Provisional Complete Allied Order of Battle: Invasion of Syria 2008

[Boche]

I wish I could claim I researched the the deployment of every unit in 2008 but I did not, though I did with some, but I did take the War in Afghanistan and the troop surge in Iraq into account. Another thing I considered is the logistics of supplying all the invasion troops. The supply lines will be pretty long especially once the war starts and everything will have to be trucked across Syria eventually to the Damascus area. This led me to being on the conservative side in selecting the Coalition forces. I've since made a few additions mainly attack helicopters and artillery that I will post, but thanks for the feedback. I am happy to consider any changes.

jeje no problem man, it just so happens i have followed 3 CDO BDEs deployments in afghanistan and I am working on a couple of scenarios with them

[Sequoia]

jeje no problem man, it just so happens i have followed 3 CDO BDEs deployments in afghanistan and I am working on a couple of scenarios with them

40 Commando is part of the 3rd Brigade. I looked back into why I choose them. They had just returned from Afghanistan in April 2008. 42 Commando was in Afghanistan. 45 Commando was also available but since they are based in Scotland I chose 40 Commando.

[RecceDG]

The Canadian contingent - especially if this is supposed to be concurrent with Afghanistan - is way too large. The op tempo for Afghanistan sustaining a 2500 pers battle group, plus TFK HQ, plus the KPRT, plus the NSE is already stretching things far too thin, never mind putting a full armoured regiment and a full infantry regiment (and from the same brigade!) into Syria.

A more realistic deployment would be a mech infantry heavy battlegroup based around a single battalion, plus a tank squadron, an armoured recce squadron, and an engineer squadron.

If the political will was there, we might deploy additional units based around composite Reserve units (no Reserve unit can deploy fully manned, but a bunch of them can form a single unit) So add a Coy of light infantry in RG-31/Nyala and a Sqn of Armoured Recce in TLAV (not in game, a souped-up M113 with a Grizzly turret on it) or (God help us) GWagon C6. Call it 3 troops of recce and an assault troop in M113 or Bison

And MAYBE another tank Sqn could get cobbled together... it would play hell with the rotation sequence but maybe it'd work.

If you want to keep it centered on 1 CBG, it might look like this:

1 Can BGp

- 1 Btn (+) PPCLI

-- A Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- B Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- C Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- D Coy Composite Reserve (RG-31)

- 1 Composite Armoured Regiment

-- RHQ LdSH (RC)

-- A Sqn LdSH (RC) (Tank)

-- B Sqn 12RBC (Tank)

-- C Sqn RCD (Coyote Recce)

-- D Sqn Composite Recce (GWagon)

1 CER Field Squadron

1 RCHA Field Battery

That gets you two square combat teams with recce, engineers, and guns in support, plus a FOB defense force and some reserve depth in infantry and recce (gotta cover off HLTA after all) That's still a pretty respectable combat force and WAY more realistic.

DG

[Sequoia]

I think that having some big cities and mountain ranges (between Syria and Lebanon, north of Damascus, etc.) it is logical to have more infantry element ...

In compaign of Syrian opposition forces we assumed brigade, or about, from 10 th Mountain Division.

Likewise, we should remember that in the second have some are reserve component,for suuprot rear routes and occupation task, National Guard, for example, some HBCT and SBCT and MI-BDE (or may be even new structure for MEB) of division of the USNG.

Personally I feel there is enough infantry. We have the 23rd Gebirgsjaeger brigade which is trained in urban warfare and the Stryker brigades have plenty of infantry and there is an entire US Infantry brigade. Also I added lots of airborne elements to fulfill that role.

[Sequoia]

The Canadian contingent - especially if this is supposed to be concurrent with Afghanistan - is way too large. The op tempo for Afghanistan sustaining a 2500 pers battle group, plus TFK HQ, plus the KPRT, plus the NSE is already stretching things far too thin, never mind putting a full armoured regiment and a full infantry regiment (and from the same brigade!) into Syria.

