M1A2..how tough?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

on paper Syrians are extremely weak. they have tons of obsolete material in formations the US forces are designed to fight against. if Syrians were to fight with classic Soviet style doctrine they would certainly be doomed.

i am rather skeptical about the assumption that they would fight Soviet style. they have been actively trying to learn from their past mistakes for years now and have rewritten their doctrine to be one based on light low-signature forces. they have for decades had a liking for small well equipped & well trained infantry units so i think they deserve at least a moderate benefit of doubt what comes to this reform of theirs.

US forces are crippled by their political arm. being casulty shy means loosing the upper hand given by better training, communication & mobility. fixation in fantastic maneuver & electric intelligence multiplies the possibilities of Syrian light forces. Shock & Awe pyrotechnics followed by Thunder Run mentality will result in catastrophe against well equipped light forces.

the idea that US forces would have logistical advantage & thus could just wait for Syrian forces to collapse makes no sense. where as US forces would have a long logistical tail going thru already hostile terrain, Syrian forces are located right at their logistical roots. there is no reason for Syrians to go battle the Christian Invaders at the Syrian Desert or elsewhere. they just need to hold Damascus and perhaps a couple other key places for some months and see the invading force grind to halt. Syria doesn't need to defeat US military - it is enough that they prevent the invading forces from taking all of Syria, most notably Damascus, in a quick bloodless display of pyrotechnics.

[ December 19, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[MikeyD]

Small dumb question about U.S. armor equivalents.

If something like a Bradley is able to absorb a big KE hit in-game, will the AI then drop that area's protection level under the assumption that the protective ceramic tile didn't survive? Same goes for hits on reactive armor. That would make much of U.S. armor 'one-hit-wonders', and might give someone playing the Syrian side a bit of hope in the game afterall.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Small dumb question about U.S. armor equivalents.

If something like a Bradley is able to absorb a big KE hit in-game, will the AI then drop that area's protection level under the assumption that the protective ceramic tile didn't survive? Same goes for hits on reactive armor. That would make much of U.S. armor 'one-hit-wonders', and might give someone playing the Syrian side a bit of hope in the game afterall.

Bradleys & M1s lighten up just like Strykers. Syrian players need not be desperate.

[LightningWar]

You know CMBO ans CMBB actually make pretty good urban warfare simulators IMO.

I created a map in CMBO that had a city environment that had been taken over by insurgents. The Americans all had Pershings and some light armored trucks to simulate bradleys.

The scenario went like this. The Americans were in a farm field they setup as a base and were waiting orders to retake the city. They got word a high level AQ leader is in the city and they need to move to take the city right away. They move in and playing the force of the insurgents were green volkstrum with a plethora of Panzershreks, LMGs, and light armor trucks to simulate the trucks with machine guns.

The American force probably amounted to a battalion with 10 tanks and 10 armor trucks. The insurgents amounted to ~2000 poorly trained fighters.

The simulation was interesting as you got into the city and the Allied forces bogged down. We probably ended up losing 3 tanks outright, and 2 tanks lost their gun. Armored trucks got beat up pretty bad as well.

But in the end you were able to subdue the enemy and retake the city.

The KIA ended up being very similar to what you hear in the field. About 20-25:1.

I think they ended up killing about 750 insurgents, injuring 1000. The others ran off into the sunset to fight another day. The Americans lost about 30 men with about 85 injured for a total of 115 CAS.

Americans were put on Vet status with a few regular units mixed in.

[Drusus]

There are two separate issues. If I have understood correctly there is first the stage of more or less conventional fighting where the US Army fights against the Syrian Army. And US are going to win this one. The question is how much casualties they are going to take. It seems that there would be some CMSF scale battles that the Syrian Army could win. But winning even something like one CM operation style battle is going to be hard. That is, the Syrians will propably be able to hold some location for the first encounter, but if the US Army wants to take that location, then it is going to happen. It might take more than one try, but it is going to happen anyways. (I am not talking about taking Damascus, but a small village or something like that).

