Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

PapaDragon wrote:

Kyo wrote:Russian Dep. Minister of Defence: US said no to joint cooperation on rescue of downed aircraft pilots.
https://t.co/D9cSxnxkb6

Good, every man for himself as it should be.

After Operation Paperclip only morons would trust Pentagon.

Personal observation: funny how Haushofer, ultron and monarchist just happen to appear at the same time after weeks of being AWOL...

I noticed that little foible. My finger hovereth over the infamous 'ignore' activation device, it twitcheth in anticipation of the ecstasy of fulfilling it's desire. It's one thing to actively participate in the conversations and informations discussed on this forum, quite another to simply toss in the odd obscure quote simply to stir up controversy then whine about being banned which everyone knows is very rare in this AO.

Decision made. Hang the lot of them from the yardarm. Both trolls just went on ignore.

Turkey Rages Against US and Russian Support of Kurds in Syria

Turkey has summoned separately the American and Russian ambassadors in Ankara to complain about their countries acting in support of the military forces of the Syrian Kurds who are fighting Isis.

The Turkish government’s alarm underlines its problem in fighting a guerrilla war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey at a time when the US and Russia, while rivals in every other respect, are both supporting the local branch of the PKK in Syria.  

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/turkey-takes-russia-and-us-task-over-their-backing-kurds-syria/ri10557

Is clear the reasons why US and Russia both support Kurdish.. they both know they will be
the major winners in the war.. even more than Russia help to Syria.. since Kurds will get a new
country and their independence.. thanks to US and Russia will not allow Americans to use freely
the Kurds card without a fight.. why Russia befriending Kurds.. because how ever controls or influence more the kurds in Syria.. will be the ones who will have the contracts for pipelines
that they planning to cross from the gulf into Turkey through kurds territory. So if Kurds in Syria side with Russia..the pipeline project that the whole war in Syria was based to bypass Russia gazprom business with Europe. So this is why US and Russia both flirt with kurds.. and in the case of Russia ,they could use Kurds to blackmail Turkey into be friendly with Russia or else
Russia will supply weapons to them.

Also this is how US policy operates.. it does not marry with anyone. Look Israel how was isolated in the Iranian deal..US is Loyal only to their interest..it will shake one hand with you for friendship and with the other will create counter revolutionaries to that country just in case the relations goes bad and they choose to jump ship and cut relations.

Take a look who will be the biggest losers if Kurds allowed their indepedence.



So effectively Russia can use Kurds ,give weapons them to fight Turkey by proxy.. and pay
back Turkey their criminal proxy war against Russia ,in Syria.  So effectively the war
in Syria can last not just 1 decade but two or three. Because once ISIS defeated ,Kurds can
focus in Turkey..   Kurds are not pro Assad..but neither they are anti Assad.. so they are neutral.. SO Syria take major revenge against Turkey and creating an alliance with Syrian Kurds
and recognizing their lands in change of making an alliance against Turkey.. So Syria-russia-IRAN can use Hezbolah to keep Israel in check..and Kurds to keep turkey in check..

But is not simple because Iraq could lose lands too ,to Iraq kurds which US also support.
Ideally an alliance of Syria ,IRAQ and IRAN,with an acceptable land agreement with Kurds can truly put an end to Saudi Arabia ,US and Israel attempts to destroy any resistance to anglo zionist imperialism.

In short Kurds will be the last poker card in the middle east game.. who ever have that card
will have the best position when the war ends.. This is why everyone wants to be friends with
Kurds.. their territories is the one that pipelines will travel..  If ISIS not defeated the kurds card
will not matter.. Because then the pipeline will pass through ISIS controlled lands like Raqqa.
Russia cannot allow Kurds to take more Syrian Territories either.. or it could make it impossible
to have a mutual agreement between Assad and kurds.. but neither Russia can allow kurds to be defeated.. it pretty much looks like Kurds are the Donbass of Syria... with the exception that Syria is not bombing them but Turkey instead.

Turkey is a NATO member and have shown historically to be a spear head of Russian enemies..
First British empire and now US empire.. So it will be under the long term Russia interest
to disband Turkey..or else they will have to fight them in the future...because US and NATO will try to get a war between Turkey against Russia.. also because Turkey
supply weapons no only to terrorist in Syria but also terrorist in caucasus.

Tartous apparently

Syria Kafranbel

Stars on SU-34 like it was custom during WW2, star per 10(?) combat flights.

Militarov wrote:

Syria Kafranbel

Maybe russia should reconfigurate their Okhotnik Image Processors to target banners with English words on it and Hashtags, because we know who are using those.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Syria Kafranbel

Maybe russia should reconfigurate their Okhotnik Image Processors to target banners with English words on it and Hashtags, because we know who are using those.

