Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #2

"According to the Syrian Air Defense source, the Russian Navy not only struck the Tabaqa Military Airport, but also, ISIS’ large military camp outside of the provincial capital.

The ISIS military camp is known as the “Al-Rusafa Camp”; it is located southwest of Al-Raqqa city and a few hundred meters away from the ancient Roman ruins at the Al-Rusafa Arches (formerly the city of Sergiopolis). The Al-Rusafa Camp possesses a large storage facility that houses the terrorist group’s heavy weaponry that is used in both Syria and Iraq; its destruction would be devastating for the ISIS Central Command."

Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-navy-strikes-isis-largest-storage-facility-in-southwest-al-raqqa-location-revealed/

GarryB wrote:Blindly charging in with armour against medium range ATGMs has failed many times before and will again.

What they need is not Russian leadership on the ground... they need is a tank with optics that can see TOW crews before they fire their missiles... the best solution to a TOW attack is a 125mm HE shell... the problem is that T-55s don't have the optics that can detect a TOW team 4km away let alone allow them to open fire on them before the missile hits.

They really needed a forward observer to spot TOW launch positions and pass back coordinates for artillery or air attack.

Well you wont see them though optic of any tank on time to be honest, ATGMs are being dealt by infantry, recon and artillery. If you detect ATGM team via your tank optronics than its probably way too late for you anyways, what would help them alot are countermeasures which they do not have. And they need to learn "scout and shoot" tactics this rushing wont do any good.

Fully agree. Russia probably has biggest experience when it comes to combat recce. Mortars would be working non stop after first TOW launch. Crew wouldn't have a chance. That's why Russia has to send advisers to train what's left of SAA. It pains me to see christian(one of the most motivated people fighting for survival) units getting killed by jihadis with american weapons.

"For the first time during this Syrian War, the Syrian and Russian Air Forces have coordinated airstrikes together against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra”, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Jabhat Al-Shamiyah, and Harakat Nour Al-Deen Al-Zinki inside the Aleppo Governorate.

According to a military source in the Aleppo Governorate, the Syrian Arab Air Force (SAAF) and their counterparts from the Russian Air Force launched a half dozen airstrikes each, attacking the Islamist rebels and ISIS at the Deir Hafer Plains and the cities of Al-Atareb, ‘Anadan, Gharb Al-Mansoura, and Al-Bab."

Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-and-russian-air-forces-coordinate-airstrikes-for-the-first-time/

Great coordinating attacks first time since start, that should have been done first day no offense.

Now when Evil #3 bombing Evil #1 what to do for Evil # 2 who to join...

#tearsforEbola

Article from July describing possible intervention from Russia - Caspian Kalibr included http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/06/10/dimashq/ heck even on MP.net back in a day Arjom was describing how those frigates could cover Persian Gulf

Osobist wrote:

Article from July describing possible intervention from Russia - Caspian Kalibr included http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/06/10/dimashq/  heck even on MP.net back in a day Arjom was describing how those frigates could cover Persian Gulf

I remember that, think he had a 2600km range circle on his map.

JohninMK wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

JohninMK wrote:At the link there is a screen shot showing the position of US and RuAF Su-34 planes at a point in time. I find interesting the relative numbers of each sides' planes actually overflying Syria and how it is only the Russians that seem to be able to find any targets to hit.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/06/us-f-16s-vs-su-34-fullback-over-syria/

The answer is simple; the US planes mentioned in this piece of prolefeed don't exist. There is a no-fly-zone that Russia is enforcing there.

I intentionally didn't mention this piece of prolfeed, you shouldn't have either, because I think this "story" belongs to the same category as that Turkish story.

Let me be a bit more explicit. With that Turkish story, the Russian reportings of the "story" were merely providing NATO a path for saving face.

Sorry, I must have missed the release that said that Russia had implemented a no-fly zone over that bit of Syria. Can you give a link?

In my ignorance I thought that the US/NATO were, like the RuAF, attacking ISIS (perhaps less effectively) in Syria and that they were just staying away from each other. I thought that they have not yet divided the airspace up yet, if it happens. That screen capture is just what one might expect. My only puzzle is that it seems to show 4 not 2 Russian planes.

