On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

[flamingknives]

In the abscence of anything solid from the BFC team, I've decided to do some speculation. More specifically, how to make use of the forces available to each side, the strengths and weaknesses of any particular weapons system or organization.

I've picked Syrian armour first as I think that this is liable to be the most difficult to use. Not only is any US armour more accurate, more survivable and more powerful, but each US infantry squad in a Stryker unit carries a Javelin*, giving it two or three shots with a kill chance of about 0.9 each out to 2.5km.

So what is there to do with Syrian armour? Aside from a shoot-and-scoot from defilade, there seems very little that you can do and expect your armour to survive. Certainly a frontal attack on even the most hastily prepared position would be suicidal for an attacking armour force.

It does raise the question of what 'out of the maneuver box' tactics will be available. Will you, for example be able to hide from thermal imagers in front of terrain of a certain IR emissivity - drowning out the outline for the tank, thereby giving the Javelin nothing to lock onto. Thermal screening smoke - do the Syrians have any of this?

Alternately, is it possible that the US forces will not have Javelin on a per squad basis, and what events could make this probable? A lack of ammo, a decision not to bring the heavy stuff and suddenly the T72 seems pretty dangerous, with HE-Frag ammo and reasonable AT capability.

Back to manuever, and the T72 would be most dangerous within 100m. Though this would bring it into range of LAW like the M136, it would put it inside the range of the Javelin, so close country would play heavily to the Syrian advantage - the M136, AFAIK, is not fitted with a tandem warhead, and so would be degraded by ERA. Add to that it's none-too-stunning performance (compared to other modern LAW) and getting in close with T72s, especially those with ERA, ought to improve their survivability and hence increase their effect

*Wikipedia's figures are a bit misleading, as Army-technology Gives the all-up mass is given as 22.3kg.

Looking at the wording, the only thing not accounted for is carry cases and the launch tubes.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

just use standard combined arms tactics. if you suspect ATGM defence, do recon, have overwatch ready and move the tanks in quick leaps.

both sides have modern ATGMs able to KO all tanks in the game. it doesn't matter if it's T-55s advancing against infantry armed with Javalins or Abrams advancing against infantry armed with Kornets or Metis-Ms. it's more a question of how to deal with ATGMs in general.

the weakness of real-world Syrian forces is the bad commanders, but in CMSF you are the commander and thus the greatest Syrian weakness is neutralized.

[flamingknives]

The difference, in my mind, is the prevalence of extremely deadly ATGMs in the US arsenal. To compare it to a WWII battlefield, the Javelin is at least as common as the bazooka, but it is ten times longer ranged and orders of magnitude more deadly and accurate.

Added to which, they are manueverable, present anywhere one finds infantry, and cannot be surpressed like Command-to-line-of-sight weapons.

[Peter Cairns]

Sun Tzu "The Art of War".

Avoid your enemies strengths and exploit his weaknesses.

The Javelins strength is that it has a range of over amile and a half and is highly accurate.

So avoid long range engagements, that means pick terrain where he can't get a clear shot from more than a few hundred metres. Steep sides roads with cuttings, rolling hills, sand dunes, urban areas..

The Javelins weakness is that it can't be fired on the move (crew are in the Stryker when it's on the move} and that it has an unprotected crew ( when they get out to deploy it).

Try to engage strykers on the move and have at least one in three (or two in three assuming a standard soviet style three tank platoon) armed with anti-personel rounds.

The Russians make a number of proximity canister style rounds that they think will down a helicopter, so at a couple of 100 metres it will probably shred a javelin crew to confetti.

I have advocated since the start that the Syrian Player should stay hidden and hold fire as long as possible. Even if you had an ATGM that can take out a Stryker at 3,000m, you shouldn't fire till well under 1,000m and probably about 500m if you can.

This gives them the minimum time to react and means that they can't just slip back out of range and let their airpower and artillery do the job for them. As the Chinese used to say, "If you are fighting a giant hold on to his belt".

