On the use of weapons... Syrian Armour

[dan/california]

Check out this link for the Dragon Eye UAV. This is the kind of stuff i just cannot see the Syrians dealing with in a stand up fight.

Figuring out which guy is wearing the suicide vest is a harder thing to do. But every T72 and ATGM that this thing sees is going to be in line for immediate attention.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dragoneyes.htm

[Peter Cairns]

Dan,

thermal or IR nothing can see through a hill. from a syrian perspective the working assumption must be that the US can deploy any weapon in it's arsenal day or night at it's full range.

That means the Javelin is effective to 2.5km 24 hrs a day. If armour is to survive it has to be hidden as well as possible from air observation and attack, and on the ground positioned as much as possible so that it is covered by terrain that blocks sight from anything over 500m.

If it can also be positioned so that it can get a shot off at something comming in to it's field of view before it is seen all the better. Ideally two or three together should try and engage Strykers on the move by closing range and attacking before the infantry can properly deploy.

I think the question asked at the start is how should Syrian armour be used. The line some people have taken is that there won't be any by the time the Strykers arrive, but thats not the question.

I've from the start taken the view that anything not dispersed won't last long, so the issue is how do you use whats left, which is why I've focused on plans for getting the most out of twos and threes.

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Peter,

The trouble with your Syrian plan is that it assumes the tank crews are mindless automata who are quite happy to sit in their vehicles waiting to get off their one or two shots in the full knowledge that they will almost certainly be cremated immediately after by US return fire.

From the experience of recent conflicts, most opposition forces are just human beings like you and me, with families and lives to lead, and they don't want to die so certainly just to slow down an inevitable US victory or to protect a regime they don't particularly like anyway.

I reckon any US invasion of Syria would go just the same as Iraq. A few die-hards would fight on. Some conscripts would fight on or face death at the hands of their commanders. The majority would just melt away and wait until the war was over, at which point, depending on their feelings about America and the old regime, they would either form terrorist cells or work with the new occupying forces.

[TheNathan]

So basically the concerns of many people (Including me) are pretty much justified. CMSF is going to be a turkey shoot, especially since the developers have repeatedly stated that it's going to be on the main battle side of asymetrical warfare.

[Cpl Steiner]

TheNathan,

It should be a turkey shoot, but I think they will get around this by doing scenarios that are purposefully the US engagements that didn't go according to plan. In any war, made up of hundreds of separate engagements, some are going to be FUBAR. Perhaps the air cover crashed due to friendly fire. Perhaps the local US commander was an incompetent screw-up. Things are not always going to work out as expected.

[dan/california]

Peter I am just working from things that TAC-OPS 4 have taught me. And If I have drones and artillery and thermal vision and you don't. You had better have a whole lot of tank crews willing to become barbecue of the most unpleasant kind. Are their scenarios where the Syrians could hurt the U.S. a little, sure. But the U.S. army has had this little three year training exercise in Iraq to sort out the truly stupid people tactically.

And I am sure the Israelis would be more than delighted to provide endless, detailed military intelligence even if they did nothing else. They have been keeping extremely detailed tabs on the Syrian OOB for 30-40 years at least. And they have the Pentagons Email, hell the Israelis probably read the Pentagon's email before the Pentagon does. And if you were Assad would you bet all of your forces on the Israelis not settling accounts once and for all.

I mean I am going to buy the game, and I am going to play the game. Hell, I just bought a new computer for Drop Team and this. But the scenario info Battlefront has released so far just makes me scratch my head harder and harder. It would not have been my first choice, or second.

[dan/california]

Of course more info from Battlefront would simplify this discussion immensely. Please, something, anything, lies, statistics, misinformation. Hmm those are synonyms.

[rleete]

Actually, those are what the White House calls "press releases".

[yuvuphys]

Originally posted by rleete:

Actually, those are what the White House calls "press releases".

That depends on what your definition of "are" is...

[gibsonm]

Whilst this short range ambush technique might work in theory aren’t we overlooking the issue of CAS and no doubt the integral AH64 support that an advancing US organization (such as an ACR) would have?

As others have suggested the main issue is the Syrian armour surviving long enough undetected to actually execute these short range engagements.

To get at the relatively soft Stryker units assumes that you have remained concealed and undetected by the Tank / AH64 heavy Advance Guard that has already traversed the route doesn’t it?

Again selecting likely positions such as the ridge mentioned between SAYQAL and DUMAYR would surely get a thorough appraisal from IS&R assets as well as a liberal allocation of CAS / ARTY?

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by 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.