Then there is the 2nd stage of fighting. The insurgency. Now, this could be really hard or even impossible for the US to win. Or then not. It depends of why the forces are there.

Just one interesting question: How likely is it that the fighting goes in clear stages? As I have understood in Iraq there was clearly the Army vs Army stage, which was over fast. And then, _after_ that, the insurgency started. Now, if in Syria 1) the insurgency would be a lot stronger 2) the insurgency would start immediately and 3) the Army and the insurgents would work together, then the mission of taking Damascus could turn out to be really, really hard. Ofcourse then there is the question what it means to take Damascus.

[Sgt Joch]

I just finished Michael Oren's book "the Six Day War" and there are some interesting observations on the Syrian army of 1967 which could apply to CMSF.

The Israeli army captured the Golan heights in two days, on june 9th and 10th. However, the IDF faced some of the toughest fighting of the war and took alot of casualties. One IDF tank unit started june 9th with 15-16 tanks, by the end of the day, it had two left.

The Syrian army's performance was a mixed bag, some units fought bravely, some turned tail and returned to Damascus. There was wholesale desertion, especially by officers.

One story which summarizes it best is one about a brave Syrian private who alone with an AT gun knocked out two Israeli tanks. When his platoon sergeant called company HQ to report, he discovered that the company commander and all his staff had deserted.

[mcgivney]

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. Steve

One day, I will charge into the Fulda Gap with hordes of Soviet tanks. One day. Until that day I await Shock Force.

[gibsonm]

With regard to the "TUSK" (Tank Urban Survival Kit - if I recall correctly) upgrades, are you looking at the reintroduced APERS rounds for the main armament as well or just the up armouring for added protection?

[MikeyD]

Your mention of TUSK reminded me. I believe that upgrade is replacing the Abrams skirts with reactive armor boxes. In the game will casualties among surrounding troops happen if TUSK Abrams or a Bradley reactive armor blows up close by? I believe Bradley ERA boxes are 3rd generation low explosive types. From photos the TUSK ERA boxes look kinda British - anybody know if Challenger ERA boxes are high or low explosive types?

[M1A1TC]

I hope the ERA will be programmed and animated correctly.

Will the Abrams have bunch of ammo boxes and various bags in the bussle rack? Will the loader be animated in the loader's hatch?

Will the dust behind the tank from the powerpack be shown?

I also hope the wind sensor on the turret will be shown. I hated Battlefield 2 for that- no wind sensor

[flamingknives]

I don't think that the boxes on the Challenger are explosive at all. Certainly any explosive is wholly contained - having no visible effect on the the outside when hit. There was a BBC documentary on Op. Telic (British operation in Iraq, 2003) and it featured a Challenger 2 with an RPG hit to the side skirt. Not much detail but there was definately a whole and the box appeared otherwise undamaged.

Regarding TUSK, I think that the upgrade involves a remote overhead weapons system and extra armour, especially to the sides and rear.

The APERS round is the cannister? If so it was recently adopted into service.

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I hope the ERA will be programmed and animated correctly.

Will the Abrams have bunch of ammo boxes and various bags in the bussle rack? Will the loader be animated in the loader's hatch?

Will the dust behind the tank from the powerpack be shown?

I also hope the wind sensor on the turret will be shown. I hated Battlefield 2 for that- no wind sensor

Dust should be kicked up when the main gun is fired as well. Whenever I see a video of a tank

shooting its main gun the tank itself and the ground around it, trembles, creating clouds of dirt...and roads in Syria will be pretty dusty.

[gibsonm]

Details on TUSK:

Despite billions spent to build Stryker light armored vehicles and add armor to Humvees, "the M1 tank is still the platform of choice," says Col. Russ Gold, a former commander in Iraq and chief of staff at the U.S. Army's Armor Center in Fort Knox, Ky. Gold's brigade fought from inside the Abrams every day in central Iraq. "Primarily it was the shock effect, and it provided a lot of protection."

