New Syrian TO&E thread

[Battlefront.com]

Good analysis Andreas. One thing I would clarify, though, is that the IDF was tactically less prepared for Lebanon than the US was for Iraq. The reason, I think, is because the US encountered a very early form of what the IDF ran into. This meant the conventional tactics of the US going into Iraq in 2003 worked better than they did for the IDF going into Lebanon in 2006.

It takes a long time to retool a peacetime military to learn a new way of warfighting, so I don't really hold it against the IDF. Weaknesses in tactics, however, can often be overcome by good strategy, such as the Soviet victory over the Germans. As it looks, the IDF had the worst of both worlds... flaws in its tactics and next to no strategic planning. Hard to win wars with poor strategies even with excellent tactics (again, the Germans vs. Soviets)

The US, in contrast to the IDF, had an excellent strategic warplan and very good tactics for the iniitial invasion. Since then it has had generally good tactics and overall very poor strategic planning. Hence the problems in Iraq.

Steve

[civdiv]

Steve,

Given all of this discussion and RW events, if you had to do it all again would you change Syria to Iran? Wait, don't answer that. If I were you, I would. But that is 20/20 hind sight. Iran; more interesting equipment OOB, more of it, more modern, more conventional (in some ways), diverse terrain, amphib ops from the outset, diverse force pool (IRGC, Regular Army, Basiig, Hezballah, yada, yada, yada.), etc. And when I say more conventional, less suicide bombers and VBIED, more conventional confrontations. But with the first points above it is more complex from the designer point of view.

[Sergei]

A big problem with Iran scenario is plausibility. Iran is a bigger country than Iraq - population of 70 million - so there would be very little serious thoughts about occupying it. Might as well invade China. Not that Syria scenario would be the first in order in a situation where Iraq is being Vietnamized, but it's less of a stretch.

And - more conventional?? You think the Islamic Republic, often accused of training terrorists, would shy away from use of suicide bombers?

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Steve,

Iran; more interesting equipment OOB, more of it, more modern, more conventional (in some ways)

Actually Civdiv, although I haven't looked into it for some time, I dont know if this accurate? As I recall the Syrians have around 2000 more tanks than Iran, about 1500 more BMP IFV's and around 1000 more BTR, etc APC's. On top of this and very importantly, their antitank missile armory tends to be considerably more modern than Irans with AT-7, AT-13 and AT-14 missiles part their inventory (as I recall the Iranians use mainly AT-3/4/5's). What this results in is that man for man, the Syrians tend to have more and better quality equipment at their disposal.

As such, *within CM's scale* I think you'll find that Syria's equipment provides a much more interesting and challenging opponent than that of Iran.

[ February 02, 2007, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

When we were coming up with the setting the choice was between Syria, Iran, or a "friendly" country that suffered a coup (like Saudi Arabia). The latter was ruled out because it didn't offer a good conventional setting, Iran was ruled out because it is impossible for the US to wage conventional warfare against it. Not without a draft and about 1 year to train, arm, and deploy a force large enough to so much as kick in the door. Occupation is completely out of the question.

Syria, on the other hand, can probably be knocked over using existing forces (though I don't even want to think about what that would do!). After that, however, 500,000 citizens who thought they were going off to college would find themselves over in the ME instead.

So in short... no, I would not change it to Iran. They were always the larger threat and still are today, but they are also completely untouchable from a conventional ground war standpoint. Even less so today than in 2003 when we decided on the setting.

Steve

[civdiv]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:

Steve,

Iran; more interesting equipment OOB, more of it, more modern, more conventional (in some ways)

Actually Civdiv, although I haven't looked into it for some time, I dont know if this accurate? As I recall the Syrians have around 2000 more tanks than Iran, about 1500 more BMP IFV's and around 1000 more BTR, etc APC's. On top of this and very importantly, their antitank missile armory tends to be considerably more modern than Irans with AT-7, AT-13 and AT-14 missiles part their inventory (as I recall the Iranians use mainly AT-3/4/5's). What this results in is that man for man, the Syrians tend to have more and better quality equipment at their disposal.

