New Syrian TO&E thread

[Sgt Joch]

Suicide/terror bombings against civilians, although anathema to western/liberal thinking is usually carried out for political/military reasons and have a long history.

Under classic marxist guerilla theory, terror campaigns against civilians are supposed to force the State to employ increasingly repressive methods against the population which will force the population to rally to the insurgents either out of conviction or out of fear or intimidation. Additionally in multi ethnic/religious communities, terror bombings also have the objective of driving a wedge between different ethnic/religious groups. Iraq, of course, springs immediately to mind, but the same thing happened in Northern Ireland for decades.

The classic example of a successful guerilla/terror bombing campaign is, of course, Vietnam, where the Vietcong throughly undermined support for South Vietnam through terror and intimidation.

Sucide bombing is a newer development, but it is essentially a practical development. World/regional military powers, such as the US or Israel, have airplanes/missiles to deliver their bombs, which poor/insurgent forces do not have. The suicide bomber is basically a bomb delivery system. There is usually a whole insurgent unit supporting the bomber, from the bomb maker, usually the most valuable member of the team, to various handlers who will check out the attack route and send the "bomb" on its way. Suicide attacks are also not new, the 1968 Tet offensive was essentially a suicide mission which wiped out the Vietcong cadres but scored a political victory, which was the ultimate aim.

Furthermore, civilians, whether we like it or not, have always been military targets. In WW2, the US, UK and Canada carried out bombing campaigns in Germany to kill german civilians. In the pacific, the US carried out unrestricted submarine warfare against civilian merchant shipping. During the cold war, the entire military strategy of the US was based on wiping out the Soviet population with nuclear weapons. Of course, western powers have now renounced attacks on civilians as a valid military strategy, but we will see if that holds up the next time they have their back against the wall as in WW2 or the Cold War.

We can rail againt suicide/terror bombings all we want as being "uncivilized" or "unmilitary", but they are a fact of life to ground military operations in 2007.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers makes an excellent distinction. However, like most things tied to war "civilized behavior" and "moral actions" are highly contradictory at times. No member of the US Army Air Force would have strapped a 25 pound bomb and walk into a market in Hamburg and detonated himself, yet he would drop several tons of bombs all over Hamburg, including the same marekt place. A Japanese soldier might think it disgrace to be out of uniform and kill civilians stealthfully, but not disgracefull to kill them in uniform for pretty much no reason at all.

I also use the term "civilized" rather losely and in context of the times we live in, not the times of the past. Largely because of the massive numbers of civilian deaths the Allies caused in WWII the notion of such activity being acceptable has diminished greatly. At least to the extent that all war planning deliberately, and sometimes frustratingly so to the military, seeks to avoid (not just minimize) civilian casualties. The notion of purposefully targeting random civilians is, to the West, uncivilized. To others, they make up their own sense of right and wrong. The sad thing is that many see it as "it is wrong to kill the innocent, but those I don't like are not innocent and therefore are fair game".

But this is all beside the point. Suicide bombing, IEDs, VIEDs, and other "illegal" forms of warfare are seen now and will be seen more and more as we go into the future. Why? Because they are to a large extent effective counters to the technical military superiority of the West and are an easy way to stay on a par with low tech rivals. Therefore, to not include them in CM:SF is to not simulate contemporary warfare correctly.

Steve

[Moronic Max]

The classic example of a successful guerilla/terror bombing campaign is, of course, Vietnam, where the Vietcong throughly undermined support for South Vietnam through terror and intimidation.

A bit of an oversimplification. Terror and intimidation were certainly integral to the NLF's strategy, but so was doing things like building schools in areas it controlled.

And for that matter, South Vietnam's government did a lot of harm to itself.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I broadly agree but would add that there is also an asyemetric element of tit for tat.

Israel attacks with aircraft and in taking out it's target kills five or ten civilians. That wasn't there intent, but to the people who lost friends and relatives, it then becomes if they kill our civilians then we can kill theirs.

