Of new Syrian unities for CMSF?

[RommL]

I have just looked at Syrian unities and I realized that some can be added to the game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Army

T-64BM Bulat

T-80UK 320 exemplary

OT-64, BTR 40/50/60/152 > 1500 exemplary

BRDM-2Rkh 125 exemplary

AT-10 Stabber

Pantsir-S1 ?

machine gun KPV /14,5 mm

M-16A1 /5,56 mm ( spécial forces )

Do you count to add them in unit NATO?

[Damian90]

For the name of God??!!

T-64BM Bulat

T-80UK 320 exemplary

Do you realize how many T-64BM's have Ukrainian Army? Very small numbers, and why you think Syrian Army can have this tank?

T-80UK? For what purpose you want to have 320 command tanks?

Maybe learn more about Sovet/Russian-Ukrainian AFV's? :-)

[Damian90]

Ehm... I just read what they wright on Wikipedia... autor is a Idiot.

Flag of the Soviet Union T-55/55MV (2150) Modernization Level Of T-64BM Bulat

What? Did this guy even consider that T-54/55 series doesen't have anything common to T-64 series? Not to mention that these tanks were developed in different design bureos.:eek:

Flag of the Soviet Union T-62M/K (1000) Modernization Level Of T-72BM

Yeah, right...

T-62M:

T-72BM Rogatka:

Hmmm, yeah they look similiar <sarkazm>.

Flag of the Soviet Union T-72/72M (1600) Modernization Level Of T-90S

Yeah, right, maybe T-72M/M1 with K-5 ERA look similiar but it is completely different tank. T-72M/M1 is export variant of T-72A, different tank to T-72B, from T-72B evolved original T-90 or Object-188, it is not in production right now, in production is T-90A with welded turret and modified hull, T-90A have more common to Object-187, very advanced tank prototype. Now produced T-90S and T-90SA are export variants of T-90A.

Yeah, Wikipedia, realiabale source, phi.

[Sequoia]

We have no confirmation any new Red forces will be added to the NATO module. However ther was a hint there could be. This allows me to again bring up my pet theory. Syrian Anti-tank guns. Hopefully enough work has been done on the Normandy game to import of anti-tank guns into CMSF.

According to Rudel Dietrich in the old Syrian TO&E thread the Syrians have:

AT-Guns

Syria still fields a number of these.

Most have outdated shells so little use against tanks but can slap around a IFV prettt hard.

Militia and reserve units would probsbly field the 85mm D-44 gun.

Almost completly useless this gun might have some short range use against APCs.

Fire control system is Korean war vintage.

20 HE shells

20 HEAT shells

5 Sabot shells

30 AP shells

The 100mm BS-3 would be a little more usefull but still almost a waste of time.

A massive weapon.

20 HE shells

20 HEAT shells

5 Sabot shells

20 AP shells

The 100mm T-12 would be the most usefull gun Syria would field.

Might be able to damage a M1A2 from the front with a close range Sabot shell.

20 HE

20 HEAT

20 Sabot

I have found conflicting and questionable reports that Syria fields small numbers of the 125mm 2A45 AT gun.

If true then this would give Syria a major punch against US armour.

It is a giantic weapon but has a good fire control system and can punch a hole is almost anything.

Would have a good chance of killing an M1A2 from the front at medium range.

I am also looking for more info that the Syrian 100mm T-12 can fire ATGN missles.

One part of me thinks if they have the gun then it would be common sense that they would have purchased the missles. But I want to make certain.

I will keep looking.

Finaly the Syrian reserves and milita would be able to field the 107mm B-11 RR

Ammo would be 20HE and 40 HEAT

It could damage an APC that was stupid enough to blunded past it.

Otherwise useless.

[Damian90]

The 100mm T-12 would be the most usefull gun Syria would field.

Might be able to damage a M1A2 from the front with a close range Sabot shell.

I have found conflicting and questionable reports that Syria fields small numbers of the 125mm 2A45 AT gun.

If true then this would give Syria a major punch against US armour.

It is a giantic weapon but has a good fire control system and can punch a hole is almost anything.

Would have a good chance of killing an M1A2 from the front at medium range.

Do you have any ammo penetration values? If not so from what you state that it can damage or destroy from the front? Barrel length or how big weapon is doesen't mean anything, everything depends on ammo, hence even modern 3BM-42M WHA APFSDS will have problem to perforate frontal turret armor of M1A1HA from 1987. Got it: Russian 125mm 3BM-42M "Lekalo" tungsten 600-650mm at 2km, M1A1HA turret front is 660-680mm RHAe vs. KE. For comparision M1A2 is 880-900mm RHAe vs. KE, M1A2SEP is 940-960mm RHAe vs. KE.

Of course, I don't say that from close range it can't damage or destroy, it probably can but this depends on what ammo is used, angle of hit, range, what type of armor is attacked and many, many more.

So I will be carefull with such things until we can get any estimation values.

[Sequoia]

It's not my data. I was quoting Rudel Deitrich from an old thread but for some reason I was unable to use the quote function. Rudel was a very useful source of information for Battlefront however and he is involved in the field professionally so I can only use the "authority" arguement.