Similiar tactic for armour, try to get within 1,000m and then fire first and exploit it with everything you've got. It's like fighting Archers with infantry, it's no good atanding off, they'll just kill you. At 30mph across country a T-72 can cross 500m to be in contact in about 30seconds, firing canester and it's MG's as it goes.

If it's backed up with BMP-2's with a 30mm gun and hull MG's plus infantry, thats a formidable amount of firepower for an unprotected ATGM crew to face. Also local direct observed mortar support with plenty of smoke would also help.

All this would be hard to do especially with the quality of the Syrian forces, but waiting till you see the whites of their eyes is the best tactic for me.

Just because you have a weapon with a range of nearly 2km, doesn't mean you need to use it at that range.

Who here if they have standard Shermans with a 75mm gun, ever decided to go toe to toe with tigers at long range.

Maybe you should treat Javelins like 88mm flaks, what tactics did you use in CM against them?

Good topic FK, this is something we can discuss.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Good topic FK, this is something we can discuss.

Well, that was the idea.

The thing is, the Javelin teams are very mobile and fairly low signature compared to most ATGMs and once launched cannot be intefered with except directly against the missile. While a conventional SACLOS missile takes up to ten seconds to hit the target, and attacking the crew will have an effect on the missile all the way in, the Javelin crew can be gone as soon as they fire.

This makes the Javelins every bit as deadly as an elite 88mm, but with the firing signature of a 50mm PaK (if that) and the normal signature and manueverability of a Panzershrek team, so CM WW2 tactics as used against essentialy fixed and easily spotted guns wouldn't apply quite as well.

Combined arms is obviously the way to go, with dismounted infantry ferreting out the AT teams. One can only assume that the Javelins will be very expensive in terms of points. Nonetheless, it seems likely that Syrian armour will still be safer closer in to US forces than further away.

[Peter Cairns]

I don't see why a javelin should have a high points value, the points value should take in to account rarity and effectivesness, but to put a high value on such a basic piece of equipment would be wrong.

The fact that a javelin is fire and forget doesn't make it invisible, Even if you class it as a very good bazoka, you can still effectively suppress positions ahead of you. In addition compared to a T-72 a javelin team isn't very mobile at all. As iI said it can cover 500m in about 30 secs and has a hull mounted MG that is accurate to almost twice that.

Add to that artillery even if it is just mortars and it becomes a very dangerous enviroment for Infantry.

It's easy to say wow, when you watch that film of a Javelin hitting a T-72,, but if the T-72 had fired first, 125mm HE or proximity cnister, backed by hull 7.62, and the turret 12.7mm, the three guys would have been dead before they got a shot off.

At 500m the Russian 14.7mm HMG has better penetration than a 23mm.

The Syrians if they fire first have plenty that can make a mess of Strykers and if they get in close and follow up fast with armour no infantry is mobile enough to disembark evade and mount a javelin attack within clkear site of a platoon of T-72's at under 500m bearing down on them at 40mph.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Why should the Javelin have a high points cost?

1) It's expensive in real-world terms - $100,000 per shot

2) It's very effective. This is what points values represent. In CMX1, Panthers were always more expensive than PzIVs, even when they were more general issue.

3) Rarity was optional in CM:X1. No reason to suppose that it shouldn't be so in CM:SF.

Fire-and-forget doesn't make Javelins invisible, but it does mean that conventional anti-ATGM tactics are much less effective. That incoming Javelin missile will still hit even if you take out the crew. Added to which, the firing signature isn't that much and the view from a T72 is lousy, so seeing the launch in time to engage the crew isn't all that likely. And there will be 9 or more Javelins in a single US infantry company. It's the exceptional nature of the Javelin over most ATGMs, let alone WW2 weapons, combined with the sheer number of them that are organic to any US infantry formation.

