Side balancing

[antawar]

Syria HAS bought and already deployed the kornet in the thousands.

As for the numerical superiority argument: at the operational and strategic level, you may outnumber the enemy, but at the tactical level, in some cases, you may be outnumbered.

also, in irak, the US had less tanks than the iraqis even if the US had more tanks in its inventory worldwide. It all depends how many you deploy for a given conflict. Of course, the Iraqis were so astoundingly inept it didnt make a difference. As quoted in a document referenced in another thread (the Biddle docment): A cavalry troop (14 vehicles) was ambushed by an entire iraqi republican guard battallion (more than 44 vehicles). They fired from the flanks at 800-1000 meters (all the US vehicules had their flanks fully exposed), 16 125mm shots were fired, NONE OF THEM HIT.

That's really INEPT.

[Bigduke6]

I don't get it. If there were 44 RG vehicles, how come only 16 tank main gun shots were fired?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I don't get it. If there were 44 RG vehicles, how come only 16 tank main gun shots were fired?

Because those jackbooted banana-eating igloo-dwelling surrender monkeys were cowards? :mad:

[Bigduke6]

Thanks MD, that makes it clear.

On the Kornets, just for the record, Russia's Ministry of Defense has denied any deliveries took place, just talking. I would be curious to know Atawar's source for the "1000s of Kornets already in Syria". I might believe a few dozen or a couple of hundred, same as Iraq. But 1000s? The missile hasn't been out that long.

As to the near future, one result of the October meetings that WAS admitted to was that Russia agreed to forgive/write off/use clever accounting to get rid of something like 11 billion dollars of Syrian debt from the Cold War years. That's a pretty important first step towards new acquisitions, but the problem is, the Syrians are poor. So I kinda wonder how, if there are 1000s of Kornets in Syria like Atawar says, how Syria paid for them.

The Russian Ministry of Defense is pretty much a cash-on-the-barrelhead organization these days.

Speaking of Kornets, one thing I can't figure out is would one crack an M1A1 open with a frontal arc strike. Any one know?

[Wicky]

Moscow TimesJan 18, 2005, is probably the source of the claim for what it's worth

"..Since 1998, the Tula-based KBP arms factory has sold Syria up to a thousand updated Kornet-E guided antitank missiles."

Then in a Pentagon report/book based on weapons found in Iraq after the war; 'Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies' stated that Syria purchased 500 to 1,000 Kornets from Ukraine "on behalf of Iraq"; the transfers took place in early 2003, the report said. The Ukrainians had bought the missiles from Russian manufacturers.

[ October 12, 2005, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

you don't need Kornets or T-80s to have balanced fights. in urban terrain RPGs are perfectly good for stopping M1. in CMx1 terms, all your squads now have panzerschrecks. players will learn quickly to keep armor assets at overwatch positions. using M1s just as mobile pillboxes of course means that enemy tanks have good chances of flanking your armor, and Syrian tanks KO M1 just fine from the flanks.

battles will be interesting, exciting & very challenging for both sides.

[Bigduke6]

On the Kornets, thanks. The original source appears to be Israeli intelligence, so that's good enough for me. Certainly better than that guy Ivanov over at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; he tells fibs all the time.

So assume the Syrians have several hundred Kornet missiles at least. Not good for the blue team.

Clearly, the critical balance issue for this game is going to be the quality of the Syrian infantry.

[rune]

Actually yhr number is more like 1500 with more just sold. Add to that the SA-19 SAM, and things get lively for helocopters and low or slow moving aircraft. Also, they have the newer rpg that is supposed to be nasty. Not the cakewalk that people think.

Rune

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by rune:

Not the cakewalk that people think.

I definitely see how scenarios could be 'not a cake walk' for the U.S. However, (I am thinking CMx1 QBs now) it is hard for me to conceive a situation where a company sized U.S. force could get overwhelmed and destroyed by any size Syrian force.