And so once one side starts to kill civilians intentionally or not, civilians become fair game. You can make a similiar argument for inbedding journalists. Once they are associated with or as part of a force they become fair game in the eyes of some. So militants target journalists as they see them as pro the US while we consider targeting arab radio and TV stations for the same reason.

It's a sort of action and reaction, or if you want an example of a Hegelain dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis, and synthesis.

On the random issue, there is also the possibility that although it goes off in the middle of a CM:SF scenario, neither side was the actual target, such as a suicide bomber attacking an aid agency office that just happens to be two blocks from a passing US patrol.

Peter.

[LGMB]

Uncons...Unicorns

Unicrons people. Unicrons.

[Thomm]

Does anybody know how many suicide attacks on the IDF took place in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[c3k]

Rollstoy,

Ah, that's a very good question. The IED/suicide bomber is pretty ubiquitous (seemingly) in post-invasion Iraq. To what degree would an invasion force in Syria face these insurgent weapons? The Isreali experience in Lebonan versus Iranian Hezbollah would be a valid parallel.

Regards,

Ken

[MikeyD]

"Does anybody know how many suicide attacks on the IDF took place in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict?!"

Unless i missed a news report, I'd say none. Hezbollah has the advantage of 'proper' weapons delivery platforms so suicide attacks are less necessary. Also, during the 'hot' phase of a war its rather difficult to just stroll up to an infantry squad while its conducting an assault. You could say its an odd twist of luck that Israel was protected from suicide attack by its own LACK of success - they never got to the position of patrolling population centers.

[Battlefront.com]

I am pretty sure there were a few, at least attempted, suicide attacks during the Israeli invasion. However, as Mikey points out they didn't need to resort to that sort of action. Hezbollah was well armed and well prepared against the scope of force sent against it. If the IDF had instead swarmed in with overwhelming conventional force, I am sure there would have been moves to counter it using every means possible.

The fact is that the IDF had an extremely difficult time and basically failed in its mission against Hezbollah's largely conventional force. The same can not be expected of the Syrians facing a concerted NATO type attack. I'm sure they are well aware of that.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

surely it depends on the casualties the Nato force are willing to take and the preperation time they had. Unlike the US in GW1 and OIF, the Israeli's were responding o an event and didn't really have the luxury of six to twelve months to prepare, or a thirty day bombing campaign to soften them up.

You can of course argue that Israel shouldn't have allowed the capture of a few soliders to goad them in to a war, but it happens.

i've said this before but I'd feel a CM:SF scenario that forced the US to move in quick with what it had on the ground would make for a better game.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

About Syrian TO&E, explosions, and Allied casualties, have you firmed-up yet what the Syrians are going to have available to them for off-map artillery/mortar support? Lots of heavy mortars could be a mess for the Allied side, but then again if the Syrians follow old 'Warsaw Pact' practices the lower ranks won't get the luxury of on-demand artillery support. It'd take a senior officer to call in an artillery strike (oh yeh, no noncoms in Syria anyway, right? ).

Strangely enough, the further into the campaign the looser the restrictions might get on the Syrian side. From rigid top-down chain of command to freelance Katyusha barages from irregulars.

[Siegfried]

An really informative reading about syrian army capacity :

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

[ January 30, 2007, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Unlike the US in GW1 and OIF, the Israeli's were responding o an event and didn't really have the luxury of six to twelve months to prepare, or a thirty day bombing campaign to soften them up.

This is why their assault failed. They went in half assed and without a clear plan. They responded emotionally against a foe that had carefully planned on just such an attack. As it went, the IDF was humilated and they didn't achieve any of their goals. In short, they chose not to do it right and they paid heavily for it.

You can of course argue that Israel shouldn't have allowed the capture of a few soliders to goad them in to a war, but it happens.

No, I would argue that a significant military power shouldn't toss out good sense and military strategy for emotional reasons.

i've said this before but I'd feel a CM:SF scenario that forced the US to move in quick with what it had on the ground would make for a better game.

It would make for an unrealistic game. The US will never go into a significant military action without overwhelming force. Even the short-sighted idiots that were in charge of the initial draft of the invasion of Iraq weren't allowed to do it their way. The initial force they proposed was tripled and adequate for a quick and decisive military defeat of Iraq. What happened after is a lot more complicated and not relevant since it isn't the environment CM is simulating.