Incidently, the T72 does not have a hull MG, but a coaxial mount and an AAMG (either a 14.5 or 12.7mm gun). Granted, the T72 is probably more able to brass up suspected enemy positions than WW2 armour, but to be able to effectively suppress every possible position within 2500m? It seems unlikely.

If we then take into account the number of accounts in WW2 a single 88mm gun (big item, large firing signature, static) halted an allied advance because the allied forces simply couldn't spot the gun, the probability of T72s racing across country, gunning down Javelin crews, is fairly minimal.

[dan/california]

Simpler question. Do the Syrian T72s have thermal imaging systems that are maintained and working? The javelin I am morally certain has a very good one. If the Syrians don't have good night vision equipment the Americans just rest during the day and have somewhat dangerouse target practice at night. T72s would be brewing up all over the map with no idea what killed them.

Have you ever played Tac Ops when one side has all the electronic toys and one doesn't? It is a turkey shoot with bigger targets.

[dan/california]

Attacking against even slightly dug in infantry with javelin quality atgms is simply impossible at any time of day or night unless you have overwhelming artillery support available. Otherwise those missiles take out at least one tank for every two shots. And every American soldier in Iraq has faced the elephant. The only tank panic would be the Syrians panicking about running out of tanks.

The Syrians have at most 3000 tanks that would move under their own power before the air force drops pgm #1. How many Syrian tanks would even manage to move to contact? I guarantee their would be enough javelins to go around.

Their would be lots of complications to taking out Syria. Its armored divisions are not very high on the list.

I REALLY think the designers should have gone with the Taiwan scenario. There I can believe a standup fight. Syria is Iraq 2, easy to take but miserable to hold without either a lot more troops than we have committed to Iraq so far or the willingness to use Saddam's methods. Of the you won't do that again because your all dead variety.

[Peter Cairns]

So just how many Iraqi tanks were taken out by Javelin or any infantry ATGM or indeed antitank weapon is the invasion of Iraq.

You all seem to be forgeting the the US is on the offensive in CM:SF. A straight frontal assault across more than a mile of open terrain against lightly dug in Javelins teams is suicide, but no one has suggested that.

I am talking about keeping your T-72's deliberately behind cover till they are within 500m or so and then pulling forward quickly to engage Strykers before the infantry deploy. I don't know if the 0.5 HMG on a Stryker can fire on the move, but it hardly matters as it can't hurt a T-72 anyway.

Even if a T-72 at 800-1,000m has only a 1 in 3 chance of hitting a moving Styker, the Stryker has to stop to get the Javelin crew out, and that will take longer than it does to fire three rounds from a T-72.

Of course Dan is right but what are you expecting the Syrians to do, ambush you at 750m and then sit and wait for the US to dig it's Javelins in before firing a shot. The Tactic for Javelins people seem to be employing here only works if the US invade Syria at walking pace, and take a month to reach Damascus.

Keep Syrian Tanks hidden as long as possible, hit Strykers on the move and then withdraw and disperse, that and ambush with individual tanks as it they were very long range road side IED's.

People love affair with the Javelin seems to be based on the Syrians going for the traditional Soviet tank wave that the Javelin was designed to defeat.

Oh and there is a strange belief that US infantry, will somehow be immune to or simply ignore huge volumes of incoming fire. That folks is rubbish, all infantry in on the modern battlefield get down and stay down under heavy fire from support weapons, those that don't die, regardless of how good there own support weapons are.

Apart from anything else, almost every piece of combat film I've seen from Iraq or Afghanistan shows US troops heading for cover in droves at the prospect of half a dozen kids with AK-47's.

Thats why battles like Goose Green see thousands and thousands of rounds fired and few casualties even though they take all day. the vast majority of the time the vast majority of the people are flat on the ground stationary.

Peter.

[ May 08, 2006, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

[MikeyD]

This topic reminds me of a line about the WWII desert war that I read recently. When planning their TD force the Americans got a chilling report from the British that stated that on average their anti-tank guns would only be able to get off 4-5 shots during a battle.... one assumes before being destroyed.

