Is Syrian Equipment Fixed? Same with C2?

[Alek]

Alek,

….

As others have stated, almost everything you asked about can already be done in CM:SF right now.

…

I will look so quickly - as there is an accessible patch 1.11 standard the version ))

…

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.

…

Yes, I know that much Soviet instructors their memoirs were silly also be filled by bragging

Can means - that it is not necessary to read them?

All memoirs Germany are filled by the same. For example, I read Manshtein and could not understand - why he has lost war - after wons at each battle.

….

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.

….

[

Yes, I can compare

For example Vietnam –

When peasants used AK-47, Soviet communication systems and supports, a bit Soviet SA-2 and aircraft. They could battle so long - that could win. Vietnam had much less technics than comparison Egypt. The enemy for Vietnam – France Army (include Ligoniers), USArmy, US Marins and USAF - was much stronger than IDF.

My opinion it once again can show - that the main thing is tactical and command skill, instead of only a technological level.

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

Yes, it is necessary to look still

1) Quantity of the total superiority of NATO in GW1 (Where was 3 to 1 aircraft, 2 to 1 armors, aircraft carriers, rockets, money and resources do not give in to recalculation),

2) Quantity of the air and technical superiority of NATO in GW2 (When Iraq has been exhausted 12 years by economic blockade)

And fairly think for itself

That could to make for example Israel as well?

If before war 1973 - had 12 years of blockade and hunger which have brought down the technical equipment and have exhausted hunger of people (and soldiers including to).

Of course IDF better than Iraq army in usual comparisons - I do not doubt else.

….

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.

….

Absolutely not correctly to do Red army incapable of adequate struggle and acceptance of good doctrines and tactical receptions only because it lost millions soldiers.

1)

Say « care about individual life» can made in America - to sit at ocean in 1941, but not in Soviet Union.

In 1941 Vermaht was the strongest army in the world.

Germany knocked out in defeat on continent - Poland, France, England.

Objectively - anybody before Red Army could not beat off an attack of Vermaht on own country. Probably you do not imagine to youself - what there was a severe Nazi occupation was here!

For example every THIRD person was lost and has died in occupation for three years in my Belarus. Every minute from nazists dies thousand peace citizens - in concentration camps, from murders and hunger. The Soviet infantry either went to attack or clung to houses in Stalingrad – and rescuing millions people in the own back.

When USA has prepared the strong power, trained divisions and massive aircraft, our Red Army battled to the strongest opponent in heart of the country. Some divisions of Rommel were in Africa. About 50-60 Vermaht divisions was in France, and more than 200-220 Vermaht (and also Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish) divisions were in Russia.

2)

Leave emotions….

I can say - that the Red Army was very young army. The country was recently country - still in 1928. It is not enough developments at science and the industries (it means armies) was before 1930yy.

It is a lot of in the industry, development and a science it has been made in 1930-1941.

But there were only 12 years after destruction from Civil war.

The weapon which was in WW-2 was numerous, but is frequent very simple - the Weapon was done by engineers whom back 5-10 years were peasants, soldiers used - which there were peasants yesterday.

Armies of Europe (as well America and Japan) could think about development of the doctrine and tactics on the basis of experience WW-1, but the Red army took children's steps after Civil war at this time.

When Vermaht has shatteringly struck - there was no experience of technical war.

Hundreds new divisions have been made for completion of losses. Rifl divisions have been made in many numeric - because physical readiness to make a firle (a machine gun, a mortar) and go on a infantryman to fight faster than physical readiness to make the tank or the plane and to learn tank-crew (or a pilot).

But there was no hundred competent commanders of divisions and thousand commanders of regiments for them and there was no time to learn divisions and brigades many months and years.

I read Hastings M. «Overlord. D-Day and the Battle for Normandy» - and read there many ugly moments in USA 79th, 83rd, and 90th divisions. I read as the American infantry could not pass bocage, there were hard battles for 100-300 meters per day.