In short, the US won't do a half assed, knee jerk attack against a major foe like Israel did.

Steve

[Siegfried]

We have perhaps to ask central questions before to speak about the syrian army composition :

- What about a possible syrian army modernization ?

- What would be the syrian strategy and tactics to fight against American army ?

- Would the syrian army dissolve herself in order to fight or keep to use massive formations ?

- How would she acts against the US airforce ?

- Can the syrian army resist frontally or would she retreat ?

- Would the syrian governement stay in place in case of american bombing campaign ?

- Why does exactly the US army go into Syria ?

- How many American troops attack Syria and why ?

- What does Israel during this war, does she sleep ?

- etc.

PS :

I have a problem, I found two good sites about military pics and strategies. The first one is american and the second is iranian (in english) and contains some irrevelant islamist and pro-iranian opinions. Can I post them here in order to provide pics ressources links ?

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD,

Yup, the Syrians have the Soviet based centralized artillery fire control system in place, and for the same traditional reasons. The foremost is that it is a LOT cheaper and easier to set and maintain. In game terms this means that when the Syrians do have artillery support it will be directed from probably a single point. If the US knocks out that point, the artillery plan goes out the window.

Siegfried,

Check out the topics at the top of this Forum. They contain answers to most of your questions. Since it would take me a long time to respond I'll simply direct you to the answers already given.

As long as the links directly relevant to the military nature of CM:SF there is no problem with posting them here.

Steve

[Siegfried]

I will check. It would be great to have a faq (i wil try to write one).

I have a question What kind of information do the game creators need about Syrian TOE ?

[ January 30, 2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I am thinking the same thing that Cpl Steiner is thinking. Here's another way to think about it...

Martyrs are magnets and US forces are steel (queue cheezy music, for those of you who know it). When it gets close enough the Martyr suddenly goes from whatever state it is in to a rushed state directly at the steel. And suffers whatever consequences it suffers because of that.

We can spice this up with chances of it happening, different Commands being used, etc. This would mean sometimes the Martyr will do just like you want in just the right way, othertimes it's "oh crap... would you look at that. Idiot. (bam). Yeah, that's what I thought would happen." At least I think I can get Charles to do that

Steve

How are different types of IEDs going to be modelled? Simply making them CMBB/CMAK mines seems too simplistic. There are command detonated IEDs, victim operated (Tacky title but that is what they call them.) IEDs with pressure plates, trip wires, command detonated to include cell phones, hard wire, etc.

[ January 30, 2007, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Battlefront.com]

Siegfried,

We are pretty much done with the Syrian TO&E, so no more information is requested at this point.

Civdiv,

We have several different sizes and several different ways they can be detonated. Off the top of my head we have:

1. Remote Detonated (wireless)

2. Remote Detonated (wire)

3. Remote Detonated (trigger)

4. Direct Detonated (suicide)

We are not going to go down the route of splitting these up into various different sub categories because we're doing IED counter technologies/techniques rather abstractly. The primary reason is that whatever the real world effectiveness is of these technologies/techniques really is is classified. Heck, most of the technologies/techniques themselves are classified! So there is no point in simulating something in detail that can only be portrayed abstractly anyway.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Ya, my cousin is in Iraq right now. He's technically a Navy ELINT submariner, but somehow got shunted off into counter-IED stuff, due to his knowledge and expertise in electronics. I really don't understand the details, but one day he was wandering around the ocean on a submarine, and then suddenly he gets orders to report back stateside, so he can take a quick crash course in basic infantry techniques from the marines, in prep for deploying to Baghdad. :eek:

All I know is that his job is to fly out to various forward operating bases, and teach the grunts how to operate the anti-IED gizmos. Everything else is classified, but he's told me enough to make me realize that what's showing up in the news reports in this area isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Actually, all the secrecy is probably pretty unnecessary. I doubt I'd understand a tenth of what he was doing, even if he gave me a detailed explaination, complete with manuals and a Powerpoint presentation. . .