Sounds legit

Ah! I knew it when I read what Medvedev said . He was trolling west in a clever manner


Russian Machine Gun With Iranian Ammo Attached To Abrams Tank



Earlier this month, Shia militiamen in Iraq dropped off an American-supplied Abrams tank at a US-supported repair facility where workers were surprised to find an attached Russian machine gun plus Iranian ammo, Defense News has learned.

The MIA1 main battle tank — one of 146 frontline tanks the US sold to Baghdad — was transported through the Green Zone to a US-supported Iraqi service facility at al-Muthanna that was established as part of the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

The tank was equipped with a Russian .50-caliber machine gun and Iranian-stamped 12.75-mm ammunition, according to a source at the facility.

“Once all the ammo was removed, as per procedure, by Iraqi personnel, we noticed Iranian markings on the back of the shell casings. Seems they put a Russian machine gun with Iranian ammunition on an Abrams tank.”

As Washington scrambles to adapt to the myriad, Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting alongside its US-trained and -supplied partners in Iraq, new manifestations of shifting alliances may threaten the relevance of US end-use monitoring in that war-torn country.

The US-Russian tank hybrid could constitute twin violations of Iraq’s FMS agreements with Washington, due to unauthorized use by Shiite militias and the unsanctioned addition of the Russian gun and Iranian ammo, Pentagon officials say.

“Any time you do a foreign military sale, there’s a requirement that you do end-use monitoring, and it’s a violation if you do alterations,” Vice Adm. Joseph Rixey, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) told Defense News.

Interviewed in Washington this week at the annual Association of the US Army conference, neither Rixey, the Pentagon’s FMS chief, nor Maj. Gen. Mark McDonald, chief of the US Army Security Assistance Command, had knowledge of the event recounted to Defense News. However, both men suggested that their Iraqi customers had an obligation to report such occurrences in a timely and accurate manner.

“If they brought it into the maintenance facility, then that should be reported to our US folks there, and then we can have a discussion about how, ‘This is not what we’re going to do,’” McDonald said.

McDonald was deputy commander at the time the Iraqi tank deal was concluded, and noted that the FMS contract includes a maintenance package that covers the facility in question. “We eventually got them to buy the maintenance and training package, so I do know there is an ongoing maintenance effort going on over there under our FMS contract, with a US company doing the maintenance.”

The in-country source noted that it was the first time he had encountered the hybridization of the Abrams to accommodate the Russian gun and Iranian ammo.

“It could be an isolated event or it could mark the beginning of something worrisome. It’s too early to tell … but given the strange bedfellows over there in the Amber Zone, you never know.”



Russian Machine Gun With Iranian Ammo Attached To Abrams Tank

max steel wrote:Ah! I knew it when I read what Medvedev said . He was trolling west in a clever manner


 Russian Machine Gun With Iranian Ammo Attached To Abrams Tank



Earlier this month, Shia militiamen in Iraq dropped off an American-supplied Abrams tank at a US-supported repair facility where workers were surprised to find an attached Russian machine gun plus Iranian ammo, Defense News has learned.

The MIA1 main battle tank — one of 146 frontline tanks the US sold to Baghdad — was transported through the Green Zone to a US-supported Iraqi service facility at al-Muthanna that was established as part of the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

The tank was equipped with a Russian .50-caliber machine gun and Iranian-stamped 12.75-mm ammunition, according to a source at the facility.

“Once all the ammo was removed, as per procedure, by Iraqi personnel, we noticed Iranian markings on the back of the shell casings. Seems they put a Russian machine gun with Iranian ammunition on an Abrams tank.”

As Washington scrambles to adapt to the myriad, Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting alongside its US-trained and -supplied partners in Iraq, new manifestations of shifting alliances may threaten the relevance of US end-use monitoring in that war-torn country.

The US-Russian tank hybrid could constitute twin violations of Iraq’s FMS agreements with Washington, due to unauthorized use by Shiite militias and the unsanctioned addition of the Russian gun and Iranian ammo, Pentagon officials say.

“Any time you do a foreign military sale, there’s a requirement that you do end-use monitoring, and it’s a violation if you do alterations,” Vice Adm. Joseph Rixey, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) told Defense News.

Interviewed in Washington this week at the annual Association of the US Army conference, neither Rixey, the Pentagon’s FMS chief, nor Maj. Gen. Mark McDonald, chief of the US Army Security Assistance Command, had knowledge of the event recounted to Defense News. However, both men suggested that their Iraqi customers had an obligation to report such occurrences in a timely and accurate manner.

