Artillery depolyed antitank/antipersonnel mines.

[Peter Cairns]

Is there any knowledge of Iraqi use of these in OIF, and if so how did they use them.

Given that most of us to a degree see the Syrians best tactic as some kind of defensive hedgehog system then the ability to rapidly deploy mines to impeed a US force with manouverability and speed you can't cope with speed you can't match might be a usefull tactic.

Given that we have again a wide belief that the Syrians won't effectively be able to organise or deliver accurate intense artillery against a mobile opponent, it could be that swamping an area with mines from dispersed MLRS. would be more effective,

in that if you can't accurately hit a moving target then mining the area they are moving in might be a better option.

In gme terms given that these are new ( they didn't have them in ww2) and it is not really doctrine to use them "in combat", should they be allowed or will they lead to "Gamey" tactics.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Do the syrians have them?

The only ones I can think of are MLRS - delivered ones. AT2, I think.

[hellfish]

I haven't read anything indicating an Iraqi capability for these weapons nor have I read anything suggesting they were ever used by Iraq.

[Imperial Grunt]

The Iraqis did not use them, and I MEF did not use them. Too much to clean up later. As it was, there were plenty of UXOs laying around from the cluster munitions.

During OIF 1, the only indirect fire incoming that was anywhere close to my company was a large volley of 122mm rockets fired from a truck. The rockets impacted several clicks south of our company position, near, but not effecting the RCT CP.

Very loud though and a road intersection got pockmarked with craters.

But as far a putting down some FASCAM minefields, Syrian artillery would not be able to survive long enough to put the necessary amounts out to be tactically effective.

Not sure if they even have that capability. If I was a Syrian general and the US invaded, I would dig in all of my arty to use in the direct fire mode, in coordination with infantry support. Make the invaders pay.

120mm arty piece in direct lay vrs Stryker...things that make you go "hmmm".

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I haven't read anything indicating an Iraqi capability for these weapons nor have I read anything suggesting they were ever used by Iraq.

Don't know whether they used it operationally, but they did have the possibility (theoretically).

During 80's Iraqis bought very good Yugoslav designed MLRS M-77 and M-87:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/m-77.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/m-77.htm

http://www.pmulcahy.com/mrls/yugoslavian_mrls.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/m-87.htm

Some photos (with text in serbo-croat):

http://naoruzanje.paracin.co.yu/orkan.html

http://naoruzanje.paracin.co.yu/oganj.html

Yugo arms sold to Saddam:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/easterneurope/yug021023.html

Some sources even say M-87 was developed jointly with Iraq (something I never heard about in Yugoslavia).

Note also FASCAM ammo being mentioned for both (M77 and M87). I should know as I served in Yugo army in '87, in logistics (and as such I had at least passing knowledge of all ammo types then in service in Yugo army).

I had longish discussions arguing that Sov forces be given FASCAM capability in certain game I beta tested Before that, I was able to win a game as NATO using practically only FASCAMs (they were that powerful).

Of course strictly speaking this has nothing to with Syrians (my god why did BF choose Syrians for this game?) but I'd give them MLRS minelaying capability just to make things interesting.

Oleg

[oren_m]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Do the syrians have them?

The only ones I can think of are MLRS - delivered ones. AT2, I think.

The Syrian army uses the BM-21 MLRS for spreading mines via rockets, i dont know how effective it would be against fast moving attack, but i know that it would be probobly be used for road blocking and for closing gaps in mine fields.

This system has one very big flaw, when the mines are being realesed out of the fired rocket they are thrown on the ground, and simply layed on it, the rocket fired mines are not digged in the ground but visible and exposed, yet, they will still create a hold up for US forces which will have to wait for engieneers to open a path.

BM-21 Info

Oren_m

[Peter Cairns]

oren_m

Any details on how many AT or AP mines a single rocket carries and the actual CEP and area a 20sec forty round volley would cover.

Peter.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Yugoslav FASCAM ammo had 4 AT mines per rocket. Obviously, as any minefield, this is effective only when defended. Undefended minefield is merely a nuisance.

O.

[Peter Cairns]

Oleg,

One of the ways i thought they could be used is at the early stage of an engagement where they would be deployed, over the lead element when it was engaged, in to the gap between it and the follow on main body of the US force.

In this way it would impeed the main force in pushing up to support the lead elements while making it more difficult for the lead recon element you were engaging to break off.