I'd guess that Syrian armor would suffer the same fate as those Brit anti-tank guns in a major engagement. That is the vehicles that managed to go undetected in the initial bombing campaign would be expected to only fire a few rounds down-range before being put out of action. But remember a couple rounds fired could result in a Bradley or Stryker ablaze, an Abrams disabled. If the Syrians fight a prepositioned war of attrition with a defense-in-depth they might figure trading armor-for-armor on even a 4:1 basis (for instance) to still work out in their favor.

As to Javelin, the reason we went for an expensive plunging attack missile is that modern armor had made TOW and infantry LAW-type weapons obsolete. I've seen photos of a T-72 target whos bow and turret front had defeated even 105mm long rod penetrators! I don't have a clue - only the experts know - how Javelin's guidance system would perform at long range in a highly cluttered environment. Maybe it would perform flawlessly. maybe it would leave a high proportion of nearby Toyota pickups ablaze.

[ May 08, 2006, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[dan/california]

We still have not answered one of my main points. And while everything peter said is valid, units with good night vision slaughter units without it. and this is before all the new small drones the U.S. is deploying are taken into account.

I seem to recall that even during GW1 that tanks in the desert stand out like beacons on IR. And their are so many more toys to reach out and touch them with when that happens now. Occupation is a different story. But in a stand up fight I am just not convinced that the Syrian military is gong to accomplish a whole lot. I mean the Israelis have hammered them without mercy any number of times.

[Nidan1]

The Battle of Medina Ridge was a decisive tank battle fought on 27 February 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, between the U.S. 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Brigade of the Iraqi Republican Guard Medina Luminous Division outside Basra. Medina Ridge is the name American troops gave to a low rise, approximately seven miles (11 km) long.

The battle, which was waged over approximately two hours, was the largest tank battle of the war and the largest tank battle in U.S. history. It took place west of Phase Line Kiwi, east of Phase Line Smash, and north of Phase Line Grape. Phase lines are map references occurring every few kilometers used to measure progress of an offensive operation.

The 1st Armored Division, commanded by Major General Ron Griffiths, consisted of some 3,000 vehicles including 166 M1A1 Abrams tanks. The brunt of the fighting at Medina Ridge was conducted by the Division's historic 2nd Brigade, known as the "Iron Brigade", commanded by Colonel Montgomery Meigs (a descendent of General Montgomery C. Meigs of Civil War fame)."

During the battle, the American forces suffered only one KIA while destroying 186 Iraqi tanks (mostly Soviet built T-72s and T-55s) and 127 armored vehicles. Thirty-eight of the tanks were eliminated by six U.S. AH-64 Apaches from 3 mi (5 km) away at night and in rain.

This was in 1991, what is the improvement curve between the U.S. Army and the Syrian Army in the last 15 years?

IMO unless the Syrians race all of their tanks across the border into Jordan and hide them there, they will wind up as so much scrap as did the Iraqi armored force.

Where could they possibly hide groups of tanks and other vehicles, from the prying eyes of infra-red, TV and Laser designation from on the ground assets?? They would have to bury them IMO and operate them by remote control.

[MikeyD]

I'm trying to recall how often an initial invasion-assault was successfully repulsed in modern warfare. I guess the '72 war would count as a successful defense against an invasion, but the Israelis were badly mauled - worse than they ever expected to be. Also, Anzio didn't go quite as easily as the Allies had hoped. But other invasion-assaults seemed to have great initial success. Hitler's push into France, his assault up to the suburbs of Moscow, N. Korea's push south and later MacArther's landing at Incon, and later still the Chinese push back down to the 38th parallel. My point is that unless your commanders are total fools (disregarding supply chains, etc.) the sheer shock of an invasion-assault will carry the attacker quite some distance.

So basically Syria would be screwed no matter who's attacking for the first two weeks of the campaign. But after two weeks, if the war's not over by then, it turns into more of a chess game.

