Live fire assymetrical tactic (hits Israeli navy)

[Darren J Pierson]

So, perhaps the game needs a few weapon systems modelled for the Syrians that they don't appear to have? Some sort of mechanism to reflect the "what the hell? They don't have any of those..." situations? It appears that the IDF just had one of those moments. It might make things more interesting from a game standpoint.

[akd]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

So, perhaps the game needs a few weapon systems modelled for the Syrians that they don't appear to have? Some sort of mechanism to reflect the "what the hell? They don't have any of those..." situations? It appears that the IDF just had one of those moments. It might make things more interesting from a game standpoint.

Exactly.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by akd:

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

So, perhaps the game needs a few weapon systems modelled for the Syrians that they don't appear to have? Some sort of mechanism to reflect the "what the hell? They don't have any of those..." situations? It appears that the IDF just had one of those moments. It might make things more interesting from a game standpoint.

Exactly. </font>

[John Kettler]

The attack on the INS Hanit is precisely the kind of thing I said needed to be factored into any assessment of potential Syrian military capabilities, particularly bearing mind that Syria is part of a powerful alliance--Russia, India, China, and Venezuela. Russia is no longer not broke but, as one oil analyst put it the other night, "drowning in money," allowing it to fund all sorts of advanced technical nastiness, rebuild and reequip its badly deteriorated military, and flex its muscles in ways subtle and not so. Putin's ever increasing tightening of control domestically and emphatic rejection of external complaints about his policies point, IMO, to a more interventionist Russia, and Syria has long been THE key Middle east ally to Russia. IMO, Russia won't sit idly by and let us gobble up Syria.

Thus, I would deem the technical surprise the Israeli Navy endured over the Hanit and the IDF has been experiencing with unexpectedly long range Hezbollah rockets to be among the least of our worries. I think we would do well to think long and hard about how we would fight against frontline Russian and Chinese weaponry. From a game standpoint, I think it would greatly add to the pucker factor for the U.S. player, too. We would also be wise, I think, to consider the potential havoc "volunteers" from Russia and elsewhere could cause. Recall all those Russian crewed SAM sites (and ISTR MiGs, too) during the Vietnam War and their huge impact on our ability to prosecute the war, not to mention the cargo ships in Haiphong and the trawlers giving advanced warning of B-52 strikes. With those as prologue, it's easy to come up with all sorts of scenarios in which advanced weapons may be deployed by the Russians into Syria, yet attacking them runs a real risk of major escalation involving a powerful

alliance with nukes, a huge tech base, gobs of conventional weapons, a significant fraction of

the global population, and enormous energy and

material resources.

I have been hammering away at themes and variations of this issue for months

here in thread after thread, and now, it seems,

current events have made my argument for me.

Regards,

John Kettler

[C'Rogers]

After an the regular military is destroyed by or surrenders to the invading force what's left?

Depends on the country and numerous other factors that no one can quite agree on. But for the purposes of CM, the game ends (and in my case at least I eagerly jump into Blue vs Blue Red vs Red).

So the US invades Syria and all of the Syrian regular army "declokes" (or more accurately clokes), all of them take of their uniforms and they ALL enmasse become insurgents. Then what? I am loath to look back at Vietman but that is sort of what war as become now a days.

I think there is a couple reasons this won't/can't happen.

A military is more than just uniforms it is also a system of communication and discipline. If the military voluntarily breaks down they lose a ton of structure. Insurgents have a high degree of survivability, it is very hard to kill off an insurgency. They don't need much money, casulties are not an immediate factor, and they can disappear quite easily.

On the other hand an insurgency can not really "win" a war. At best they make the war costly enough to drive out an occupying power. However even if they do this there is nothing that says which element of the insurgency will rise to lead the country (and a new one may emerge to do so).

A military can win a war, or at least broker a peace deal (not to mention somewhat more legal protection after the fighting). Also whoever is leading the military would effectively be surrendering his reign over the country.

If Saddam had said at the beginning of OIF guys take off your uniforms, hide, and shoot at Americans when they least suspect it. He would of had to go into hiding immediatly and would of lost most, if not all, control of Iraq. That happened eventually but there was a chance the US could of of bogged down somewhere before Bagdad and he could of reached a deal of some sort.

Also for Vietnam, while there was extensive guerilla tactics, there was also a sizeable well maintained army actively fighting against the US in more conventinal methods. As bad as the guerilla tactics where I doubt they alone would of accounted for the US defeat.

