Is Syrian Equipment Fixed? Same with C2?

[Apocal]

Also, as far as I know, one can't adjust fire mission as in CMBB (although I can be mistaking), so if you want to move your artillery target a little bit, you will have to wait for 9-12 more minutes (if we're speaking about mortars). In RL, it would be task Nr 3 - adjusting fire mission, on page 35 and it would be done much faster, than in game.

I'm assuming you meant CMSF. You can adjust fire missions, although some (including myself) think it takes just a bit too long in CMSF.

[Bolt]

I mean, in CMBB there was such option to adjust the artillery target when it is firing. usually, it took 1-2 minutes to adjust (and it was green line).

Is there such option in CMSF? If yes, what is the average time for it in the latest version?

[Alek]

Active IR has its utility but its not exactly latest generation technology anymore. It would be pretty much suicide to turn that big spotlight on during a night tank battle.

I know that the old device of night vision primitive, it is much worse than the modern device on Abrams.

I know to include a projector - differently there will be a bad picture of vision But I see that in game the Syrian tanks have even no such devices

There is a choice at the Syrian tank -

1) easy to wait in the dark while the American tank will find the excellent night sight and will kill?

2) or to include the primitive device and to try to kill the American tank

I think that the person without-what or chances to survive in this war will make inclusion of the device

Rat driven into a corner will shoot jumps very highly

By the way devices of night vision at infantry in NATO for example in Afghanistan use an active operating mode, but nevertheless - they are used

[Alek]

Again with baseless arguments! What are you 10 years old?!

You show a picture of a tank that says it has night-vision device and then you complain that T-62 is not as good as today's Abrams. Unlike most of the other forum members here you are very lucky to be able to read Russian. So why don't you use it? Do the actual research where it says what kind of device that is and how far does it let tanker to see. That information is available out there in Russian and I could probably find it in 5 minutes. But I think it would be a very good exercise for you to do. It is called - Research.

Now, about your attachment. What is all that? Bunch of missions, bunch of documents. How is it related to the artillery problems in CMSF? What am I suppose to do with that? Spend 2 days reading through them trying to guess what it is they are supposed to prove? You need to show me exactly the page in a document that specifies how long the artillery request should take.

I told all you guys on the russian forum and I will repeat here - if you don't "grow up" (even if you are teenagers) and become serious with your claims no one is going to take you seriously.

- No one will make T-62 NV same as on Abrams just on the basis of picture that says T-62 has some kind of night vision device.

- No one will change artillery arrival time just by you attaching a bunch of russian documents without specifying what we are supposed to read in there.

1) Im not your son, I did not take your money, and I am much more senior 10, NOT to be pleasant to me you with me so talk

2) We draw a picture when we think that things in game sometimes not correctly. You write, that we have made test scenarios, did not draw children's pictures

3) We give test scenarios. You write that they not clearly or are incorrectly made (Im not a tester for games and I do not know as it is necessary to do test scenarios)

4) We give the open data about the Soviet technics or the doctrine. You write that it incorrectly, it is inexact.

5) we give half-secret data of the Soviet documents. You write that it is insufficiently powerful arguments

we want - game made really, there can be at us an erroneous representation about a parity aching

I do not represent as to carry on dialogue whith you

My opinion: you have made the picture about the Soviet weapon - almost only on the basis of the American sources - military and opened. Now that we tell all besides a representation picture - "insufficiently powerful argument"

Excuse me

[flamingknives]

How do you know that there is no night vision on the T62 tanks in the game?

The boxes seem to be equipment independent of and above and beyond the equipment included on the tank.

So the Abrams crew has Night Vision Goggles in addition to the thermal viewers on the tank and the T62 crew has binoculars, in addition to what is on the tank.

[dima]

Bolt,

The details you posted on arty are exactly what we need! Thank you!

Alek, the above information provided by Bolt is a great example of the level of detail we need. Clear, concise, with hard numbers.

[flamingknives]

The adjust fire command in CM:SF seems a bit like ordering a whole new fire mission, taking about two thirds as long.

[Bolt]

The details you posted on arty are exactly what we need! Thank you!

Alek, the above information provided by Bolt is a great example of the level of detail we need. Clear, concise, with hard numbers.

Actually, it was Alek who gave me those books and all this info.

i'll post more when I'll get to talk with that ex-artillery man

The adjust fire command in CM:SF seems a bit like ordering a whole new fire mission, taking about two thirds as long.

In this case, it's wrong..

[Alek]

How do you know that there is no night vision on the T62 tanks in the game?