We see the difficulties of the final two years of the Korean war, Israel's 10 year sojourn in Lebanon, etc. So I estimate if the Syrian government can survive the opening phase of an American assault into their country and adapt to the forces arrayed against them the chance of their survival - and perhaps eventual victory in the long run - go up exponentially. Seeing Syrian armor in this context, its purpose would be to sacrifice itself in order to slow the momentum of the initial assault, to keep victory out of its adversary's grasp just long enough to transition from assault into the second phase of the war.

[Cpl Steiner]

I would be very surprised if the Syrians, and every other potential US adversary, are not learning the lessons of the recent Iraq war and subsequent occupation and making appropriate adjustments to their strategy and tactics. It is absolutely clear that the US cannot be defeated in open battle by a conventionally armed opponent. However, the US is extremely vulnerable to a "long war", as characterized by the current occupation of Iraq. Massive casualties can be inflicted on the US just by allowing their invasion to succeed and keeping them tied down in the country. All the sectarian attacks in the country are aimed at keeping the disorder going to prevent a US pull-out, and so cause more US casualties.

If I was a Syrian commander I would write off my heavy armour and concentrate on what I was going to do after the US took over the country. If the tanks are going to be blown up anyway, I'd probably want to fill them full of conscripts and have them massacred for the negative world reaction it would generate (a la "The Road of Death" in Gulf War 1).

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I am talking about keeping your T-72's deliberately behind cover till they are within 500m or so

There is no cover.

[flamingknives]

Peter, you seem to be disregarding the vast majority of the game. As and when I buy CM:SF, it will not be for the campaign, but rather the scope of the QBs and stand-alone scenarios.

So I will be entirely able to give the Syrian army more tanks than would concievably be in existance after day one of the conflict. Thus, I am looking for tactics beyond the obvious defilade ambush of attacking troops.

Suppressive fire works, but there is a limit to what it can accomplish. The strength of infantry is in the outer layers of the survivability onion, that they are difficult to spot, difficult to acquire etc. You have to pour you volumes of fire into every bit of cover within 2.5km to be sure of surpressing Javelin teams.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Apart from anything else, almost every piece of combat film I've seen from Iraq or Afghanistan shows US troops heading for cover in droves at the prospect of half a dozen kids with AK-47's

And armed with this dubious observation, you are confident that the Syrians stand a fiddlers chance against armed intervention by the US Military?

The only thing I can imagine here, is what has happened in Iraq happening all over again.

Conventional combat ends very quickly as the Syrian armed forces are either decimated on the battlefield, or cast off their uniforms, abandon their equipment and go home.

Later on, a guerilla style war commences and now you have the IED and the carbomb and more civilian casualties than military. Occasional ambushes and small scale strikes take place, but anything resembling conventional combat ceases, unless it is initiated by the Americans.

I am still trying to visualise how CM:SF can be balanced enough at any level of play to offer us a fun experience.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Apart from anything else, almost every piece of combat film I've seen from Iraq or Afghanistan shows US troops heading for cover in droves at the prospect of half a dozen kids with AK-47's

Maybe you should get off your ass and go to Iraq, Syria or Iran. I am certain that the Terrorists Oh excuse me, Freedom Fighters there could use someone with your expertise. Maybe you could arm and organize a bunch of rag tag kids to scare the crap out of the American and your countries military. Then come back here and tell us how it went for you? Shoot your mouth off about how much you hate Americans, I am sure they will welcome you with their open cuddly arms. Maybe you could share an AK and post together from the same Laptops?

Do British soldiers stand in place when under fire like DIPs? Are they DIP types? (Die in Place) Are do they also seek cover when confronted with armed children? But of course, in your opinion, they most likely just seek cover. The “droves” part only applies to American soldiers in your never-ending quest of “US bad, your opinions good”. Anything to try and make the US look bad. Does that comfort you in some way? We all know that on the battlefield soldiers respond to incoming fire by taking cover.