It's just a theory.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

The then Soviets rightly feared scatterable mines, however delivered, as grave threats to their operational maneuver groups (OMGs) intended to unhinge NATO's defenses in depth and allow the exploiting Shock Armies to follow. Their planning explicitly envisioned the creation of combined air and ground corridors sanitized of the means to rapidly deliver mines against their OMGs.

oren_m's link clearly shows the BM-21 has some very interesting capabilities, not just in the antitank and antipersonnel mines, but the expendable jammers as well. Taken in toto, those babies could easily derail a high speed offensive and turn logistics into a nightmare, especially since combat engineers are normally found up front during a battle, not way back in the rear.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 07, 2006, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[oren_m]

Or, they could illuminate them to death!

[Peter Cairns]

For me the advantage of the likes of the BM-21 is it's ability to deliver a high volume in a very short space of time.

I agree that conventional artillery should be dispersed and used it the direct fire AT role, but shot and scoop with BM-21's firing a 40 round salvo in the general direction of the US using mines to delay or debilitate their manouvering and then getting elsewhere before the counter battery arrives seems to be about the only way they could have any impact.

I am not saying it would chage the outcome, or even be that effective, but it just might be more effective than using them in traditional lines to deliver HE.

Oren,

I doubt if US troops would stop to see all the pretty lights......

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

That was precisely my point. In an offensive, the U.S. combat engineering assets are likely to be close to the point of the advance, for clearing mines, repairing bridges and the like. Thus, a BM-21 (or nastier) rocket delivered AT and AP mine strike, possibly mixed in with HE and WP smoke for shock effect, damaging or destroying vehicles and personnel, blinding, confusion and dust, has, in my view, enormous potential for disrupting the advance, inflicting considerable casualties, and causing wholesale chaos. Expendable jammers, assuming they work, would further stir the pot.

Were I the Syrians, I'd have a well organized target list of presurveyed road junctions, chokepoints, defiles, bridge approaches, etc., with eyeballs on the ground and redundant commo to tell me when to fire. I'd integrate this with a systematic demolition program, thus increasing the leverage of every MRL load I fire. I'd also create lots of dummy MRLs while simultaneously proliferating launchers. The Chinese made 107mm

MRL would literally fit into a donkey cart. How hard would it be to mount an MRL inside even a smallish van or box bodied vehicle? This would become a U.S. targeteer's worst nightmare, for now

instead of a few hundred readily identifiable MRLs, now thousands of vehicles of every sort have to be considered. This means either pouring in more resources, which is expensive in lots of ways, or diluting the offensive firepower by spreading it thin. And we haven't discussed what could be done as far as hiding at least the small ones in structures, either.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sergei]

You might be overestimating the ability of Syrians to organize something like that and pull it out during a shooting war, AND the usefulness of the scatter mines.

It shouldn't take much effort or specialized training to clear paths through an artillery deployed obstacle.

[John Kettler]

Sergei,

You're in convoy, rolling down the road. If you're really unlucky, you're backed up at a knocked out bridge or some such. Out of nowhere some 120 rockets come screaming in, and everything comes unglued. Vehicles are burning and probably exploding, vision's measured in feet, and surviving crews and the like forced to dismount start stepping on minelets or hitting tripwires, adding to the considerable chaos and havoc caused when the HE and WP first landed and detonated. Vehicles which try to go around their damaged/destroyed confreres start hitting AT mines themselves.

It's one thing to encounter a scatterable minefield on a clear day and while not under fire, in which case I agree that proper training and gear would be a huge help in dealing with the problem; it's quite another when the heavens open and the world explodes, during which the mines are inserted, probably with the victims being none the wiser.

As for coordinating this, there are cell phones, cheap walkie talkies, signal mirrors, smoke signals, and the time honored (back to WW II) Russian call for fire with designated flare signals, etc. This list is merely illustrative, not exhaustive.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

As for coordinating this, there are cell phones, cheap walkie talkies, signal mirrors, smoke signals, and the time honored (back to WW II) Russian call for fire with designated flare signals, etc. This list is merely illustrative, not exhaustive.

I know that there are various communications devices. What I mean is that such pretty plans about sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads attacking from the river at the same time as the trained pigeons drop their explosive packets from above to the bridge do have the problem of not always working perfectly.

Especially in a 3rd world country like Syria.

Especially when under an attack by a 1st world country.