The boxes seem to be equipment independent of and above and beyond the equipment included on the tank.

So the Abrams crew has Night Vision Goggles in addition to the thermal viewers on the tank and the T62 crew has binoculars, in addition to what is on the tank.

I think concerning other Syrian units

Example in RealLife

AT-4 Spigot (9K111 Fagot in Russian ) has night sight 1PN65 or 1PN86-1 «MULAT» – ThermoVision(the device of night vision)

AT-14 Kornet-E has night vision - 1PN-79 «Metis-2» – ThermoVision

And сrew AT-4 and AT-14 have night sight in stock in SMSF- as the ATGM ? not own?

I think, as crew of Т-72 will have night sight in stock - as well as the tanks??

I can be wrong?

In reallife have passive night vision for soviet infantry - 1 PN63 "Kvaker", they are very extended in SPECNAZ, whether also I really do not know they are used in the Syrian infantry

But in infantry also very used the field-glass of night application : BI-8, BN-3, Voron-7,-8, night sight NSPU-?NSPU-M ?

Here is TOE recon company Motorifle/tank divsion times Afghanistan war (Russian)

http://ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/orgstruktures/inf&tank_sovet/podr_bodivizii/ORG_ORB/org_MS (T) Div_ORB_rdr_4.htm

Each platoon has 3-6 night devices

Here TOE recon company for usual Motorifle regiment - 1985-90 (Russian)

http://ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/orgstruktures/inf&tank_sovet/podr_polks/rrpolk/org_MS (T) Reg_rr_3.htm

One Platoon 24 (or16) men has approximately 14 devices of night vision (BI-8, NSPU, NSPU-M, BN-1,2)

Syrian army - it is a copy Soviet Army ?

How in game presence of similar devices is considered?

At least in elite Republican Guards?

In my opinion it is not considered in any way!

[flamingknives]

Alek, you mentioned the T62MV, so what night vision equipment do you know that it has and what are the capabilities?

Also, how do you know that these are not modelled in the game? The manual states that the T62 has night vision out to 800m. Most sources credit the 1K13 sights with that sort of performance.

The Syrian Army, as far as I know, is based on the Soviet model but many formations are very much out of date, and large portions are rather poorly trained. Some of the formations (Guards, perhaps, and certainly the airborne units) have night vision.

What you are referring to as ThermoVision is properly called a thermal imager, often shortened to thermals.

[Smaragdadler]

I made a quick look in Editor and it seems the only NV for UNCONs are the optics from AT?

This I found at military photos net (shows Hamas equipment):

I think mercenary rifle groups with 'exellent' equpiment should have it by default and Fighters with some random probability... (maybe one or two in one group)

Edit: And again a request for implemention of night-vision screen modus. But it should really only be available by selecting units who have the equipment.

[rune]

Guys,

First, do NOT compare Russian and Syrian units. Second, i have now read 2 seperate books that state the Syrian artillery has a very hard time in adjusting fire. http://books.google.com/books?id=5jyzSpqg_QMC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=syrian+artillery+reaction+times&source=bl&ots=W1gGU8gTd-&sig=y0vIkNbKgMVOSXiopCtDvSXwfU4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA212,M1

Read from page 212 down. Also note they talk about the night vision on the t-72 and how bad it performed. "...and its sensors and fire control systems proved inadequant for night and poor visibility combat...". make sure you read the entire passage. The secondary source is Arabs at war, and if i remember correctly, read from page 512 on. The isreali comment that the Syrian Artillery could NOT adjust to the changing tactical situation is an interesting read.

Now, you can go on gut feeling, or you can go with Noted Middle East military expert Anthony H. Cordesman, and the author of Arabs at War.

Rune

[rune]

Oh forgot this one...

Israeli and Syrian artillery systems are broken down by caliber in Figure 11. In theory, the weapons in Syrian hands should have a range advantage over those in Israeli forces. In practice, Syria has badly lagged behind Israel in long range targeting capability, the ability to shift and rapidly retarget fires, other artillery battlement systems, the use of counterbattery and other radars, the use...

The entire document, a military study, can be found here:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/081125_arab-israeli-syrian_conv_mil_bal.pdf

Note, for fairness, it is the same author as the first book I mentioned.

Rune

[Thomm]

In all honesty, I'd rather have a capable Red opponent than a perfectly(?) realistic pseudo-Syrian one.

After all, it is (1) a hypothetical conflict, and (2) a game, to which a faster Red arty response would add more fun perhaps.

