Is Syrian Equipment Fixed? Same with C2?

[Combatintman]

Sigh ... and the ORBAT question?

[PSY]

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

Any recommendation on unbuttoning on US tanks? I unbuttoned my Abrams in the first scenario of the main campaign and when I checked back latter, 2 of my tank commanders were down. I think the nearest enemy was almost 1km out, so it wasn't like I had closed on enemy infantry with them or anything.

[MarkEzra]

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?

Please point me in the right direction. Which units have more troops than seats?

[Combatintman]

Now you mention TO&E - a couple of things bug me now that I've been picking through it in detail.

1. If you pick a Guards Mech Inf Bn with BMP-2 - not all of the members of the 4th Platoon (MG) of the Mech Inf Coy fit in the vehicles allocated to it.

2. I can't figure the logic of some of the unit picks. The default Coy-level mortar is the 120mm M-1943 but in certain formations (Regular Infantry if memory serves) if you go for the lower level equipment quality ratings the Bn Mortar Platoon ends up with M-1937 82mm mortars. That surely can't be right. Personally I'd go for 82mm as the default Coy-level mortar pick and then let the quality settings determine whether the Bn Mortar Platoon gets the M-1943 (Good) or M-1937 (Poor).

That was the original post.

[stikkypixie]

Any recommendation on unbuttoning on US tanks? I unbuttoned my Abrams in the first scenario of the main campaign and when I checked back latter, 2 of my tank commanders were down. I think the nearest enemy was almost 1km out, so it wasn't like I had closed on enemy infantry with them or anything.

Those I keep buttoned, because from what I understand the gadgets on board allows to see much better than with the naked eyes, especially at night. I have no experience in real life with these things mind you, but it just makes sense. Same goes for the newer Syrian tanks like the top of the line T-72s and the T-90.

[Alek]

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!"

Well

i will answer

Im my opinion

There are three reasons

1) the organisation

2) tactics

3) emotion

first of all -this link at our russian-lang forum

http://cmbb.borda.ru/?1-0-0-00000219-000-10001-0#093

(Russian)

Here I has written the organisation component

Georgians fight quite well ,often - very well

But the problem was initially

If want I will write emotion a component ? and tactic component for small epizode?

But here my English bad

With what we will begin?

[MarkEzra]

Combatintman:

Seems fine. I play a great deal with Syrian forces. I can't think of any inf units that have vehicles that won't fully load. If you come up with one...post a pic.

[Combatintman]

Mark,

Ok - just tried it ... and it does fit - can't work out why it never did before. Must be me on default setting (dumb) I guess. Fair cop - but the mortar thing I think needs looking at. It cannot be right that a Bn Mortar Platoon potentially can have worse mortars than a Coy.

[ASL Veteran]

I found this tidbit of info about ATGMs in “Lessons of Modern War Vol 2” by Anthony Cordsman

Like Iran, Iraq never claimed high kill probabilities from any type of ATGM. Iraq fired 6 to 8 Milan and HOT missiles per vehicle hit, and Iraq only scored about one hit per 20 to 30 Sagger or SS-11 missiles fired, although this may be more a function of tactics and training than technology.

He then follows that up with this little insight

Weapons with simple sighting, tracking, and fire control are essential. The complex method of tracking both the missile and the target used in most Soviet missiles greatly reduces effectiveness.

On artillery he states the following

Neither Iran nor Iraq had the command structure, training, targeting, artillery sensors, fire control, and C3 capabilities to conduct effective point fire, counter battery fire, on call fire, or the “switched fire” of modern military forces, although Iraq again made major improvements in it’s capabilities during 1986 – 1988. Both sides of the Iran – Iraq war have made area bombardment their normal method of using artillery and have relied on maps, line of sight, or presurveyed fire for most of their target acquisitions.

Anyway, just a few tidbits that I found that seemed relevant to this thread.

[Alek]

I found this tidbit of info about ATGMs in “Lessons of Modern War Vol 2” by Anthony Cordsman

....

Anyway, just a few tidbits that I found that seemed relevant to this thread.