Present now:

There is could train 79th, 83rd, and 90th divisions at 2 years (Jun-Aug1942-Jule 1944)- only 2-4 months (as typical soviet rifle division at 1941-42).

There was no ship-artillery as in Normandy

There was no thousand planes in the sky (thousand Germany planes were more true).

The 79th division could make fight better?

And on how many days remained fighting capable elite "Big Red One" in such situation?

Im leave off topic:

But I do not consider mush bloody a siege of Berlin in 1945

I can find contemporary records of the general losses on many battles in 1941-1945. Also there is a good book (Russian) A.Isaev. «Battle for Berlin-1945» (2006) with the indication of number is a lot of a division and a brigade, losses of people and tanks every day. The siege of Berlin will be bloody for comparison with US forces had few enemies before itself. The siege of Berlin does not look bloody for comparison any fights on East Front.

[dan/california]

The Vietnamese had

1) Generally favorable terrain for their tactics, strategy ,and doctrine. Including Strategic depth.

2) Were very well led at all levels

3) Were willing to absorb truly massive battlefield losses and stay in the fight.

4) Had a blank check for Soviet logistics.

5) And had the good fortune to be fighting before every tank and plane in the U.S. inventory could shot the wings off of a fly in the dark at 5 kilometers. In some cases by remote control from CONUS.

6) The war occurred before the all volunteer, all professional model was adopted by the U.S..

None of these applied to Saddam, and none of them would apply to Syria either.

[Alek]

Very good result for the review of distinctions

1) 3) 4) - strategic and operative level, this not modeleted in SMSF

2) - operative level or business for the player on fight

5) - distinction Vietnam and the USA in 60yy - only the infantry weapon and is a little technics against technics and aircraft (+ the ships)

Distinction Syria and the USA today - the old technics against modern warfare and the exact weapon

The proportion of huge distinctions is equivalent to

Really - SMSF it is tactical game for small-level fight, instead of a bomber aircraft simulator In SMSF I did not meet a card even a distance of 2000 metres (or may be 1 or 2 - whith some this distance), not doubt about 5000.

6) Level of all army - not modeleted in SMSF. Level soldiers of each scenario - set up by the designer can be put the veteran Syria and green USA - prevents to do nothing

Really we did not do a question here - "why the conscript Syria is not equal the veteran of marines"

It is not necessary to think about му the ardent apologist of old tanks

I DONT think that Syria army is better than Israel or old T-62 it is better than modern

For example - I read another topik "spotting changes in 1.11 " to

Veteran Abrams and sodiers do not see some rebels for 50 metres on rooftop. And I too consider it not so realistic.

Simply I represent a little on another - work pluses and work minuses - at operative level, in the field level, on the weapon level, on different distance, at the day or at night

As write about the weapon and tanks in CMBB - "overmodeled" and "undermodeled"??

And all have in view of technical model of parametres.

But write nothing about green or veterans?

For example:

Who speaks in CMBB - that the Soviet infantry cannot be a crack in single battle?

All understand that game is a game

For example:

In CMBB Germany very hard in 1941 - against КВ-1 and Т-34. But it is real 1941 is a big defeat of Red Army. Really good tank KV-1 couldnt make victory when strategic and operative miss is made more. However, CMBB tank KV-1 in 1941 - it the good tank, not cardboard.

But when it is told here, about Abmras or USMC, - the "western" guis give me the good book - to read about all Arabian wars. Thus to me explain - why Syria cannot be the good soldier, Dont because in the scenario Syria has good level.

PS About wings of a fly in the dark 5 km - can be strongly exaggerated, the fly not as the Dragon can? Why all flies are not killed in Iraq for 5 years?

[Apocal]

PS About wings of a fly in the dark 5 km - can be strongly exaggerated, the fly not as the Dragon can? Why all flies are not killed in Iraq for 5 years?

