive to Bagdad, it is either going to be a lopsided affair or unrealistic.

There is a massive difference between Tactical, Operational, and Strategic levels of warfare. We are only simulating the Tactical. That is where the combat challeng lies. Operationally and Strategically, Iraq was an easy conquest as far as knocking Saddam out of power. The rest of history is still being written.

I'd also suggest reading a lot more about what CM:SF is and isn't. From your comments you clearly are missing some rather critcal facts. Don't feel bad, Sirocco has obviously read a lot on this Forum and he's still missing the point occasionally too </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I don't know where BTS will get its technical data for the modern equipment, most of which is classified or, as far as there is general public data on these weapons, distorted, unprecise, un-authentic.

We quized him on this earlier.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer

We quized him on this earlier. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer

We quized him on this earlier. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Hoff, I don't have much time to reply, but some quick responses:

Roughly put, I fear CMSF to be something between an AAO-first-person-shooter in spectator mode with individuals on TacAI-steroids, and a modern EYSA minus all the sexy equipment.

This would only be true if we sucked as game designers. That's because these are the last two games we want to emulate Remember that we broke the mold and pushed the envelope and nobody has touched us yet. We can do it again. In fact, we don't think it will be tough to do at all since the "competition" is either aiming for entirely different end products (i.e. FPS/RTS) or simply sucks.

I have never been comfortable with the simulation of modern weaponry such as in SteelPanthers...sometimes is just plain wrong (and in several cases later true "tests", real-world events showed "assumptions" or info about modern equipment to be wrong), and even where it isnt, it simply feels irky.

I never played the modern version, but your opinion of it is identical (though more politely worded) to my opinion of the WWII game. I thought the game system was full of major, gaping realism and playability holes. The data was all made up nonsense, and the results from the game issues and bad data made the results "irky". So I'm not surprised to hear that you think they flubbed up the modern stuff as well since it is much harder to get right than the WWII stuff.

I would NOT rule out the possibility of instant spontaneous formation of suicide fanatics in such absoluteness as you do.

Well, I see such a thing taking a lot of time to organize and execute. Not the 2 week timeframe, or such, that we're simulating. Peace & Stability and/or Counter Insurgency simulations would have to be more concerned about that.

then again think of the french franc-tireurs who became free french units once they merged with the advancing allied lines.

think of VC in Vietnam. sure, there were regular NVA and VC. But there were many battles where the VC acted like regular forces. Had the US invaded the North, they would have had to deal with both kinds of resistance - regular and irregular.

Again, this is outside of the scope of CM:SF. As I said before, you're blurring very different types of combat into one big lump. While it would be interesting to simulate all three of the types of combat I've mentioned, we're only simulating the initial military phase. What took months and years to organize is therefore not at all a part of what we're simulating.

read it. duzznt do it for me.

Since so much informtion is classified, there isn't much we can do to get around educated guess work. Even if we did have classified data we would be rotting in jail as soon as someone found out we put it into a consumer product. Not worth it

I think you, and others, underestimate how much guesswork went into CMx1 games. The assumption is that all that data was easily found, easily confirmed, and easily incorporated. The exact opposite was true. We found it extremely frustrating about the lack of meaningful tactical data that was available even for German, US, and UK equipment. Don't even get me started on the other stuff The infamous Bren Tripod and Nahverteidigungswaffe are just two examples from a list of more than I would care to remember

What this means is... we fudged tons of stuff in the first set of games due to the lack of hard information, so we're comfortable with doing it for CMx2 games. At least with modern warfare we can ask people various questions to clear up many of our unanswered questions. With WWII that just wasn't possible to do.

Steve

[Snow Leopard]

I had been reading several websites about Syria and it's people as I have to be cautions as some writing may be ficitions. As I read more closer and I understand about it's lot of ethics even it's President come from smaller clan. Syria also have some of Kurds there... Also I suspect that may happen again is a massive of looters if war take in Syria. I recommand that we need to read materials to learn about Syria before we can said more but we have to expect unexpect results if non-Arab military force come in Syria. Out of my curious that I don't think Syria will face just a US force but multi-enemies as they may take own choice of action and try grab parts of Syria's land.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/index.html

[ October 19, 2005, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Snow Leopard ]

[Muff_Soaker]

Lightly Armed?

