Modern Combat Actions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Modern Combat Actions

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Modern Combat Actions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Modern Combat Actions - 1/24/2015 2:16:52 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

It was requested that I share more situations that I come across depicting modern combat. This will give us all a place to share what we find, as we find it.

Here is one I found today:

The Battle of Chawinda (1965)

The Battle of Chawinda was one of the largest tank battles after the Second World War. Set in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, it pitted about 132 Pakistani tanks (including 150 reinforcements) against 225 Indian armoured vehicles. The Indians had Centurion tanks, while the Pakistanis had Pattons; both sides utilized Shermans.

The battle, which lasted from September 6-22, took place in the Ravi-Chenab corridor connecting Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian mainland. The Indian army was hoping to cut off the Pakistani supply line by cutting off the city of Sialkot from Lahore. Events reached a head on September 8 when Indian forces moved toward Chawinda. Pakistani aircraft joined in, followed by severe tank-on-tank action. A massive tank battle ensued on September 11 in the Phillora region. The ebb and flow of the battle finally ended on September 21 when Indian forces finally withdrew. Pakistan lost 40 tanks, while the Indians lost more than 120.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

Post #: 1

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/24/2015 6:50:16 PM

Fallschirmjager

Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr

This might be the closest you have to depicting what a Cold War tank battle would have looked like.
T-54, T-55 and T-62 vs M47, M48 and M60 with some Cheieftons mixed in.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 2

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/24/2015 7:39:10 PM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

The Yom Kippur War is a better example, the iran-iraq war example you have listed is example of no/limited recon, wrong type of ground for mobile tank operations, poor supply and planning, very limited infantry and other arms support not to mention a weakened command structure due to officer purges during/after the Iranian revolution.

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)

Post #: 3

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/25/2015 12:15:14 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

This tread was just about modern combat situations. I wasn't trying to get an equivalent situation for what might have happened in a NATO vs WP situation, just to show some of the combat that's taken place since WW2. I haven't really ever seen a good example of what I thought would have been the combat results in Germany if that war had ever materialized.

IMO, the Arab Israeli wars compare to very few situations but the Arab Israeli wars with what I consider 3 exceptions. The extremely low training and experience on the Arab side compounded by the high training and experience on the Israeli side makes these battles pretty much only comparable to the Russian Front in 1941 and either Gulf War in Iraq. Even with overwhelming odds they don't do well.

Of course, I'm always looking for examples that contradict that analysis. So, if you find any please post them here so we can all look at them and discuss them.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 1/25/2015 1:17:15 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 4

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/25/2015 9:06:01 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

What is your view of modern combat operations?

Looking at various wars/conflicts between 1960's through to the late 1980's there is very little if any detail outside of the following:

Kashmir wars (India vs Pakistan - your first post)
Arab - Israeli wars - as you highlighted poorly trained low morale Arab troops vs a highly motivated and well trained Israeli army
Iran - Iraq war - a few 'real' armour engagements, on the whole infantry vs infantry action supported by small numbers of armour
Libya - Chad war - again very few armour actions, more often insurgency (or anti insurgency depending on your view) operations supported by limited numbers of tanks, aircraft and artillery
Not going to mention Vietnam

Falkland's War - British vs Argentina, well documented but as has been discussed in other threads would be better suited to a 250m scale
Various US operations to instigate a regime change for 1 reason or another - e.g. invasion of Grenada - most of these are going to be similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of training/morale/technology differences.

Various African conflicts which frequently saw armour cars in widespread use, but you'll find the few recorded battles list little more than: X ground forces numbering Y thousand men fielding Z number of armoured cars (the French AML90 being very common) support by light aircraft and small numbers of helicopters against what I'd call rebel forces.

Beyond that there are countless 'low intensity' conflicts where government forces vs rebel/freedom fighters/anti government forces (with both sides often supplied or support by various cold war factions).

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 5

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/25/2015 11:21:59 AM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak
Arab - Israeli wars - as you highlighted poorly trained low morale Arab troops vs a highly motivated and well trained Israeli army

From Arab Israeli wars you could at least learn that Soviet made SAM's and anti-tank missiles worked really well. Israeli suffered quite a lot casulties from them. Largest reason why Arabs lost Yom Kippur war was that Egyptians could not move their ground forces outside SAM ranges to help Syrians without getting bombed to pieces by Israeli air forces. This allowed Israel first beat up Syrians and then focus Egyptians. This made Arabs lost their largest advantage by forcing Israel in two front warfare.

You can also learn that air superiority matters quite a lot.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/25/2015 12:24:18 PM >

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 6

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/25/2015 7:45:49 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

What is your view of modern combat operations?