He did mention to me that stuff changes very quickly in this area -- the other side develops counters to our counter-IEDs almost as fast as we develop our counters. So today's cutting edge is tommorrow's obsolete. Makes sense to me, then, to represent this stuff abstractly, rather than trying to hit the moving target of whatever next year's technology is going to be.

Cheers,

YD

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Siegfried,

We are pretty much done with the Syrian TO&E, so no more information is requested at this point.

Civdiv,

We have several different sizes and several different ways they can be detonated. Off the top of my head we have:

1. Remote Detonated (wireless)

2. Remote Detonated (wire)

3. Remote Detonated (trigger)

4. Direct Detonated (suicide)

We are not going to go down the route of splitting these up into various different sub categories because we're doing IED counter technologies/techniques rather abstractly. The primary reason is that whatever the real world effectiveness is of these technologies/techniques really is is classified. Heck, most of the technologies/techniques themselves are classified! So there is no point in simulating something in detail that can only be portrayed abstractly anyway.

Steve

hanks for the feedback. So, command detonated, detonated by operatives? So you have to account for operatives moving away from the trigger? Wow, how difficult this gets. Command detonated (wire) means that operatives moving means they can't detonate the IED. What about jamming systems used by the US? There is no way you are going to get details on the effectiveness of this, so you have to swag this. Can a suicide bomber be a operative responsible for a command detonated IED? I would think not; two different missions. So every 'civilian' that apppears is an operative? So they are either a spotter, suicide bomber, or operator of an IED? I'll kill them on sight. I can always tell the media that per the game rules for them to appear they were either a spotter, suicide bomber, or operator of an IED, right? Wow, this is murky.

Is there a difference between a simple blast IED and an EFP? Hezballah loves EFPs and thus we can expect them to appear in any Syrian scenerio.

So which costs more, a 'victim detonated' IED or an operative initiated IED? I can make an argument either way.

And what 'types' of IEDs are you looking at. Blast, blast enhanced (cooking gas tanks), triple stacks of mines, EFP, etc.

And is there any differentiation between initiation types modelled; ie; command detonated, victim operated, combination, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Yeah, I've heard of other Naval guys with various electronics backgrounds getting pulled onto new and interesting career paths.

CivDiv,

hanks for the feedback. So, command detonated, detonated by operatives? So you have to account for operatives moving away from the trigger? Wow, how difficult this gets.

Yes. One type allows the trigger guy to move, the other one requires him to stay put. It won't be as detailed as it is in real life, but it's such a complicated thing that all we can do is aproximate.

What about jamming systems used by the US? There is no way you are going to get details on the effectiveness of this, so you have to swag this.

Exactly. Wireless has a significant chance of failure, wire a very low one. The failure can be technical on the bomber's end, or it could be due to counter measures. We're not going to make a distinction. There is no way the player should be able to know this anyway. That's for the bomb disposal guys to figure out after the fact.

Can a suicide bomber be a operative responsible for a command detonated IED? I would think not; two different missions.

Correct. Either the guy is a triggerman responsible for remote detonation, or he is a suicide guy who detonates himself. Can't be both.

So every 'civilian' that apppears is an operative? So they are either a spotter, suicide bomber, or operator of an IED?

Yes.

I'll kill them on sight. I can always tell the media that per the game rules for them to appear they were either a spotter, suicide bomber, or operator of an IED, right? Wow, this is murky.

Yup, though less so than in real life. In real life the attacking force has a good chance of misidentification and itchy trigger finger problems, thus shooting a civilian target without just cause (as determined after the fact). This is not possible in CM:SF because the ONLY time you see a civilian figure is when a positive ID has been made. No misidentifications. Adding that dimension into the game is extremely messy and meaningless from a game standpoint. A few accidentally killed civilians in a firefight has never, and will never, be a major factor at the time of a pitched battle. The big issues come after the shooting in that particular firefight settles down. That's outside of CM's scope.

Is there a difference between a simple blast IED and an EFP? Hezballah loves EFPs and thus we can expect them to appear in any Syrian scenerio.