Every time someone says to Steve this asymmetrical warfare of yours will be bovine, grossly lacking parity by definition and futile for the Syrian player, he comes back with ‘Fallujah.’ He basically argues, and I paraphrase here, ‘look how the Fallujahns had nothing, still resisted for more than a week and caused American casualties.’ He further adds, ‘just imagine what the Syrians could do to the Americans in the initial phase of an invasion cuz they would have much more than the Fallujahns.

Then BFC goes and robs the Syrians of their heavy weaponry, armored assets, artillery, state of the art SAMS, scuds, WMD and a workable, fully operational air force (600 serviced Migs and Mirages, old and fairly new which they’ll most certainly use a la Japonaise when cornered). If Syria is certain an invasion is imminent, it won’t sit around and wait for the US to mass like stupid and cowardice Saddam did. If it was taking notes and learned anything, it’ll preempt, bombard and even scramble suicidal sorties while the Blues are massing. An astute commander will reason if defeat is certain, defeatism needn’t precede it, he’ll clock the Blues first if an opportunity presents itself, shock and awe is comin’ either way.

Moreover, BFC says and still paraphrasing here, the 2003 Iraqi invasion was not preceded by a massive, prolonged air campaign. Well, of course it wasn’t because the massive air campaign was prosecuted 10 years earlier, it FUBAred and incinerated the entire Iraqi army, it left it with trinkets and a no fly zone with hitherto constant bombardment sorties amidst a debilitating embargo.

[ October 19, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Muff_Soaker ]

[Muff_Soaker]

Lightly Armed? Part Deux

How is the latter post germane say you? well, what BFC seems to insinuate is that a massive air campaign prior to a Syrian invasion is unnecessary and wouldn’t take place. Every time Steve mentions the Syrian player, he depicts him as ‘lightly armed’, go back to the record and see for yourself

In 03, The US went in practically unopposed because it faced a non cohesive, immensely under strength, miserably equipped and demoralized army under the command of ignorant civilians like Saddam’s sons and cronies.

So you have a Syrian army who’s upgrading, acquiring night combat capability and modern armament as we speak, it’s not facing an overt surface, air or maritime embargo, knows Israel won’t participate in an invasion as to not enrage the Arab masses and US regional allies. In essence, its isolation is merely political, but its army, special forces, air force and WMD assets are fully intact unlike Saddam’s in 03.

Yet BFC insists the Syrian player will be “lightly armed” and in possession of humiliating and pyrrhic victory conditions because a fully intact army which is the most nationalist in the region will hermitically capitulate, disintegrate and disappear. It will disappear without a prolonged air campaign and Israel’s participation on the western front. It will disappear even though it is allied with a battle hardened and proxy force in the form of Hezbollah on the Israeli border.

Never mind that Syria isn’t a desert by any stretch, never mind that it has substantial mountainous regions and defensive orientated terrain, BFC says the second a Marine farts near the Syrian border, the regular army and its arsenal evaporates and irregulars in Nissan pickup trucks magically materialize, how’s that for realism?

BFC’s model can still work if the Blues are Israel and the Reds Hezbollah of Lebanon, or even the US invades Venezuela 07. This will more logically match its probable scenario _ a formidable army vs. irregulars ‘lightly armed’ in an all out invasion through difficult terrain.

BFC’s Sketch from a Syrian perspective? Pretentious, vain, greedy, presumptive and blatant daylight robbery of every Syrian toy by the Blues before the fight even starts. If you wanna do Syria, at least allow it to keep its documented and modest assets before you go in.

[Battlefront.com]

Note to anybody reading any of Muff_Soaker's posts... all bunk. Never said 9/10ths of what he claims I said, and the other 1/10th is badly misunderstood. Like his comments about the Syrian Air Force. Here is a tidbit about that...