What if the battery is overrun before a shot is fired? Oops!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

some rambling about how Syrians might use arty. one possible scenario and perhaps the most obvious one. pretty much like what Iraqis tried to have in 2003.

the biggest problem for Syrians is their rigid command structure. traditionally they use their artillery by massing fires, which means arty will react slowly and won't be able to shift fires effectively. this is not good against a highly mobile opponent. on the other hand Syria 2007 scenario may not offer their opponent great chances for maneuver. Syrians should be able to predict the aims and main routes of advance of their opponents and can thus, to some point, choose where and when they try to stop them. this would make their massed artillery fires a bit more effective than they would be in a scenario that is harder to predict. they would still be fairly ineffective, especially outside tactical level.

i would expect Syrians to have great depth in their defence, and this should apply to their artillery.

small forward elements fighting delaying actions would have only mortars at best. the most significant element consists of small scattered Syrian special forces units with modern infantry equipment. indirect fires don't play a real role.

second layer would consist mostly of small (a battalion level or so) static defenses with the mission to halt enemy advance on their sector for as long as possible. forces would consists mostly of standard dug-in infantry, with handful of tanks for support and perhaps a battery of towed arty with preplanned firing missions. their equipment would be outdated. arty could throw one or two fires before being eliminated. a likely trading ratio would be something like a battery for a squad. if we give Syrians a benefit of doubt, these batteries would have their tubes scattered which would make them last a bit longer, perhaps even a couple of days, even if it would make their fires purely harassing fires. mortars would be throwing fire as long as the position holds. the only meaning of this layer is to offer stubborn resistance to slow down enemy advance.

the third layer would consist of stronger and more mobile forces, perhaps regiment level. they would hold key locations on the way to primary strategic goals. forces would perhaps consists of two infantry battalions, a mechinized battalion and a tank battalion. they would have self-propelled arty as well as towed arty, and possibly some rocket arty. forces would be initially scattered so as to make them harder to detect and thus survive enemy air arm. once the forces receive notice about enemy presence the two infantry battalions take static positions. the mobile part of the force remains as reserves. the plan of the force is to stop the enemy advance. by now enemy has taken some individual casulties and is likely in the mode of "passing enemy pockets of resistance". if enemy stops for rest or they try to advance thru the infantry up front, the reserve force will launch a counterattack supported with all indirect fire assets. self-propelled arty will reposition immediately but towed arty won't be able to fire more than a couple of fire missions before they are taken out. if Syrians are lucky they survive the counterattack and manage to stop the local enemy advance for some days, if they are not lucky they cause some casulties and halt the enemy advance temporarily in the specific location. if terrain is favourable, they will setup a determined defence instead of attacking. half of the force remains as mobile reserves - defence is not totally static. self-propelled arty will survive to fire a number fire missions to help stop enemy advances. with the defence scenario the force will hold enemy advance on this location for a week or more. if one of the second layer positions manages to stop enemy advance, this force may send some limited reinforcements: 3rd layer doesn't seek to destroy enemy forces, it aims to halt and bind enemy forces. 3rd layer would have some light special forces tank hunter teams on connected areas to spice up their AT power.

the fourth layer is the Syrian main line of resistance at the strategical goal. it consists of a couple of "elite" divisions together with some standard troops. positions are well prepared. here the enemy invasion is stopped and enemy operations will grind to halt. there are number of 3rd layer type defences around the main defences, to either fully prevent enemy from totally surrounding the defences or making him pay for accomplishing to establish positions all around the main defences. enemy forces have been already somewhat depleted, fatigued and parts of their forces are still tied up at lower layer locations. there is sufficient levels of self-propelled arty & rocket arty. significant numbers of towed arty is a bonus that is expendable. artillery's role is to bring enemy attempts of breakthrough to grind. it will also make enemy positions around the defences a bit less joyful. above-standard personnel will be able to make some self-propelled arty survive for weeks, even if the defenders will slowly lose capacity to effectively mass fires.

ok, that shall do for now. i don't think the above scenario is too unrealistic and in my opinon it doesn't require Syrians to perform too well. the greatest Syrian weakness is lack of strategical mobile groups. enemy will be able to deal with 1-3rd layer defences as he wishes, e.g. just pass them or concentrate forces to overcome them. on the other hand, even the 1st line of defence could turn out to be a major hindrance for the attacker, since he is trying to avoid casulties. that is going to be hard when facing scattered small special forces units armed with modern ATGMs and SAMs. just passing the 1-3rd layer defences will lead to problems once the invasion is halted at the final main defences. anyway, Syrians should be able to utilize their artillery with even this kind of basic setup. defences might not hold more than some months, but that should be enough to make the invasion fail due to political pressure.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Sergei,

Iraqis did it in 2003. Syrians should perform better than Iraqis.

