IEDs, mines, booby traps, etc

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve - as a follow up to your points (which I agree with) on non-inclusion of civilians - no one seems to be answering my question in multiple threads now - would a "conventional" Syrian infantry company even co-ordinate with "suicide" bombers in any event? Their non-inclusion doesn't seem like a huge deal to me if the more "military" aspects of such a campaign are being gamed.

[RSColonel_131st]

Hhmm, the more I read this board, the more I get confused.

Steve says, if I understood that right:

A) IEDs won't be very usefull against a fast-moving force and

No suicide fanatics

So what WILL be there that makes the Syrians dangerous? If this turns out to be straight and pure military simulation of american vs. syrian regular army, then there's no point in playing it because it will be unbalanced. Or you nerf the US Forces and make it unrealistic, but balanced.

From my understanding, the only thing that makes this kind of fights hard for the US Army is the guerilla/terrorist tactics used against them by their enemys, and their enemys hiding behind civilians.

Now, if you reduce the possible guerilla tactics, there are no civilians, and the OPFOR doesn't consist of more than half of a city like Mogadishu, then really, what will keep this game from being a Speedbumb vs. Steamroller scenario?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

So what WILL be there that makes the Syrians dangerous? If this turns out to be straight and pure military simulation of american vs. syrian regular army, then there's no point in playing it because it will be unbalanced.

They still get guns, right?

In an urban setting, up close, where the US artillery and armour and air advantages are not as acute, you don't think there will be some challenge for both sides?

I think everyone is looking at this new release from a macro perspective; it's about how things play out a couple of platoons at a time, not what the entire invasion force looks like.

WWII was hugely unbalanced too from that level. The Soviet assault on Berlin involved what disparity of artillery, infantry and tanks? 20 to 1? The large picture was never in doubt - and yet CM scenarios could still focus on small parts of the fighting and be entertaining for both sides.

In context, BF.C has admitted that the challenge in an overall sense is lessened and that the US campaign will be playable only as US, and probably not replayable.

I get the impression the first release is just a testbed, really.

[Drusus]

What makes Syrians dangerous? In an urban setting, you are ordered to attack a fortified company of Syrian regular troops with your Stryker company. Have fun. Not challenging enough? Make the defenders special forces. As I have said before, the reason US troops are performing so well is that they have the chance to avoid fair fights. I am not saying that they wouldn't win most of them. But when you are playing CMSF I am sure that you will have to fight a lot of fair fights. Be the fairness of the fight because of the victory conditions or just having balanced forces.

[Battlefront.com]

MD, the various forces don't necessarily have to be all used in the same scenario, no more so than in CM you must experience Volkssturm, SS, FJ, and WH all at the same time.

From my understanding, the only thing that makes this kind of fights hard for the US Army is the guerilla/terrorist tactics used against them by their enemys, and their enemys hiding behind civilians.

No, this stuff just makes things worse. And those guys don't need IEDs and suicide bombings to be a threat or tactical challenge. While we are certainly going to have a whole host of terrain and scenario settings, a lot of them will be MOUT (urban) of some type or another. That just makes the US forces' job about 100 times more difficult and dangerous compared to flat, open ground against predictable conventional forces.

Personally, I am not concerned about balance. In fact, I think most gamers will get their asses handed to them BIG TIME. I base that on what CMx1 gamers consider to be "acceptable" in terms of tactics and losses. I can just see it now... Strykers fully loaded driving down a street that hasn't been reconed or across an open expanse expecting that an Abrams is safe from anything short of an act of God. It would be interesting to see what the average casualty rate is for new gamers... I'd guess 20% wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Sucks if the vicotory conditions require less than 5% for that battle

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

MD, the various forces don't necessarily have to be all used in the same scenario, no more so than in CM you must experience Volkssturm, SS, FJ, and WH all at the same time.

That's exactly my point. Everyone seems to think that the regular Syrian army is made up of suicide bombers and gas-station attendants turned Sappers.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That's exactly my point. Everyone seems to think that the regular Syrian army is made up of suicide bombers and gas-station attendants turned Sappers.

An unavoidable consequence of the Iraq war, I'd say. The battle in Baghdad saw a considerable number of foreign fighters in combat alongside Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.

I'll be interested in seeing how BTS squares the circle, though - we have a war in what amounts to the current regional political context, with American soldiers invading yet another Arab state. What kind of new Syrian regime is so unpopular that it can't call on serious Islamist support even to fight off Americans, but is still popular enough to be supported by its own army (the officer's corps of which, by the way, having been selected for its ethnicity and loyalty to the Assad regime)?