A more realistic deployment would be a mech infantry heavy battlegroup based around a single battalion, plus a tank squadron, an armoured recce squadron, and an engineer squadron.

If the political will was there, we might deploy additional units based around composite Reserve units (no Reserve unit can deploy fully manned, but a bunch of them can form a single unit) So add a Coy of light infantry in RG-31/Nyala and a Sqn of Armoured Recce in TLAV (not in game, a souped-up M113 with a Grizzly turret on it) or (God help us) GWagon C6. Call it 3 troops of recce and an assault troop in M113 or Bison

And MAYBE another tank Sqn could get cobbled together... it would play hell with the rotation sequence but maybe it'd work.

If you want to keep it centered on 1 CBG, it might look like this:

1 Can BGp

- 1 Btn (+) PPCLI

-- A Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- B Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- C Coy PPCLI (LAV III)

-- D Coy Composite Reserve (RG-31)

- 1 Composite Armoured Regiment

-- RHQ LdSH (RC)

-- A Sqn LdSH (RC) (Tank)

-- B Sqn 12RBC (Tank)

-- C Sqn RCD (Coyote Recce)

-- D Sqn Composite Recce (GWagon)

1 CER Field Squadron

1 RCHA Field Battery

That gets you two square combat teams with recce, engineers, and guns in support, plus a FOB defense force and some reserve depth in infantry and recce (gotta cover off HLTA after all) That's still a pretty respectable combat force and WAY more realistic.

DG

Thanks for the input. It makes a lot of sense. I assume your Canadian and won't feel slighted by the downsizing of the Canadian contribution. I wanted to give them enough units so that any thing in the campaign (which I have not played) would be covered.

[RecceDG]

I assume your Canadian and won't feel slighted by the downsizing of the Canadian contribution.

Yes, and no.

I suppose it all depends on what the goal is. If you want to have a "realistic" campaign based on historical "real" units, or if you are willing to bend reality slightly and go with something a little more theoretical.

I mean... if you go full-bore real, you could check to see which units were deployed to Afghanistan at the time and where the force generation / rotation cycle was at the time and "send" someone who wasn't already in Afghanistan. But then, full-bore realism would preclude ANY Canadian armour in theatre, because ALL the Leo2s and C2s were in Afghanistan.

But then, you also have to consider the political potential and how things would have changed given the fictitious run-up to war in Syria. It is entirely reasonable (for example) for a Canadian government that knew it was going to be committed to a conventional fight in Syria to have doubled the order of Leo2s so as to be able to supply the Syria force. Real-time 2008 we wouldn't be able to field both, but maybe alternate-universe 2008 we would have.

That at least is reasonable; it just requires the equipment to be purchased. But expanding the manpower up to the point where we could have fielded the ORBAT you first proposed.... HIGHLY improbable, even given an alternate universe approach. You can buy tanks off the shelf. Trained soldiers have to be built, and it takes a lot of time and capacity in the training system.

In a perfect world, a world in which I was CDS, you'd see four fully populated CMBGs. I'd bring back the 8CH and the Black Watch as Reg Force units, and each Reg Force armoured regiment would be fully equipped with three tank squadrons and a recce squadron. I'd equip Reserve recce regiments with Coyote, and Reserve tank units with Leo1 or a cost-reduced Leo2 (like an A3 vice A6+) Lots of stuff would be different.

But it is the Canadian way to deploy smaller units and use quality of training and pure stubbornness to punch way above our weight given the numbers.

DG

[JonS]

1 RCHA Field Battery

Battery or Regiment?

[Sequoia]

Yes, and no.

I suppose it all depends on what the goal is. DG

True, what I am ultimately considering doing is making an old fashioned cardboard counter wargame primarily based on the map that came with the original game, which is fairly accurate in terms of Syrian order of battle, and again using the map and campaigns and real life contingency plans, as best as I can deduce them to be, to come up with the Coalition order of battle. This is not as cool as SDPs meta-campaign and website, but once done would certainly take much less time to play out and allow exploration of different operational deployments. I am willing to bend "reality" to certain degree but not too far. For example I have now added a British Battalion to the order of battle in Turkey because there is a campaign based on such a unit, but I am not making it the Devonshire and Dorsets as the campaign briefing has it, but rather their descendants The Rifles. This may not be the most logical method of constructing an order of battle, but there would be a certain pleasure, for me at least, in using a unit in my boardgame in which I have already fought a virtual tactical campaign with.

