M1A2..how tough?

[panzermartin]

I dont have quite a clear idea about the effectiveness of syrian at-weapons against this beast. Most say that it will be similar to the Tiger vs T34 CMBB duels, invicible from the front not so from the sides, vulnerable from the rear.

My only test ground is WinSPMBT, where it seems that even older T55 can penetrate the side armor.

If this is the case, perhaps we shouldnt worry that much about dull armor firefights, unless the map is a plain flat desert..or not? I know it wont be that simplistic as there are many other things factored in but a not so unbeatable M1 is something that can balance things a bit.

[Wallybob]

range has an awful lot to do with penetration, as well as shell size and velocity. WWII story of the M8 Greyhound that nailed a Tiger in the butt with the 37mm popgun; it sped up and closed with the kitty firing as fast as it could, finally somefink went "kerflooie".

The M1A1 is danged good, but don't let anybody nail ya in the grill doors. Armor threats should be faced with the front 60 degrees of armor, if possible.

Been there, done that.

[KNac]

I think the syrian have a good deal of AT weapons which can deal with the monster on close quarters and even at a good range.

[M1A1TC]

The Abrams tanks are as tough as many others, but just about any tank can be defeated by a modern SABOT round or a good infantry AT weapon.

The best thing about the M1A2 Abrams is the electronics, thermals, and effective range of the main gun. We also have great crew training

I think Merkava 4 is superior to most modern tanks

[Sgt Joch]

In theory the modern ATGM's in the Syrian inventory (AT-14, MILAN) should be able to knock out a M1A2 at any range. The AT-14 can penetrate up to 1.2 meters of armor and the MILAN up 5-600 cm.

This site:

M1 main battle tank

has some interesting info. If you look at the armor protection tables, it looks as though a AT-14 or MILAN shot at the front of a M1 might not penetrate the armor, although it would probably knockout the tank for the rest of the battle.

[oren_m]

The Syrian forces has some amount of Kornet(AT-14) and the Milan ATGMS's, but they dont have them in large numbers.

The units which are using these ATGM's are special commando units only, most of these units are mounted on Mi-8 helicopters.

These commando units are under-trained and under-equiped, the standarts for joining in to theses units is 10 years in school, which makes the manpower's skills very poor.

In general, the syrian commando is infirior to any US army unit, so, imageine how is their army like....

Oren_m

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by oren_m:

The Syrian forces has some amount of Kornet(AT-14) and the Milan ATGMS's, but they dont have them in large numbers.

The units which are using these ATGM's are special commando units only, most of these units are mounted on Mi-8 helicopters.

These commando units are under-trained and under-equiped, the standarts for joining in to theses units is 10 years in school, which makes the manpower's skills very poor.

In general, the syrian commando is infirior to any US army unit, so, imageine how is their army like....

Oren_m

This viable and accurate study got me thinking... Since the syrians have no real anti-tank threat, going by the clear numbers in the study, to counter the american M1 AND these very, very few pieces of hardware in the hands of complete tossers (as per the study above, all incompetent fools), why is BFC even making a game about Syria, as it is, as shown in the study, clearly complete waste of time. Regular army units being peasants with pitchforks and elite commandos peasants with AKs, why does BFC waste time with this, clearly onesided piece of crap ? I DEMAND an official response, as the study shown is both an accurate and clearly well informed study on the subject.

[panzermartin]

Sure, Syrian army quality is no match for the world's most sophisticated military force but then again you dont need to be a genious or have a rocket science degree to operate an ATGM system.

JC_Hare, nice link..there is a lot of detailed info about the M1 there. Turret front seems practically invulnerable to anything, though a direct rocket hit will mess up a lot of the equipment obviously. I wonder if the M1A2 SEP will be the only variant of the M1 present in CMSF.

[oren_m]

Satyr....

Are you being cynical?

Because if so, i must say that all the things i wrote are true and credible, i cannot actually tell you the actual sources of this information, but i know it from my military serviec in the armored core of the IDF.

