Palladium Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Unheard of, yes, but an interesting thought experiment. If a company of US Marines is entrenched in a defensive position with adequate support weapons and AT assets including MMGs, Javelins and tripod-mounted TOWs, how large a force of Syrians would you want before you even considered assaulting them? three-to-one? four-to-one? A near-battalion of mech infantry supported by a company of T-72 TURMS? Could regulars pull it off, or would they have to be Guard? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 1 more tank than they have AT weapons is quite a good start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It is all about artillery support for the Syrians. Throw in a battalion of howitzers on top of a Mech battalion with a company of tank support then they will probably win as regulars. A company of marines is quite formiddable on the defence though, and if they have air support then it is makes life very difficult for RED. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 For one thing I'd entirely leave out Syrian armor. Knocking out armor is what the American military 'does'. The Syrian weapon that's been giving me most headaches recently is the HMG. It kills off my humvees (and Scimitars). It outranges my infantry. Its bullets pass through building walls. Three 12.7mm mgs for every tank that you were going to field would cause countless headaches for the Americans. Don't think of how to conduct a 'fair fight', think of dirty tricks. Think about 'preparing the battlefield' for the assault. Judging by the available scenarios out there I may be the only fan or Syrian rocket artillery! Is the Syria assault going to be controling the AI or a human player? A human player will launch Kornet missiles into marine-occupied buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I can't agree with you there MikeyD. With enough artillery, the Syrian player can reduce the AT defences of the marines sufficiently to engage with tanks and IFV's. Enough direct fire from these will probably dislodge the defenders. Syrian infantry can't advance without their carriers - they would get pinned and destroyed by Marines MMG's and M-16's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It depends a LOT on how artillery you are willing to give the Syrians for an opening barrage. Three modules of MLRS would go a long way to making an attack doable, especially considering the current limits on fortifications. In the absence of said opening barrage, and assuming good defensive terrain, you are basically looking at having to attrit away the heavy weapons at an exchange rate that would be mind boggling. If the Marines in question had even good mortar fire support, much less anything heavier, you would have to be willing to stack a HUGE number of bodies and burning wrecks to get anywhere. Whole companies of Syrian infantry could just vaporize. flamingknives is certainly correct about one of the minimum standards though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The presence or absence of choke points in the terrain would also be hugely influential. If the Syrians could crest an entire company of Turms at the same instant they would have a chance at establishing superiority of fire with good combined arms tactics. If they have to dribble in its a shooting gallery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 "A human player will launch Kornet missiles into marine-occupied buildings." Would the Syrians start with these in place or would they have to set up under observation and fire? It changes the number of them you need by a factor of three or more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 So who is going to write a test scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Good arguments regarding Syrian strengths vs. USMC strengths. My only input to this would be the "Oh my God" moment the first time my blue forces got hit by some direct fire 125mm high explosive. Those Soviet/Russian built tanks can really put the hurt on infantry (more so than US - IMHO). It would only take one or two to shred a company defense. Let me know when the scenario is ready to be played. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Who is going to buy me a computer that is able to RUN the test scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The third scenario of the Marines campaign has a platoon on the defense, in terrain I didn't like much. I kept thinking about how much easier it would be with some sort of decent reverse slope position. You can extrapolate from there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I just thought about what a battalion of howitzers would look like in game - 9 modules! If it was the Syrian Brigade main effort it wouldn't be an unreasonable number of guns in support of the assault battalion assuming there is no counterbattery fire going on. 9 modules of 122mm HE would really put the hurt on the marines! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 There is no question that ENOUGH artillery makes this doable. But to a large extent it becomes a less interesting scenario as either side is provided with truly overwhelming fire support. If the Syrians can hide, coordinate, and effectively employ that much artillery they have already won the engagement. That would imply they are better than the Iraqis were by a factor of 200 or so. From a game perspective it is better to assume that most of the Marine fire support is busy incapacitating most of the Syrian fire support, leaving the issue to be decided by the grunts on both sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 True that - I just want the Syrians to win something for once 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Interesting topic. Happens I've been working on scenario of this kind and asking the same questions. The plan was to have a mission along the lines of a Classic Operation Flashpoint red Force invasion with Blue at a disadvantage: a Company of Marines, no air or heavy artillery support in an ad hoc defense against an armor heavy russian-style red force, including artillery and air support. However my machine would not allow for too big a map and too many units, so I'm aimed for nothing more than 1 OPFOR Battalion on a 2km x 1km map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 When might this wonder be revealed? Could you be persuaded to post the map to further the discussion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Kornet: Would the Syrians start with these in place or would they have to set up under observation and fire? All this debate is so map dependant. If the Syrians are 1500m+ away and willing to 'area fire' a building without officially spotting a unit first, there would be no 'seting up under fire'. But how many maps really permit that? Try setting up a Kornet on a rooftop under 700m from a Marine platoon and kiss your you-know-what goodbye. Are we discussing a rural defensive Marine position? A heavy urban defensive position? Depoying a Kornet (or rushing a T72 forward) in an area with only a 150mm LOS distance between office blocks isn't the best tactic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Far from anything wonderful Apart from the unit balance, the AI is giving me a little headache. I'll upload a map screenshot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 In an urban situation with side shots for even the light AT stuff the Syrians would almost be better off with some RPG 29s instead of armor. George Mc's "Circle The Wagons" also gives some insight here. It happens to be one of my favorite scenarios, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I hate to remind you, but weren't there enough scenarios in the British campaign where you were close to being overrun (for I was)? Just take them as reference material ... Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 All right, here are some quick shots of the map: Total map size is 1888x928m. Blue would be on the right side of the river defending, red would enter the area from the left, trying to cross the river and reach the right edge of the map. The brown areas are actually woods, the trees are just not visible at this distance. The edges are generally higher terrain the area around the river and the village is lower terrain. The two bridges would form a bottleneck for the attacker, but to make it easier for the AI, I also added a few crossable fords in various places (mainly to allow infantry attacks off the main axis). Some shots from a lower angle: 1) shows the ridge on the right edge of the map 2) shows the village as seen from the wooded hill at the bottom of the map 3) shows the plain on the left side of the river 4) shows the Red force deployment zone at the left edge of the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 5) and 6) are looking towards the center of the map from the hills in the upper right corner/upper left, respectively. 5) 6) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Nice looking map. You did something every scenario maker should consider: putting distinguishing terrain under the trees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just to confirm, you are thinking about a full company of Marines? And with how much AT support? Unfortunately it is difficult to sort LOS from screenshots but the map gives defenders a lot of options for combing dispersion and mutual support. Thats good, since it makes target for the opening artillery less obvious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.