Well

I had see that book to

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap12.pdf

For Example

12.1 Combined Arms

Neither Iran nor Iraq began the conflict with any real mastery of the operational

art of war, and neither side developed a consistent capability to carry out combined arms

operations effectively, although Iraq made major imporvements in 1987 and 1988. Both

sides also learned that sheer mass is not substitute for combinaed operations.

....

Both sides lost large numbers of tanks and armored vehicles during the first years

of the war because they forced their armor to fight without proper support from artillery

and infantry, or because they used them inflexibly in static defensive roles and as direct

fire artillery

....

Like Iran, Iraq never claimed high kill probabilities from any type of ATGM. Iraq fired 6 to 8 Milan and HOT missiles per vehicle hit, and Iraq only scored about one hit per 20 to 30 Sagger or SS-11 missiles fired, although this may be more a function of tactics and training than technology.

....

Weapons with simple sighting, tracking, and fire control are essential. The complex method of tracking both the missile and the target used in most Soviet missiles greatly reduces effectiveness.

and than

approximately 8 reasons of no-shooting ATGM at vehicle - except this one reason "SCRAP Soviet ATGM" are still specified that you quoted here

Further, the Iraqis would like ATGMs with more

capability against infantry targets and bunkers, and note that they would like advanced

manportable mortars and grenade launchers. The need to provide forward infantry troops

with heavier and longer range firepower is a major lesson of the war.

Some additional insights regarding ATGMS which emerge from the Iraqi side,

are:

• Far more weapons are fired for effect than with a real hope of hit or kill. About three

to four times as many ATGMs and rocket launchers are fired for "harassment" as are

fired with a good hope of a kill.

• Many weapons must be fired from within buildings or relatively closed defensive

positions.

• AFVs are too vulnerable for use in firing ATGMs. Dismounted and concealed

infantry weapons are far more desirable.

• ATGMs must be usable at ranges as short as 100 meters in the open and at very short

ranges in cities and urban areas.

• As many ATGMs and rocket launchers have been fired at static defensive, mountain

and urban positions as at armor. These are the primary hard target kill weapon of land

forces.

• Effective night vision has generally been lacking in the ATGMs available to Iraq, but

would be highly desirable, particularly if an area warhead, as well as anti-armor, were

available.

• Weapons with simple sighting, tracking and fire control are essential. The complex

method of tracking both the missile and target used in most Soviet missiles greatly

reduces effectiveness.

• Both launcher and missile numbers are critical. ATGMs and rocket launchers must be

provided throughout the force and to rear area and support forces.

• Rocket launchers remain a critical weapon in spite of ATGMs. It would be highly

desirable to have an area of anti-infantry rounds available for such systems to

supplement light mortars and machine guns.

There is no operative level in general and very bad tactical level to shoot (using ATGM-for an example here) - as I speak at this topic to

[Battlefront.com]

Combatintman,

It cannot be right that a Bn Mortar Platoon potentially can have worse mortars than a Coy.

From memory, the Mech units have 120s as their standard Coy mortar. Foot and 3rd rate units have 82mm mortars. My understanding is this is largely due to the usual way weapons are parceled out... favored units get the best stuff, others get what's left over. For the Syrians this is extremely true, so the specific formation you're using often dictates the type of equipment.

BTW, there were various carrying capacity problems, so perhaps the one you mentioned was from an earlier time. I do remember something like that with the Weapons Platoon and that it was fixed relatively recently.

Alek,

I still don't see a point to your posts. Do you have a specific case to make, or are you going to continue being vague and non-specific? If so then I don't see much point in this thread remaining open.

Steve

[Alek]

Combatintman,

I still don't see a point to your posts. Do you have a specific case to make, or are you going to continue being vague and non-specific? If so then I don't see much point in this thread remaining open.

Steve

Well!

I wish to ask?

I we have some memoirs of Russian instructors for Arabs - you spoke as "It losers for the justification of the errors" write!

We have Russian textbooks with instructions of some figures (Artillery, for an example) - you spoke as "Sirian army is not Russian army"!

We have the Russian description of the weapon (ATGM or tanks, for an example)-you spoke as "Our military guys in the USA were to analyze it - they have told it SCRAP"

Really we have no source in the Syrian Genaral Staff! And anybody from us did not serve in the Syrian Army (((

What we can give representation (the description, the document) that you spoke that it is the specific document for apple and apple comparison?