As such, *within CM's scale* I think you'll find that Syria's equipment provides a much more interesting and challenging opponent than that of Iran. </font>

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Actually they have AT-7/13/14 in reasonable numbers, something like 2000 AT-14 Kornets IIRC though the number varies. Many of their tanks have ERA applied and a reasonable number have been modernised over the last decade or so. The quantities of APCs and IFV's shouldnt be dismissed either.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I still cant see any way that at CM's scale Iran would be a tactically more challanging or interesting opponent. In fact you could probably do a reasonable 'Iran' scenario with a subset of Syrias equipment, providing you dont want to use Zulfiqar, which they likely have very few of, or some of the old US equipment they have, which is likely well past its used by date without spares.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I am not sure if I full agree with your comparisons of Iraq and the Lebanon.

In Iraq the US had at least the potentialof a 1,000 mile southern front and a 200 mile northern one in Turkey. Iraq knew it couldn't cover that even thinly let alone in depth, so it didn't try.

That left a fairly rough defence by town along a South North corridor from kuwait to baghdad. Which was how the extensive infrastrucure ran, along what was open unpopulated countryside.

In the Lebanon, Israel had a 25 mile front along rugged populated terrain with limited infrastructure running predominantly at right angles to the advance, and an ememy dug in and deployed in depth.

Short of amphibious operations which it isn't geared for and or cutting in to Syrian and flanking through the Golan heights, Israel never had many options.

Like you I don't think they should have gone in, but even with a GW1 style 30 day air campaign I think it would have been more like Kosovo than Kuwait. To many targets to well hidden in civilian areas.

It would be a choice between slow advance and mimimising your own and civilian casualties, or try to batter your way through with sheer firepower. firepower might have worked but the world would have gone crazy.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

It would be a choice between slow advance and mimimising your own and civilian casualties, or try to batter your way through with sheer firepower. firepower might have worked but the world would have gone crazy.

The world went crazy anyway AND the Israelis came out on the losing side. The conditions of war are often not of your choosing, but how you go about it always is. Even if it means not fighting at all. Israel would have been better off doing nothing or a massive, full scale invasion. The half assed, poorly planned, short sighted, knee-jerk action they in fact went with was a disaster. Worse, it was doomed to be so.

So I'll get back to my point... the US has shown no desire to launch such an attack on any significant military foe. It either goes in full bore, bombs from a distance, or doesn't do anything at all. Kosovo is a case in point. No ground troops involved at all because it was not deemed practical. The massive air campaign caused a lot of people to complain, but in the end it succeeded. Therefore I can think of no hypothetical scenario that would have the US going into Syria without overwhelming odds.

And once again, this is the same reason why any notion of a hypothetical ground war with Iran are out of the question. 500,000 is the minimum number I would expect for such an invasion, and that is an impossible number for the US to put together, even with massive support from NATO. So if the US were to wage war against Iran (which would be idiocy of a high order) it would have to do so from air and sea only.

Steve

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

I say just nuke them. I mean, they want a nuke, why not give them one?

j/k

[Thomm]

Originally posted by civdiv:

I mean, they want a nuke, why not give them one?

Perhaps because one should not murder 100.000s because of the stupidity and criminality of their leaders?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Peter Cairns]

Rollstoy,

We invaded Iraq.

Steve,

But ground troops did go in to Kosovo and many people think it was the threat of that more than the air campaign that finally got the Serbs to back down, as they didn't want to go head to head with Nato.

Ground troops in Kosovo was always a practical option, just not one that Clinton wanted to use.

Equally possible at any stage was to assemble a Nato armoured force in Hungary and drive straight to Belgrade, but regardless of the military viability there just wasn't the political will.

As to Iran, if they decided to start putting 250,000 Republican Guards in to Iraq tommorrow then the US would have to fight with what it had whether it liked it or not. It would be madness for Iran to do it of course, but as you say can't always choose your wars.

Peter.

[Andreas]

This seems relevant:

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8655676&fsrc=nwl

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I'm not sure what your point is any more You started off talking about a half assed NATO force going into Syria as being a better scenario and I said it was totally unrealistic. I've supported that pretty thoroughly and as of yet don't see any good counter arguments from you that have stood up. Now we're talking about Kosovo for some reason I haven't quite figured out

But ground troops did go in to Kosovo and many people think it was the threat of that more than the air campaign that finally got the Serbs to back down, as they didn't want to go head to head with Nato.