Practical thinkers within the Syrian government realized many years ago that an Air Force is a luxury Syria can not afford. One simulation in the 1990s, conducted by a Russian company on behalf of the Syrian government, estimated that the Syrian Air Force would be wiped out within 40 minutes of war with Israel. Just Israel... not even the combined weight of the US and NATO airforces (which did a wonderful job of knocking out the Iraqi Airforce in the First Gulf War).

At the time Syrian combat pilots were allowed between 2 and 4 hours of flight time per month due to parts shortages and other logistical issues. Partly in recognition of their likely enemy’s overwhelming superiority in the air, partly to free up resources to aid the transformation of the Army, the Air Force has largely become an Anti-Air Force of surface to air artillery and missiles.

We are doing our homework, I suggest dropping whatever agenda you have and do yours before posting more.

Steve

[ October 19, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a snipit from another report on Syrian forces:

In 2002, the Syrian army has roughly 215,000 soldiers. The generall readiness and effectiveness of the Syrian Army is fairly low despite the generally good readiness of its special forces, roughly two armored divisions, one mechanized division and the Republican Guard division. Syria has a significant quantity of armor numbering some 4,700 tanks, though 1,200 are placed in static defensive positions and another 2,000 are T-55s and T-62s. Syria does however have some 1,700 T-72/72Ms.

Virtually all of Syria armored reconnaissance vehicles (600 BRDM-2s and 125 BRDM-2 RKHs) are out-dated as is their 2,000 BMP-1s, though the 200-350 BMP-2s and BMP-3s are more modern.

Syria's artillery capability is significant, as it is armed with 122mm Type 2S1s and 152mm 2S3s. Its towed artillery is comprised mostly of 122mm, 130mm and 152mm weapons. Its multiple rocket launcher inventory consists of Type 63 107mm and BM-21 122mms. According to Anthony Cordesman Syria relies principally on static massed fires and is unable to rapidly shift fires. Accuracy beyond line of site is also lacking as their ability to maneuver and exploit counterbattery radars and targeting systems.

Syria's reserve forces include one armored division comrpised of four armored brigades, two armored regiments, 31 infantry regiments and three artillery regiments.

If you wanna do Syria, at least allow it to keep its documented and modest assets before you go in.

As I said above, you've mischaracterized nearly everything I wrote. I said nothing about eliminating their heavy assets prior to the battle (except the air force). I just said they won't be much "fun" to go up against. Therefore the people that think CM:SF is all about tank on tank warfare need to understand that it isn't. Light, combined arms Syrian forces are what will give the US forces the hardest time.

Steve

[ October 19, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I said nothing about eliminating their heavy assets prior to the battle (except the air force). I just said they won't be much "fun" to go up against. Therefore the people that think CM:SF is all about tank on tank warfare need to understand that it isn't. Light, combined arms Syrian forces are what will give the US forces the hardest time.

The mention of 'light, combined arms Syrian forces' indicates that there will still be a fairly good range of Syrian equipment/units available to the scenario designer? (can't wait to see the Syrian equipment list btw)

Actually, I think the challenge of playing as the Syrians in QBs/designed scenarios against a technologicaly superior and well equipped US military force and achieving a good outcome would contribute to a rewarding wargaming experience.

[M Hofbauer]

MS:

Then BFC goes and robs the Syrians of their heavy weaponry, armored assets, artillery, state of the art SAMS, scuds, WMD and a workable, fully operational air force (600 serviced Migs and Mirages, old and fairly new which they’ll most certainly use a la Japonaise when cornered). If Syria is certain an invasion is imminent, it won’t sit around and wait for the US to mass like stupid and cowardice Saddam did. If it was taking notes and learned anything, it’ll preempt, bombard and even scramble suicidal sorties while the Blues are massing.

you'e kidding, right?

it's one thing to have fanatical suicide bombers disguise themselves and have them blow up in the streets among the crowds...but you cannot extrapolate that to the air...the air is a totally different story...

any syrian pilots brainless enough to attempt such an act would be zapped by Patriots like nothing... that is, if the fighter jocks dont get them first.

