The other side...

[MEYER_1944]

Having seen quite alot of videos taken by the Chechens in combat against the Russian's on YOUTUBE I asked myself this question...

With the United States overwhelming superiority in weapon quality and quantity, are the Syrians therefore relegated to use guerilla tactics?

We have seen the results of the Iraqi's attempt at fighting pitched battles with US forces. So have to think realistically that the Syrians will have to adopt hit and run/ambush tactics to get anywhere, and to avoid slaughter...

Sure in urban (built-up areas) they have the advantage of cover (to a certain degree) and many abush points. But I cant see how there can ever be a fair fight unless you create a scenario of a Syrian Battalion attacking a US platoon...

I somewhat like the idea (in a chechen theatre game) of being the underdog and taking out Hinds with SAM's etc... But here, what exactly do the Syrians have going for them?

What are others thoughts?

[rudel.dietrich]

There have been dozens of threads on this topic.

My thoughts are that it will be much easier to play as the Syrians.

As the US player you have to lead cordinated attacks on entrenched forces in good defensive terrian.

That is the hardest of all military moves at the tactical level.

It requires patience but at the same time enough agression to follow up sucesses and take advadtange of mistakes.

It requires making many many moves at once and predicting well in advance what will be happening at any given time.

The Syrians may not have the best equipment but they have enough to get the job done.

A typical Syrian infantry spraying enough AK rounds at 100 meters at a infantry squad crossing a street just have to get lucky once and you have a US casulty which in and of itself is huge.

Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.

Or heaven forbid you get a little sloppy and expose the side of an M1 to a T-62 sitting in an alleyway 300 meters away and it buries a 115mm shell into the side of the M1 and kills it.

Just one little mistake could lose you the scenario.

As the Syrians you could lose all your armour and take 70% infantry losses but if you kill 5 Americans and wound 18 and destroy a Styker and damage a M1 and hold up an enemy force for an hour then you will have done your job and will probably win.

So as I said before, playing as the Syrians will be far easier than playing as the US side.

[Michael Dorosh]

My thoughts are that you can take my name out of your sig line as it is against forum policy. Thanks.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

There have been dozens of threads on this topic.

My thoughts are that it will be much easier to play as the Syrians.

snip

As the Syrians you could lose all your armour and take 70% infantry losses but if you kill 5 Americans and wound 18 and destroy a Styker and damage a M1 and hold up an enemy force for an hour then you will have done your job and will probably win.

Roger that! (depending on the victory conditions and points scheme/allocation)

I agree.

Nicely put!

Good post.

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.

I know that the focus of the game will be on Stryker Brigade units but does this mean that squads have to have their Stryker vehicle on-map in every scenario? I hope not. I would have thought a Stryker ICV is the modern equivalent of a WWII half-track, i.e. a battle-taxi that can just about survive a nearby mortar round going off but should be exposed to very little else. In most scenarios I am hoping that the Stryker ICVs are off-map and the US player just has infantry - with perhaps the odd M1 Abrams thrown in for company!

[MEYER_1944]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

My thoughts are that you can take my name out of your sig line as it is against forum policy. Thanks.

My thoughts are that with 22000+ posts! Do you have a life???

[MEYER_1944]

In all seriousness... If you aint gonna stay on topic then dont post...!

[Bugged]

Originally posted by MEYER_1944:

In all seriousness... If you aint gonna stay on topic then dont post...!

So anyway, today, I went for dinner with my best friend. I had a beef dinner and it was a bit dry.

[MEYER_1944]

^^^^^

Or you could have just given oral to a 44 magnum and saved us all from your sarcasm...

[Battlefront.com]

Meyer_1944,

You are new, but you wasted no time getting yourself a warning. If you are here to make problems, then you won't be here for long. Re-read the Forum rules you agreed to when you signed up. You are already in major violation. Another one and you will be banned for life. Yor choice.

Steve

[MEYER_1944]

Will do...

[Battlefront.com]

People can put whatever they want into scenarios. I am definitely planning on making some for the campaign that have few, if any, Strykers in it. However, know that Strykers are generally always there at the front for support. Strykers are somewhere in the middle between a heavy infantry transport (IFV) like the Bradley and something that is just a "battlefield taxi" (APC). It's designed to support the infantry in a very direct, up close and personal way (like an IFV), but it lacks the ability to really slug it out with a heavy combined arms enemy (like an APC).

I'd have to reread the tactical doctrine about when to bugger off and when to stay, but from memory the Stryker ICV (Infantry Carrying Vehicle) stays with the infantry unless it is impractical for one reason or another. When it does move away from the infantry it stays as close as possible to them.

Steve

[MEYER_1944]

Back to some questions...

How effective is the protective (slat-armour) on the Stryker and any other vehicle its used on...?

I realise its for protection against RPG's and the like, but with anything weightier than that is it automatic goodbye stryker?

I realise even M1 Abrams are far from infallable but what have been the rough casualty rates of vehicles in Iraq? Does anyone know? Depending on what your shown by the media and what you can dig up via the internet I can see how some people can get a distorted perspective of just who is kicking who's butt over there...

Having just watched a distubing compilation of countless US vehicles (mostly Hummers) getting destroyed and filmed by the insurgents... other than feeling a tad queezy and somewhat sad for the obvious casualties involved im wondering just who is getting the upper hand...!

[Mace]

Originally posted by MEYER_1944:

I realise its for protection against RPG's and the like, but with anything weightier than that is it automatic goodbye stryker?

IIRC the slat armour is primarily there to help cook off RPGs, shaped charges (like HESH etc) or any other round that penetrates armour via a plasma jet, before they hit the hull armour.