In any event it is difficult to say what "reality" would really be, which is why I put up the provisional order of battle in which I am very pleased to be getting feedback. I am sure however that I won't be getting an knowledgeable service member from each nation to respond, but I feel that any mistake I may make won't be any worse than some I have seen in published wargames of actual historical events. Russian Campaign- I'm looking at you and your German cavalry corps.

Anyway I had not noticed the game's Canadian Campaign order of battle until recently.

What they have listed is this:

A Company- support

1 Combat Engineer Sdrn. 1 Antitank TOW platton, Coyote Recon platton, 2 section mortar plattoon.

B Company -Recon (not in game)

C Company - Light Infantry Company 3rd BN PPCLI -partially airmobile

D Company - LAV Infantry 1st BN PPCLI

E Company - LAV Infantry 1st BN PPCLI

F Company Tank Squadron LSH (RC) (broken up into support platoons).

This is now Cannon as far as my game is concerned but I'd like to add your composite Armored Regiment to it with maybe another LAV Infantry Company added to it to come up with a composite brigade as the Canadian Land Force contribution. Also there would be a artillery regiment, to answer Jon's question, in support of both units comprised of 2 105mm towed batteries, a M777 155mm towed batery and a M-109 155mm self propelled battery dug out of mothballs. Since the game has all these artillery types for Canada I have to include them. How's that sound?

Finally you may not have noticed but I had an entire battalion of the Special Operations Forces in support. I am going to downsize that as well. I'm sure a large chunk of them were in Afghanistan.

[RecceDG]

Well, I have some *ahem* serious objections to the current Canadian campaign, some of which is ORBAT-related, but most of it has to do with completely unrealistic objectives for the force provided.

It is (at least to the point where I am) very urban operations heavy, and the urban areas are just way too large for the forces assigned to it. Urban ops suck up troops. A single compound is a company objective, really (platoon in a pinch) and you need substantial reserves. Fighting your way across dozens of city blocks with a platoon just isn't how it is done.

But anyway...

That campaign ORBAT is more-or-less equal to a typical Afghan ROTO BG, which is based on a mech infantry battalion, a tank squadron, and a recce squadron, plus engineers and guns.

The "light" Coy is (I'm pretty sure) either old doctrine no longer in play or (more likely) typical of a battalion laydown in Canada where enough pers are either recovering, on leave, or on course that 3 full Coys cannot be manned. Plus a bunch of vehicles are either in theatre, broken, or otherwise tasked so one Coy is called a "light" coy. I doubt very much we'd deploy a BG with any less than three full LAV Coys.

The TUA troop - it's a "troop" now that the Armoured Corps owns them, but there's no doctrine on their employment yet - OK. Sure. Why not?

The battalion has an integral infantry recce platoon and an infantry sniper platoon too.

Tanks NEVER EVER EVER break up into support subunits. Well... almost never. The Sqn is supposed to remain concentrated for maximum firepower and shock effect. In a counterinsurgency where the anti-armour threat is far lower... that principle of armour is broken all the time. In a conventional fight though, the squadron would fight as a unit. Penny-packeting tanks is a great way to lose them, especially if they encounter a properly concentrated enemy tank unit.

(Hm... maybe that's a scenario - Syrian tank Coy vs Canadian tank troop, see what happens)

Anyway, consider the bare minimum single line of operation to be a combat team - tank sqn plus infantry coy plus engineer, gun, and recce support.

As for the guns themselves... an M777 battery throws out a huge amount of firepower. It's not about the number of tubes, it is about the ammo stockpile. CM arty has WAY too few rounds per gun.

I'm not going to talk about the squirrels.

DG