[flamingknives]

Alek:

You showed that the T62M had night vision. It does in game.

You showed that some ATGM posts have night vision. That, as far as I can tell, is in the game as well.

Why do you think that these things are not in game?

[Alek]

Alek:

You showed that the T62M had night vision. It does in game.

You showed that some ATGM posts have night vision. That, as far as I can tell, is in the game as well.

Why do you think that these things are not in game?

1)

Only ATGM AT-4 and AT-14 have night sight

For example AT-7 and AT-13 (Russian Metis and Metis-M) have no night sight in the screen of inventory

For an example

AT-13 (Russian)

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/metis.htm

There is a device thermal sight 1PN86BVI "Mulat-115"

AT-7 Can use same thermal sight the device

Page AT-7 (Russian)

http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/metis/metis.shtml

See the small review Soviet ATGM (Russian) of 1-2 generation from the person who was engaged in this weapon (Russian)

http://users.livejournal.com/_flanker/tag/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F

2)

There is no device of night sight in a box of stock at T-62

Implicitly possibility of night sight can be made, but I could not see situation Abrams tanks on a distance of 850 metres in a current 5 min

3)

Remarks of my companion Bolt about artillery and about use of shooting of guns have been rejected - as spoke above

[dima]

2)

There is no device of night sight in a box of stock at T-62

Implicitly possibility of night sight can be made, but I could not see situation Abrams tanks on a distance of 850 metres in a current 5 min

So just because tank can't see past 850 meters it doesn't mean it doesn't have NV? Not all NV's have the same great capabilities. Some will let you see out to 500m or less. You'll need to run some more tests to see how far it can see. And you'll need to do it for each different type of T-62.

[flamingknives]

1) The night vision device box indicates Night Vision Goggles for the soldiers. The inherent capabilities of the ATGM may be accounted for. A simple test should prove this one way or another.

2) The 1K13 sight on the T62MV has a stated night-time range is 800m. It is an image intensifying sight.

[Secondbrooks]

It's said that East-Germany T-72's had such IR-spotlights that their NVGs were capable to see to 2 kilometers, without spotlights light they are said to be pretty much useless... Well that might be bit optimistic range for spotlight, but it's said to be very powerful. Ofcourse that would mean that it's very-very visible to opponent with IR-equipment. So personally i don't know are Syrian tanks getting along better if their crew smashes those IR-spotlights so that they don't turn them on even by accident. this smashing part should be taken as minor sarcasm.

I dont' knwo what kind hassle it would be if player would be given possibility to turn on/off those spotlights. Basically keeping tanks as stelathy as possibly until opening fire and when there is order to open fire they turn their spotlights on to increase their change to see things (as they probably will expose themselves anyway because of muzzleflashes). But it probably would complicate things much.

[dima]

I dont' knwo what kind hassle it would be if player would be given possibility to turn on/off those spotlights. Basically keeping tanks as stelathy as possibly until opening fire and when there is order to open fire they turn their spotlights on to increase their change to see things (as they probably will expose themselves anyway because of muzzleflashes). But it probably would complicate things much.

For the modern US NV equipment - it wouldn't matter if they even covered the tank in dirt - like Gov. Shwarznegger in Predator

[Secondbrooks]

Well not dirt. But nets, trees, branche... Quessing that if one doesn't want to become too picky there are options without end. Would be one addition to loooong feature reguest list...

Hmm how actually thermals in game works? Do they sense heat (=have alternative way to see something) or are they basically just offereing better spotting bonus by same 'ruleset of spotting' as normal eye would. Would be interesting to know as to day i'm not sure which is best way to use thermals. My feeling is that it's just regular extention to eye and no alternative way of seeing.

Modelling heat radiation and it's visibility into CMSF like this feels very complicated and resource consuming.

[dima]

Alek, Bolt,

Ребята, проверьте личные сообщения - я написал вам.

--------------------------------------------------------

Plz check your PM's

[Battlefront.com]

Alek,

What we can give representation (the description, the document) that you spoke that it is the specific document for apple and apple comparison?