Anything after the Korean War, because it was fought with WW2 technology.

Good example is the war in Angola.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_Angola

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 7

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/25/2015 8:08:04 PM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

while looking at the Libya - Chad war I found this gem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict

The Libyan force, numbering between 7,000 and 9,000 men of regular units and the paramilitary Pan-African Islamic Legion, 60 tanks, and other armored vehicles, had been ferried across 1,100 kilometers of desert from Libya's southern border against the capital of N'Djamena, partly by airlift and tank transporters and partly under its own power.

While maybe not impressive by western standards, this was Libya in 1980, its still an rather impressive logistical feat.

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 8

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/26/2015 12:23:59 AM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak
Arab - Israeli wars - as you highlighted poorly trained low morale Arab troops vs a highly motivated and well trained Israeli army

From Arab Israeli wars you could at least learn that Soviet made SAM's and anti-tank missiles worked really well. Israeli suffered quite a lot casulties from them. Largest reason why Arabs lost Yom Kippur war was that Egyptians could not move their ground forces outside SAM ranges to help Syrians without getting bombed to pieces by Israeli air forces. This allowed Israel first beat up Syrians and then focus Egyptians. This made Arabs lost their largest advantage by forcing Israel in two front warfare.

You can also learn that air superiority matters quite a lot.

Indeed. Also, I'd challenge the assumption that all Arab forces in these wars were poorly trained and had low morale. The Egyptians, for instance, in 1973 started the war with a very well prepared assault, with well-trained troops who had good morale. Things went south when, for political reasons, they pushed out beyond the SAM umbrella. Until then, though, they fought well and it was the Israelis that had doctrinal and leadership issues; Sharon's insubordination for instance, and the lack of adaptability to ATGMs and heavy, integrated air defenses were issues early on.

Also, even the Syrians attacked with some elan on the Golan, at least initially. Maybe not earning points for skill, but they were quite brave and determined at first.

But yeah, for learning about NATO/WP matchups, the Middle Eastern wars are not that useful in many respects. None of the armies used Soviet equipment in precisely the same way the USSR planned to, and little of the equipment was completely first line.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 9

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/26/2015 10:21:57 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

Indeed. Also, I'd challenge the assumption that all Arab forces in these wars were poorly trained and had low morale. The Egyptians, for instance, in 1973 started the war with a very well prepared assault, with well-trained troops who had good morale. Things went south when, for political reasons, they pushed out beyond the SAM umbrella. Until then, though, they fought well and it was the Israelis that had doctrinal and leadership issues; Sharon's insubordination for instance, and the lack of adaptability to ATGMs and heavy, integrated air defenses were issues early on.

Also, even the Syrians attacked with some elan on the Golan, at least initially. Maybe not earning points for skill, but they were quite brave and determined at first.

Having 'good or high' morale when all the chips are stacked in your favor is one thing, morale really comes into play when the chips are not in your favor or when your plan is not going well. As you rightly point out both the Egyptians and Syrians had good morale at the start of their offensives but, when things didn't go their way then the men's morale levels really become apparent.
With the Israeli army there are countless reports of single platoons of tanks holding back entire tank brigades, or the manned forts some kms apart holding out for days despite overwhelming numbers with little to no support and seeing their air support being blotted from the skies, these types of scenarios are key indicators of having high morale.
There are differences in various reports concerning Egyptian commando's, with some crediting them with good training/high morale and pushing on to their objectives despite their losses incurred when IAF shot down their transport helicopters on route, whereas other reports suggesting they surrender very quickly, personally I'd expect that their commando training would have been better than the average Joe's which in turn would normally see a marked difference in morale.

One of the main problems for Israel was the near total surprise due to incorrect assessments of when the attack was likely to come, the IAF was expecting 24-48 hours notice of an attack which would allow them a pre-emptive strike against airfields and to carry out SEAD missions as they did during the 6 day war, as it turned out it took around 4 days before their command order no flights within 15km of the Suez canal due to SAM coverage, while in the north it took them a few days to figure out that flying through Lebanon airspace would 'flank' the SAM sites allowing the IAF time to carry out ground support before the SAMs could get a lock-on.

In the first few days the Israeli armored forces were counter attacking piecemeal without proper infantry or artillery support leaving tanks open to ATGM fire, later attacks that were properly supported had little trouble in suppressing ATGM teams allowing tanks the freedom of movement.

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 10

RE: Modern Combat Actions - 1/29/2015 6:32:24 PM

bayonetbrant

Posts: 431
Joined: 5/17/2012
Status: offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale

especially Hooper and Packer

< Message edited by bayonetbrant -- 1/29/2015 7:33:04 PM >

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 11