Oren_m

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, I've been saying since day one that the Syrian conventional forces suck. Nothing new to me! Again, if you're looking for sterotypical Cold War style conventional warfare, CM:SF won't be the game for you. To have such a game one would have to go into the realm of pure fiction and then inaccurately portray the capabilities of each side to arrive at some degree of parity. Or one can simply accept that parity isn't necessary in the conventional sense, and asymmetric warfare is where it is at.

BTW, the study Oren reffers to is talking about a conventional matchup. Teenagers with no training can take out a tank with a 30 year old designed RPG. Don't need to have super elite commando ubertroopers to cause problems and casualties.

For Abrams we are going to include M1A2 and M1A2 SEP. Even by 2007 there will still be a lot of base production A2s in service. We are also following the development of the TUSK upgrade concept and allow that to be used as well.

Steve

[oren_m]

I'll say it again, it is not a study, these are hard cold facts i'm giving here...

[M1A1TC]

So no M1A1s? I am dissapointed

Thats my baby. Ive had some great times with one, including completely ripping off a front left-side ballistic skirt, and another time hitting a tree with the gun tube while driving down a tank trail- Both did thousands dollars of damage

Can you please post a list of units available in the game? Pretty please

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't know how many M1 and Brad side skirt pieces I found sticking out of trees at Hohenfels. I tried to take one as a war trophy but it was too damn heavy.

In "King of the Killing Field" I believe it said that the M1 has about the same flank and rear protection as the M60 (been a few years since I read it though). A big difference is the damage control stuff. The fire surpression and ammo stowage go a long way towards preventing the big boom even if you do punch through the shell. More importantly they keep those silly treadheads inside from deceasing.

[SaTyR]

You got me wrong, and I'm sorry. I wasn't clear and should've added some smilies or somesuch.

I wasn't saying the game will be crap, in fact I'm looking forwards to it. Modern combat in an urban environment will be great, it will truly be something never before seen in a tactical combat sim.

Sorry for "demanding" an answer (I thought the "demand" would be taken as a joke), sorry for "quoting" a "study". There actually is no "study" I was referring to, other than the post oren_m made. What I would've liked was numbers and the actual "hard cold facts". Posts in other threads have the Syrians seem as a competent fighting force, even BFC chimed in. Oren_m's post made them seem like boyscouts with firearms (not that scouts can't be brutal). What got me is the phrase: "These commando units are under-trained and under-equiped, the standarts for joining in to theses units is 10 years in school, which makes the manpower's skills very poor.

In general, the syrian commando is infirior to any US army unit, so, imageine how is their army like..." Is this a given fact ? Is this what it will be in-game ?

Now I'm not looking for a "stereotypical cold war style conventional warfare", I've read what you (BFC) are up to and I'm liking it. What I wanted to dispute was the "total suckage" of the Syrian armed forces as reported by oren_m, as a generalization. But then again: "Hey, I've been saying since day one that the Syrian conventional forces suck" so who am I to say, I've never studied them. I've read the reasoning behind the game and I'm thinking it'll be great.

[Battlefront.com]

Probably M1A1s will be included as well, since there are quite a few in inventory.

Oren, I'm not disputing that the Syrian Armed Forces, as a whole, can not stand up to a determined attack by first world forces. I've been extremely consistent with this message.

The other threads SaYtR mentions do have some people looking at the paper strength of the Syrians and thinking them to be a lot stronger than they would be in combat. A few even said that Syria, as a nation state, has a chance of defeating a US led first world attack. There is no chance of that. Not even a small one. But to write off every single last Syrian fighter, conventional and unconventional, as tactically ineffective is quite misplaced.

So yes, as SaTyR put it... Oren is correct to say that the conventional fighting ability of the Syrians is quite bad overall. But as Falujah and other places have shown, it doesn't take many determined, untrained, under equipped, and sometimes REALLY STUPID fighters to cause a whole lot of problems for a first world conventional force. And of course, the Syrians are watching what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and no doubt learning a lot from it.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Steve

Will the US Forces and Syrians have different TAC AI to reflect the training and doctrine? I sure hope so

BTW, thanks for including M1A1s

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, if you're looking for sterotypical Cold War style conventional warfare, CM:SF won't be the game for you.

To have such a game one would have to go into the realm of pure fiction and then inaccurately portray the capabilities of each side to arrive at some degree of parity.