[Tarquelne]

However, (I am thinking CMx1 QBs now) it is hard for me to conceive a situation where a company sized U.S. force could get overwhelmed and destroyed by any size Syrian force. [/QB]

I suspect a withdrawal will count as a crushing defeat in most scenarios.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

However, (I am thinking CMx1 QBs now) it is hard for me to conceive a situation where a company sized U.S. force could get overwhelmed and destroyed by any size Syrian force.

I guess you've never heard of Little Bighorn?

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I guess you've never heard of Little Bighorn?

Im not interested in your anatomical nicknames

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I guess you've never heard of Little Bighorn?

Im not interested in your anatomical nicknames </font>

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

I suspect a withdrawal will count as a crushing defeat in most scenarios.

But wouldnt that be what the U.S. would do in RL. Withdraw, if necessary, and wait for the firepower.

I guess I am just thinking that in any setting where modern U.S. troops are fighting a 3rd world country, the U.S. will not be in a 'fair fight'. And that doesnt mean that all the fights are 'cakewalks', but it is very different than the U.S. in WWII, Korea, or even Vietnam.

[LightningWar]

This is one of the biggest things I am looking forward to seeing BF solve. It seems pretty unrealistic to have two battalions of Americans and Syrians facing off and the Syrians doing much more than slowing the Americans down.

Are they modeling precision munitions as well?

I can see different scenarion victory conditions as a way to offset the match of technical and training mismatches between the forces. Basically the only way Americans win is if they capture the flag. Syrians can claim moral victories at any point.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

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

[qb] I suspect a withdrawal will count as a crushing defeat in most scenarios.

But wouldnt that be what the U.S. would do in RL. Withdraw, if necessary, and wait for the firepower.</font>

[Drusus]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

I definitely see how scenarios could be 'not a cake walk' for the U.S. However, (I am thinking CMx1 QBs now) it is hard for me to conceive a situation where a company sized U.S. force could get overwhelmed and destroyed by any size Syrian force.

Well, luckily for the people looking forward to balanced quick battles, there is 1000 points for each team, 2x2km map and a location to hold in the end. There will be no air support to rescue the US forces. The M1 will cost so much and the T55 so little that the games will be balanced. You want 155mm artillery to support your forces? So pay for it. Is it realistic that such forces (US forces without air support facing lots of T-72?) would fight against each other? No. But QBs have never been realistic.

Take the normal ME QB from CMx1. You know exactly how large a force you are facing (in points, but still). Unrealistic. You know very well where your enemy's troops are going to be in the start of the battle. Unrealistic. You can do a flag rush. Now, I don't remember that happening too often in real life. (Or is the saying "get there firstest with the mostest" about this? ) In CMAK I see lots of times Allies attacking with Priests and such. Is that because they are the absolute best armoured vehicles there are? No. It is because Priest has good price/effectivenes ratio. The King Tiger is a real killer in CMx1 but you don't see that too often because it is so expensive. M1 in CMSF will propably be the same as KT in CMx1.

So, the point is: We should not worry about the balance of QBs or if the forces fighting in them are realistic. The balance will come through point system. And the QBs will be unrealistic, but it is the way it has always been.

[Battlefront.com]

If they need to. That sounds like a very good scenario, actually: One in which the US player needs to realize that the proper thing to do is fall back.

Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if we worked that into a Campaign scenario

For people who have read "flow chart" type books, you'll recall that at some point you get to a point where the story ends because you made a bad choice. So you back up one decision to see if the other choice was the right one. Sometimes is just as bad. So you back up another step... etc. etc. At that point you realize that you made a more far reaching operational mistake instead of just a one time tactical one.

In CM this is akin to deciding to stick to a fight and then losing. You then think "maybe if I had just put my crack platoon there and had suppressed that MG nest there, I'd have won". You then revert to an earlier save game and find out that you still lose. So you revert back to an even older save game where you had some more options and find that you still lose. Then you go back even further and find that if you execute a fighting withdrawal that you don't lose. You might not win, but sometimes victory was never really practical and so the best you can do is beat down the enemy. Think Battle of the Bulge

Steve