Are we going to have a Communist Alawite regime seize power?

Scott

[JonS]

Originally posted by Scott B:

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

What possible relevance to a tactical engagement does a suicide bomber have :confused:

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question...

It depends on the presence of "foreign volunteers," I'd say. How much do we want to borrow from the Iraq case is how much it will be relevant. Tanks and Brads fighting their way into Baghdad encountered several VBIEDs; again, given the lessons of Iraq, I'd expect them to be even more of a danger now than they were in March-April 2003. Iraqi suicide car bombs now employ what amounts to swarming tactics; they patrol Baghdad waiting for a cell phone call when one of their spotters calls in a target and then whichever of the several cars they have available gets there first gets the "glory." I would fully expect these in a Syrian scenario because they've been shown to work very well for quite some time.</font>

[76mm]

How will IED counter-measures and counter-counter measures be handled? I understand that many of them are set off wirelessly, including via cell phones, and the the US has taken to jamming cell phone networks in sectors with patrols and installing some kind of jamming device in convoys. Don't know how common either counter-measure is. And presumably the Iraqis are now using some kind of counter-counter measures, perhaps simple wire. Will people "buy" different types of IEDs and IED countermeasures during scenario set up?

And how will detection of IEDs occur? In another post someone who sounded like he knew what he is talking about said that you learn to avoid dead dogs, garbage heaps, and anything with fresh dirt on it. And as detailed as CMSF graphics will be, I don't think it will show stuff like this. Presumably more experienced troops will have a better chance of seeing an IED, but then again a more experienced bad guy would be able to hide it better, and it would depend greatly on the specific layout of the particular street.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

And how will detection of IEDs occur? In another post someone who sounded like he knew what he is talking about said that you learn to avoid dead dogs, garbage heaps, and anything with fresh dirt on it. And as detailed as CMSF graphics will be, I don't think it will show stuff like this. Presumably more experienced troops will have a better chance of seeing an IED, but then again a more experienced bad guy would be able to hide it better, and it would depend greatly on the specific layout of the particular street.

In game terms, at least in "current" CM, your troops walk down the street and either see mines, or they don't. Other than that, there is no effect on gameplay.

Dead dogs and piles of garbage will not be simulated, so we're back to where we started in CMX1 - a random chance of "tripping" an explosive device if not command detonated. Perhaps even if command detonated, assuming the Tac AI handles such things rather than the player.

For the US player, what extra "commands" would one expect the player to be able to give in response to these threats? I'm not seeing much - how well they spot these devices is kind of already simulated by chance, no?

[BloodyBucket]

Hmmm...Suicide tactics. I think that the allies in the Pacific had to deal with this, so let's broaden our view beyond the recent Iraq fracas.

Say CM moves to the Pacific? Japanese soldiers carrying explosives tried suicide attacks vs. allied armor, faked surrender, set boobytraps (IEDs), beheaded prisoners, refused to surrender, staged suicidal (banzai) charges, there were the famous "kamakaze" aircraft... in a lot of ways, not too different from some tactics likely to be used by the more fanatical elements in our potential UN vs. Syria scenario.

Looking at how some tactical games in the past have dealt with this would be interesting.

Up Front, the old Squad Leader based game, had rules for Banzai charges and suicidal close combat vs. tanks. The scale there was really two or three squads. I'm not familiar enough with Squad Leader proper to know how it was handled there.

Perhaps "Jihadists" working with Syrian regulars could perform a kind of banzai attack that would ensure heavy casualties on the attacking squad, but might take out US armor.

Steve pointed out the intolerance for WWII type casualties that US forces seem to have today. A banzai typ rule for the Syrians might make life interesting for an American player in SF.

[76mm]

Yeah, I don't think any particular commands would be useful, but you might let US players choose what kind of electronic counter-measures would be available (jamming, etc.). Generally I think that either such countermeasures work for a particular type of IED or they don't, but you need to have some kind uncertainty in the game or replayability would suffer. Moreover, such countermeasures are surely less than 100% effective, or we wouldn't be reading the headlines that we read practically every day. Bottom line is that I am not sure how I would handle these weapons in the game.

[hoolaman]

I am extremely relieved that there will not be suicide bombers, even if it's only because of technical issues.

I know it's part of the modern spectrum of war, I'm just not interested in seeing anyone make game of it at all. Yuck.

That news alone makes me much more inclined to buy CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree that IEDs, foreign fighters, militias, and what not will be mixed in with regular Army forces. To some extent at least. It's just that they need not be in order to pose a threat to the US player.