Only if you limit your time period to the last 20-25 years. Up until the early 80s there was not a huge gap in quality, and with a quantitative advantage Soviet/WP forces would be nicely competative in a conventional setting.

I understand you have lost interest in Cold War scenarios, but they are still viable.

[oren_m]

Steve, Satyr!

I guess both of you have something in what you say about none-conventional fighting against the Syrian army, but remember this, in order to do so, the Syrian army will need high moral and some will to fight.

Look back into history, in the israeli-arab wars in 1967 and 1973, after short periods of fighting, 3 days in 67' and 2 weeks in 73', the syrian army broke and de-moralized, which led to thousands of soldiers surrendering.

I belive that an american operation in Syria would be much more overwhelming than the operation in the israeli-arab wars.

Nevertheless, dont forget that most of the fighting in Iraq and Afganistan is againt Al-qaida related forces and not against armys, i dont say that there is no Al-qaida forces in syria, but they are far from iran which funds and arm them hevily, and i did'nt even mentioned the Lebenese side here, as you know, they are now an officiel enemy of syria, and you cant tell what will happen during a war in syria.

So, the game has much potential and i'm really looking forward it!

Oren_m

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When it comes to AT weapons is it important to understand that we are talking a general leap in Syria’s case, when compared to Iraq.

The standard Russian infantry AT weapons warhead since the early ‘90s has been that used on the RPG 27 and 29, also available on the RPG7 rocket launcher as the PG-7VR . It is a 105mm tandem warhead. Penetration behind ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) is 650mm. BTW it really is 650mm behind ERA as the published results of tests on Russia’s own tanks are available .

When it comes to the M1, one of these warheads penetrated both sides of the hull knocking out the tank and injuring the loader leaving a thin “knitting needle” like hole through both sides.

Penetration through the front covered arc is not needed with AT weapons, would be nice, but is not needed. This was also the case in WWII. The humble Soviet 76.2mmModel ’42 gun could easily stop Panthers, assuming the gunners were a lot braver than I am … by waiting for the tanks to come close to parallel with the front line and then whacking them in the side. It could penetrate the side armour of a Panther at 1,000m and a strike angle of 45 degrees. I can give real world examples of this happening to Panther battalions.

Now consider Russian ATGMs such as the Kornet with its 1,200mm of penetration. Then imagine “village Syria” with open-ish scrub/fields/desert between small villages and hamlets. Imagine a US column advancing into such terrain, on a search and destroy mission/clearing one of the hamlets. Then realise that the Kornet has a 4km range…. the supporting US AFVs would be hugely vulnerable to being picked off by ATGMs through their side armour from neighbouring hamlets and plantations.

Now consider the situation in Iraq….. militarily, forget the politics that is not for this forum. The population of Iraq is 25 million, the occupying US force around 150,000. US losses are running at close to 1,000 KIA a year. If you go back to the situation in Afghanistan twenty odd years ago you will find the population of Afghanistan was 23 million, the occupying Soviet force was 105,000 strong, unrecoverable combat losses were 1,400 a year. Given the hugely better medical backup in Iraq today compared to Afghanistan in the ‘80s losses are very similar. Now consider that the Russians are not regarding Iraq as “payback time” for Afghanistan and supplying the insurgence in Iraq with even ‘90s AT weapons. (The RPG 27/29/PG-7VR used on the M1 was believed to have been stolen from Syria..) Imagine how US losses would escalate if the insurgence did have ‘90s AT weapons. US AFVs of all sorts would be picked off almost at will. This is all against a background in which more than 90% of Iraqis are at least acquiescent to US forces. This would not the case in Syria.

What is often forgotten is just how low quality the Iraqi forces were, in training, manpower and equipment and above all motivation. It still remains to be seen whether the US will be driven from Iraq and suffer a strategic loss… is finely balanced and could still go either way. Anthony Cordesman himself (the David Glanz of the second war on Iraq ) believes it is still no better then 50/50.