Just my opinion, of course. I see why you would leave it the way it is.

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

The Red side is pretty capable as it is. What you need to do is be careful picking who to fight against. Syria versus the current Iraqi army for instance. Syria versus Lebanon. Even Syria vs Turkey! Let's say we give Syria more effective artillery. To counter U.S. simply starts flying EA-6B Prowlers overhead jamming all radio traffic.The Pentagon spends more annually for warfighting than all other countries on earth combined. What other country is capable of standing up to that toe-to-toe in a conventional fight?

The only way to concoct a truely balanced wargame is to either artificially inflate the opponent's capabilities or abandon the U.S.-centric premise entirely. Would Argentina versus Peru make for a balanced wargame? Would anybody purchase the title?

[Other Means]

In all honesty, I'd rather have a capable Red opponent than a perfectly(?) realistic pseudo-Syrian one.

After all, it is (1) a hypothetical conflict, and (2) a game, to which a faster Red arty response would add more fun perhaps.

Just my opinion, of course. I see why you would leave it the way it is.

Best regards,

Thomm

Me too. Given that a lot of the time delays etc are informed supposition I think to err on the side of better capability would be more useful (for RL - if you want to fight, fight the best) and more fun.

[Battlefront.com]

As we've said many times over and over again... the Syrians are not the Russian Army. Therefore it is absolutely pointless to say "this is what the Russians Army does, this is what they have" because it is irrelevant. Or at least it is not automatically relevant. Something like the T-90SA (which the Syrians in real life don't even have, BTW) should be exactly like the T-90s that Algeria has, since that is what we modeled them after.

As anybody with experience with Soviet/Russian equipment should know, the Soviets/Russians keep the best things for themselves and sell lesser versions to everybody else. Even poorer versions are generally made available if the customer can't afford the better version. The Syrians are quite poor, though recently the Iranians and Russians worked a deal to forgive previous debt. Most of their equipment is extremely outdated, with only a little of this changing over the next few years.

Steve

[Alek]

Now, you can go on gut feeling, or you can go with Noted Middle East military expert Anthony H. Cordesman, and the author of Arabs at War.

Rune

I thank it really very interestingly The matter is that «reaction time slowly»

slowly-5 minutes?

slowly-10 minutes?

slowly - 1 hour ?

is not told anything?

We never consider - that Syria the best card in a card-pack

In my opinion is lacks Syria Land Force is

1)

Bad operative management (Bde and above) even to the Soviet standards.

Became worse - when the Soviet instructors left Syria in 1990yy.

In real war it was a consequence when highly operated American BCT went in territory and step by step broke badly operated Syrian regiments and brigades. In each allocated battle BCT was stronger then each separate Syrian brigade.

But level SMSF – «battalion-level» max!

The designer of the scenario does features of battle. There is no possibility to affect on global battle (as CM: campaign for example). SMSF-level does not consider Bde, Div and above. Battalions management -level which Syrian can be incompetent, but player should present it and PLAYER is a commander of a battalion

2)

Very bad technical condition. Not to have it is more than deliveries of spare parts - Syria loses every year fighting means because of breakages. Syria assorts a part of fighting means to repair other fighting means ( «technical cannibals»).

How it is realized in SMSF?

If the portable radio set is broken it does not mean that the signal bad - a signal is not present.

If a gun it is broken does not mean that shooting bad - a gun in the battlefield is not present.

If the tank is broken - does not mean that it will be bad to battle, the tank remains in barracks or on road.

But for example old portable radio set R-159 SERVICEABLE it as can do a signal as well as modern «Motorola» or «Kenwood»

3)

The organization and condition Air Defense and Aviations very bad. Syria has no planes in game, modeling they are destroyed by excellent strongest USAF. This is correctly and logically. In real life probably major work would be done by aircraft and cruise missiles, instead of Abrams.

Is the SMSF as a bomber simulator, instead of tactical game?

4)

USA the army has many bonuses in recon and investigation - system of space satellites, pilot less flying machines. There is no such devices in Syrian army. USA Army has excellent systems radio-recon, electronic warfare. They can break operational system managements. Syrians operational managements bad - see my p.1

As in SMSF modulated the space satellites, investigation system - tactical and operated simulated work?

How in SMSF the blue commander can do EW operations?

5)

To be the most bad place is the bad field training.

It is aggravated with conscript military system

Half from an active division should be filled up by the reservist before war. Reservists have forgotten training and they underestimate level active divisions. Even if reservists will have time to learn - that they make only in active divisions, are not present in full-reservist brigades.