Ground troops only went in after the Serbs said they would allow them in. That happened because of the air campaign. The Serbs backed down because they were being turned into a 3rd world country for something they knew they wouldn't be able to keep a hold of anyway. The Serbs, when faced with such choices, are pretty practical minded people. When you don't force them into such a position, like the Vance-Owen debacles of the 1990s, they stick to their guns.

Ground troops in Kosovo was always a practical option, just not one that Clinton wanted to use.

It was politically impractical. The US population wasn't even that happy about the air campaign, and certainly the Republicans in Congress were not in favor of any sort of ground action (they also largely opposed the bombing campaign too). So no, it wasn't practical.

Equally possible at any stage was to assemble a Nato armoured force in Hungary and drive straight to Belgrade, but regardless of the military viability there just wasn't the political will.

The main reason was that nobody wanted to have a direct fight with the Serbs. Not over Kosovo at least. The Serbs aren't pushovers when defending their home turff. The way it worked was the best way... force the Serb's hand and then go in without opposition.

And why is this relevant to CM:SF?

As to Iran, if they decided to start putting 250,000 Republican Guards in to Iraq tommorrow then the US would have to fight with what it had whether it liked it or not.

Sure, and if China invaded Taiwan or North Korea invaded South Korea it would have a fight on its hands like it or not. What's your point? That the US is technically capable of waging a huge war effort if it feels it has to? That's a no brainer "yes it can". But it doesn't want to, so it will do whatever it has to to avoid it. In the case of Iran this means no ground war against is even remotely likely.

Steve

[civdiv]

What happens when an earth tremor hits a centrifuge array? Anybody know how strong a tremer or earthquake would have to be to cause a bunch of centrifuges spinning at thousands of rpms to just explode?

Now that was off topic. I still think the Iranian force pool is more interesting, but I see why you went with the Syrian scenario.

[ February 05, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[flamingknives]

Strong enough to get them to interfere with their enclosure, I'd hazard. I suspect that you'd be in more trouble with things falling over.

[YankeeDog]

Centrifuges are generally equipped with sensors linked to an emergency cutoff and lockdown/braking device that stops the device in a hurry and protects critical parts if a major imbalance is detected.

So I doubt the shaking of an earthquake, in and of itself, would cause irrevocable damage. This is not to say that you'd just be able to start the centrifuges right up after an earthquake, just that the damage would probably be relatively minor, and repairable.

However, as FK notes, more widespread damage to the facility housing the centrifuges is another matter. . .

Cheers,

YD

[civdiv]

Though I gotta defer to those that know more about this subject than I do; what happens to a centrifuge spinning at several thousand rpms when a 7.0 earthquake hits? I realize that pre-shocks tend to happen. I think this regime in Iran will be gone when the 7.0 or higher earthquake hits the Tehran area and there is like a 70% chance one hits in the next 7-8 years. But this is totally off topic. Let us let history take its course rather than have the democratic regime in power get wiped out by the earthquake.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Maybe you didn't see any of the coverage of the Kosovo UN decision or the Serbian elections last week, but if you did, it's hard to match the idea that they just walked out and left it with their feelings about it.

The threat of the use of ground forces in Kosovo was a major factor in the decision to pull out. The Serbs on the ground didn't want to be defeated on their own soil ( which is what they believed Kosovo was) so they "agreed" to leave before we went in.

The refugee crisis had actually created the conditions and indeed the demand for ground troops to go in, certainly in europe if not the US, and that is what they feared, not the bombing campaign.

There was also pressure from Serbia's neighbours to switch tactics from the air camapign as closing the Danubee was hurting them as much as the Serbs.

As to a half assed Nato campaign, I've from day one thought that a game built around a "crisis" (whether it be Islamic radicals taking over in Pakistan and getting Nukes, to a Hezbullah getting Syrian nerve gas) would make for a better game than one where the US has six months without interferrence to put together another high tech steamroller.

A game which is designed around what one nation does better than any other against one that can't stand up to it, won't be as interesting as a more even match.

It's like chess where one side has four queens and the other none.

I am not sure I ever actually advocated Nato, as again I've pretty much taken the view from day one that no one but the US would touch it with a barge pole.