There are basically three type of IED attacks in Iraq:

1. Civilian Only - purpose is to kill as many people as possible in order to acheive a larger goal (civil war, fear, retalliation, etc.). These are not a part of CM:SF.

2. Military Stand Alone - IEDs planted in such a way as to cause disruption and/or casualties and to score PR points with the "home team".

3. Military Overwatch - same as above but with a force stationed to pour fire into the target area, thus causing more casualties, disruption, and racking up of PR points than could otherwise be acheived.

It would appear that #3 has been falling more and more out of favor as of late. Counter measures are getting to be pretty good and the overwatch group tends to not be as effective as they once were, or are eliminated too easily. As much trouble as the Insurgency causes, they are having problems in some areas finding enough guys dumb enough to engage in this sort of activity. Better to have 10 guys who can plant an IED and detonate it and then plant another one instead of dying during the first attack.

I am going to guess that for the opening phase of an attack on Syria the majority of IEDs would be #3 type. The shooters are available, they haven't been decimated or demoralized yet, and the degree of control in the local area far more favorable to themselves than would be later on. I'm curious to hear what other students of OIF's lessons have to say about this.

Steve

P.S. there are a few legitimate sites that offer terrorist videos for viewing. This means you can get a glimpse into the terrorist's side of thing without having to get sick to your stomach looking at terrorist websites themselves. I don't have a URL handy but they shouldn't be too hard to find. Warning... some of the content is, as one would imagine, barbaric.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I am extremely relieved that there will not be suicide bombers, even if it's only because of technical issues.

I know it's part of the modern spectrum of war, I'm just not interested in seeing anyone make game of it at all. Yuck.

That news alone makes me much more inclined to buy CMSF.

Agreed!

Although WWII did see Japanese fighter pilots use commit suicide to fullfill their mission objectives so the prinicple is not without historical precedent.

But the game will be better off without them for sure.

-tom w

[ October 12, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hoolaman]

I know the precendents are as long as yer arm, but it seems like when Japanese forces did it, they managed to have some class about it.

I know this could be endlessly debated, but as long as the Syrians in the game fight with some sort of "honour" (I know its an elusive concept) I will be happy to digitally fight them.

[Thomm]

No IEDs or suicide bombers?

Well, that is good news!

Better leave the sicko stuff to reality!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Kurtz]

In some armies there are command-detonated devices that are manufactured prior to the war and part of the official doctrine. Claymore-type directional fragmentation devices (with command-detonation) or remotely detonated shaped charge devices (off-route mines) such as the Swedish Fordonsmina 14 (a similar Finnish device was posted in another thread).

They have the same general effect as IEDs (probably higher effect in relation to their size), but are not improvised.

IED is a wide definition - it could be homecooked explosives in a jar, or a regular antitank mine with the pressure detonator replaced with a manual detonator operated remotely. Still an IED, but with regular army equipment.

[V]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I am extremely relieved that there will not be suicide bombers, even if it's only because of technical issues.

I know it's part of the modern spectrum of war, I'm just not interested in seeing anyone make game of it at all. Yuck.

Understandable.

But to play devil's advocate, couldn't the same be said about making a game about Nazi's?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

In some armies there are command-detonated devices that are manufactured prior to the war and part of the official doctrine. Claymore-type directional fragmentation devices (with command-detonation) or remotely detonated shaped charge devices (off-route mines) such as the Swedish Fordonsmina 14 (a similar Finnish device was posted in another thread).

They have the same general effect as IEDs (probably higher effect in relation to their size), but are not improvised.

IED is a wide definition - it could be homecooked explosives in a jar, or a regular antitank mine with the pressure detonator replaced with a manual detonator operated remotely. Still an IED, but with regular army equipment.

Interestingly, to me, even though Canada is a signatory to the landmine ban (Ottawa Convention?), we still use the Claymore, as it is command detonated and thus technically does not fit the definition of a "landmine."

[Kurtz]

In Sweden, the anti-personnel claymore changed name from "anti-personell mine" to "defensive charge" after the treaty was signed. It's not supposed to be used as a mine, nowadays you should pull the tripwire yourself (or use the electrical detonator).

We also have a big-ass claymore (24 kg) intended for use against vehicles. Also command detonated, but that one was never intended for use with tripwire.

[JasonC]

First on bombers as opposed to IEDs, all you have to do is have ordinary pioneer style squads with demo charges. Some of the demo charges may need to be a bit more powerful than the typical CM one, but it is the right scale. A fanatic unit might be able to place one better while under fire, but it is nothing outside of CM modeling, really. Any extra effectiveness vs. civilian targets is outside the scope and unimportant to actual force on force tactics. Effectiveness in force on force engagements would be fully modeled by occasional fanaticism and demo charge equipped infantry, in terrain that often limits initial LOS.