The tank warfare of Iraq has changed the Army's mindset, in which heavy armor increasingly was considered something from a bygone era, says Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, an armor officer and director of a rush program to refit the Abrams for urban combat.

"Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Army had one vision for the future: ... This notion that a lighter, more mobile force" would make armor obsolete. Now, the Army is recognizing that the tanks must be upgraded, he says, so their armor can be used even more effectively, especially in the cities.

The upgrades are needed because instead of facing against other tanks 2 miles away, for which the tank is well armored in front, soldiers face an enemy of foot soldiers who bury mines in the streets and fire rocket-propelled grenades from rooftops and alleyways.

"You have a threat that operates to the side and to the rear," he says. "Understandably, we've got some vulnerability."

Even during the initial invasion two years ago, the Iraqi resistance knew the weak spots on the Abrams. During the first "Thunder Runs" of U.S. armor into downtown Baghdad troops reported that Iraqi ambushers would wait for a tank to pass and then fire their rocket-propelled grenades at the tank's rear engine compartment en masse, sometimes a dozen or more at once, hoping for a disabling hit.

Today, the Abrams remains the most-prized target for insurgents, in large part because of the psychological value.

"To parade (a captured or damaged Abrams) through the streets of Baghdad would have been huge," says Col. John Shay, an Army tank developer. However, all the Abrams tanks damaged in Iraq have been recovered, he says.

"Nothing's invulnerable," Meigs says. He says the key to effective use of the Abrams is how it is used. By itself it can be hit, but it's much less likely when the Army is fighting with a combination of tanks, artillery, aircraft and infantry. "The enemy can't handle that."

The Abrams upgrade package, known as TUSK, for Tank Urban Survival Kit, includes:

• A shield for the external machine gun operated by the tank loader when the Abrams is on patrol.

• A new remote-controlled machine gun operated from inside the tank.

• A high-strength armored grate for the rear, to catch grenades and rockets and explode them before they can make a disabling hit.

• Side armor panels to better protect the treads, suspension and hydraulics.

• An external telephone so that foot soldiers working alongside the tank can talk to the crew inside.

The Army also has tested and is preparing to issue, for Iraq and Korea, a new round for the tank's main gun for close combat. Current rounds are either high explosive or armor-piercing shells. The new round turns the Abrams into a giant shotgun, blasting 1,100 tungsten pellets at a time out of its 120mm barrel.

Besides the equipment upgrades, the Armor training center at Fort Knox is emphasizing urban situations in its training, including use of the crew's machine guns and pistols against close-in enemies, Shay says.

Francisco Jardim, director of the Patton Museum, says the Abrams is a technical marvel. But there's a familiar ring to the upgrades.

The external telephone, the new side armor and the shotgun-like "canister round" all recall previous tanks and previous wars. Troops in World War II would put sandbags on their Sherman tanks to protect against Nazi infantry and their Panzerfaust anti-tank guns.

As much as the Army has desired through history to avoid them, "those cities have a pesky way of just popping up in the landscape," he says.

[Sergei]

Would it be possible to attach silencers to the machineguns of an Abrams? You know, for surprise attacks, so as to not alert the enemy of your approach?

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Dust should be kicked up when the main gun is fired as well. Whenever I see a video of a tank

shooting its main gun the tank itself and the ground around it, trembles, creating clouds of dirt...and roads in Syria will be pretty dusty.

Yeah, I totally forgat about that. The dust completly blocks the driver's vision for some time. Even firing over grassy ground creates a dust cloud

Originally posted by Sergei:

Would it be possible to attach silencers to the machineguns of an Abrams? You know, for surprise attacks, so as to not alert the enemy of your approach?

No, its not. You cannot put a silencer on a MG

[panzermartin]

Silencers? I dont know but if your mum calls you in that TUSK telephone, your ambush will be pretty screwed anyway.

