73 Easting

[Runyan99]

I think we have the OOB to re-create one of the most famous battles of the Iraq war, if some intrepid scenario designer would tackle it. The Iraqis had T-72s, which are in the game, as are the Abrams and Bradleys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

In fact, I bet there are a number of scenarios from the 'Mother of All Battles' which can easily be re-created in CMSF.

[Pinetree]

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this last night.Steel Beasts Pro has a 73 Easting scenario which I was thinking of converting..

[Tzen]

It seems a little too one-sided to be that interesting for CMSF. Am I wrong?

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

as are the Abrams and Bradleys.

But not the same versions, and not with the same ammunition.

The scenario should be interesting anyway, but I don't think CMSF can accurately recreate battles from the 1991 Gulf War (mainly because, on the US side, most of the "hardware" has changed since then).

Perhaps some more obscure engagements of the 2003 invasion could be modelled with greater accuracy.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Renaud]

The changes in tech since 91 would not materially affect the modeling of a 73 easting cmx2 scenario. Use the M1A1 heavy model without the CITV, that's basically what Eagle Troop had. The cav version of the bradley is about the same. The monkey-model T72 is available. There's no ZU-23 AA gun though. In any case, when the M1 gun hits any Iraqi vehicle it explodes, when any Iraqi/syrian-cmx2 vehicle hits the M1 nothing much happens. That really hasn't changed since 91. Not that Eagle troop had much chance to find out...they hit immediately and decisively, while the Iraqi units were encountered piecemeal, at one point still in their coil formation, and fired sporadically with no hits on Eagle Troop.

The action lasted exactly 23 minutes from first engagement to last and covered about 6 kilometers of desert between 67 Easting and 73 Easting. I have a minute-by-minute account of the action as related by Captain H.R. McMaster from a detailed interview, also multiple maps with phase lines, times, formations and the locations of every individual vehicle and complete TOE.

This scenario is begging to be created, however the value is completely in the historical recreation and documentation as there wouldn't be a lot of play or replay value from the Iraqi (syrian) point of view.

I haven't received the full game yet so someone will undoubtedly have a go at this before me. CMx2 can only do 4 km long maps, right? Probably close enough to give it a go anyway. Would be nice if you could do 1x6km though.

*edit: there's also ghost troops epic defensive stand against an entire brigade+ that night. However this lasted 5-6 hours so you would have to just do 1 cm-size chunk of it.

[ August 05, 2007, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[jens198]

I have a minute-by-minute account of the action as related by Captain H.R. McMaster from a detailed interview, also multiple maps with phase lines, times, formations and the locations of every individual vehicle and complete TOE.

Can you post/send that material? Sounds interessting!

Jens

[Kieme(ITA)]

Please put some Crack/Elite crew on T-72s at least, and with very high motivation.

This would be first step to give some chance to OPFOR side, too...

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Tzen:

It seems a little too one-sided to be that interesting for CMSF. Am I wrong?

Well guess what, most of the engagements in CMSF are going to appear one sided. Nothing new here.

However, almost anything can be balanced into a 'fair' scenario. It just takes a little skill and imagination. Players need to break out of this 'equal forces capture the flag in the center of the map' mentality that the CM QB crowd has of what a wargame is.

First, you can heavily penalize the American side for every vehicle lost. If the American side loses more than say, three vehicles, give the Red side enough points so that they 'win'.

Also, just because historically the Iraqis got caught a little off guard and did poorly, and the Americans performed perfectly - that doesn't mean that any player is going to step in and so the same. I think there is an inclination to think that events always play out the same when re-created. That past events are inevitable and hardwired. That isn't true. Making slightly different decisions can have big consequences.

And, I bet the scenario can be 'opened up' to different possible outcomes simply by allowing both sides some latitude as to where to set up units at the beginning.

[Denwad]

well instead of doing say a N-S attack orientation of the map, do a NW-SE so that you can get more range out of the map ( diamond shaped or what not )

[SgtMuhammed]

There are lots of engagements that were onesided because of decisions made by the commanders or even higher up. By gaming them out you can see what could have happened if, for instance, the Iraqis had proper security and were ready for 2ACR's attack.

One scenario I made for CMAK was the battle for Hosingen which pitted 300 Americans against large portions of two German Panzer divisions and an entire infantry division. It turned out to be nearly as epic as it was in real life.