[John Kettler]

Apropos of my earlier post, I believe that the training of all those Egyptian Sagger teams so devastating to the IDF armor in the early stages of the Yom Kippur War was done in the Soviet Union, with refresher training via simple van mounted simulators once back in Egypt. This provides yet another way to introduce advanced weapons unexpectedly, since what was done then, could easily be done now, and with much nastier weapons which are easier to use. ACLOS/SACLOS ATGMs are much easier to teach, for example, then MCLOS guidance on the Sagger, being far less demanding on the operator.

Likewise, Russian intel support, coupled with even a handful of

artillery/rocket delivered PGMs or area munitions,

could cause enormous casualties and disruption if dropped on TOCs and the like. Even expendable jammers could cause chaos and confusion, creating windows for quick strikes of other sorts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[frieze]

From what I read (primarily via the links off defense industry daily) it seems that the missile system (C-802) uses interial guidance for launch followed by active radar for terminal targeting. My understanding from what I read about that is that a launch crew could use simple (though recent) positional information on the target from conventional nagivation radar to get a good enough fix on the target and then be well on their way out of the area by the time the missile reached its active radar stage. In my mind this tactic would be the naval equivalent of having an undercover (or guerrilla or covert or whatever the term currently is) spotter walk through an enemy's positions on a seemingly innocuous task in order to measure ranges for mortar or artillery strikes. Clearly it is a gambit that cannot be employed on a large scale, but it is effective both operationally and in terms of the added suspicion it places on non-combatants. It seems a bit out of the scope of a CM type game. That said, I could imagine an adjustable set of operational orders one could give troops whereby one would have to balance the concern of not potentially attacking civilians with that of protecting oneself from undercover enemy agents.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am loath to look back at Vietman but that is sort of what war as become now a days. The enemy does not wear a uniform and is VERY hard to identify unless they are shooting at you.

the north vietnamese army didnt wear uniforms? That would have been funny to see their tank commanders in wife-beaters, boxer shorts, and flip-flops.

[dixon_el]

I always find it funny that so many people that "claim" to know history get their "Viet-Nam facts" from a Jane Fonda workout video. The US didn't lose the Viet-Nam war, the South Viet-Nam Army did. In 1969, the US broke the enemy's back. For the next three years there was almost no fighting, because the enemy forces were unable to field an effective force. Seeing that inspite of this, the South would never be a viable force, the US withdrew. Only with huge assistance from China and the Soviet Union was the North able to limp into Saigon. (Duh, no notable resistance was offered by the South, even though the US had left the 5th greatest military stockpile in the world for the South's use.)

The moral should actually be: You can win the fight if your fighter refuses to leave his corner.

The US didn't lose the war, it backed the side that had no stomach for winning.

A small point, obviously lost on high-speed, low-drag history gurus.

[C'Rogers]

The US didn't lose the Viet-Nam war, the South Viet-Nam Army did.

The US had an objective to accomplish in Vietnam, while they had extreme military success, they lost a lot of lives and in the end did not accomplsih that objective. I call that losing.

It would be like arguing Germany didn't lose WWII because Italy didn't hold up their end of the fight.

The US didn't lose the war, it backed the side that had no stomach for winning.

Being the South holds the country for years with little assitance from the US and win a series of battles I wouldn't say they had no stomach for winning. At the end of the war a withdrawal gets turned into a route (something similair happens to the US in the Korean War), but the South does fight to hold Saigon against a vastly superior enemy.

[David Chapuis]

From what I have read, South Vietnam soldiers fought decently while the US was still in a supporting role. Didnt they stop the NVA Easter offensive (1973?) without US ground troops?

[dixon_el]

Wow!! that's a cool argument C'Roger. I'm hard pressed to contradict it. The US's stated objective was to stop the commies in South East Asia.

Wait.

Following that logic (a country's stated objective must be gained in toto to be a declared victory). The US, Britain and their European allies were clearly DEFEATED in WW2.

Their stated ojectives were:

1) Defeat the enemy and secure world peace. The western allies failed to finish the war and defeat ALL their enemies. That failure plunged the world into the Cold War. Patton was really pissed about that one. :mad:

2) Britain stated that it would help defend France if the German's invaded France. The German's kicked the Brits out and overran France early in the war. That's a double defeat for Britain.