It's a deliberate exaggeration.

[dan/california]

It was a deliberate exaggeration and meant to be a little silly. I perhaps should not have made that kind exaggeration when many of the participants in the discussion are taking the time to participate in their second language. Such things are among the hardest to translate.

That said, does anyone think that there is a truly high priority target in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza for that matter, that would not be a smoking crater a half hour after the coordinates hit the com-net.

The ability to identify targets in a counter insurgency situation is another discussion completely. I will point out that the Russian solution to this problem is inelegant but effective. It is also somewhat messy.

The best example of the difference between Vietnam and now is the ability to drop bridges. Even for most of the Vietnam war it was almost impossible to do reliably. Now it is one sortie for two planes and considered absolutely routine.

[MikeyD]

You reminded me that pretty much the only thing Israel could do competently in its 2006 war was drop Lebanese bridges. They blew up most-every bridge south of Beirut, I believe. After they eventually ran out of targets with GPS coordinates to blow up they were pretty much clueless what to do next. They finally resorted to blanketing the southern border area with unexploded cluster munitions then withdrew.

[dan/california]

The Israelis blew it in 2006, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. That said, they inflicted enough pain that Hezbollah has been notable by its absence in the current round with Hamas.

And the current Israeli mess is only sort of related to this thread.

Although the difficulty of spotting insurgents before they shoot at you is certainly part of it all. The Israelis have been very restrained about recon fire considering their operational goals. Whether those goals are valid is a COMPLETELY different discussion. One that starts in 1948 and appears endless, unfortunately.

[Battlefront.com]

Alek,

Unfortunately, I am still seeing confused arguments from you. If something is wrong in CM:SF we need to see specifics and the evidence to support it. All the rest of this is irrelevant.

As for the Eastern Front... it's a fascinating and very complex theater. The Germans lost the entire war on because of the Eastern Front, no doubt about it. The Soviets did what they had to do to win, and they did win. That is really all that mattered to the Soviet leadership at the time, therefore everything else was a secondary concern.

In CMBB Germany very hard in 1941 - against КВ-1 and Т-34. But it is real 1941 is a big defeat of Red Army. Really good tank KV-1 couldnt make victory when strategic and operative miss is made more. However, CMBB tank KV-1 in 1941 - it the good tank, not cardboard.

I think this is an excellent example. The KV-1 in CMBB is a good tank compared to the German ones at the same time. But it had many negative points too, which we simulated in CMBB. The Germans learned how to counter the KV-1 and T-34s by exploiting their weaknesses. Still, the tanks were good enough that it cost the Germans very dearly. If a German player in CMBB tried to tackle KV-1s like they were BT-5s... well, I doubt there would be a good outcome for the German player

But when it is told here, about Abmras or USMC, - the "western" guis give me the good book - to read about all Arabian wars. Thus to me explain - why Syria cannot be the good soldier, Dont because in the scenario Syria has good level.

In the game? Experience is independent of the forces. You can make the Syrians Crack and the Marines Green (I think we don't allow Conscript since there is no such thing in the US military). This does have a HUGE impact on how the game plays.

In real life? Well, a book like "Arabs at War" explains a lot about why the Arabs generally suck at conventional warfare. There are cultural, political, and monetary reasons why they are so poor in comparison to Western Forces. It would take solving all of these problems to get significant improvements, which is why after decades of getting beat by tiny Israel and/or big US they are just as likely to lose the next conventional war as the last one.

Steve

[dima]

Alek, what makes you think Syrians will fight better than Georgians did in August of 2008? After all, Georgians were also protecting their land! And they were trained by US consultants for the last couple of years. And (wait for it!) georgian T-72 SIM-1 is actually a better equipped tank than any russian tank that went into Georgia. But as soon as russians crossed the border - georgian tankers simply climbed out of their tanks and fled. They Didn't even destroy their tanks, I am sure you are aware of all those trophies russians got.