Not only do people tend to forget just how bad at war fighting of any sort the Iraqis are but they also tend to overlook the small size of US forces. The size of any force invading Syria would have to be at least 250,000, twice that which invaded Iraq. Why… because otherwise the battalion size, and under, groups of US forces would too often find themselves isolated and without any hope of ground contact with other US units.

The occupying force would probably have to be twice that size, 500,000, just in order that it could “protect” itself. In short we are talking Vietnam.

With the current size of US standing forces the “hostile” invasion of any semi-developed Arab country is probably a non-starter. The US public, and no doubt the British public, have been conditioned by the repeated low quality of both the Iraq manpower and equipment to believe this is the “norm” in the Arab world. By Iraq’s lack of a will to fight.

After Vietnam there was a period when all seemed to assume that US enemies would be as determined as the Vietnamese were. Now all seem to assume that US opponents will always be of as low quality and acquiescent as the Iraqis. An opponent with a population of over 17 million and a genuine hostility for the invader, the terrain Syria has, plus a spread of ‘90s AT weapons would be uncontrollable by a standing army the size of the US professional army.

Strangely I think even Steve seems to overlook just how challenging a hostile invasion of any semi-developed nation would be. It is not taking a given location that would be the problem, although that would be far bloodier than in Iraq. It is controlling the country after the invasion. We are talking Vietnam in a Middle-Eastern setting. Should be fun .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just a quick follow up.

What it all depends on is the assumptions regarding the hostility of the Syrians. I have followed these things as long as any and have seen no sign that the Syrians would be anything other than extremely hostile with no welcome from any section of the Syrian population.

If the above were the case then even an occupying force of 500,000 would be on a hiding to nothing. It would only be matters of how long until the US were driven out, not if it were driven out. This is why I think there is no chance of the US invading Syria… or any other hostile nation of any size with the US standing army.

(All very good fun anyway… but no more realistic than my wish for a Cold War based high-intensity game … but I must not be a bad looser )

Looking forward to CMSF…

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Oren,

I think the Syrians would be a lot more motivated with a force invading their homeland compared to a military adventure outside of their borders. But even then, I'd expect the bulk of the Syrian forces to "melt away" like in Iraq. If even 10% of the forces remained active, about 20k-30k, there would be a pretty tough battle at times. Think that Falujah had about 1500 enemy fighters and it took nearly a month for 50,000 troops to overtake them. In the process the US forces took a couple hundred casualties, lost a couple of tanks and APCs, and of course caused a lot of damage to the civilian infrastructure.

Kip, not much to disagree with you there except I don't see the need for a larger force than the one that started out OIF. Because of the greatly reduced area (42% of Iraq), population (70% of Iraq), and great consolodiation of the population (nearly 20% in Damascus alone) means that from an operations standpoint fewer troops would be need both for the invasion and for the stability phase. However, it is clear that the stability force in Iraq was completely inadequate. So even though the forces needed to take down the conventional force would be a lot lower than OIF, the occupation force would need to be a lot higher. Remember, CM:SF does not concern itself with the after effects of the conventional phase. So from the game's perspective, it is irrelevant.

Steve

[panzermartin]

Will the Syrians have the latest RPG-7v in CMSF? This will make a big difference in defeating armor,given that IIRC, newest rpgs have almost the double penetration capability compared to the standard RPG-7.

[MikeyD]

I believe I read 'somewhere' on the net that a DU armored M1A2 *might* have the equivalent of 1,400mm+ of frontal armor. That's more than 4[.]5 feet of steel! But the price they pay for all that protection is a 70 ton vehicle- about as hefty as a Ferdinand weight-wise. Its amazing to think a 50 ton class bridge would be too weak to hold it.

[ December 19, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[flamingknives]

4.5 ft, perhaps. Decimal points are troublesome things though. This web page is a pretty good guide on the protection levels of modern armour.

[MikeyD]

Interesting web page.

Bradley's got equivalent to 130mm hull front? Wow. That's about the same as an old Centurion, and way beyond a Panther bow! Stryker's supposed to have 56mm equivalent, I believe. That ceramic armor stuff is interesting. A sheet of ceramic tile with a backing plate of non-armor steel. The thicker the steel backing plate the higher the RHA equivalent. You notice in pictures Bradley turret ceramic plates are impressively thick.