3) Defeat Germany and her allies and bring them to justice. After the Vichy French sided with the Germans most of the war, the French shared the spoils on the allies side after the war. Duh!! I've never been able to get that one. :confused:

I could go on, but those three will do for my purposes. No crying when you argue the French were captives of the Germans.

David, your argument about the South defending themselves for years with on help doesn't fit the facts. France occupied Viet-Nam immediately after WW2. When Uncle Ho kicked the French out, the US immediately jumped in faster than Peter Rabbit on the tar baby. When the US withdrew, it left the South the 5th largest arsenal in the world. Not pea shooters, but helicopters, heavy weapons, fix-wing aircraft, tanks, artillery, APCs, etc. I know what you're going to say "If the South had saved their milk money, they could have bought the weapons themselves."

A few guys taking pot shots at advancing troops is hardly what I'd call a defense, but if it is to you, OK. If that's your point, then the South did defend Siagon.

Personally, I think we should have left Viet-Nam as soon as we realized that there was nothing there to defend. If that's defeat,then victory must be the act casting aside common sense and ignoring reality. HEY!!! the US did that, THE US DID WIN!!!!!!! The two of you have to be military genuises.

New argument, if Israel lets one Hesbullah escape then Israel will have suffered a crushing defeat, because even one guy can cause trouble. Israel's stated objective is to stop the trouble on their borders.

Damn guys, you've opened my eyes to a new way of thinking, I can see defeat in everything. Wow! that's going to make me one cool dude (or is that DUD.) or does that make me a Democrat???? No matter. :cool:

My new motto: "Cool, rules."

"Cool, rules.

[C'Rogers]

Hmmm, let's see. Allies bring an end to Fascist Germany and stop the Holocaust though they fail to bring every person too justice, pretty thorough sounding victory though not absolute and complete.

US kills tons of North Vietnamese soldiers in combat and bombs their country into submission having one military victory after another. Then they end up leaving and the south is overran.

Seems quite a bit different. On one hand you have a large amount of deaths of soldiers and civilians on both sides though a positive result, on the other a large amount of deaths of deaths of soldiers and civilians on both sides and a negative result. I would say that is the difference between victory and defeat.

Britain stated that it would help defend France if the German's invaded France. The German's kicked the Brits out and overran France early in the war. That's a double defeat for Britain.

Yes, the allies were losing the early part of the war. I would consider the loss of France to Germans a military defeat quite evident.

A few guys taking pot shots at advancing troops is hardly what I'd call a defense, but if it is to you, OK.

Operations in Cambodia Incursion, fighting back the Easter Offensive, battle of Xuan Loc are just what I get off a quick Internet search where the South Vietnamese show a strong will to win and fight well.

When the US withdrew, it left the South the 5th largest arsenal in the world.

Despite the large amount equipment in possession by South Vietnam it is undercut by the fact that when the US cuts support the North is still receiving strong military assistance from China and the Soviet Union and the key advantage for the ARVN had been American air support.

Was the ARVN an effective fighting force comparable to the US? Of course not, but there main problem wasn't the soldiers on the ground who showed on numerous occasions a strong will too fight. It suffered from a lack of leadership and an overall corrupt government (that the US helped to back and keep in place).

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

So the US invades Syria and all of the Syrian regular army "declokes" (or more accurately clokes), all of them take of their uniforms and they ALL enmasse become insurgents. Then what? I am loath to look back at Vietman but that is sort of what war as become now a days. The enemy does not wear a uniform and is VERY hard to identify unless they are shooting at you.

One minute that "military aged man" is a non combatant "citizen" but the minute you turn your back on him he picks up a weapons and shoots at you? This concept does NOT bode well for wargames because thats not really fun to play, and Steve says that HARDEST thing to do is model into the game civilians and non combatants that turn into enemy combatants when you are not looking.

This is part of the reason that so many of us gave a groan when we heard it was Syria. If the game is going to be based in reality, guerilla warfare will need to be modelled. These small scale actions will continue to happen and they're all going to be shadows of a Vietnam type conflict.