What makes you think syrians, when facing US Army (and let's be honest, I'd worry even more about facing US Army than Russians) would not do the same?

[Alek]

Alek, what makes you think Syrians will fight better than Georgians did in August of 2008? After all, Georgians were also protecting their land! And they were trained by US consultants for the last couple of years. And (wait for it!) georgian T-72 SIM-1 is actually a better equipped tank than any russian tank that went into Georgia. But as soon as russians crossed the border - georgian tankers simply climbed out of their tanks and fled. They Didn't even destroy their tanks, I am sure you are aware of all those trophies russians got.

What makes you think syrians, when facing US Army (and let's be honest, I'd worry even more about facing US Army than Russians) would not do the same?

Georgia did not protect the own land - has attacked Ossetia

The fact Ossetins lived separately from 1991 - operates the Political and demographic parties we will not discuss, I think

1) Georgians were proffesional army! To me have told here - that it very well, much better the consript army

However I wrote - not very well - professional army or conscript. The important thing a field level and a command level .

2) Georgians had:

- very good small arms - the western part (include M-4 Rifle, NEGEV MG, BArret sniper rifle)

- very good modernisation T-72-SIM-1 - by western science and indastrial

- very good signal systems - the western part

- very good system support artillery, and AD system (s modern warfare - BUK AD System and Spider AD System it was not used at war earlier)

Come on any Georgian military site - you will see gallant army, it looks not worse the American. Courageous faces, the good uniform, beautiful equipment.

Russian army had old Ak-74, old D-30 2S3, old system support artillery and old signal systems, old T-72 and T-62, the aircraft was very weak

there was no total superiority anywhere - there is equality a maximum

Tthe Result?

Really much defeats at the Georgian - instead of at Russian.

I have told here - important not the technical weapon. Command and a field skill is important. Really Ossetia war has not shown right part of this?

Ok,r eally Syria is bad - operative level bad.

But level SMSF will not be here operative.

Syria tactical level bad - but the player can do tactics here itself.

SMSF is a tactical range, for example Hearts of Iron-2 - an operative range.

What I offer?

will speak about tactical and command details of a small range basically here, and at forum HOI2 - to discuss operative level and disscuss at history of the Arabs wars.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

My question to Battlefront is simple: what will follow after British Module? Will we seen any RED Forces? Russian maybe?

I agree with Alek, the Will to fight for your motherland is stronger than any money!

We will see how compact US Forces are when domestic economy will start to collapse...

By the way in Czechoslovakian army every BMP-1 and BMP-2 has one RPG-7 together with some grenades as standard equipment. How was it in Red army? Now we have in every syrian BMP some ammo for small arms and also for RPG, but not RPG itself. Can be changed? Looking for some documents to proove it, because you need it as i see on this thread.

[dima]

Georgia did not protect the own land - has attacked Ossetia

The fact Ossetins lived separately from 1991 - operates the Political and demographic parties we will not discuss, I think

1) Georgians were proffesional army! To me have told here - that it very well, much better the consript army

However I wrote - not very well - professional army or conscript. The important thing a field level and a command level .

2) Georgians had:

- very good small arms - the western part (include M-4 Rifle, NEGEV MG, BArret sniper rifle)

- very good modernisation T-72-SIM-1 - by western science and indastrial

- very good signal systems - the western part

- very good system support artillery, and AD system (s modern warfare - BUK AD System and Spider AD System it was not used at war earlier)

Come on any Georgian military site - you will see gallant army, it looks not worse the American. Courageous faces, the good uniform, beautiful equipment.

Russian army had old Ak-74, old D-30 2S3, old system support artillery and old signal systems, old T-72 and T-62, the aircraft was very weak

there was no total superiority anywhere - there is equality a maximum

Tthe Result?

Really much defeats at the Georgian - instead of at Russian.

