How will it not be a "Turkey shoot"

[Midnight Warrior]

Prhaps the political setting should not be a civil war in Syria but rather one in Iraq. Let's say that for political purposes the Bush administration is forced to pull out all US forces out of Iraq prematurely. This leads to a sloly escalating all out civil war in Iraq between the rival factions. In the hope of appeasing the factions and ending the civil war without having to send back in US troops the Bush administration puts enormous presure on Israel to create a Palestinian state on the west bank and in doing so create civil unrest in Israel. Part of the deal is that NATO gaurantees Isareli security for giving up the west bank. Meanwhile Syria is backing one of the factions in Iraq and either miscalculates and gets too involved inthe Iraqi civil war or some incident like another 9/11 causes NATO to have to invade Syria. In this scenario there are no US forces just across the Syria border in Iraq because of the pullout. Rather than reinvade Iraq (and get heplessly insnared in the civilwar which shows bno sign of ever ending) NATO attempts amphibious invasion of Syria. The logistics of this limits the number of troops that can be deployed and gives the Syrians a fighting chance of winning in that the strategic situation. Turkey fearing the civil war willspread to their Kurdish population once again denies NATO basing rights. NATO air missions are flown either out of Kuwait (at long ranges) or from caariers and thus their is less CAS missions than there would normally be if their were better basing options. Israel is neutralized by their internal disputes over having (or fixin to) give up the Golan heights plus the presure from the US to stay out of this fight. Jordon tries to stay neutral but is pushed toward supporting Syria. Iran backs their own faction in Iraq. Thus the general deteriation of the political and startegic situation gives Syria a fighting chance of coming out with a strategic win against NATO.

I don't know enough about the politics of that region to know if this scenario is actually plausible (at least in an '07 scenario) but perhaps assuming something like this might provide a backdrop to even out the game play issue.

[aka_tom_w]

Welcome 19K30

I hope you will feel free to post more often with your thoughts and experiences.

Thanks.

-tom w

Originally posted by 19K30:

As a M1 Tank Commander, I can tell you that M1 is very vunerable in a MOUT setting. The M1 was designed for fighting the Russina T-72/T-80 horde in the Fulda Gap. Several concepts and modifications are being tested to improve combat effectiness of the M1 in MOUT.

I can tell you from personal experience that a M1 can be seriously damage/destroyed from a determined foe. One of the tanks in my Company became combat ineffective due to RPG's and IED's in Iraq.

Strykers aren't designed to replace the tank, but to be a lighter, radidly deployed, combat effective force used in areas where tanks would not be as effective or deployable.

Strykers are the bridge between light infantry brigades/divisions and the heavy mechanized brigades/divisions.

As a Tanker I am bias to tanks but I do see the use for Strykers. European countries have had stryker-esqe vehicles for decades. In some ways, the US is finally catching up to modern combat thinking.

My buddies, some of whom are combat vets on strykers, LOVE them and would never go back to tanking.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

As it was after almost a month Serbian Tank losses were only just in to double figures. I don't think we can expect a scenario where the enemy is as accomadating as the Iraqi's and just lines them up in formation in the desert, for you to pick off as you like.

Apples and grapefruits. It's a bit easier to hide your tank brigades in forested hills than in an arid plateau... and I don't see how Syria would suddenly erect big forests on their eastern frontier to hide in.</font>

[mazex]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

Prhaps the political setting should not be a civil war in Syria but rather one in Iraq. Let's say that for political purposes the Bush administration is forced to pull out all US forces out of Iraq prematurely. This leads to a sloly escalating all out civil war in Iraq between the rival factions. In the hope of appeasing the factions and ending the civil war without having to send back in US troops the Bush administration puts enormous presure on Israel to create a Palestinian state on the west bank and in doing so create civil unrest in Israel. Part of the deal is that NATO gaurantees Isareli security for giving up the west bank. Meanwhile Syria is backing one of the factions in Iraq and either miscalculates and gets too involved inthe Iraqi civil war or some incident like another 9/11 causes NATO to have to invade Syria. In this scenario there are no US forces just across the Syria border in Iraq because of the pullout. Rather than reinvade Iraq (and get heplessly insnared in the civilwar which shows bno sign of ever ending) NATO attempts amphibious invasion of Syria. The logistics of this limits the number of troops that can be deployed and gives the Syrians a fighting chance of winning in that the strategic situation. Turkey fearing the civil war willspread to their Kurdish population once again denies NATO basing rights. NATO air missions are flown either out of Kuwait (at long ranges) or from caariers and thus their is less CAS missions than there would normally be if their were better basing options. Israel is neutralized by their internal disputes over having (or fixin to) give up the Golan heights plus the presure from the US to stay out of this fight. Jordon tries to stay neutral but is pushed toward supporting Syria. Iran backs their own faction in Iraq. Thus the general deteriation of the political and startegic situation gives Syria a fighting chance of coming out with a strategic win against NATO.

I don't know enough about the politics of that region to know if this scenario is actually plausible (at least in an '07 scenario) but perhaps assuming something like this might provide a backdrop to even out the game play issue.

Now we talk! That's an exellent proposal that would feel much more like a real tactical AND strategical challenge!

/Maze

[Battlefront.com]

You guys might want to check out this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000380

It talks a bit more about how the player's actions are affected by the new CMx2 game system.

Welcome 19K30! Always nice to have an honest, 1st hand account posted for the rest of us to chew on. The most important point you made is that the Styker is not seen as a replacement for heavy armor. So much fuss was made in the early days about "the tank is dead" that it still needs to be emphasized what the role of Stryker is.

Oh, and whatever the latest and greatest MOUT kit is for US vehicles is, that's what will be in the game. The planned upgrades for the Abrams, in particular, are the most interesting to watch.

Steve

[hellfish]

The M-1 TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit)

[Andreas]

Wow. The tank-infantry telephone. Great innovation. Who would have thought of that?!

All the best

Andreas

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Wow. The tank-infantry telephone. Great innovation. Who would have thought of that?!

All the best

Andreas

The essential innovation you're missing is that it will be SMS text-message capable.

Inf:"ied! ruok"

Tnk:"..."

I:"RUOK!"

T:"..."

I:"ruok! pcm!"

T:"LOL! pwnd!"

I:"WFT!"

T:"ROTFL! j4f. kc. imho RPG. gr8 in hr!"

I:"iou itys"

T:"hak ttyl"

[Andreas]

That made me laugh.

Thanks.

Andreas

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by RMC:

I read a piece about Syria a year or so ago when the buzz was that the US was going to have to invade Syria to get the WMD that Saddam snuck over the border just before the invasion.

You mean since it aint in Iraq it HAS to be in Syria? I mean, it gotta to be somewhere, right?!

Oh uh, I feel a political chill down my neck..

[Peter Cairns]

Just a couple of points.

First I think the syrians may have some capable units but I would question the notion that those of ability who faced the israeli's would have been rewarded.

A key issue for authoriatrian regemes is that they are always on the look out for internal threats and this includes their own armed forces.

The western notion of advancement through achievement can in some cases (Not necessarily Syria) mark you out for an umarked grave.

A ggos example of this ( though I am not claiming to be an expert) would be ARVN.

Throughout the vietnam war, the US was frustraited by the poor quality and organisation of their allies. This was in part due to the fact that it was organisied in a deliberately compartmentalised way so that no general could mount a coup.

If you get the change, and i would strongly recommend it, read Sheenan's "A Bright shining Lie" which gives a real insight in to the problems that those advaising ARVN had.

Peter.