IEDs are not like that. They are not something only effective vs. civies or by hiding amid civies. They are a specific adaptation to effective countermeasures against heavy weapons, on the part of leading modern militaries.

A leading modern military is not afraid of a tank because it can spot it from anywhere and kill it soon after it is seen. A leading modern military is not afraid of emplaced artillery because the shells can be tracked in flight and effective counterbattery - by 2000 lb laser guided bomb - put on the shooter. Shoot and scoot with MRLs or mortars may sometimes work, but frequently counterbattery is going to arrive rapidly, making it a raiding tactic rather than a reliable form of fire support.

The diagnosis is, heavy weapons lack the stealth to support infantry dismounts against a modern military with broad dominance of the peaks of capital-intensive, equipment dominated fighting. So, you don't try, you concede that portion of the fighting and find a substitute for large, clusmy, highly visible heavy weapons systems. That substitute is the stealthy emplaced explosive device.

Stealth is the tactical counter to capital and lots of metal. Dismounts get it in the right terrain. Mines and IEDs get it anywhere your men can move over prior to the engagement. Tactics couple to this, eschewing fixed lines for fluid movements, evaporating in front of any concentrated enemy fist. This forces the capital intense army into a divided pursuit and into attempts at area control.

And those in turn let an IED centered strategy function. Because pursuit means going someplace the pursued has decided on, not the pursuer. The pursued knows where his IEDs are, and he leads his pursuers over them. If the capital intense army does not regularly pursue, then the dismounts can ambush and scamper, a few shots and then melt away.

If they do chase to make ambushes expensive, which they certainly can, then they pick routes and destinations partially decided by the evading dismounts. And that makes IEDs effective despite being stationary. The dismounts aren't and they drag their pursuers around. If the pursuers try to adapt with less predictable forms of pursuit than stern chase, the IED side can adapt itself with ring-and-rally-point deployments of IEDs, which mean either the pursuers give up or they cross an IED line at some point.

These are not side shows to the basic tactics of modern combat. They -are- the basic tactics of modern combat. Nobody takes on his enemy's strongest suit straight up, it is ineffective and unnecessary. Moving to urban terrain is a similar adaptation. The less capital intensive side exploits tactical defense, terrain, battlefield knowledge and preparation, stealth, and the other side's need to engage them. If they don't have IEDs in realistic variety and power, then their real tactics simply do not work. It would be like trying to simulate WW I with no artillery on one side.

How to impliment them in CM? A wide variety of fortification screen items, for one. Perhaps an infantry special weapon that is emplacable during the game, for another. That is, an infantry unit can come equipped with limited EDs, and have an order to "emplace explosives". Some varieties would automatically be mine-like in their detonation (move over -> goes off).

Fortification point items would be specified much like artillery support is in CM today. Buy a buried 155mm shells module and get to set 4. Instead of some coming in "radio" form and others in "wire", they'd come as command detonated or timed etc. You should be able to make "fire plans" out of IEDs on turn 1. There should be IED "FOs" that set off command detonated ones. Etc. Treat them as a form of artillery support in other words, but with "aim points" forced on turn 1 and always accurate.

[cassh]

Good post Jason.

I think you've best encapsulated for me why I am looking forward to CMSF so much.

An asymmetric MOUT battle is not a one-sided turkey shoot, as some seem to think it will be. If BFC get the modelling right this will prove one of the most playable and challenging games I've ever come across.

I agree that an IED needs to be a big deal. It should have a very big blast effect. Also it should possibly require LOS from command unit to an ambush marker. The player then turns IED 'on' at the start of a turn with a specified type of initiation; either general initiation, anti-vehicle initiation or anti-AFV initiation. Any unit matching the initiation criteria that enters the ambush marker will cause the IED to detonate.

[Loaf]

I agree that IEDs and suicide bombers would not play much of a role in combat scenarios where the objective is to destroy enemy formations and/or capture ground.

In terms of peacekeeping/anti-insurgent scenarios: Is this the kind of thing that would interest tactical wargamers, let alone be suitable for a turn-based game? My guess is no on both counts.

Mines/IED's WOULD play a role in attacks on prepared positions, as others have pointed out on this thread... This aspect of things would have the added benefit of being transferable to the WWII expansion.

Loaf

[Michael Dorosh]

Is it possible to hide an IED in a box of chocolates; and if so, the corollary to that is, is it possible to slip the package past Australian customs?