We have AP and AT type IEDs. One is designed for maxium blast, the other for maximum penetration. We do not draw any technical distinctions between the sub types within each. There are easily dozens of them, EFPs being one. They do come in different sizes though.

So which costs more, a 'victim detonated' IED or an operative initiated IED? I can make an argument either way.

Dunno yet.

And is there any differentiation between initiation types modelled; ie; command detonated, victim operated, combination, etc.

No. You can have any of the IEDs be detonated in any of the methods discussed above. However, obviously heavier IEDs can only be suicide detonated if they are vehicle borne (VIEDs) since a Human can only cary the smallest of IEDs on his person.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But this is all beside the point. Suicide bombing, IEDs, VIEDs, and other "illegal" forms of warfare are seen now and will be seen more and more as we go into the future. Why? Because they are to a large extent effective counters to the technical military superiority of the West and are an easy way to stay on a par with low tech rivals. Therefore, to not include them in CM:SF is to not simulate contemporary warfare correctly.

Steve

I think another distinction is required - suicide bombing attacks against civilians are something different from suicide attacks against a military force. The latter have been documented I don't know how many times in I don't know how many wars, and if observed by the right person would land you a VC or Ritterkreuz, posthumously.

Japanese soldiers with 500kg bombs and a hammer sitting in a hole waiting for a tank to roll over them are clearly a suicide IED, in modern terms. So to not include this would also remove an element of the simulation that is clearly important also in a WW2 context.

Suicidal attacks against an enemy military force (such as e.g. someone blocking a bunker firing slit with his body, or going straight for a MG nest) are, and have always been, a part of warfare, regardless of whether or not the attacker or the attacked had an advantage in capabilities. With one-to-one representation, it will become more relevant to consider simulating this.

All the best

Andreas

[Thomm]

It is not so much a question of suicide attacks happening in reality but a question of good taste.

I am sure that CM:SF would be a great game WITHOUT suicide bombers, too. Note, that I am talking specifically about guys with explosives on their bodies or in their vehicles, not soldiers sacrificing themselves in an act of heroism.

Just because something is happening in reality and doable in game terms does not mean that it has to be included automatically.

I am looking forward to the comments in the press about the fact that the Syrian player can 'order martyrs to blow themselves up next to US troops'!!

If BFC insists, they can still put that option in the training versions for the military ...

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: Since no examples crept up from the Israel-Lebanon conflict: How many suicide attacks occured during the invasion of Iraq?!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Note, that I am talking specifically about guys with explosives on their bodies or in their vehicles, not soldiers sacrificing themselves in an act of heroism.

What's the difference?

Note, I am talking about in-game attacks of this kind on the US forces, not attacks on civilians.

All the best

Andreas

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I am looking forward to the comments in the press about the fact that the Syrian player can 'order martyrs to blow themselves up next to US troops'!!

Best regards,

Thomm

So what you are saying is that this sort of FREE press and exposure, that might even come from CNN (Combat Mission was on CNN once!) should be avoided because the realistic nature of the simulation of martyrs is "distasteful" in a military simulation game?

come on...

If BFC gets free press (you can't buy advertising as effective as sensationalistic news/media coverage about a ground breaking new feature in a video game) because this is the MOST accurate game of its kind (including suicide martyrs) that has to be a good thing for sales.

Most military simulations, (and by extension FPS shooters) are not really "wholesome" to begin with. If this one is a little more realistic and gritty then most, then so be it. I look forward to playing the final version, and these new additions with unconventional Syrian forces will make playing the Syrian side a real consideration from the perspective of play balance.

I think everyone first thought "Oh why bother playing, the US will win EVERY scenario EVERY time and the Syrian player will never have a chance". The AI will be boring and the AI will play the Syrian side everytime, because no one would ever opt to take on the mighty US military as the rag tag Syrians. Well think again, if this game really simulates assymetrical warfare in Syria in the near future it could really prove to be an interesting tactical challege to actually claim a victory with the US forces.

Bring on all the media attention you want, GOOD, BAD or indifferent, it can only increase awareness and drive sales up.

-tom w

[ January 31, 2007, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]