“If they brought it into the maintenance facility, then that should be reported to our US folks there, and then we can have a discussion about how, ‘This is not what we’re going to do,’” McDonald said.

McDonald was deputy commander at the time the Iraqi tank deal was concluded, and noted that the FMS contract includes a maintenance package that covers the facility in question. “We eventually got them to buy the maintenance and training package, so I do know there is an ongoing maintenance effort going on over there under our FMS contract, with a US company doing the maintenance.”

The in-country source noted that it was the first time he had encountered the hybridization of the Abrams to accommodate the Russian gun and Iranian ammo.

“It could be an isolated event or it could mark the beginning of something worrisome. It’s too early to tell … but given the strange bedfellows over there in the Amber Zone, you never know.”



Russian Machine Gun With Iranian Ammo Attached To Abrams Tank

Iv read that article few days ago and i must say its biased abit, somewhat of a click bite... While Iraqis truly are not allowed to make significant changes on tanks they bought, that mainly includes third party suppliers and engineers which could "steal" US technology. They are not allowed to for an example buy Russian FCS and equip their M1A1M with it, however there was never such contract at least not to my knowledge that would make anyone banned from placing whatever machine gun he prefers, slat armor, ERA, IR spotlights or whatever they feel like, coz its not really part of the tank, i mean following that logic if they add few welded hooks to place their bags like US soldiers actually do, they would sue them or what? Americans like to make up stories occasionally it seems.

However what i found interesting is this:

"Russian systems were placed on American M1 Abrams tanks specially with armor-piercing rocket systems to be used against ISIL explosive cars used in their attacks," he said. "In Beiji [in Northern Iraq], there were 28 explosive cars used in one day and in Ramadi 15 cars were blown on another day."

Iraqi forces need to integrate different systems as they receive weapons from American, Russian, Iranian and European sources, al-Hashimi said.

"This integration may very well lead to a problem between the US and Iraq due to the purchase agreements,” he said. “However, there was a real problem and threat from the ISIS-armored explosive cars which led the prime minister to travel to Moscow with the minister of defense to acquire these rocket systems which were placed on the tanks.”"

I am failing to understand this, what armor piercing "rocket" system... Simply everything that comes to my mind is like "Naa...not that either".

PapaDragon wrote:

Owners are disappointed with clown's performance...

''Moscow rally against Russia's Syria strikes falls short''

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/moscow-rally-russia-syria-air-strikes-151017170228299.html

Here's a booming new business showing up in the West, and apparently in the East as well:

The lucrative business of crowds for hire

Militarov wrote:Iv read that article few days ago and i must say its biased abit, somewhat of a click bite... While Iraqis truly are not allowed to make significant changes on tanks they bought, that mainly includes third party suppliers and engineers which could "steal" US technology. They are not allowed to for an example buy Russian FCS and equip their M1A1M with it, however there was never such contract at least not to my knowledge that would make anyone banned from placing whatever machine gun he prefers, slat armor, ERA, IR spotlights or whatever they feel like, coz its not really part of the tank, i mean following that logic if they add few welded hooks to place their bags like US soldiers actually do, they would sue them or what? Americans like to make up stories occasionally it seems.

Full maintenance and supply contracts are very restrictive and usually cover all things imaginable so the same way pimping your ride voids your warranty pimping your tank probably can breach the contract terms.

Militarov wrote:

Syria Kafranbel

Ground Zero for FOAB!

Militarov wrote:

Stars on SU-34 like it was custom during WW2, star per 10(?) combat flights.

In Russia a fighter/interceptor receives a star for and only for shooting down an enemy airplane. I assume there are similar arrangements for destroying important surface targets.

whir wrote:

Militarov wrote:Iv read that article few days ago and i must say its biased abit, somewhat of a click bite... While Iraqis truly are not allowed to make significant changes on tanks they bought, that mainly includes third party suppliers and engineers which could "steal" US technology. They are not allowed to for an example buy Russian FCS and equip their M1A1M with it, however there was never such contract at least not to my knowledge that would make anyone banned from placing whatever machine gun he prefers, slat armor, ERA, IR spotlights or whatever they feel like, coz its not really part of the tank, i mean following that logic if they add few welded hooks to place their bags like US soldiers actually do, they would sue them or what? Americans like to make up stories occasionally it seems.

Full maintenance and supply contracts are very restrictive and usually cover all things imaginable so the same way pimping your ride voids your warranty pimping your tank probably can breach the contract terms.

Not like this, adding other machine gun to a tank cant break contract, no way, it would be beyond retarded. I am well aware about maintenance contracts my father worked on tank/howtizer maintenance among other things, truly it was some years ago but still.