Unfortunately for the forum, I just happen to be bored to tears tonight so I decided to visit this forum for a little entertainment. I'm sorry, but an apology from Abbott is definitely not in order. You must not be an American or you would have detected the .... I guess I would describe it as smug disdain that Peter used in his description of the modern American fighting man. What made it all the more ridiculous is that his source of evidence was "film footage", which by extrapolation some could construe as meaning that Peter has never experienced a single day of combat himself. So, for example, the image one could potentially draw from Peter's observations is one of some flabby couch potato eating popcorn in front of the TV laughingly shouting "look at all those American buggers diving for cover because one twelve year old waves an AK in the air in front of them! Ha ha ha, this is better than watching Comedy Central!" So, I'm sure that almost every American combat veteran or patriot who read that sentence was rubbed the wrong way.

I'm sure that Peter wasn't intentionally being annoying and just dropped that sentence out there because his bias unconciously seeped into his part of the discussion. Because I'm bored though, let's just examine what Peter wrote and play around with it for a while.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

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.

The first portion is fine and Peter probably should have just left it there. I guess that the strange belief comes from some of the embedded reporters who wrote about the American soldier's unusual coolness under fire. I recall several articles in the BBC where the reporter remarked upon the American coolness under fire. I speculated that this coolness came from the soldier's belief that all the body armor they are wearing made modern American soldiers less prone to injury and so more likely to take risks under fire. A Vietnam veteran that I play CM with wasn't so sure that was the answer though, but I think it would be a good discussion to have. At any rate, Peter's problem comes with the second sentence.

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.

Peter's point was already made with the first portion that I've highlighted, yet he chose to add this part at the end. If it was actually necessary to add the second part, Peter could have written it this way:

Apart from anything else, almost every piece of combat film I've seen from Iraq or Afghanistan shows US troops heading for cover when subjected to heavy enemy fire.

The bold part was written by me. That would have been fine and it would have served as support, such as it is, for his previous sentences. However, Peter chose to use US troops heading for cover in droves at the prospect of half a dozen kids with AK-47's. The "heading for cover in droves" part could be percieved in the context of ... say ducks or geese all flying away from a hunter in a wild frenzy to escape death by shotgun blast. Peter gives us the imagery of a whole platoon of US Marines running around helter skelter trying to save their lives. In other words, it could be construed as a less than flattering description of the valor of US fighting man. So what has Peter described as the source of all this cowardly behavior by US troops?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

half a dozen kids with AK-47's.

I'm not really sure what Peter is after here, but it is actually not supportive of his argument which was:

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

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.

So, if you read that literally, then Peter's interpretation of what heavy fire is would be

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

half a dozen kids with AK-47's.

Either Peter believes that half a dozen kids with AK 47s constitutes "heavy fire" and that soldiers from all western nations would naturally seek cover from it, or Peter doesn't actually believe that half a dozen kids with AK 47s can be interpreted as "heavy fire" but that he has seen combat footage of cowardly Americans running for cover in droves at the prospect of being on the receiving end of fire from these kids and their AK 47s. So, by extrapolation, American soldiers are cowards.

So flamingknives, I hope I have explained why Americans might view Peter's statement as condescending and insulting. His bias is present, but apparently it isn't always obvious to the non American. I don't want to hijack your thread so you can all return to your previously scheduled discussion.

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

TheNathan,

It should be a turkey shoot, but I think they will get around this by doing scenarios that are purposefully the US engagements that didn't go according to plan. In any war, made up of hundreds of separate engagements, some are going to be FUBAR. Perhaps the air cover crashed due to friendly fire. Perhaps the local US commander was an incompetent screw-up. Things are not always going to work out as expected.

I'd rather not have the the playability of a scenario hinging upon Deus Ex Machina in the Syrian's favor.

How many points would a Syrian Deus Ex Machina be? A sandstorm? Can you even put a value on an incompetent screw-up?

I may be in something of a minority here, but the whole U.S-Syria thing simply isn't panning out. Far too easy for the Americans, and Syrian players are going to become quickly frustrated at the distinct lack of what they can do, and how little of an effect it has. Much better choice for a modern setting would have been Iran or China, but I digress.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Abbot & ASL veteran:

Stop being such hypersensitive nongs. That's not even close to what Peter said.

His bias is present, but apparently it isn't always obvious to the non American

What tosh! No US citizenship is required to understand the words he used, basic English reading skills will suffice. Any offence is solely contained in your "extrapolation" and what you "perceived" to be written.