If anything, the only danger of such an attack would be fights among the dozens of CAP fighters over who gets to shoot that lone lunatic down, over who should get this rare opportunity.

MS:

In 03, The US went in practically unopposed because it faced a non cohesive, immensely under strength, miserably equipped and demoralized army

what do you think would be the status of a Sryian army after the government has just been overthrown ?

MS:

even though it is allied with a battle hardened and proxy force in the form of Hezbollah on the Israeli border.

"battle hardened" only if you define that as taking potshots at schoolchildren.

MS:

but its army, special forces, air force and WMD assets are fully intact unlike Saddam’s in 03.

WMDs? syrian WMDs?

Hello? is that you, Condolezza?

hmmm, it seems to me that with these being his first and only two posts, and with the quaility of the content of these posts, that we may welcome Powell or Rumsfeld, or even the President himself to our board community !

- Hey, this is the CMSF internet board...you can't be BSing here, this isnt the UN world assembly...

Steve,

agree with your assessment of Syrian air power...

however..two points of issue...

Steve/BTS:

Syria has a significant quantity of armor numbering some 4,700 tanks, though 1,200 are placed in static defensive positions and another 2,000 are T-55s and T-62s. Syria does however have some 1,700 T-72/72Ms.

according to Adam Riese and leaving aside iudex non calculat for the moment, this means that the Syrians use 200 T-72/T-72Ms in static defense positions ?

either way, I would simply discount these Hartziele from the inventory of "tanks". After all, they are just pillboxes of sorts and of dubious quality, and we dont have these listed anyways for obvious reasons.

I would also venture a guess that even of the "mobile" some three thousand tanks less than 50% are really combat capable, actually that would be my personal high end.

Steve/BTS:

Virtually all of Syria armored reconnaissance vehicles (600 BRDM-2s and 125 BRDM-2 RKHs) are out-dated as is their 2,000 BMP-1s

those BRDMs and BMP-1s will do just fine against the Strykeouts, thank you

it won't be easy, but I'll see if I can pull that off...

hey, I'm starting to look forward to this !

wait...!

clever marketing ploy, Steve !!

[ October 20, 2005, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Battlefront.com]

clever marketing ploy, Steve !!

If nothing else, we are clever

To be clear I just cut and pasted one source's account of the Army's state. I've got a more detailed assessment and some other overviews. One thing is clear though... out of the 4000+ tanks on paper, most are either static (in the Golan) or are not combat ready for one or more reasons. Few of those fit into the category of "modern" AFVs.

Steve

[GSX]

I agree with BFC in one area, that is by the time any Stryker force was committed, the Air and Armoured threat would be nullified.

What I find hard to accept is that by the time a Stryker force showed up it wouldnt be at the insurgency stage. That needs civillians, asymetric warfare, which keeps being bandied about is all about the civillian element. But there are no civies in CMSF.

So who will the irregulars hide behind. No-one obviously.

I have the feeling that this is being designed as primarily a 1 player game, or a Blue team game, while thats not necessarily a bad thing, I just wish if it were so, we could have the courtesy of being told that.

I will try it, no matter what the angle but at least be up front with us.

[Battlefront.com]

I disagree that things would have already disolved into insurgency warfare by the time ground forces are comitted. Even in Iraq this was not the case. I would expect Syria to put up a much more spirited conventional defense.

Yes, the civilian angle is critical for other modes of warfare than the one we are talking about. And that is one reason why we aren't talking about making a game that simulated counter insurgency. There is a lot more too it than civilians as well.

The Campaign is certainly a 1 player Blue on Red experience. Whether we have a 1 player Red on Blue Campaign is yet to be seen. I wouldn't count on it though.

From a head to head mode... we are absolutely intended people being able to play from the Red side. It's just that there might be less people interested in commanding fairly small forces that either lack big toys or lose big toys rather quickly. Personally, I think I'm really going to like playing from the Red side. I always enjoyed taking the Romanians and Hungarians in CMBB and they certainly had a few issues associated with their quality

Steve

[GSX]

I dont doubt that at all, as I said I will try it. But a Stryker force would not be commited on day 1 of a high intensity campaign. APCs are not high intensity warfare vehicles, thats not what Stryker was designed for. They were designed (in this context) to be air portable, the first into a bush war type situation (and I dont mean GWB there). Get in, take on the limited capability bad guys and wait for the heavy stuff to arrive if needed.

There were no Styker type units at the point of the spear in any of the recent Desert or other wars.

But, and I do mean this, the premise of the game does grip me. I think it will be a great leap from CMx1 and am looking forward to the demo. I dont want total realism from a game anyway.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by GSX:

But, and I do mean this, the premise of the game does grip me. I think it will be a great leap from CMx1 and am looking forward to the demo. I dont want total realism from a game anyway.

Yeah, I think that the premise is very interesting, too, in a way that a larger-scale battle wouldn't be. The US, in particular, but really any Western country, including Israel, would inevitably win the information battle, the air battle, and any large-scale armor battle - 1000's of T-72s are pretty much impotent if they're blind and deaf vs. an opponent is is neither. Result will be the same as in GWI and GWII - complete syrian loss vs. a handful of damaged US/British/French tanks.

On the other hand, when the US, etc. forces send their more-lightly armored forces into close terrain, the possibility exists that a careful Syrian player could trounce a US company.

I think that there are a few RL reasons for assuming that this would be the case, even.

For one, Iraq was under a military embargo for 10 years after its defeat in GWI and (with one or two very minor exceptions) basically had to make do with outdated equipment.

Second, pre-GWI, when Iraq was able to purchase weapons, it did so with an eye on fighting other countries in the ME, not with an eye on fighting the US.

Third, it was the first country that had to fight new style (i.e., post-vietnam) US/Allied strategies, which were developed precisely to defeat Sov. style armies that the Iraqis happened to field.

Fourth, because Saddam's hold on power was apparently based on not appearing weak, he was forced to take a more aggressive approach than was ideal given Iraq's real capabilities vis-a-vis the US's.

For Syria, I think that things are a little different.

Probably at least since GWI, but certainly since, oh, 2003, Syria's military will have had to consider the possibility of a US invasion. And their neighbor Iraq will have given them many examples of what works vs. what does not. It seems extremely unlikely, for example, that Syria would attempt to engage the US in one large decisive battle. (Although it's not clear that they would be able to avoid one, of course).

It seems likely that Syria would (in fact, is now) focusing a lot of energy on creating units to build on the more successful aspects of the Iraq war and the Iraqi insurgency. An increased emphasis on Fedayeen/Special Forces, for example, who attack in small groups and then pull back.

Related to the above point, widespread dispersal of small arms/IEDs/RPGs/Kornets/mines/etc. It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of Syrian troops were practicing MOUT right now, with an eye on fighting US troops in urban areas.

Even with Iraq, it's easy to think of a couple of changes in strategy that, while not changing the end result, would have made things a lot more costly. Thunder Run, for example, would probably not have ended the way it did if, pre war, the Iraqis had buried 500 IEDs under major thoroughfares in Baghdad. I would not be surprised however, if Syria did so, or was prepared to do so on short notice. Burying 500 lb bombs under likely approaches in Damascus is much more likely to be useful than attaching them to the wings of Syrian aircraft...

Now the US forces still have significant and substantial advantages which I don't want to underplay. However, much of the Iraqi effort in the GWs was wasted on tactics that could *never* have succeeded, no matter how well executed. Syrian tactics, especially at lower levels, are much more likely to be something that, if executed perfectly, could succeed. Those, I think, will be interesting battles.

And I'd kind of like to play them from the Syrian POV.

[Muff_Soaker]

When tard oakies like Hof yell out from the barn and amidst all that manure “are you kidding?” One has to reply no, Hof’s pathetic sense of authority is seriously and hysterically laughable, it’s no joke that he’s the big joke. Stick to agreeing with Steve’s “assessment” and brown nosing slick.

Hof: "battle hardened" only if you define that as taking potshots at schoolchildren

Sure, if you’re a galactically stupid Fox News junkie, no one will be surprised with what you say above, it’ll be the statement of a brainwashed tard oakie after all. But if you’d take your head outa Steve’s ass, you’ll realize who pulverized the most marines since Nam in less than 5 minutes and forced a US withdrawal outa Lebanon in a New York minute.

Some 15 years later and in 2000 Israel withdrew from Lebanon with a worse humiliation than your withdrawal from Beirut and Saigon, this was their Nam. Their country couldn’t take the casualties your “schoolchildren” militia was inflicting upon it. They never went in since regardless of incessant provocations cuz they’re scared ****less. OOOOOh those poor Hof’s 200 marines and x 6 IDF soldiers “schoolchildren” is it?

Hof: WMDs? Syrian WMDs?

I guess if Libya had it, it’s beyond the pale for Syria to have it cuz the Libyans are immeasurably superior chemists and far less moralistic. Why don’t you go in for real with that smirk and determine the odds of having it terminally wiped sport. And it’s WMD, not WMDs tard. Ds would make it Destructions, Hof must be some turban head Sudanese or something, go learn the lingo pal.

BFC’s entire 07 conjecture, projection, premise and probability studies are flawed, naïve and wholly unrealistic. The most the US will ever be prepared to undertake in Syria are surgical air and cruise strikes. Why? One simple reason, Syria has no oil. Moreover, No US politician is willing to sacrifice a single American life or red cent for a toilet like Syria.

Oh ya, don’t bother replying, I’m through with tard Hofs and that forum of yours, by the way, if BFC is so good at projecting the future, it might wanna also consider “Shock Bankruptcy 07”

[ October 21, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Muff_Soaker ]

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

There were no Styker type units at the point of the spear in any of the recent Desert or other wars.

That's because none of the Stryker Brigades were ready for combat at that point

They were designed (in this context) to be air portable, the first into a bush war type situation (and I dont mean GWB there). Get in, take on the limited capability bad guys and wait for the heavy stuff to arrive if needed.

Correct, that is the main purpose. Much the same as the main role of air mobile units is to get in, make a mess of the enemy's plans, and then get out. But in reality they are used as regular line infantry, all the way back to their inception in WWII all the way to the current day conflicts. Having large scale, expensive, well trained combat forces sitting on the sidelines of a large conflict is not something that a modern day nation state can afford to do. In fact, the conversion of several US Army Artillery Battalions into Light Infantry shows the shift from heavy conventional forces to "boots on the ground" is still very much under way.

Now, one must remember that the SBCT concept takes all this into account. Here is a quote from a RAND study that I happen to have read over last night:

The SBCT can perform its mission throughout the entire spectrum of military operations (offensive, defensive, stability, and support) but may require some augmentation for certain missions. The SBCT may deploy as part of an early entry force and may fight by itself or as part of a division or corps.

That is a pretty good summary of what the SBCT was designed to do in terms of missions. In fact, its Engineer Battalion is heavily equipped to breach minefields within minutes. I see absolutely no need for such an emphasis if the Brigade is only destined for stability ops.

Sooooo... putting a SBCT in the 1st day frontline ops against Syria is not only realistic but pragmatic. The role we've assigned it in the fictional story is quite plausible and I would be surprised if it wasn't on various Pentagon plans of some sort Just so you know, we're not simulating the SBCT clearing out the Golan, which would be a baaaaaaaad idea.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh ya, don’t bother replying, I’m through with tard Hofs and that forum of yours,

Only one round of debate dodged and you're off and packing? Great. Thanks for doing us all a favor.

by the way, if BFC is so good at projecting the future, it might wanna also consider “Shock Bankruptcy 07”

Well, to show you how accurate our projections are... I predict Muff_Soaker will be banned for being a pathetic troll. Wait for it... wait for it... yup! I was right... I also predict that you'll see this as a heavy handed attempt at silencing your keen intellect and well argued positions. But you would need both of these things for that to happen, and sadly you lack them. Oh, and the ability to read the Forum rules since you so blatently violated just about all of them.

Steve

P.S. Lewis, was that you buddy?

[flamingknives]

Surely it couldn't have been Lewis, there's no googled-up links with tenuous relevancy