There are plenty of proofs, reports, and announcements for Russia having established a no-fly-zone over Syria and parts of Turkey and Israel. Some material on the subject is even available in this thread. The content and the tone of the link that you have provided are themselves evidence that the story it is promoting is a fabrication.

However, the no-fly-zone, its details, or its extent is not the subject of this discussion; what matters is that when you include a link in your post, especially one that uses two cartoons as it main body of evidence, you should also provide some reasoning as to why the ridiculous “claim” that is being promoted is a “true claim”, and not just a fabricated one.

Your complicity in the promulgation of an uncorroborated item of prolefeed is an important part of what is wrong here.

For starters, how about just explaining why the “article” you posted relies on cartoons as its main evidence for the “claim” it is promoting, other than the fact that the article is directed toward an audience that are expected to be very unintelligent.

Also, if you post another cartoon in this thread claiming that the martians are sharing the airspace with the Russians over Syria, then is it my duty to do the footwork to provide links for you that disprove such a claim?

I have noticed that in one of your more recent posts (https://www.russiadefence.net/t4532p795-russian-military-involvement-and-aid-to-syria-2#126014), you have continued to again promote this same story and have even made up your fictional scenario. Now, this goes beyond just being illogical and fully establishes the situation as something very suspicious.

From your very first posts on this forum, I have found your posts as being very suspicious. They are at best copy-and-pastes of the material from the MSM. They are numerous and almost always false. The large rate at which you have posted points toward certain obvious conclusions, which I may elaborate on at a later time. The last paragraph of your reply to my post is pure trolling.

Mods, please look into this matter; it is important to make sure this thread doesn’t get wrecked; it already is in a state that may be irretrievable.

Well if it's true that Russia didn't notify NATO about upcoming launches then I can only imagine the amount of shit in NATO's pants when they saw 26 launches on their early detection radars. Someone must have spilled his coffee trying to figure out what the hell was going on.

So the Syrians are suffering losses mainly due to those TOWs? Don't these TOWs's require continous aiming in order to hit the target? I'm not a tank expert or military advisor but shouldn't it be easy to avoid hits if you drive erratically?

Neutrality wrote:Well if it's true that Russia didn't notify NATO about upcoming launches then I can only imagine the amount of shit in NATO's pants when they saw 26 launches on their early detection radars. Someone must have spilled his coffee trying to figure out what the hell was going on.

So the Syrians are suffering losses mainly due to those TOWs? Don't these TOWs's require continous aiming in order to hit the target? I'm not a tank expert or military advisor but shouldn't it be easy to avoid hits if you drive erratically?

Yes, TOW is tube launched, optically tracked, wire guided ATGM, and yes it demands operator to track target whole time. However you cant drive that erradically to evade ATGM that easy At least not a tank, some tracked scout vehicles with high weight to power ratio maybe.



This would be how you aim.

More AO 2.5RT Anti-Personnel submunition retrieved in Ma'saran, Idlib by our beloved White Helmets

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

JohninMK wrote:At the link there is a screen shot showing the position of US and RuAF Su-34 planes at a point in time. I find interesting the relative numbers of each sides' planes actually overflying Syria and how it is only the Russians that seem to be able to find any targets to hit.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/06/us-f-16s-vs-su-34-fullback-over-syria/

The answer is simple; the US planes mentioned in this piece of prolefeed don't exist. There is a no-fly-zone that Russia is enforcing there.

I intentionally didn't mention this piece of prolfeed, you shouldn't have either, because I think this "story" belongs to the same category as that Turkish story.

Let me be a bit more explicit. With that Turkish story, the Russian reportings of the "story" were merely providing NATO a path for saving face.

Sorry, I must have missed the release that said that Russia had implemented a no-fly zone over that bit of Syria. Can you give a link?