I have told here - important not the technical weapon. Command and a field skill is important. Really Ossetia war has not shown right part of this?

Ok,r eally Syria is bad - operative level bad.

But level SMSF will not be here operative.

Syria tactical level bad - but the player can do tactics here itself.

SMSF is a tactical range, for example Hearts of Iron-2 - an operative range.

What I offer?

will speak about tactical and command details of a small range basically here, and at forum HOI2 - to discuss operative level and disscuss at history of the Arabs wars.

Alek, dude, you wrote this great essay but you still did not answer my question. What makes you think Syria will fight any better then Georgia did after Russian troops went across the border and went all the way to Poti? Or do you think Georgian tankers were really eager to fight but their high command ordered - "exit your tanks, leave them intact for the enemy to steal and run for your life!"

[Sequoia]

My question to Battlefront is simple: what will follow after British Module? Will we seen any RED Forces? Russian maybe?

They've all but officially annouced in the next module we'll see Gemans along with probably Canadians and maybe Dutch all in one "NATO" module. For Russians you'll have to wait for

the next Modern full game set in a temperate climate where everybody goes to war "just because". This was also all but officially announced, but you'll have to wait until after at least the first WWII game.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

to dima: Georgians were forced to do something against their own will - just my opinion

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

to Sequoia: that explains a lot... its far easier to produce new good looking pixel soldiers to play with them, because they are better to sell... so its all about the money like always...

[Combatintman]

All a bit emotional I think gentlemen,

[dima]

to dima: Georgians were forced to do something against their own will - just my opinion

What sane leader would order his troops to abandon tanks and leave them in a perfectly good working order? How long does it take to set the tank of fire?

[SgtMuhammed]

I think this thread has served any useful purpose it may have had.

[Combatintman]

I'd still like an answer to my ORBAT question which shouldn't involve any histrionics - bottom line there are Syrian units that do not have enough vehicle space to fit the dismounts - any chance of a fix?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

My question to Battlefront is simple: what will follow after British Module? Will we seen any RED Forces? Russian maybe?

No. BFC has said several times that there will be no major new Red forces (maybe a couple of vehicles, but nothing more) until CM:SF 2, which will be set in Eastern Europe and include Russians.

[thelmia]

Syrian tanks being blind as bats is annoying. Today I blew up an APC by area firing HE at it since I couldn't see it 100m away. Ridiculous.

[MikeyD]

I recall an old old TV program (almost 30 years ago now?). None other than a young Steve Zaloga was reporting on Russian tanks (a T62 I believe) for PBS. After shoe-horning himself down the very tight commander's hatch he complained about the very bad situational awareness the commander of a buttoned-up Russian tank has. Not being able to reliably spot an APC from 100m when buttoned is not impossible to imagine.

[stikkypixie]

Syrian tanks being blind as bats is annoying. Today I blew up an APC by area firing HE at it since I couldn't see it 100m away. Ridiculous.

I treat old Syrian tanks (especially those without upgraded optics) like I would treat any WW2 tanks. So unbuttoned when possible, works much better.

[Secondbrooks]

Syrian tanks being blind as bats is annoying. Today I blew up an APC by area firing HE at it since I couldn't see it 100m away. Ridiculous.

Dear Diary: Today My M1A2 took three or four hits from T-54 distance being about 50 meters, and T-54 was in front of Abrams. Barrel of M1 wasn't pointing directly at T-54 but bit right to it. Ofcourse that didn't mean anything as M1 took T-54 out immediatly it understood where those hits are comming from.

[MikeyD]

I treat old Syrian tanks (especially those without upgraded optics) like I would treat any WW2 tanks. So unbuttoned when possible, works much better

You know, that is my one complaint. In CMBB they beat you over the head with the difference between buttoned and unbuttoned. in CMSF I've always found the difference to be too subtle for me. When I unbutton my T55 I want the horizon to light up with targets that I had not been ble to spot previously! :eek: