Syrian War: News #11

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why hasn't Russia supplied NSVT RWSs  for the SAA's older tanks? Its not new technology and they could simply tear them off the  T-72Bs and T-64s in storage. The way they shoot the MGs exposed makes me cringe. I could understand doing that on a T-55 or T-62 but absolutely no on any T-72 variant.

These changes will NOT benefit the general awareness versus a covered cupola. Especially in a "kinetic" environment. A TC is more likely to have his head on a swivel than from buttoned up position.

Does this mean that the T-14 would be severely handicapped in combat in Syria?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why hasn't Russia supplied NSVT RWSs  for the SAA's older tanks? Its not new technology and they could simply tear them off the  T-72Bs and T-64s in storage. The way they shoot the MGs exposed makes me cringe. I could understand doing that on a T-55 or T-62 but absolutely no on any T-72 variant.

These changes will NOT benefit the general awareness versus a covered cupola. Especially in a "kinetic" environment. A TC is more likely to have his head on a swivel than from buttoned up position.

Does this mean that the T-14 would be severely handicapped in combat in Syria?

Why would the T-14 be more handicapped than a T-72? The T-72 suffers from fundamental illnesses that do not compare with the T-14.

Namely the FoV of the tank is roughly 190° all times through periscope and episcope lookouts. This means the tank Cannot have a full view look out, which in current doctrine is normal, the tanks move in platoons with each covering an arc of fire.

The T-14 aims at a Panoramic, sensor aided FoV. This doesn't prevent dead angles (still 3 pairs of eyes) or sensor malfunction, but the issues with the T-72 are at its core and come from another era.

In another word you're moving the goal posts here. I never spoke about the T-14, I spoke about why not adding a technical brace to make up for poor tanking skills. What next? Why doesn't Russia give sensor activated fire suppression systems to Syrians so they can GTFO while their tank is hit? Why doesn't Russia actually send whole Tank divisions to fight this while the Syrians are smoking their Shishas?

Your questions and solutions are absolutely baffling. You don't solve fundamental issues by gimmicks, a RWS isn't going to stop an incoming RPG, or ATGM. Nor is it going to transform a poorly trained crew member into a tank ace with steel balls.

Now please can you stop fawning about stuff that's literally irrelevant to the combat in Syria? Syrians need better trained troops, better motivation, better NCO corps, better esprit de corps, better strategic leadership, better PPE, better rations, a clear goal and commitment to this civil war turned proxy bullshit. In other words they need to be in another universe. Unfortunately they don't have all this, so they do with what they have.

calm wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:T-62М recently deliverd from Russia hit by ATGM

http://sendvid.com/zc5aefxa

Crew survived.

Video already down.

https://twitter.com/Jacm212/status/828312723716964358

Konkurs on the turret, probably minor wounds, but major luck. Wow those Syrians might as well get me my lottery numbers.

I'm not moving the goalpoasts, i'm changing the topic. I agree with you already on the VBIED issue and RWS(although weren't even T-72M1s fitted with an RWS? I wonder why the syrian T-72s don't have them). It just caught my eye that you said that in the syrian battlefield, TCs spend a lot of their time looking out of the turret, which in turn means that this seems very useful. Since this isn't possible in the T-14, I was wondering if it has a disadvantage, or it has worked around it. This isn't syria specific(just an example), but rather on the importance of eyeball Mk.1 on the modern battlefield.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:T-62М recently deliverd from Russia hit by ATGM

http://sendvid.com/zc5aefxa

Crew survived.

Video already down.

https://twitter.com/Jacm212/status/828312723716964358

Konkurs on the turret, probably minor wounds, but major luck. Wow those Syrians might as well get me my lottery numbers.

If the T-62 had a bustle they would've been toast due to HE detonation in the turret. So much for "muh expendable commie crews!!11we jews care about our tankers*jizzes all over merkava*" BS

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I'm not moving  the goalpoasts, i'm changing the topic. I agree with you already on the VBIED issue and RWS(although weren't even T-72M1s fitted with an RWS? I wonder why the syrian T-72s don't have them). It just caught my eye that you said that in the syrian battlefield, TCs spend a lot of their time looking out of the turret, which in turn means that this seems very useful. Since this isn't possible in the T-14, I was wondering if it has a disadvantage, or it has worked around it. This isn't syria specific(just an example), but rather on the importance of eyeball Mk.1 on the modern battlefield.

No legacy production T-72 was fitted with RWS. I said in Fibua TC's need to stand out as there FoV is very narrow one buttoned up. Also even in range combat FoV tools inside the T-72's are very bad, most devices have at big max x10 magnification which renders long range scouting and assessing pretty shitty. So that's why TC's need to get out and pull their binoculars.

The TC is forced to get out to "feel the battlefield". With the T-14 this is less the case, the platform boasts a panoramic sight with x26 magnification sensors. This is simply unheard of. X20+ usually is found in Thermal Imagers enslaved to the FCS, here the Russians use them to simply look out. Although this is a huge game changer, IMO the option to have a look out with a 12/15° FoV in the form of a mast should more or less be researched. But in a sense it is eliminated by adding tactical UAV's.

So yes there are means to work around the button up issue, but those means still don't take out the risk. Now from a spec-sheet point of view the t-14 doesn't need a pop-out TC, but on the ground it's a Murphy's Law type of deal.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:T-62М recently deliverd from Russia hit by ATGM

http://sendvid.com/zc5aefxa

Crew survived.

Video already down.

https://twitter.com/Jacm212/status/828312723716964358

Konkurs on the turret, probably minor wounds, but major luck. Wow those Syrians might as well get me my lottery numbers.

If the T-62 had a bustle they would've been toast due to HE detonation in the turret. So much for "muh expendable commie crews!!11we jews care about our tankers*jizzes all over merkava*" BS

Given there are exposed racks right in both sides of the hull, if the ATGM operator had hit the separation line we might not have this discussion. These are tanks that got produced when ATGM's were still in their infancy and wars were looked as huge melees with Anti-tank assets being too few and too slow to actually stop the tanks.

Now we know that time is long gone.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why hasn't Russia supplied NSVT RWSs  for the SAA's older tanks? Its not new technology and they could simply tear them off the  T-72Bs and T-64s in storage. The way they shoot the MGs exposed makes me cringe. I could understand doing that on a T-55 or T-62 but absolutely no on any T-72 variant.

These changes will NOT benefit the general awareness versus a covered cupola. Especially in a "kinetic" environment. A TC is more likely to have his head on a swivel than from buttoned up position.

Does this mean that the T-14 would be severely handicapped in combat in Syria?

Until very strong powerful passive armor is not invented first that is completely impenetrable by any rocket grenade or anti tank missile in the world ,regardless of any side of the tank is hit. Then any tank today and in the next decade or two can be disable either in Syria or any other part of the world .if the tank is ambush. A Mine can disable the tracks and if too many attacks from the top ,side or rear ,it can pass the tank defenses and penetrate the tank.

T-14 however today is the most protected tank in the world , and in near future too and the tank that better chances have to survive a coordinated attack by terrorist with rocket grenades and anti tank missiles. and even if the tank is disable and destroyed,the crew have a chance to survive in the capsule inside. So indeed T-14 will do much better than any tank in the world in Syria. But at same time that does not means ,that cannot be destroyed in a coordinated attack.
Perhaps if Russia manage to build the world first tank entirely made of graphene ,that is 300x times stronger than steel,then it will be indestructible. But until technology is created to mass
produce such thing ,then tanks will not be always indestructible.

http://theconversation.com/harder-than-diamond-stronger-than-steel-super-conductor-graphenes-unreal-5123


On an a side note , interestingly it was Russian scientist who discovered the material in 2010
and won the nobel price in physics for it ,but still the material apparently is not easy to create ,manipulate or mass produce.  Imagine an hellicopter of graphene , or combat jet . it will be immune to traditional air to air missile attacks or direct fire and a group of 10 to 20 hellicopters should be enough to wipe entire armies and return safe without a scratch ..

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

calm wrote:T-62М recently deliverd from Russia hit by ATGM

http://sendvid.com/zc5aefxa

Crew survived.

Video already down.

https://twitter.com/Jacm212/status/828312723716964358

Konkurs on the turret, probably minor wounds, but major luck. Wow those Syrians might as well get me my lottery numbers.

If the T-62 had a bustle they would've been toast due to HE detonation in the turret. So much for "muh expendable commie crews!!11we jews care about our tankers*jizzes all over merkava*" BS

Given there are exposed racks right in both sides of the hull, if the ATGM operator had hit the separation line we might not have this discussion. These are tanks that got produced when ATGM's were still in their infancy and wars were looked as huge melees with Anti-tank assets being too few and too slow to actually stop the tanks.

Now we know that time is long gone.

ATGMs wouldn't be so useful in a mobile conventional war.

What's more worrying is how badly they flanked the SAA position. If you're gonna use tanks as pillboxes, at least protect their flanks adequately.

[quote="Vann7"]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why hasn't Russia supplied NSVT RWSs  for the SAA's older tanks? Its not new technology and they could simply tear them off the  T-72Bs and T-64s in storage. The way they shoot the MGs exposed makes me cringe. I could understand doing that on a T-55 or T-62 but absolutely no on any T-72 variant.

These changes will NOT benefit the general awareness versus a covered cupola. Especially in a "kinetic" environment. A TC is more likely to have his head on a swivel than from buttoned up position.

Imagine an hellicopter of graphene , or combat jet . it will be immune to traditional air to air missile attacks or direct fire and a group of 10 to 20 hellicopters should be enough to wipe entire armies and return safe without a scratch ..

Thanks, I will incorporate this idea in my sci fi universe.

123456

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why hasn't Russia supplied NSVT RWSs  for the SAA's older tanks? Its not new technology and they could simply tear them off the  T-72Bs and T-64s in storage. The way they shoot the MGs exposed makes me cringe. I could understand doing that on a T-55 or T-62 but absolutely no on any T-72 variant.