[Sergei]

Apparently not in a way that would have mattered.

IMO all these hypothesis rely on the antifact that the attacking force would be the same that invaded Finland in 1939.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Sergei,

yeah, it didn't really matter in Iraq.

we all know that Syrians are crap. the thing is it is dead boring to talk about how Syrians are doomed to lose. i am sure we can all visualize the flying T-72 turrets just fine.

EDIT: i wonder how you yourself feel about CMSF setting. if you take it realistically and acknowledge that it's just like shooting ducks, then isn't the whole game just a sell out to make some profit with the WoT and Iraq? i mean, god, it must be one of the least exciting military scenarios possible from military point of view. why on earth not go for Poland (NATO) vs Belarussia (Russia) or sumfink. well, i don't like that mindset and i certainly hope that BFC will allow for some interesting twists to it even if it wouldn't be totally realistic.

[ January 09, 2006, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[Sergei]

Contemporary war is not my greatest favourite, especially with all those latest gadgets that generally fail in giving me a hard on. (And no, I don't mean vacuum pumps...) Nowadays, the officers don't even have a good moustache anymore. Not even the British! Then there's those theater issues and everything that has been discussed before and which I've grown too tired of.

We'll just have to wait and see. At the moment, I have very little clue as to what the game will play like, Operation Syrian Freedom or not.

[Drusus]

If the Syrian special forces are well trained and trained to fight against forces like USA and Israel and if the morale of Syrians fighting is better than Iraqi forces morale then there is going to be really interesting fights. They are likely going to be urban battles where it is entirely possible that whole platoons of US troops might get eliminated. This will never happen if USA knows what they are fighting against. I mean that if the US forces attack against a village and they know there is going to be a well trained unit of size X defending it, they are going to win, and propably quite easily. But if they are fooled or their intelligence fails, then things will look different. And if the Syrians know what they are doing the only way to find out of this kind of suprise is human intelligence or recon by troops, and the latter is players responsibility.

Example scenario: US Stryker company is given a mission to clear a village where there is believed to be only a mob of AK-47 carrying 'soldiers' (or some snipers or no forces at all). But in fact there is a company+ of special forces which are equipped reasonably well and also trained for this kind of mission. Then the battle will be atleast balanced if not in favor for the Syrians. A well planned ambush on tactical level and the fight might be really interesting. The Syrians could try to move their troops as close to the US troops as possible to prevent the use of US air and artillery superiority. And because the Stryker companys mission could very well be a sideshow part of the brigades operation, it might be that reserves are far away and might be tied in already.

On the operational or war level this victory (or atleast a draw) for the Syrian forces would not have any effect. The village would quickly be cleaned with superior forces. But for CMSF this would be an interesting battle. The Syrian forces can win battles given that 1) the US side doesn't know before the battle what they are fighting against and 2) in the battle Syrians manage to ambush or atleast suprise the enemy somehow. The player must take care of number 2 and BFC should take care of number 1.

Maybe I should replace special forces with some forces from elite division, as using SF for this kind of mission doesn't seem likely. But a company from elite forces division can do this type of mission (as part of the divisions defence), if the Syrians are trained for this. To me it seems that the Republician Guard of Iraq was trained to fight in stupid ways against an enemy like USA. That is, they fought like they had the superiority in combat power when the exact opposite was true. I actually know quite little about OIF so this is just the impression I have gotten based on nothing...

[Peter Cairns]

undead reindeer cavalry,

I think your four tear plan is a receipe for disaster.

The start is Okay but as to the rest the cahnces of anything far back and not disperesed let alone trying to manouver even getting a shot off are virtually zero.

All the indications from GW1 and OIF show that the old adage " In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" holds true, US recon, C3I, and airpower may have it's limits and not be perfect but it is so far beyond what syria or any third world force can muster, that it is just no contest.

As one US airforce commander put it, "Airpower is like Poker, a second best hand is no hand at all".

As stated here before avoid your enemies strengths and exploit his weaknesses. You seem to be trying to match him for firepower and manouver at every level even though the higher you go the more obvious the US advantages become. To be honest I can hardly think of a set of syrian tactics that would more delight the US more, with the obvious exception of surrender.

For me as I posted elsewhere the best policy is hedgehog defence of population centres and possibly mountainous terrain, with a low tech striker approach, break up the armoured and artillery regiments and higher and disperse them down to company level.