[Renaud]

Good points everyone. Runyan: I think designing a materially balanced scenario won't be that hard. All US equipment is highly vulnerable in flank and top attack. Imagine a scenario in which a Stryker or Cav unit is temporarily cut off in a wadi and faces attack from every direction with air support limited by high winds and sandstorms...mmm..the tactical possibilities are endless.

It might possibly require 2 versions of the scenario, a straight historical recreation with appropriate AI programming and placement, and a HtH what-if version. When you study the historical situation, you see that the Iraqi's were in hot water in so many different ways...they were being attacked rapidly from the rear and completely by surprise, while retreating from the main US force. Like a hammer and anvil. There was a heavy sandstorm during the early hours of the battle which cut US vision down, but appeared to more seriously affect the Iraqi vehicles.

The Iraqi's that day were definitely fanatical, particularly the brigade attacking Ghost troop that evening. Their mbt crew skill level is hard to judge, because most were not able to get off a shot.

*jens198: Awww...I can't give away my sources before I make the scenario! The scenario briefing will have complete references...

[rogue187]

I looked at 73 Easting and it looks like it would be feesable for CM:SF. I went on to look at the Battle of Medina Ridge and thought it would be neat to recreate. I have never tried to create my own scenerio and it may be that the battle is too big for this game. Maybe it can be broken up into smaller battles to simulate different hours of the overall battle? The only thing is, is that wikipedia was a little vague on the details so I am not sure how the battle actually unfolded.

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

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Renaud:

The action lasted exactly 23 minutes from first engagement to last and covered about 6 kilometers of desert between 67 Easting and 73 Easting.

Can the map be made big enough? I quickly opened the editor to see what the max map size is, and I only got up to about 2km X 2km.

[Speedy]

Use the other + button.

[kevinkins]

I don't know ... it might be fun "creating" these 90's battles. But they were really one-sided so "playing" them from the Iraqi side would be sad. Also, if I remember, there was not much maneuver in these battles. Just line em up an shoot them up. Lots of technology on the uS side. The Iraqi moral must have been very low before the battles. Then once they started their moral must have decreased to levels we cant try to simulate as their tanks and AFVs were blown to bits one by one by an unseen enemy.

Kevin

[Renaud]

Amazingly enough, Ghost troop reported that the Iraqi Brigade attacking them was fanatical in the extreme, literally in some cases dismounting and rushing them on foot. Deducting for what Eagle troop destroyed earlier in the day to the south, Ghost troop probably destroyed 60-70 tanks and a multitude of other vehicles and infantry that evening.

Rogue187: yea, you'll probably need to do some more research over and above Wikipedia. That's one of greatest attractions of scenario design - learning a lot about the battles (quality design anyway). I've expanded my military library greatly in the past few years researching scenarios for CMBB (expensive but worth it).

Yep, ODS 91 scenarios would be largely one-sided...but as Runyan99 noted, you can balance with penalties and other such tools. In any case, they would have historical value.

Immediately after the 73 Easting battle, a team from the Institute for Defense Analysis came out and carefully documented the battle which now exists as a detailed computer model in the bowels of the DOD somewhere...wish I could get my hands on that.

[Blazing 88's]

I would like to know if this was ever created for CMSF. With the Road To Bagdad mod, I would like to have this as an option for a scenario or operation.

[sburke]

Amazingly enough, Ghost troop reported that the Iraqi Brigade attacking them was fanatical in the extreme, literally in some cases dismounting and rushing them on foot.

those idiots must have played CMBN and figured dismounted tank crews were really deadly.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

those idiots must have played CMBN and figured dismounted tank crews were really deadly.

They were resupplying at the time and were in no position to meet an attack that they clearly did not expect. However accounts of otherbattles that night clearly indicate the RG were well trained and highly motivated.

Using Gulf War engagments as a template for battlesin the Syrian setting should work well and of course the Syrian RG can use T-90s or the most modern T-72s. The only issue is that Armoured Cavalry organisation has changed so some adaptations will be needed.

[agusto]

Some time ago i tried to recreate parts of the battle of 73 Easting in CMSF but during testing the scenarios turned out to be just not enjoyable. The Iraqis just dont have even the slightest chance, they are steamrolled within a couple of turns.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Some time ago i tried to recreate parts of the battle of 73 Easting in CMSF but during testing the scenarios turned out to be just not enjoyable. The Iraqis just dont have even the slightest chance, they are steamrolled within a couple of turns.