The stored T-72 have more value for Russia than the T-55 or the T-62 moved to Syria. Do not expect Russia use parts of better tanks to improve worse tanks. This only is possible if they are free parts removed in a previous restoration of the better tanks.

The production of the T-62 was finnished in Russia in 1978. The production of the T-55 in 1979. Even the youngest of these tanks have almost 40 years old. If there is something available to improve them at almost 0 cost it is possible to see them included, if not the tanks will go like they are with some cleaning and some paint. Russia is not interested in spending to improve them and Syria has not money enough. Syria will prefer two of them like they are instead of one barely improved. It is as easy as this.

Even it is likely that these T-55 and T-62 have been moved to Syria time ago, and even have been restored (externally) in Syria. To see them appear and begin to be used now means not that they come just now to Syria. I would not talk about T-62 or T-55 stored in Russia today, neither of T-64.

WrathOfEuphrates Stage 3
#SDF #Kurds captured 5 villages in North East of #Raqqa



WrathOfEuphrates Stage 3
FGM-148 Javelin operated by  foreign SOF - 0:06

and Bushmaster PMV - 2:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFb5jSnDc4

calm wrote:WrathOfEuphrates Stage 3
#SDF #Kurds captured 5 villages in North East of #Raqqa



WrathOfEuphrates Stage 3
FGM-148 Javelin operated by  foreign SOF - 0:06

and Bushmaster PMV - 2:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFb5jSnDc4

OK so Tripod FGM-148 and PMV : Brits or Australians.

Prisoner exchange negotiations btw SAA & Opp in Qal'at Mudiq, Hama
Some reports saying exchange will include Opp release of Alawite women & children kidnapped in Latakia countryside in 2013
kidnapped by ISIS/FSA during offensive in Latakia countryside in 2013
Exchange will start soon in batches, Gov will release 55 & Opp will release 54 prisoners incl. women/children kidnapped from Latakia CS
Pics of Alawite women and children who will hopefully be released soon


https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/829010971729354753

Just gonna put what I saw in the MSM...

tfw you've captured cities and broken sieges but some turks can't even capture a hospital

some more good news. although still a lot of progress to be made, I suspect the fact that the Kurds at closing in on the dam west of Raqqa and moving closer on the east, has had some influence. the more the kurds push and take ground its actually for the SAA in eastern Homs etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull out of Khanasser area soon, and they might just take the Syrian governments offer of leaving Yamouk up soon as they will be needing manpower soon to defend Raqqa.

Syrian Army secures main road along Jabbul Lake as ISIS pulls out of eastern Aleppo


https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-secures-main-road-along-jabbul-lake-isis-pulls-eastern-aleppo/

I really have no good explanation why ISIS barely fights kurds and keeps retreating from them. It has no logic. Why fight to the teeth in Al bab while losening defences near raqqa. it has no logic. The only semiplausible explanation is that the US is ordering ISIS to fight the SAA and recently TSK while keeping the  western MSM heroes keep getting victories without a fight. Oh well, I guess some kuffar are more equal than others in the eyes of ISIS.

I wonder how the US orders ISIS deployments around and how the Russians haven't found proof of that. Is it some preexisting agreement made before the Russian intervention or through ultra covert CIA operatives? Is there a chance that the FSB has captured such operatives but doesn't declare it to avoid a diplomatic incident? If so I guess that may have been one of the topics between trump and Putin.


Finally, It would've been  pure karma and comedy for the Russians to "accidentally" pull an Erdogan and shoot down an israeli or US jet in syrian airspace. I'm inclined to believe that they would've done it if Hillary was elected.

i know it was a couple of weeks ago when Israel bombed Syria again, but the question i have to ask is Syrian air defence really unable to deter Israeli aircraft? surely the systems below that Syria has (although in what numbers i dont know now since the war) can deter or shoot down Israeli aircraft. The most modern/effective systems in place are Sa-24, Pantsir and BUK

systems currently in use.

Sa-7
Sa-14
Sa-16
Sa-18
Sa-24

Sa-6
Sa-8
Sa-9
Sa-13
BUK
ZSU-23-4
Tunguska
Pantsir

Sa-2
Sa-3
Sa-5
(and possibly rumours of S-300)

Daesh has set most of it northern assets to fight against TSK and affiliated militia, whereas they dont show any tough resistance against Kurds.Daesh is designed to legalize YPG in Syria so that it would be hard to oppose any YPG presence in Syria.

Daesh planted plenty of IEDs everywhere,also tens of SVBIEDs were ready to deploy,and also there are probably tens of armed militants positioned within civilian population.

However,neither of what I mentioned above is done against YPG by Daesh.What they do is just firing some dodgy bullets and keep falling back.

If one looks at the logo of SDF, river Euphrates is cleary shown,and also Hatay,Turkey is also included within.This implies that they will take control of Syrian territory until they reach all over the Euphrates River and they will pose a huge threat against Turkey.

I think Russians and Assad are way optimistic about this SDF shit but at the end they will not see an integrated Syria.

Although Turkish Government and Assad are two opposing sides,one thing that they agree upon is territorial integrity of Syria.