I have said that in a "Marine" follow up you could put in the British and the French, because Britain seems to want to follow the US anywhere, and the French have histotic connections with the region.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

I can't say it any clearer... the US will never, ever go against a significant conventional enemy on the ground with a half assed ground assault. Dogs and cats living together in harmony with mice providing back massages is more likely.

As for even matches at the tactical level, you'd be hard pressed to find any in recent history. And no matter what crazy, absolutely divorced from reality backstory that you could come up with for the US going into Syria, alone, and with a paltry patehtic sized force STILL won't change the tactical match up one iota. A platoon of US Abrams can take on 2 companies of Syrian tanks any day of the week. A US Stryker Rifle Platoon can lay waste to a company of Syria's best tanks without breaking a sweat. Air superiority is an absolute 100% guaranteed event and there is nothing that would limit air power use, so that would still be a factor. So how on Earth does a complete work of fiction at the strategic level change a tactical wargame like CM?

So the bottom line is there is no strategic story that would hold any water that could explain a half assed, minimally supported ground offensive into Syria. NONE. And even if we totally dispensesed with any notion of realism and just said "someone got real stupid and sent in 2 Brigades without air support just because they thought it would be fun to try" the tactical situation would remain unchanged unless you also came up with a story how the US forgot to bring tanks, Javelins, ATGM based vehicles, and its superior trained soldiers. You know, like the US is in such a bad spot that they decided to send in a maintainence convoy to take Syria by force. That's just about the only story I can see that would satisfy your vision for a good game. Doesn't do much for me.

Steve

[ February 06, 2007, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yeah...

Maybe you didn't see any of the coverage of the Kosovo UN decision or the Serbian elections last week, but if you did, it's hard to match the idea that they just walked out and left it with their feelings about it.

(shakes head) what this has to do with anything is beyond me. I never said the Serbs left joyfully and said they never really cared. They left because the bombing obligated them to. If they left because they feared ground forces then they were fools because ground forces were not even close to being a serious threat when they left (or ever).

And I still don't understand what this has to do with anything relevant to CM:SF

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

A T-72 will take out an M-1 at 1,000m, so if you come over the hill and run in to 20 T-72's at that range with 5 M-1's you'll probably lose.

In a flat desert with excelent visability day and night supported by Kiowas on the flanks to tell you where they are the M-1's will win the day, as they have,

But in rolling hills covered with olive groves and trees with visability down to less than a 1,000m in most places and under 500m a lot of the time, it's a lot more even and can just come down to luck in terms of who sees who first.

That's far more like the situation the Israeli's found themselves in southern Lebanon.

Peter.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Steve,

A T-72 will take out an M-1 at 1,000m, so if you come over the hill and run in to 20 T-72's at that range with 5 M-1's you'll probably lose.

In a flat desert with excelent visability day and night supported by Kiowas on the flanks to tell you where they are the M-1's will win the day, as they have,

But in rolling hills covered with olive groves and trees with visability down to less than a 1,000m in most places and under 500m a lot of the time, it's a lot more even and can just come down to luck in terms of who sees who first.

That's far more like the situation the Israeli's found themselves in southern Lebanon.

Peter.

All the T-72s the Iraqis had in Kuwait took out, I believe, 1 Abrams. And the Abrams can't even take itself out, as indicated by the Cavalry stampede through the middle of Baghdad proved. And most of those back in '91 were plain-jane M1s, not the ones two evolutions passed that we currently have.

During the invasion of Iraq I heard one media report that one Abrams got m-killed from the rear in the middle of Baghdad, but I have never seen a report to corroborate that.

T-72s killing Abrams from the frontal arc at 1,000 meters? Give me a shred of proff that is possible as I have seen zero info that suggests that. And keep in mind Syrian has a total of like 120 T72s modernized just to maybe 1990s technology, and the evidence I have seen show that modernization appears to have been woefully ineffective.