So take the battle siuatiion as a basis for a battle agais the Syria Republican Guard. Give the Syrians T-90s or the latest T-72s. The US will probably still win so to make a challenging game of it for he US player you will ned to think carefully about the victory conditions of which there is, as you know, quite a range. With some thought you can turn it into a challeging scenaroi. On the battlefield the Syrians will probably still lose but, with carefully calculated victory conditions they can still win in game terms.

[John Kettler]

Renaud,

73 Easting may be the most heavily studied, and minutely examined, battle in the history of the U.S. Army. It's fortunate the U.S. had M1HAs because we discovered, a few years after the Yom Kippur War when we got some from Israel, that even Russian 76.2mm HEAT could pierce the Gen One M1 tank frontally. Yes, you read that correctly. The M1 originally had siliceous core armor, and the Russians got the read on that technical direction from the aborted U.S. T95, which featured armor consisting of steel outer and inner layers, with glass in between. Consequently, the Russians developed and fielded HEAT ammo specifically designed to defeat that kind of armor. Russia's allies got those HEAT rounds only when they'd become obsolete, therfore eligible for export. Not only was I present when the CIA's Joseph Backofen (grog extraordinaire on shaped charge munitions) briefed that shocker, but it was even worse than that. Why? The U.S. had historically only static fired HEAT munitions to test their penetration. The Russians designed their HEAT projectiles in such a way as to take advantage of that high velocity momentum. Would you believe 40% greater penetration? The M1A1 HA and the associated Silver Bullet DU round were part of a crash U.S. effort to get out of a bind in which most of our antitank weapons (inc. 105mm, LAW, Dragon, TOW), except Hellfire and the annihilating (173 lb HEAT warhead) Maverick, were useless, yet we were highly vulnerable to their weaponry. This is why TOW first acquired a standoff probe (ITOW--Improved TOW), then a full caliber warhead w/ probe and waffle iron thermal beacon (TOW 2). Then came TOW 2a (TOW 2 w/ precursor charge to defeat ERA), followed by TOW 2b (top attack weapon designed to fly over the tank and fire two EFFs down through the turret roof). The TOW 2/2a (forget which) also sported sophisticated double trumpet liners made of DU, not copper.

I believe that the only outright hostile disablement of an M1A1 HA came as a result of a 125mm HEAT round to the turret side, and there are reports of M1s emerging from tank battles with long rod penetrators sticking out of them like pins from a pin cushion. Now, Iraq had monkey model 125mm KE ammo, maraging steel long rod penetrators, but what if Iraq instead had been given tungsten carbide or even DU? It's not well known, but DU HEAT (3BK-21B) entered service in 1982.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/soviet-3bk-21b-heat-fs-projectile-for-125mm-3vbk-1

The DU KE round (3VBM13/3BM32/33) entered service in 1985. The list of progressively improved ammunition for the 125mm 2A46 gun makes fascinating, albeit highly disturbing, reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition

I got briefed (practically fell out of my chair) on Russian DU in 1985, the Year of the Spy, at the CIA-sponsored Soviet Threat Technology Conference. The Agency was running scared, and it brought in all the weapon technology specialists to brief us. Grog heaven, though terribly rough on respiration, heart and digestion! No notes allowed, but back then I had both an excellent memory and specialized memory training. Came back and wrote a 40 page report.

Now you understand why all the 105mm gunned Abrams were abruptly swapped out for M1A1 HAs (rushed in from Europe) before the Hail Mary attack was commenced. Have no idea how to replicate in-game the various disconnects I described above, but I do agree that victory conditions will likely be key aspects of scenario design.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

Don't forget to dismount some of the Iraqi crews, immobilise their T-72's (they took the tank battery to power their dugouts electrics) and have them shocked, they were sitting down for a meal.

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Way out of my depth here, but does a T-72 have a donkey engine (small auxiliary engine w/ generator) which allows turret traverse while still charging batteries? HSU Loza talks about what a big deal this was for a Sherman tank in ambush, since it greatly dropped not just sound output but telltale smoke. Have also read an account in which a U.S. Sherman unit was attacked (tanks down for maintenance and unable to move) but with turrets manned and one guy each (rest sleeping outside the tanks) in the turrets. The Germans attacked at night with tanks, and though the U.S. tanks were immobilized, the attack was still repelled. If the T-72 has a donkey engine, though immobile, the tank can still power traverse, shoot and reload.

Regards,

John Kettler