The Green - really indicator for army.

The conscript - it is real indicator for a reserve forces.

Regular - for Guards, who has only few reservists

SF have trainings, good newest arms and have the veteran.

However it is possible quickly to learn monkey to shoot - there is a desire to make it.

The field training of a platoon, a company even a battalion - is quite simple. If you really whant to do this.

Certainly anybody told a result "Why Syria Green Conscript not such good soldier as the American veteran?"

Experience of Syrian units is set by the designer of the scenario. When ATGM AT-3C have veteran-level in the scenario - it is impossible to explain badly shooting as bad training Syria crew. Veteran Level - it is good training and good skill

6)

Very bad - that Syria has bad command level (a brigade and above) and high-tech warfare.

Military skill is clearly visible at this level. Preparation of good school of pilots is very long time. Preparation EW forces is too long.

Many years of staff employment are necessary for readiness of the good commander of a brigade.

There is no artillery and infantry joining, only a template artillery prep-fire, bad maneuver, bad action together different kinds of force is depends from a bad operational management too much, but it is not a lot of tactical training.

All operative lacks have much worse a consequence (War 1973, War 1982) than tactical misses. For example

"Long reaction arty time"

The fact does not follow that FO cannot cause fire of the battery

In fact - the staff a brigade (division) follows the decision cannot quickly make apply artillery Is artillery a staff cannot to make quickly the organization massive arty barrage or to send FO to a proper place.

In concept SMSF (30-60 min for one battle) more times take request of reinforcements behind a card - artillery, tanks, and aircraft.

I say about reinforcements - which was not present on a card initially. The call command FO of already available batteries - designates that batteries are already directed to a place of a card and does not take a lot of time, as in SMSF

Excuse me!

But it seems to me that much the higher lacks is are lowered on the bottom tactical level.

You have good sources US Army- the open and inside data.

Blue are made very well in all details. On red you has no Syrian commander at itself in sources.

You use analysis USA and Israel in own work basically. It is good stuff, but it is actually written by the enemy or from an opposite side.

Equally things to think about the Soviet army only under messages of German generals at once and after WW2. You had then almost always "the Mongolian hordes" and "human waves".

We have at ower forum - some officers of the Russian army, much of us was in the Soviet (Russian) army . We have a lot of the Russian information - opened and semi-confidential. The Russian army is more close to Syria than IDF. It is a lot of doctrine and receptions used equally. The greatest part of secrets of the Soviet army did not give Syria (aircraft, AD-system, EW) - it not used in that place where works SMSF.

Comparison

Field-glass gives good representation on a long distance than simple eyes. There is no additive for the field-glass on distance in 20-50 meters. Only stupid men thinks that field-glass sees than eyes on a distance in 20-50 meters is better

But in SMSF is valid so - for tanks in a frequent case.

Good optics Abrams gives additives on long distance . In SMSF Abrams the sensor control such that Abrams became the telepathist on short distances (I have no patch 1-11)

[Combatintman]

Simple ... when was the T-62 first deployed?

When was the Abrams first deployed?

You can retrofit as much as you like - bottom line ... you are doing National Service - you will serve in the armoured corps - you are offered a choice T-62 or Abrams?

[Apocal]

Alek, most of what you speak of can and should be handled by the scenario designer. The intel advantage can be simulated by early intel. Poor maintenance can be simulated by cutting units, especially vehicles, out of the TOE. Bad operative management is trickery, but could be simulated by splitting the unit and having portions come to battle as reinforcements. ****ty training is obvious and simple to implement.

The M1 uberspotting is not a factor any longer. My tanks generally take three or four RPGs before they spot the firing team. ATGMs are a bit easier, being insanely huge in a majority of cases.

And Syrians suck at using the AT-3C because the AT-3C itself sucks.

[Kwazydog]

(I have no patch 1-11)

Alek, a lot of changes have been made 1.11 and as such all previous observations are reasonably invalid. Once you have 1.11 I suggest you try some new tests to see what results you get.

Dan

[Sgt Joch]

re-reading "Arabs at war", all Arab armies have problems with artillery. They are fine with pre-planned barrages and firing on pre-registered targets, but have problems with rapidly shifting targets. This applies to the Egyptians in 73, the Syrians in 82 and the Iraqis in 91.

