legend42 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 What can go up against the M1A1 tank?How will are planes not dominate?The only way its not a "Turkey shoot" is in guerilla warfare tactics against the brigade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 First of all, Turkish army is not featured... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 It's about the scenarios, not the equipment. And incidentally, the Syrians do have stuff that can ruin an M-1A2's day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by legend42: What can go up against the M1A1 tank? How about an RPG or recoiless rifle from 60 meters? Not to mention ATGM. How will are planes not dominate? I'm sure scenario design can compensate for this. The only way its not a "Turkey shoot" is in guerilla warfare tactics against the brigade. Or to make it an infantry-v-infantry game with everything else in a supporting role. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai kitsune Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 well a well placed anti tank mine can knock out an abrams an as for airpower its use is very restricted in urban combat where you only just know the opponent is about 20 meters away from you drop a jdam on that and you can kiss your ass goodbye aswell! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Uh, perhaps because it is small unit tactics? Company and such-sized? I'm sure infantry are quite capable of neutralizing an Abrams in a MOUT setting. Some people seem to be forgetting that the CM games are company sized, not "You've been given the assets to invade a country"-sized. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend42 Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 How come the M1A1 is not suffering any losses that im aware of in Iraq which will be a similar situation, will it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 They took losses. The most memorable one to me was the one that was disabled by a recoiless rifle on the 3rd Mech's thunder run into Baghdad. It was on the news and everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 They are being lost, just not as much anymore now that we're fighting an insurgency. In the initial invasion several M-1s were lost and totally destroyed. http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai kitsune Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The M1A1 is not commonly used to roll round citys in peace keeping ops it suffered i think 3 knocked out and around 27 damaged during the invasion 1 knocked out during fallujah and 3 damaged iirc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 According to this, 80 Abrams have been damages so badly that they had to be returned to the US for repairs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 As far as air support goes the smallest bomb carried by the USAF is 500 lbs. The minimum safe distance for this is 400m, the absolute minimum, "oh my god, we're about to be overrun just drop it" distance is 325m. Not bloody likly in MOUT. Helicopter are much more accurate but much more vulnerable. I remember they made a movie about this, Black Hawk Something or other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Actually, the USAF has concrete bombs now that can be used at very close range, as they are kinetic, not explosive, weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by Cameroon: Uh, perhaps because it is small unit tactics? Company and such-sized? I'm sure infantry are quite capable of neutralizing an Abrams in a MOUT setting. Some people seem to be forgetting that the CM games are company sized, not "You've been given the assets to invade a country"-sized. uh, yes, and uh what assets is a US company able to call on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: uh, yes, and uh what assets is a US company able to call on? Uh, as many as the scenario designer permits? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 heh. Touche. (you know what I meant ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: heh. Touche. (you know what I meant ) Indeed I did. I think it's a valid question, too. I don't know much about Syria's capabilities and I know even less about exactly how Steve and the Gang are going to design the backstory parameters, and without those data I can't even know what a reasonable force pool for the U.S. might be. For instance, perhaps the backstory is that it's a mainly UN force and because of force commitments elsewere (it IS only 2 years away, we should all remember) the only thing the U.S. can send is a single Stryker Brigade so support assets are light. Etc. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon: Uh, perhaps because it is small unit tactics? Company and such-sized? I'm sure infantry are quite capable of neutralizing an Abrams in a MOUT setting. Some people seem to be forgetting that the CM games are company sized, not "You've been given the assets to invade a country"-sized. uh, yes, and uh what assets is a US company able to call on? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: For instance, perhaps the backstory is that it's a mainly UN force and because of force commitments elsewere (it IS only 2 years away, we should all remember) the only thing the U.S. can send is a single Stryker Brigade so support assets are light. Etc.Sure, and as I wrote in another thread it's easy to come up with any number of contrived situations to hobble the US. But really, how long does it take an F/A-18 to fly to somewhere in Syria instead of somewhere in Iraq, and why couldn't it do both in the same day if need be? For example. That's the beauty of air power. Also, I would find it extemely contrived for the US to be sending a SBCT into Syria naked of support on anything other than peace support ops, which would be rather dull for a game nominally about tactical combat. And even then, air support is not far away. [ October 10, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi_digger Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: Actually, the USAF has concrete bombs now that can be used at very close range, as they are kinetic, not explosive, weapons. The USAF (and other airforces) have had concrete bombs since WWI. Its just that in this day and age with 'effects based operations' planners and commanders are looking for less-lethal solutions that reduce collateral damage. Some bright spark therefore says - hey lets attach an LGB kit to a dummy bomb so we can use it urban ops! Problem is that dummy bombs tend to richochet - up to a couple of miles in some cases - something you cannot control and something that causes more damage than you think in a totally random direction. A good idea but their use should be tightly controlled. WRT CAS. It depends on the CM:SF background brief and the scenario. The background brief may limit US air power for whatever political reasons or UN feelgood message. If not, the sim would be all unconventional warfare 'cause Syria wouldn't have any tanks left or large infantry formations (this is a rather sweeping statement but there is a grain of truth in it). The scenario? MOUT would restrict air support. The size of your formation, time limits and type of fighting would do likewise. E.g. hey platoon commander, we've been receiving sporadic fire from that green-belt, go and clear it... would be a situation where you're unlikely to receive CAS. But if you're an armoured spearhead leading the charge to Damascus? Then you're gonna have it stacked to the rafters. With a whole bunch of pilots calling you going 'I'm outa fuel gimme something to drop this baby on...'. My guess is that the last example will be few and far between in CM:SF so as to avoid imbalances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by ozi_digger: E.g. hey platoon commander, we've been receiving sporadic fire from that green-belt, go and clear it... would be a situation where you're unlikely to receive CAS.True, but AIUI pn-sized is somewhat below intended CM scale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 some suggestions: Scenarios size: 1000 pts Abrahms cost: 1500 points CAS from Apache cost: 5000 pts Problem solved! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi_digger Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ozi_digger: E.g. hey platoon commander, we've been receiving sporadic fire from that green-belt, go and clear it... would be a situation where you're unlikely to receive CAS.True, but AIUI pn-sized is somewhat below intended CM scale? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: For instance, perhaps the backstory is that it's a mainly UN force and because of force commitments elsewere (it IS only 2 years away, we should all remember) the only thing the U.S. can send is a single Stryker Brigade so support assets are light. Etc.Sure, and as I wrote in another thread it's easy to come up with any number of contrived situations to hobble the US. But really, how long does it take an F/A-18 to fly to somewhere in Syria instead of somewhere in Iraq, and why couldn't it do both in the same day if need be? For example. That's the beauty of air power. Also, I would find it extemely contrived for the US to be sending a SBCT into Syria naked of support on anything other than peace support ops, which would be rather dull for a game nominally about tactical combat. And even then, air support is not far away. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 * nods * 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.