Our standards are high, but reasonable. If you have something SPECIFIC you wish to discuss, then be SPECIFIC. This is something you wrote that is specific:

For example AT-7 and AT-13 (Russian Metis and Metis-M) have no night sight in the screen of inventory

I'd have to check with Charles about this, but I'm pretty sure you are correct they have no inherent night vision capabilities. I know that we did not give many Syrian units night vision capabilities for two reasons:

1. Generally speaking, night vision was not a common option for weapons purchased by Syria. Yes, the Russians offered them for sale, but the price meant buying less missiles.

2. Night vision equipment is difficult to keep in working condition. It is likely that night vision purchased 15-20 years ago would be lost, stolen, or simply non-functional.

So yes, you are very much correct that night vision capabilities are an option for these two missile systems. There is no argument there. Our disagreement is that the Syrians would have thousands of night vision sights for all of their thousands of launchers.

I ask you to again remember that we are not simulating the Russian military... we are simulating the Syrian military. We have done the best we can to make sure we do not OVER or UNDER model them. Is our modeling perfect? I am sure it isn't. To change our minds we need good evidence that we should. "The Russians have it" means nothing to us.

The other two points on tank night vision and artillery reaction times have already been covered.

Steve

[Alek]

Well not dirt. But nets, trees, branche...

Masking for termosight does not use bushes and branches

There is a specific material for a covering of tanks, armored cars and AD-system

As there is some material for a covering of the infantryman in position to "lay"

Modern models termosight are very perfect

The basic way for masking is

1) the Finding in the closed district - wood, houses. A smoke screen

2) the Finding among "hot" objects (some kind of aircraft) - for an example the person among mountain stones in the hot afternoon

3) Use of radiation IR of a range for the big areas -When one tank among many "hot furnace"

The basis termosight has distinction of temperatures between different things. Therefore there is no big effect (an exception-very big hot objects at aircraft - for an example, tanks in the middle of a field) in the afternoon, but there is a value at night - when the nature cools down

[Secondbrooks]

If nothing else if at hand (like Syrians probably don't have) , trees with lots of leaf and branches from something like spruce (if not taking whole tree and lob it on or in front of tank :eek:) works rather well. More there is camolayers the better. Even when Syria is rather arid enviroment i think there is enough trees in various locations to cover tank platoon or company.

Our tankers, who are using sprunces throwed on tank, says that it cover somewhat from thermals even when used in as simple way as that is (basically giving little more edge to get the first shot at opponent). I've seen alot of pictures from older T-72 which basically are covered totally with sprunces (whole trees and branches). Seeing bush with long 125mm barrel going full speed on road is rather sexy sight they say. Newer Leopards seems to do the same. Same in Germany, altough they seem to use leaf-trees and not sprunces. It's basically like modern sniper camo-suit for snipers, probably not just as effective.

[Moon]

If nothing else if at hand (like Syrians probably don't have) , trees with lots of leaf and branches from something like spruce (if not taking whole tree and lob it on or in front of tank :eek:) works rather well.

Vegetation warms up during the day, and radiates heat during the night. As such, dense vegetation can be quite an effective way to mask other heat sources against anything but the most modern thermal imaging sensors.

[Chainsaw]

Our tankers, who are using sprunces throwed on tank, says that it cover somewhat from thermals even when used in as simple way as that is (basically giving little more edge to get the first shot at opponent). I've seen alot of pictures from older T-72 which basically are covered totally with sprunces (whole trees and branches). Seeing bush with long 125mm barrel going full speed on road is rather sexy sight they say. Newer Leopards seems to do the same. Same in Germany, altough they seem to use leaf-trees and not sprunces. It's basically like modern sniper camo-suit for snipers, probably not just as effective.

Sprunces and mud on that is a kickass camo, atleast in Sweden with our forests and mud. the sprunces themself works pretty good to hide a vehicle from Termal, not good enough but pretty good, but when you add mud from a rainy exercise field you got a darn good Termal camo!

Same goes in the wintertime, sprunces and put snow ontop of that, works like a charm

ofcourse there are still other things reveling you, like engine exhaust, hot air from the engine cooling, heat from the barrel, the tracks roadwheels get damn hot as well etc, but sprunces and mud stills gives you that little extra advantages