[Damian90]

But "authority" is not good proof of something, especially if we talk about modern armors or ammo.

This is way smart heads make estimations.

I know opinions of so called authorieties that Leopard 2 is super duper tanks and modern wunderwaffe, but none of this authorieties even know that the most modern variants have many problems like cracking turret welds or cracking turret ring, these authorieties doesen't even know what is armor LOS thickness of modern tanks.

However I will not say that about mr. Deitrich, I don't know him, and I don't know what he said, but still I will be very happy to see any estimations for various AT ammo for that guns, otherwise I will be very doubtfull. ;-)

[Bulgaroktonos]

According to Jane's the Syrian Army has 'sought to enhance its armoured forces by acquiring the T-80 from The Russian Federation, but there is no confirmation of an actual delivery.'

The wikipedia article seems to be based on wishful thinking.

[RommL]

On the other hand I find that the series of the BTR is limited in CMSF.

It lacks:

BTR 40, BTR 50, BTR 152

OT-64

and trucks.

[GSX]

I will tell you something that makes me laugh, well giggle a bit.

Every time someone comes here and says, 'why not add more Syrian kit', someone else says, ah but the Syrians dont actually have that kit and wouldnt be using it then.

Every time someone says,'Seriously, why would NATO be involved in a war with Syria', the reply is, 'Ah but this is a fictitional game and its set in an alternative reality that can be anything'.

Somehow, the two dont sit well together. Syria cant have certain things because they dont have them, but the West can have everything because its a sci-fi game?

Now I for one dont want Syrians armed with Rocket-sleds and robo-dogs, so Im not looking for any weapons that dont actually exist.

Just a wee observation I thought I'd share.

[Sixxkiller]

Damian,

You may wanna dial down the tone a bit. BFC doesnt tend to put space fantasy units in the game in the first place. And there are folks on this board that may know a bit about these things if they were to put in the game so relax.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Every time someone comes here and says, 'why not add more Syrian kit', someone else says, ah but the Syrians dont actually have that kit and wouldnt be using it then.

Every time someone says,'Seriously, why would NATO be involved in a war with Syria', the reply is, 'Ah but this is a fictitional game and its set in an alternative reality that can be anything'.

Well, this gets back to the sort of "what if" differences that we were talking about with the Germans invading Great Britain. Hitler could have made some decisions that would have radically changed the outcome of the war. But no decision in 1940 or 1941 could have resulted in an invasion of the British Isles.

No matter how unlikely someone might feel it may be, the fact is NATO could decide to invade Syria. Our backstory adequately explains why this decision would come about. On the other hand, Syria can't make huge amounts of military hardware, which it has no money to pay for, arrive overnight via FedEx There's no backstory that can credibly change that.

Not all "what ifs" are created equal

Steve

[sfhand]

Here are my plans to address this issue... I'm going to create a different fictional campaign. In that reality Nato (including Britain) sides against the Syrian invasion because it is clear to all that then President Bush fixed the intelligence to justify the invasion (the nuclear material for the bombs was actually stolen from Russian supplies by unknown entities (by keeping it a mystery one is encouraged to draw their own conclusions about who benefits from the US invading Arab countries.). Having learned from the Iraqi invasion these countries put their troops in harms way hoping they will be human shields and that sanity and diplomacy will return to Washington, but once again they underestimate the Bush Administration. The campaign will not be a long one because I doubt such a situation would be allowed to last more than a day or two.

What is BF's position on reusing their maps for this type of thing (of course all credit would be given to BF for the maps)?

[Sequoia]

Here are my plans to address this issue... I'm going to create a different fictional campaign.

Not all "what ifs" are created equal

Steve

Sfhand. I think Dr Who type brain controlling alliens would make a funner campaign, but go ahead, have fun.

Anyway any one care to comment on my anti tank gun pet theory since those are weapons the Syrians actually do have?

[hcrof]

I for one would like all of the units you have mentioned, plus some sort of ZU-23-2 or ZSU-23-4 would be nice.

Trucks IMO are the most important as nothing could replace them. AT guns would be next for the same reason. (How about trucks pulling AT guns? )

I'm sure there are all sorts of odd Syrian units you could get for the NATO module.

On the other hand, Syria can't make huge amounts of military hardware, which it has no money to pay for, arrive overnight via FedEx There's no backstory that can credibly change that.

Where did the Syrians get the budget for all those T-90's?

[Dietrich]

Every time someone comes here and says, 'why not add more Syrian kit', someone else says, ah but the Syrians dont actually have that kit and wouldnt be using it then.

Every time someone says,'Seriously, why would NATO be involved in a war with Syria', the reply is, 'Ah but this is a fictitional game and its set in an alternative reality that can be anything'.

Somehow, the two dont sit well together. Syria cant have certain things because they dont have them, but the West can have everything because its a sci-fi game?

Now I for one dont want Syrians armed with Rocket-sleds and robo-dogs, so Im not looking for any weapons that dont actually exist.

Sure, to my knowledge there are no (confirmed) plans for giving the Syrians additional kit. But the Blue forces haven't been furnished with anything they don't (or wouldn't) have.