[M1A1TC]

Picture of TUSK

[juan_gigante]

Wow, those 120mm canister rounds sound pretty deadly. I wouldn't want a few of those heading my way.

[panzermartin]

Imagine how many points this thing will cost in CMSF. Lose your M1A2 TUSK and lose the battle.

[flamingknives]

Sure you can put a silencer on an MG. It wouldn't work particularly well - apart from anything else the bullets will still be supersonic - and it would probably fall apart pretty quickly, but you could still fit it.

And I claim "I told you so" on the side armour. The previous set only covered the front 1/3rd of the side aspect.

Looking at the pic, doesn't the RWS get in the way of the CITV?

While I'm there, who ran off with the smoke launchers?

Wouldn't it get a little toasty answering the 'phone next to the exhaust?

[gibsonm]

I just love explaining to grunts when doing Tk / Inf co-operation lessons and talking about the 'phone that our AFV's (Aust) aren't fitted with little buzzers or white lights when we select reverse.

Great to see their eyes go wide and white after a short pause.

[flamingknives]

There was a video on one of those out-take shows where an M113 + dismounts was sneaking along the road and the tin-box driver decides that he'd rather go backwards. There's a brief moment of incomprehension, followed by blind panic, followed by some unmistakably antipodean swearing.

[gibsonm]

Actually I think that was a ASLAV-2 in East Timor.

But the effect is the same.

[Dogface]

RE: silencer on tank MGs.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the noise of the tank (engine, tracks, ect)kind of cancel out any perceived benefit of a silenced MG?

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

i am rather skeptical about the assumption that they would fight Soviet style. they have been actively trying to learn from their past mistakes for years now and have rewritten their doctrine to be one based on light low-signature forces.

There is always a gap between doctrine and the ability to cary out doctrine. All indications are that in Syria the gap is really a chasm. They don't have the money, the political will, nor historically proven institutions to back it up. Like the Italian Army of WWII... what it was supposed to do and what it was actually capable of doing were two entirely different things. You can't change a long established culture by printing a little book and telling people to read it.

they have for decades had a liking for small well equipped & well trained infantry units so i think they deserve at least a moderate benefit of doubt what comes to this reform of theirs.

Cite your sources that they have well trained infantry units and I'll cite mine that state they are extremely poorly trained and poorly lead.

US forces are crippled by their political arm. being casulty shy means loosing the upper hand given by better training, communication & mobility.

I really, REALLY wish you would actually read something about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before you post utter crap like this again. Tactically speaking the US forces can match, and generally beat to a pulp, any armed action against them. The kill ratios between US forces and insurgents is very high in favor of the US. It's just that the US considers every soldier in high regards while the other side does exactly the opposite for the overwhelming vast majority. Leaders and trainers are protected, the rest are cannon fodder.

the idea that US forces would have logistical advantage & thus could just wait for Syrian forces to collapse makes no sense. where as US forces would have a long logistical tail going thru already hostile terrain, Syrian forces are located right at their logistical roots. there is no reason for Syrians to go battle the Christian Invaders at the Syrian Desert or elsewhere. they just need to hold Damascus and perhaps a couple other key places for some months and see the invading force grind to halt. Syria doesn't need to defeat US military - it is enough that they prevent the invading forces from taking all of Syria, most notably Damascus, in a quick bloodless display of pyrotechnics.

Again, see above comments about reading SOMETHING (anything credible will do) about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US forces there have been in occupation for 3+ years in two much larger geographical areas. Logistics? Strategically, Operationally, and usually Tactically there have been no significant problems. To think that the US would suddenly forget and/or become incapable of supplying forces in the field is a stupid position to take. In fact, Syria would be MUCH easier to deal with than Afghanistan for so many reasons, and Iraq for lesser but similar reasons.

As for Damascus, there was a thread dedicated to that. The evidence suggests Damascus would be tough but would fall sooner rather than later. Weeks, not months.

Steve