And use of Iranian ammunition? What is that of their concern, Iran is valid ammunition supplier as anyone else, i could understand them restricting use of third party gun shells, but machine gun ammunition who would sign such contract ?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Stars on SU-34 like it was custom during WW2, star per 10(?) combat flights.

In Russia a fighter/interceptor receives a star for and only for shooting down an enemy airplane. I assume there are similar arrangements for destroying important surface targets.

Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. There must be other explanation.

Militarov wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Stars on SU-34 like it was custom during WW2, star per 10(?) combat flights.

In Russia a fighter/interceptor receives a star for and only for shooting down an enemy airplane. I assume there are similar arrangements for destroying important surface targets.

Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. There must be other explanation.

Drones count in that i think.

Militarov wrote:Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. ...

How do you know that?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. ...

How do you know that?

How do you know it did? There would be reports of such incident especially in todays world. People cant keep their mouth shut if it was their life in question.

JohninMK wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. ...

How do you know that?

Good question. Would they use their gun to shoot a drone down? If so might be interesting to see the aircraft from the other side for evidence on the gun port.

They all eventually used their gun at least once before they came to Syria, doesnt mean anything thats the thing. Also i doubt SU34 would be used to engage drone as its of no thread to it and fact everyone over Syrian sky is trying to evade contact at all cost. Escalating things by shooting down drone wouldnt be smarest idea of the century thats for sure.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Stars on SU-34 like it was custom during WW2, star per 10(?) combat flights.

In Russia a fighter/interceptor receives a star for and only for shooting down an enemy airplane. I assume there are similar arrangements for destroying important surface targets.

Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. There must be other explanation.

Drones count in that i think.

Hmm maybe they do i suppose, its after all sort of air victory but which drone? And where? Bearded band is reporting even when mosquitoes gets hurt by RuAF we would hear at least something about such incident.

^^^ If planes can now earn kill marks for shooting down drones then it seriously devalues the very concept of aerial combat and all accomplishments in previous wars.

I think 10 combat flights make more sense... that or some Turkish pilot got lesson in humility but this is very, very, very very, very unlikely...

Militarov wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. ...

How do you know that?

How do you know it did?

This is not an answer to my question and is unrelated to what I asked; my question was directed towards your claim stating that "... no SU34 ever downed anything in combat ...".

Militarov wrote:There would be reports of such incident especially in todays world. People cant keep their mouth shut if it was their life in question.

This "argument" is obviously not an answer as it is completely incorrect.

By the way, do you think that there is "anybody" that hasn't heard this "argument" before, and you think that I haven't heard it continuously over the last half a century? If you know the answer to these questions, why are you repeating this "argument" then?

Please understand that, "everybody" is, of course, aware of this most fallacious of arguments when they ask the question that I asked?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Militarov wrote:Meanwhile no SU34 ever downed anything in combat. ...

How do you know that?

How do you know it did?

This is not an answer to my question and is unrelated to what I asked; my question was directed towards your claim stating that "... no SU34 ever downed anything in combat ...".

Militarov wrote:There would be reports of such incident especially in todays world. People cant keep their mouth shut if it was their life in question.

This "argument" is obviously not an answer as it is completely incorrect.

By the way, do you think that there is "anybody" that hasn't heard this "argument" before, and I haven't heard it continuously over the last half a century? If not, why are you repeating it?

Please understand that, "everybody" is , of course, aware of this most fallacious of arguments when they ask the question that I asked?

"Innocent until proven guilty". SU34 never shot anything in combat until proof for such incident leaks. First rule in law, and anything else for that matter, star is there, what does star represent is the question. Unless you have such knowledge and proof share it with us, if not stop abusing me here and get someone else to cure your issues on i am not your younger brother.

"completely incorrect." - How so? What did you just base that conclusion on what exacly? You just did quick psychological research on the matter and pulled out statistic that people actually keep their mouth shut?

Please, share some info regarding SU34 downing something, ever, anywhere if you cant do not reply. All this "my dad is stonger than yours" arguments on this forum are getting very annoying.

PapaDragon wrote:
^^^ If planes can now earn kill marks for shooting down drones then it seriously devalues the very concept of aerial combat and all accomplishments in previous wars.

I think 10 combat flights make more sense... that or some Turkish pilot got lesson in humility but this is very, very, very very, very unlikely...

My opinion too, but as i said already idk, maybe they truly do put marks now for drones also, you never know. Yeah imagine being "ace" for shooting 67 drones and being ace for actually shooting down 67 enemy fighters/helicopters kinda loses the...how to call it...prestige