I hope this release does well enough to allow these folks to put together a Tunisia '43 or Falaise Gap or Low Countries 44/45 or Drive on Staligrad or Drive on Berlin or 'Mercuns in Europe or Waterloo or Space Lobsters ... :mad:

[Cary]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Particularly bearing mind that Syria is part of a powerful alliance--Russia, India, China, and Venezuela. Russia is no longer not broke but, as one oil analyst put it the other night, "drowning in money," allowing it to fund all sorts of advanced technical nastiness, rebuild and reequip its badly deteriorated military, and flex its muscles in ways subtle and not so. Putin's ever increasing tightening of control domestically and emphatic rejection of external complaints about his policies point, IMO, to a more interventionist Russia, and Syria has long been THE key Middle east ally to Russia.

I have been hammering away at themes and variations of this issue for months

here in thread after thread, and now, it seems,

current events have made my argument for me.

Regards,

John Kettler

Russia, India, China, and Venezuela? Huh?

Russia's certainly doing the Russia thing, which is slowly and quietly returning to great power status, but I'm somewhat skeptical that you've got much of an alliance here.

Agreed, Putin's a sharp operator, and certainly not to be trusted. But I suspect they have bigger fish to fry than Syria or Venezuela. And if they wanted to hurt the U.S., their best approach would be to attack the currency instead of pinpricking some MEU in Syria or, for that matter, Iraq or Afghanistan.

[John Kettler]

Cary,

From a variety of political perspectives and countries, here's the elephant in the strategic corner, an elephant of which most people know nothing.

Here's part of it

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

here's some more

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/23/171350.shtml

This goes into matters in considerable detail

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w07/msg00380.htm

the energy angles

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/ind1-a12.shtml

Venezuelan situation

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/Feb/trinkunasFeb06.asp

brief summary of the emerging alliance

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1786.asp

detailed analysis of the new Russian energy model

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG18Ag01.html

the Russian-Venezuelan alliance (note date)

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=3731

This wraps things up neatly.

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/texts/communist_noose.htm

Make no mistake. The alliance described is a very big deal, by just about any metric you choose to apply: energy and mineral resources, nuclear and conventional weapons, manpower, technology base, advanced energy tech, exotic weapons, etc., and is getting more powerful and assertive by the day.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Cary]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Cary,

From a variety of political perspectives and countries, here's the elephant in the strategic corner, an elephant of which most people know nothing.

Here's part of it

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

here's some more

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/23/171350.shtml

This goes into matters in considerable detail

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w07/msg00380.htm

the energy angles

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/ind1-a12.shtml

Venezuelan situation

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/Feb/trinkunasFeb06.asp

brief summary of the emerging alliance

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1786.asp

detailed analysis of the new Russian energy model

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG18Ag01.html

the Russian-Venezuelan alliance (note date)

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=3731

This wraps things up neatly.

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/texts/communist_noose.htm

Make no mistake. The alliance described is a very big deal, by just about any metric you choose to apply: energy and mineral resources, nuclear and conventional weapons, manpower, technology base, advanced energy tech, exotic weapons, etc., and is getting more powerful and assertive by the day.

Regards,

John Kettler

John,

Thank you, interesting stuff. The alignments these articles point out are quite significant, but I think we're too prone to forget that, even if we cling to alliances and rivalries, most other nations accept the aphorism: "no permanent allies, no permanent enemies, only interests." It is just a corollary to the even older aphorism: "the strong do what they will, the weak what they must."

That said, many countries seem to be seeing it in their interest to rein in or deter the United States -- I remember it coming out in a discussion with a couple of Indian servicemen that their nuclear test in the early '90s had nothing to do with Pakistan, and everything to do with the lessons of GWI -- don't fight the U.S. without nukes, and consequently, don't believe that you can even be a regional power without nukes.

The problem, of course, is that we, like Germany in 1900, may take these repeated alignments as systematic encirclement. At least in that case, the German belief that Russia, France, and Britain were conspiring against them did nothing but solidify the "conspiracy" -- certainly we know the story from the other side; the growing power of Germany simply made the defensive arrangements and cooperation necessary.

Perhaps the neoconservative's scheme of the Global War on Terror is an attempt to slip this noose, if so they are subtler than I imagine. And certainly, I have to give the current administration credit for our recent accomodation with India over nuclear power and nuclear weapons (as well as hints of an accord with Russia over nuclear waste), though these moves can be criticized, they do help to synchronize our interests with these states to some degree.

I think the bottom line, however, is that the United States likely confronts a choice: either a Bismarckian or a Wilhelmian foreign policy. You can probably see my preference.