The fact is that if dirty bombs were set off (by Syrian-backed terrorists) in major cities throughout North America and Western Europe (including the UK), forces from a number of different Blue countries would be deployed against Syria.

Besides, it's not that NATO is involved in a war with Syria, it's that countries which are members of NATO are involved in a war with Syria.

Where did the Syrians get the budget for all those T-90's?

How many T-90s are "all those"? If T-90s are available only to the Republic Guard, which is basically one reinforced mechanized division, maybe (in the context of CMSF's alternate reality of summer 2008) the Syrians only have enough T-90s for a company or two. *shrug*

But I do agree that the Syrians could use some sort of truck. =)

[Battlefront.com]

Quick responses...

We don't have a problem with people reusing scenarios if they don't take credit for what they haven't done AND they don't try to make any money off of them.

The ATGs were left out of CM:SF for two reasons. First, it is unclear if they would actually be used. They have them in inventory but we don't think there are crews assigned and trained to man them. Except, probably, for fixed guns in the Golan Heights area facing Israel (i.e. not relevant to our setting). Second is that we felt it was a bad idea to spend the time coding up ATGs for this one very exceptional weapon. As I always say, for everything we put in something else doesn't. I can't think of anything significant that I would have sacrificed out of CM:SF to make ATGs present. Now that the ATG code is written (but no animations yet) we could theoretically put it into some other CMx2 game. But not CM:SF.

Adding the T-90SA is definitely a stretch. The Syrians have them on order (supposedly) now that they got their credit with Russia fixed. So it's in the "gray area" which we're moderately comfortable with.

Dietrich put it nicely about the perceived imbalance:

Sure, to my knowledge there are no (confirmed) plans for giving the Syrians additional kit. But the Blue forces haven't been furnished with anything they don't (or wouldn't) have.

Exactly. We are trying to emulate reality. Reality is that Blue has a ton of toys to play with AND they would absolutely use them. Reality is that the Syrian Army is very much a relic of the Cold War and therefore does not have a lot of 21st Century stuff at their disposal.

Our logic is extremely sound and justifiable given the constraints we have deliberately put in place (i.e. this is not a "sandbox game", but a plausible historical setting). We agree that people can argue with the constraints, but we think anybody who is arguing against the logic that results from that has no case to make. And remember, I've been having this debate with people for more than 2 years. As far as I can see nobody has been able to counter our logic. Dismiss it, ridicule it, etc... sure, but not actually challenge it in any significant way

Steve

[Sequoia]

Now that the ATG code is written (but no animations yet) we could theoretically put it into some other CMx2 game. But not CM:SF.

Steve

So much for my pet theory! . Oh well, I can still hope for a Red Truck to play with in the NATO module.

I am wondering about what happened to the "ahistoric section" of Syrian units that was talked about albeit that was years ago now.

[Bulgaroktonos]

GSX,

No matter how unlikely someone might feel it may be, the fact is NATO could decide to invade Syria. Our backstory adequately explains why this decision would come about. On the other hand, Syria can't make huge amounts of military hardware, which it has no money to pay for, arrive overnight via FedEx There's no backstory that can credibly change that.

What if they won the lottery?

[MikeyD]

One major reason, I believe, for leaving out anti-tank guns from CMSF was the tremendous effort it would have taken to code-up gun animations and crew behavior. Remember, we're talking basegame work done 2006-7 timeframe, 3 years before animations would be needed for CM:Normandy. One assumes that gun animations have been worked out by now, but now theyd have to pull someone off the NATO, WWII or Afghanistan titles to get a Syrian AT gun of (marginal tactical utility) built. Maybe if BFC corporation had 800 workers instead of 8.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. If ATGs were a confirmed, and likely important, part of the Syrian Army then we would have had to prioritize that work. But as I said, we're not even sure that they are actively fielding the one ATG we do know they have. So to prioritize a special case like that would have been a significant mistake in scheduling.

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Warelephants with kevlar/ERA-protection and ATGMs?

Ammo caches for all sides would be quite okay, pure light infantry without vehicles really could use them. Or then just trucks for Syria.

[Battlefront.com]

ERA protected war elephants... now there is a fun picture to think of

Steve

[Sequoia]

I for one would like all of the units you have mentioned, plus some sort of ZU-23-2 or ZSU-23-4 would be nice.

Now I really don't expect a ZSU type unit with the NATO module as if it were added people would want it to shoot at blue aircraft and I really don't think they want to spend the time putting an anti air element into CMSF. Elmar wants it just to shoot at ground targets but I think he'd be an exception. As he put it "people and their expectations are keeping us from getting things into the game!"

[Bulgaroktonos]

Now I really don't expect a ZSU type unit with the NATO module as if it were added people would want it to shoot at blue aircraft and I really don't think they want to spend the time putting an anti air element into CMSF. Elmar wants it just to shoot at ground targets but I think he'd be an exception. As he put it "people and their expectations are keeping us from getting things into the game!"

To be honest I'd be happy to see a 'burning wreckage' artillery model (AAA included) just to add a bit of atmosphere