In my ignorance I thought that the US/NATO were, like the RuAF, attacking ISIS (perhaps less effectively) in Syria and that they were just staying away from each other. I thought that they have not yet divided the airspace up yet, if it happens. That screen capture is just what one might expect. My only puzzle is that it seems to show 4 not 2 Russian planes.

There are plenty of proofs, reports, and announcements for Russia having established a no-fly-zone over Syria and parts of Turkey and Israel. Some material on the subject is even available in this thread. The content and the tone of the link that you have provided are themselves evidence that the story it is promoting is a fabrication.

However, the no-fly-zone, its details, or its extent is not the subject of this discussion; what matters is that when you include a link in your post, especially one that uses two cartoons as it main body of evidence, you should also provide some reasoning as to why the ridiculous “claim” that is being promoted is a “true claim”, and not just a fabricated one.

Your complicity in the promulgation of an uncorroborated item of prolefeed is an important part of what is wrong here.

For starters, how about just explaining why the “article” you posted relies on cartoons as its main evidence for the “claim” it is promoting, other than the fact that the article is directed toward an audience that are expected to be very unintelligent.

Also, if you post another cartoon in this thread claiming that the martians are sharing the airspace with the Russians over Syria, then is it my duty to do the footwork to provide links for you that disprove such a claim?

I have noticed that in one of your more recent posts (https://www.russiadefence.net/t4532p795-russian-military-involvement-and-aid-to-syria-2#126014), you have continued to again promote this same story and have even made up your fictional scenario. Now, this goes beyond just being illogical and fully establishes the situation as something very suspicious.

From your very first posts on this forum, I have found your posts as being very suspicious. They are at best copy-and-pastes of the material from the MSM. They are numerous and almost always false. The large rate at which you have posted points toward certain obvious conclusions, which I may elaborate on at a later time. The last paragraph of your reply to my post is pure trolling.

Mods, please look into this matter; it is important to make sure this thread doesn’t get wrecked; it already is in a state that may be irretrievable.

Wow, not really sure what to make of your comments.

In general, and I have said this from the start, I trawl about ten sites and extract from them points that are relevant and might be of interest to readers and posters of the thread that I then post them in. Apart from ignoring particularly outlandish or biased items I don't knowingly 'censor' a point of view that may appear to be not the generally accepted one here as in my experience it is usually useful to consider a range of views on a subject before making ones own mind up.

I am sorry if that offends you. You can always put me on ignore. As to trolling, this is the Google definition,

make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

do you really think that my posts conform to that?

As to your main accusation, the definition of a no-fly zone is

a designated area over which aircraft may not fly without risk of interception, especially during a conflict.

at the moment, regardless of your comment, there is no trusted source that, AFAIK, has confirmed any no-fly zones over Syria let alone Turkey or Israel. Indeed the USAF seems to be unsettled but can live with the RuAF checking out their drones and the Turks are defending their airspace and the IAF are not exactly known for giving way. Theaviationist, whilst clearly spinning the Western line, puts out some good stuff and I had and still have no reason to believe that that article was bs and I stand by the comments that you find so offensive.

Finally, I think that this thread is running pretty well, the content is pretty much OT and there is plenty of peer review, like your comments.

A bit more on those sub-munitions.

Russia's operation against ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria may involve the use of a little-known advanced weapon called the SBPE.

One of the weapons used in the Russian war against ISIL may be a little-known self-aiming smart bomb known as SPBE, the daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on Thursday.

Russia has recently carried out operations destroying ISIL vehicles, in one case as many as 50, and in another instance 20 tanks. This may be evidence that Russia has been deploying SPBE smart munitions.

The SPBE is a self-guided bomb that uses infrared guidance and is able to strike tanks and other military equipment with great precision. Unlike its US counterparts, it does so at a relatively low cost. The bomb was developed from the more advanced and expensive KAB-500Kr guided bomb, which is effective for destroying high-value targets such as bridges and command posts, but less effective for multiple targets such as military equipment.

Images of unexploded SPBE bombs dropped in Syria have also appeared in social networks. The submunitions are similar to the US' BLU-108 submunitions, developed at around the same time as the SBPE and used during the 2003 Iraq War.