During the gulf war Abrams were killing T72s through the frontal arc out to 2,500 meters (That is the longest shot I have heard of). At normal engagement ranges of around 1,500 meters Abrams were causing catastrophic damage (Explosion of internal ammo, turrets flying a hundred meters, engines getting blown clean out the rear of the T72) in something like half their hits, through the frontal arc. Yes, optics and such mean the Abrams are engaging first, but when entire US armored brigades are coming at you across an empty desert, and the Iraqis are dug in up to their eyeballs, they still aren't getting any kills on Abrams.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

A T-72 will take out an M-1 at 1,000m, so if you come over the hill and run in to 20 T-72's at that range with 5 M-1's you'll probably lose.

Abrams come in Platoons of 4, so it would be more like 20 to 4 matchup.

For 20 T-72s to even make it to the Abrams' position without being interdicted, breaking down, falling out of formation, etc. is unlikely, but let's go with it for a sec. Let's also put aside the chances of 4 Abrams being completely on their own aside too, no matter how unlikely that would be. Let's also put aside the chance that they somehow would not have eyes somewhere telling them they are on the way. Finally, let's put aside the chance that they themselves, through direct observation, didn't see them coming.

OK, so now we have a complete fantasy tank rush at close range between 20 of the Syrians' T-72 fleet. Let's say these are the best of the best, which is the TURMS upgrade (IIRC they have less than 200 in total). The Syrians would have to know exactly where the Abrams were in order to not be surprised themselves. They would have to come at the Abrams from something other than the Abrams' frontal arc in order to have a good chance of getting off a few rounds. They would also have to come to a complete stop before firing, because even the TURMS upgrade doesn't provide the sort of fire on the go sensitive that one would need for 1000m shots.

OK, so the fantasy gets a little more fuzzy, but let's keep going...

Assume the Syrian crews are very good, their equipment in perfect working order, and their nerves up to the task of tackling a tank they know can kill them with one shot. Assume that these fantasy über Syrians fire first rounds at totally unaware, unsupported, and badly positioned Abrams. Assume that they each pick unique Abrams and not all wind up shooting at the same one or two. Lastly, assume all Abrams are equally exposed and equally distant from covering terrain.

Hmmmm... OK, I think the fantasy situation is about ready to see what would happen...

I would expect all Abrams to be wiped out with no losses to the Syrians.

Now, back to reality. Presuming the 20 tanks actually made it there, and most of the rest of the hogwash situation I described above still holds true, I would expect perhaps one destroyed Abrams and probably 10 destroyed T-72s, with the rest breaking contact and going back over the hill with the three remaining Abrams in pursuit, likely knocking them all out as they retreated. For all other situations I expect 20 smoking T-72s and no knocked out Abrams.

So if I had to put down a wager on 20 Syrian top of the line T-72s or 4 any old type of American Abrams, my bet would go down on the Abrams every time.

And I'll say again... there is no strategic storyline you could possibly come up with that would influence this engagment either way. The Syrians would never have such opportunities no matter what, the Abrams would probably never be in such a clueless position completely unsupported by friendly troops of any sort. But even if the Syrians beat all the odds this one time, what about all the other times? The Americans lose 4 tanks and Syria loses its entire army. That's not a bad strategic exchange for the Americaons.

No way could the Syrians ever get lucky enough for it to matter.

Steve

[ February 06, 2007, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Now, before anybody starts bleeting about how I am blindly biased in favor of US military might, reread what I wrote. The strength of the US military is not its tanks. They are simply a cog in a much larger machine. The US has so many other powerful weapons, including communications, that it could probably take over all of Syria without a single Abrams crossing the border. Abrams just make things go a lot easier and faster, which is why the grunts on the ground are happy to have 'em nearby.

Opposing this massive, complex, high tech, well trained, well lead, combat experienced, redundant capable, and f'n expensive military colossus is a military that is in many ways inferior to any Western military force from WWII. It's poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped, has basically no combat experience, has the wrong mindset for modern warfare, and is in many cases extremely poorly motivated. Strategically, they have as much chance of defeating a determined invasion as I have of winning the lottery (I don't play ).

At the tactical level things are much more interesting. If they follow standard Soviet doctrine they will likely get chewed to pieces. But here is where the Syrians, I think, have been learning from recent events. They have a very good chance of making it extremely difficult and costly for the an invader to take over their country by using asymetric tactics and accepting the fact that a 20 tank rush is not going to acheive victory. CM:SF demonstrates that very, very well already.

Steve