I can tell you what it is that you are missing, it is called Training, which is why soldiers seek cover. It is not even self-preservation. Troops equipped with only self-preservation are likely to die without training concerning how to seek cover properly. In a manner in which to be able to fight from such cover.

Iraq is not the movies and despite what you might think by watching films and news clippings. You don’t know crap until you are throwing yourself to the ground while under fire.

[flamingknives]

Abbott, I suggest that you re-read Peter's post, several times if necessary.

Because I simply cannot see how you can extrapolate hating America from what he wrote. I think perhaps a retraction and an apology is in order.

[Peter Cairns]

Abbott.

As you clearly missed the obvious point I'll re state it even clearer.

All troops go to ground when they come under fire and the heavier the fire the more they do it. I used America as an example, because thats what most of the people on this site are, thats what you have mostly been watching and like me thats what you will have seen.

As to the point about covering all 2.5km. I have repeatedly pointed out that you avoid the advantages of the enemy so as the defender you deploy so that to the best of your ability you negate your enemies range advantage.

While you are at it go on to google earth and type in damascus, then zoom out till you find the corner of the Iraq, Syria, Jordon border, If you set the eye altitude( Bottom Right) at about 100 miles, you'll see a major road intercection just NE of the point where the borders meet, and three Iraqi Airfields to the SE. This is an obvious start point for invasion.

Now all you have to do is follow the road to Damascus and as your cursor moves you can see the height change, (End of the pointer line in the Bottom Left).

Like the road overlays if you have it in composite the heights aren't that accurate, but along the way you'll find more than enough cover to be going on with.

Peter.

[Nidan1]

No amount of "cover" will protect Syrian mobile forces from this.

JSTARS

[Peter Cairns]

Interesting defensive feature if you head towards Damascus where the main road runs roughly east west between the Airports at SAYQAL and DUMAYR from a height of about 25miles you can clearlt make out a long ridge with marked peaks running roughly parrallel and to the north.

The road height is roughly 2,200ft and fairly level, the ridge around 3,600ft. Unfortunately i can't figure out the distance from the road to the ridge but it looks as if the it could be within direct engagement range, and force the road to cross numerous gullies from the mountains.

You could avoid it by comming in towards DUMAYR from the south, but there are some wierd at the cross roads to the SE.

Maybe we should start a thread on Invasion routes using Google Earth, to plan the invasion.

It would kill more time till the game arrives.

Peter.

[dan/california]

I may be beating this drum to loudly, and if so I apologize. But are there any credible sources about the state of the Syrians night vision equipment? If one side has 2000 meters more visibility than the other. Then even the best defensive cover and planning is only going to help so much. You still have tanks and fighting positions blowing up with no idea of what killed them. Even in day time if you can lay smoke that you can see through but the enemy cannot it makes a ridiculous difference to the force balance.

On a related note, has Battlefront said if the new precision guided 155 and mortar rounds are going to be in or not? I am deeply curious to play with and with out them. A 120 mm mortar with a >3m CEP for the first shot would really make life hard on defensive infantry emplacements. If there is an effective anti armor round that would be even harder to counter.

Theoretically the victory conditions and or point values can take all of this into account. But even if trading a Syrian battalion for two American armored vehicles is considered a victory I can't imagine it would be whole lot of fun to play. Which I think is the short version of the point that a lot of people are trying to make.

I like the idea of actually laying out the probable invasion path Peter. These arguments are even more fun when their are more details to chew over. And if the designers will not provide them then we will have to do it ourselves. A deeper understanding of the choke points and terrain obstacles would definitely improve the level of this conversation. Of course Battlefront could just surrender unconditionally and at least promise a Taiwan expansion pack.

[flamingknives]

Guided 155mm might be in, judging by ISDs, Guided 227mm rockets really ought to be in, as they are currently in service in Iraq.

Getting rounds on target may be harder than the figures suggest. You've got to locate the position first.