[Cpl Steiner]

I seriously doubt that Peter was attempting to portray American troops as cowards. Even if he was in some way anti-American I have never heard anyone with an anti-American bias ridicule the bravery of Americans. Any criticism of American soldiers is usually more about fire discipline and cultural sensitivity rather than cowardice. If anything, Americans are sometimes criticised for being too "Gung Ho". Before anyone says I'm anti-American, I am most definitely not. I just thought it might be useful to examine the sorts of criticisms that most anti-American people usually use.

[Nidan1]

Originally post by Cpl Steiner:

Any criticism of American soldiers is usually more about fire discipline and cultural sensitivity rather than cowardice.

Compared to what?

[rune]

Last count, Syria had 4600 tanks, of which 1200 are T-55s buried up to their turrets in static positions.

Rune

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Abbot & ASL veteran:

Stop being such hypersensitive nongs. That's not even close to what Peter said. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />His bias is present, but apparently it isn't always obvious to the non American

What tosh! No US citizenship is required to understand the words he used, basic English reading skills will suffice. Any offence is solely contained in your "extrapolation" and what you "perceived" to be written. </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That excuses reading stuff simply not written... how?

[Nidan1]

I'm not going to debate with you over this point Elmar. Suffice to say, that I have noticed a certain "trend" in the writings of Peter Cairns over the months, perhaps it is faulty perception on my part or some hypersensitivity to the issue. The fact that others notice it too, does not reinforce my position, because we all could be totally wrong.

Nothing needs to be excused IMO because we all have our opinions, and the written word can be taken many ways...let's just leave it at that.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by 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.

i don't know what kind of TOE & scenario BFC has created for Syrians and Americans, but i can't see any meaningful difference between the two sides what comes to ATGMs. i dare to say that this is the field where the Syrians and Americans are most balanced, as ATGMs is what Syria has invested in. Kornet-Es and Metis-Ms will KO tanks just like Javelins. the only difference is that Javelin is fire-and-forget, but i don't think it makes any real difference with likely CMSF ranges.

i think it all boils down to good tactics. equipment is more or less equal.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Combined arms is obviously the way to go, with dismounted infantry ferreting out the AT teams.

you need proper overwatch, indirect fire at likely ATGM placements and some cover for the leaping vehicles. none of these are a problem for the Syrian side, as Syrians have tons of good & cheap anti-infantry overwatch equipment and indirect fire assets. setting up a good overwatch is harder for the American player, as he will risk loosing expensive equipment right away.

Nonetheless, it seems likely that Syrian armour will still be safer closer in to US forces than further away.

intially yes, but you need to consider that US side needs to deal with lighter Syrian vehicles & infantry that advance ahead of the tanks. T-series tanks way back in good keyhole positions are perfect for supporting those forces. let ATGMs and close range infantry deal with those imperialist tanks if they show up. when your mechanized infantry is within the defender's positions those T-series tanks with sweet HE power will come real handy in mopping up defender's (somewhat suppressed but determined) strongpoints.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by 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.

i believe only the few modernized T-72s have proper thermals, the rest have the original night vision equipment that's really poor quality. modern Syrian ATGMs have thermals though, so nocturnal T-72 hunting won't be painless.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by 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.

you just need to locate & suppress the defenders before you bring in the tanks, and there's plenty of good & cheap equipment for accomplishing just that.

Otherwise those missiles take out at least one tank for every two shots.

or one BRDM peppering them with fire from 1000 meters?

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?

why weren't Iraqi tanks destroyed from air in the Gulf Wars? aren't Syrians expected to do better than Iraqis?

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

very true & i guess that's why Syria haven't been paying attention to it's tank fleet, investing instead on light forces.

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.

i agree that Syria would be more or less just Iraq 2. but luckily, at the level of CMSF battles, it would be most of all because US military is so much more skilled at all levels, and in CMSF it's the players' skills that make the difference.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

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

US Army has gotten smaller, battle worn and is tied down in Iraq, while Syria has been training & studying & equipping herself for a semi-asymmetrical light force doctrine?

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.

unless Syrians send their tanks to the Syrian Desert, or just walk away, i have hard time seeing what Iraqi failures have to do with Syrians.

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.

why did Iraqis manage to hide their tanks in plain desert, if Syrians can't do the same in urban or mixed terrain?

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

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

US Army has gotten smaller, battle worn and is tied down in Iraq, while Syria has been training & studying & equipping herself for a semi-asymmetrical light force doctrine?

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.

unless Syrians send their tanks to the Syrian Desert, or just walk away, i have hard time seeing what Iraqi failures have to do with Syrians.

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.

why did Iraqis manage to hide their tanks in plain desert, if Syrians can't do the same in urban or mixed terrain? </font>