If we assume 200,000 in the army of which about 125,000 are combat troops with 4,000 tanks 4,000 armed APC's and 1,000 towed artillery and 500 BM-21's, then a 130 man company would get 4 tanks, 4 apcs, an AT gun and maybe a short range MLRS.

Keep these in key towns in cover on expected US routes of attack and try to avoid engaging US units until they are under 1,000m and preferably 500m.

Even though your ATGM's can hit at over 2,000 hold fire to much closer. If you have a couple of BM-21's kep them if you have a big enough area to defend, up to 1,ooom from the front line so that at minimum range of 1,500m you can put rounds on to disembarking strikers or over them to delay follow on or supporting units.

Use things like D-30's as deep as you can in towns with a limited arc so that they engage a targey a 1,000m without exposing themselves to multiple attacks from the attacking force. Trae your SP artillery as assault guns, thing of a 122mm as a STUG, and hope to get some side shots when they enter in force or just use he on the first buildings the US occupy.

In short a prepare for a house to house infantry battle and deploy everything else for the direct support of it, the closer the better. It still won't win the war but it will do more damage and last longer to better effect.

Peter.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Drusus,

i think you are describing insurgency, not conventional war. conventional wars are not fought with platoons or a couple of snipers. if Syria is to offer any opposition to the invasion there needs to be combined arms forces. isolated platoons or companies of infantry would be absolutely wiped off and with great ease. perhaps the snipers or the infantry platoon gets to fire once or twice, perhaps wounding or even killing one or two soldiers, but after that their positions will be destroyed. US unit would just shrug their shoulders wondering what it was about and then just move on.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The start is Okay but as to the rest the cahnces of anything far back and not disperesed let alone trying to manouver even getting a shot off are virtually zero.

all the mechanized forces are dispersed, sorry if i didn't make that totally clear. there are no mechanized units moving besides those units that gather to form a battalion that makes a counterattack. mobile reserves moving in towns to support local defence are quite safe.

All the indications from GW1 and OIF show that the old adage " In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" holds true, US recon, C3I, and airpower may have it's limits and not be perfect but it is so far beyond what syria or any third world force can muster, that it is just no contest.

air arm is effective when you are moving mechanized units in number in distances. this is specifically what is not taking place in my scenario. it is the great weakness of the Syrians in my scenario, and their ability to react to enemy maneuvers is extremely limited. this means that US forces can just pass large numbers of Syrian forces, but it is still better than nothing.

As stated here before avoid your enemies strengths and exploit his weaknesses. You seem to be trying to match him for firepower and manouver at every level even though the higher you go the more obvious the US advantages become. To be honest I can hardly think of a set of syrian tactics that would more delight the US more, with the obvious exception of surrender.

huh. US forces are going to maneuver all they can. Syrian forces don't maneuver at all. all they may do is launch a local counterattack, besides movements within cities and towns.

yes, in my scenario Syrians have combined arms forces but that is the only way to fight a war. if you want go insurgency then be my guest, but that means that US captures Damascus in two weeks. there is no way to win conventional war without firepower. yes, Syrians can't match US firepower, but they don't need to. they don't need to defeat US military, they just need to make the invasion painful enough that a diplomatical solution is found.

For me as I posted elsewhere the best policy is hedgehog defence of population centres and possibly mountainous terrain, with a low tech striker approach, break up the armoured and artillery regiments and higher and disperse them down to company level.

US forces will just pass them and if needed just wipe them out. i totally agree that units need to be broken down, but they need to be united when they are used, otherwise you are just wasting your limited resources by committing them piecemeal and never achieving anything. besides if we are to be skeptical about Syrian capabilities, they should not do large levels of micromanagement. units need to have specific predetermined missions and should be formed with somewhat familiar organization.

there is no point for Syrians to hold mountains or anything like that. they need to hold the key passages and the key strategical objectives. if you don't do that then you are just giving up, letting US capture anything that matters and plan for long guerilla warfare against the coming puppet government. it's game over.

Keep these in key towns in cover on expected US routes of attack

yeah, that's more like it.

Use things like D-30's as deep as you can in towns with a limited arc so that they engage a targey a 1,000m without exposing themselves to multiple attacks from the attacking force. Trae your SP artillery as assault guns, thing of a 122mm as a STUG, and hope to get some side shots when they enter in force or just use he on the first buildings the US occupy.

that's total waste of those guns. keep then back and use in indirect fire - you are going to need all of it you can get. you got thousands of tanks to do what you are using artillery for. they are better at it too. do your best to avoid static defences because it's a absolute deathtrap against opponent like US Army.