What it is less effective against are the larger calibre Armour Piercing rounds, shrapnel or HE based rounds.

I realise even M1 Abrams are far from infallable but what have been the rough casualty rates of vehicles in Iraq? Does anyone know?

Google and ye will find:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/773.pdf

(refer page 10 for equipment losses by vehicle type).

Originally posted by Bugged:

So anyway, today, I went for dinner with my best friend. I had a beef dinner and it was a bit dry.

Did it being dry ruin the meal? Shame, a beef dinner rocks!!! \m/

Responded to by MEYER_1944

Or you could have just given oral to a 44 magnum and saved us all from your sarcasm...

I'm not too sure about given oral to a 44 magnum however. That doesn't rock as much as a beef dinner does. In fact, it doesn't rock at all.

[MikeyD]

A Stryker with slat cage in the game will be pretty interesting. Can't quite compare them to half-tracks - HTs had something like 8mm armor, Strykers have equivalent 56mm. Hvy mgs can't hurt 'em (much). RPGs can't hurt 'em (much). But they're as big as a schoolbus with a worse turn radius, and with the same firepower as a Humvee! It'll be worth the price of the game just having the opportunity to wargame various ideas on how to properly utilize them in a battle.

About a fair fight. if we're limited to Company-size engagements all bets are off. Syria could win a particular engagement handily - of course 10 minutes after the scenario's over the victors might find themselves beneath a B52 bombing raid or massive MLRS cluster bomb attack. But that's outside the scope of the game (probably).

[flamingknives]

HESH does not equal shaped charge, but then shaped charge doesn't equal plasma either.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.

I know that the focus of the game will be on Stryker Brigade units but does this mean that squads have to have their Stryker vehicle on-map in every scenario? I hope not. I would have thought a Stryker ICV is the modern equivalent of a WWII half-track, i.e. a battle-taxi that can just about survive a nearby mortar round going off but should be exposed to very little else. In most scenarios I am hoping that the Stryker ICVs are off-map and the US player just has infantry - with perhaps the odd M1 Abrams thrown in for company! </font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

and with the same firepower as a Humvee!

They have more firepower than that. The .50 HMG is remote operated so the crew is not subjected to fire and many models mount 40mm grenade launchers and if you really need some firepower you can use your MGS variant and use 105mm shells to resolve the issue.

If you need indirect support then you can use the 4.2 inch mortar variant and punch holes in buildings or supress and kill enemies in defensive terrain.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

{snip}

Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.

Or heaven forbid you get a little sloppy and expose the side of an M1 to a T-62 sitting in an alleyway 300 meters away and it buries a 115mm shell into the side of the M1 and kills it.

Just one little mistake could lose you the scenario.

As the Syrians you could lose all your armour and take 70% infantry losses but if you kill 5 Americans and wound 18 and destroy a Styker and damage a M1 and hold up an enemy force for an hour then you will have done your job and will probably win.

So as I said before, playing as the Syrians will be far easier than playing as the US side.

Playing the US in that scenario sounds desperately dull. Shepherding your guys to absolutely preserve them can get really, really boring. It reminds me of Commando and its ilk where you get the pleasure of re-starting over and over due to one stupid oversight, then doing it again because of another.

IRL then of course you'd take every precaution but to pass some time because TV stinks? Nah.

I hope the back-story allows for US casualties to stop this and the scenario design allows for a fairer fight than what's expected here. I see both things happening hopefully.

Of course, I could always play the Syrian side, but where's the big toys?

Originally posted by MEYER_1944:

Will do...

Well done, most people go the other way quickly, and further to the exit. Good to see a sensible choice being made.

[Michael Dorosh]

Reined in by common sense. Bah. Nothing to see here.

[ October 16, 2006, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Speedy]

*pokes head in and looks around*

Nope can't see anything.

[Michael Dorosh]

*whew*

On a more serious note, everyone is assuming that all the games will be armour heavy. Will we not be seeing any dismounted urban type operations, patrolling, etc.?

[Battlefront.com]

We're not simulating the sort of "stability ops" that are the more or less bread and butter of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. High tempo combat only. And yes, lots and lots of dismounted ops are planned, many of them in MOUT settings. However, expect lots of armor with them. That's actually the whole point of the Stryker Brigade concept... a force that is almost as easy to deploy and sustain as Light but packing a punch that is pretty close to that of Heavy (just not as defensible).

Steve

[cassh]

OtherMeans said -

allows for a fairer fight than what's expected here

God, I hope not. Combat should never be fair.

For me the whole purpose of this game will be to see how one can fight a conventional enemy in an asymmetric manner to counter their superiority in technology and equipment. And that means real world political-military objects are present; such as causing a western army casualties having more effect on VPs, forcing western army to fight in politically sensitive areas (populated residence, mosques etc), getting hard kill on their AFVs. This is what any decent Syrian commander would seek to do – so why would we not want this modelled in the game?

If we don't reflect these real world issues that face military commanders then why simulate this combat at all - bring on the space lobsters!

[Other Means]

Originally posted by cassh:

OtherMeans said - </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />allows for a fairer fight than what's expected here

God, I hope not. Combat should never be fair.

For me the whole purpose of this game will be to see how one can fight a conventional enemy in an asymmetric manner to counter their superiority in technology and equipment. And that means real world political-military objects are present; such as causing a western army casualties having more effect on VPs, forcing western army to fight in politically sensitive areas (populated residence, mosques etc), getting hard kill on their AFVs. This is what any decent Syrian commander would seek to do – so why would we not want this modelled in the game?

If we don't reflect these real world issues that face military commanders then why simulate this combat at all - bring on the space lobsters! </font>