This is the comment on the performance of Syrian artillery in 82, when the Syrian army put in its best performance against the Israelis:

"Syrian artillery support was very poor and had little effect on the fighting. Their batteries showed almost no ability to shift fire in response to changing tactical situations or to coordinate fire from geographically dispersed units." (pp.543-544)

In GW1, there is also an interesting example in the stand of the Nebuchadnezzar Infantry division. This was a Republican guard unit which was attacked by the US 24th mechanized division. Its artillery had pre-registered targets and placed 55 gallon drums as target reference points. At first, the US forces came under the barrage, but quickly realized the fire was registered on the drums and stayed away from them. The Iraqi artillery was unable to respond and just kept shelling the drums for the rest of the day. (p. 255)

Based on those examples, the present modeling of Syrian artillery in the game, in terms of accuracy and response time, is very reasonable. One thing we should consider, however, would be allowing the placement of pre-registered Target Reference Point, as in CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

Alek,

As others have stated, almost everything you asked about can already be done in CM:SF right now. Overall leadership, however, is always tricky. The AI probably isn't a bad approximation of a Syrian battlefield commander, but a decent Human player will be far superior simply because this is a game where one person has too much control/information. This is not as noticeable problem for the Blue forces because the control by one player in the game is closer to reality than it is for the Red forces.

But it seems to me that much the higher lacks is are lowered on the bottom tactical level.

You have good sources US Army- the open and inside data.

Blue are made very well in all details. On red you has no Syrian commander at itself in sources.

You use analysis USA and Israel in own work basically. It is good stuff, but it is actually written by the enemy or from an opposite side.

And most of the stuff written in Russian is written by the "losers", which is of course going to try and minimize damage to its reputation.

What must be remembered is that there are a number of wars with this equipment to use for comparison. The forces equipped with Soviet/Russian equipment lost HORRIBLY against all forces using Western equipment. Heck, the IDF even used slightly upgraded WW2 US tanks better than the Egyptians used nearly brand new Soviet stuff.

So it is not all theory, it is not just listening to what Westerns think would happen. There is actual empirical evidence to use. For example, how many tanks did Saddam lose compared to the Allies/Coalition in both wars? We should be discussing why so many Iraqi tanks were killed without doing anything useful rather than trying to explain how this never could have happened. Because it did

Equally things to think about the Soviet army only under messages of German generals at once and after WW2. You had then almost always "the Mongolian hordes" and "human waves".

The Eastern Front is my primary area of study. The books I have read that I prize the most are the ones written with help from Russian historians and veterans. The overall picture does not change (the Red Army lost millions of soldiers to doctrine that did not care about individual life), however at the tactical level the story becomes a lot more interesting. Yes, it is fact that the Red Army often used "human wave" tactics, but later in the war there was much less of it and far more coordination of arms. Even during very costly offensives (like the inexcusably bloody taking of Berlin) small unit capabilities were often as good, if not better, than the Germans they faced.

So is it correct to say that the Red Army won only because it had more bodies and tanks to lose than the Germans? No, that would be very incorrect. But it would be inequality incorrect to denny that one reason for the massive Soviet losses has to do with doctrine that put retaining lives way down on the list of priorities.

Steve

[Alek]

The M1 uberspotting is not a factor any longer. My tanks generally take three or four RPGs before they spot the firing team. ATGMs are a bit easier, being insanely huge in a majority of cases.

And Syrians suck at using the AT-3C because the AT-3C itself sucks.

Very well I will wait Paradox patch 1-11

You can have some errors?

AT-3B (Russian - 9M14M Malutka-M, 1st generation MCLOS Guidance system) AT-3B really ancient system and difficult in training

and

AT-3C (Russian - 9M14P Malutka-P, 2nd generation SACLOS Guidance system) is a system 2nd generation and is more easy in training

Also it is not Javelin or not AT-14 Kornet-E, but its accuracy of shooting is expected above (on level of a step forward from 1st to 2nd generation)

I had in view of AT-3C

[Apocal]

Very well I will wait Paradox patch 1-11

You can have some errors?

AT-3B (Russian - 9M14M Malutka-M, 1st generation MCLOS Guidance system) AT-3B really ancient system and difficult in training

and

AT-3C (Russian - 9M14P Malutka-P, 2nd generation SACLOS Guidance system) is a system 2nd generation and is more easy in training

Also it is not Javelin or not AT-14 Kornet-E, but its accuracy of shooting is expected above (on level of a step forward from 1st to 2nd generation)

I had in view of AT-3C

Any numbers on how the upgrade improves in terms of practical accuracy? Most sources I've read (which are all Western) dismiss even the upgrade versions of the AT-3 as being obsolete and not terribly effective even in their prime.