The Russian version uses six large charges to destroy targets while the US version uses 40. Using smaller charges actually created issues for the US as unexploded charges have buried themselves in the ground. This is a hazard for both advancing ground forces and civilians, and makes it more like a traditional cluster bomb when it impacts.

According to its specifications, one SPBE-D munition can destroy up to six tanks. It can be dropped from an altitude of 400 to 5,000 meters, then slowed down with parachutes to around 17 meters per second. At an altitude of around 150 meters, the bomb aims at an enemy target and deploys the aimed payload which can penetrate up to 70 millimeters of armor at a 30 degree angle.

Russia has also developed an anti-helicopter mine based on the SBPE, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Installed on the ground, the mine begins to scan the airspace after receiving a signal from a command post. If an enemy helicopter enters its range, the mine detonates, sending the aimed munition at the helicopter.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151008/1028192696/russia-syria-isil-smart-bombs.html#ixzz3nyJY7ASf

JohninMK wrote:A bit more on those sub-munitions.

Russia's operation against ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria may involve the use of a little-known advanced weapon called the SBPE.

One of the weapons used in the Russian war against ISIL may be a little-known self-aiming smart bomb known as SPBE, the daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on Thursday.

Russia has recently carried out operations destroying ISIL vehicles, in one case as many as 50, and in another instance 20 tanks. This may be evidence that Russia has been deploying SPBE smart munitions.

The SPBE is a self-guided bomb that uses infrared guidance and is able to strike tanks and other military equipment with great precision. Unlike its US counterparts, it does so at a relatively low cost. The bomb was developed from the more advanced and expensive KAB-500Kr guided bomb, which is effective for destroying high-value targets such as bridges and command posts, but less effective for multiple targets such as military equipment.

Images of unexploded SPBE bombs dropped in Syria have also appeared in social networks. The submunitions are similar to the US' BLU-108 submunitions, developed at around the same time as the SBPE and used during the 2003 Iraq War.

The Russian version uses six large charges to destroy targets while the US version uses 40. Using smaller charges actually created issues for the US as unexploded charges have buried themselves in the ground. This is a hazard for both advancing ground forces and civilians, and makes it more like a traditional cluster bomb when it impacts.

According to its specifications, one SPBE-D munition can destroy up to six tanks. It can be dropped from an altitude of 400 to 5,000 meters, then slowed down with parachutes to around 17 meters per second. At an altitude of around 150 meters, the bomb aims at an enemy target and deploys the aimed payload which can penetrate up to 70 millimeters of armor at a 30 degree angle.

Russia has also developed an anti-helicopter mine based on the SBPE, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Installed on the ground, the mine begins to scan the airspace after receiving a signal from a command post. If an enemy helicopter enters its range, the mine detonates, sending the aimed munition at the helicopter.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151008/1028192696/russia-syria-isil-smart-bombs.html#ixzz3nyJY7ASf

Actually it holds 15 SPBEs not only 6.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Blindly charging in with armour against medium range ATGMs has failed many times before and will again.

What they need is not Russian leadership on the ground... they need is a tank with optics that can see TOW crews before they fire their missiles... the best solution to a TOW attack is a 125mm HE shell... the problem is that T-55s don't have the optics that can detect a TOW team 4km away let alone allow them to open fire on them before the missile hits.

They really needed a forward observer to spot TOW launch positions and pass back coordinates for artillery or air attack.

Well you wont see them though optic of any tank on time to be honest, ATGMs are being dealt by infantry, recon and artillery. If you detect ATGM team via your tank optronics than its probably way too late for you anyways, what would help them alot are countermeasures which they do not have. And they need to learn "scout and shoot" tactics this rushing wont do any good.

They need just tactical follow up on troop movement. If those Pidorgs can follow up their strikes with El Cheapo drones, why don't the Iranians help out the Saa. Even without drones, it just takes better planning and infantry movement. At those ranges they're out of the small firearms enveloppe, and well within mortar enveloppe. So before the muj can fire up, the soldierss should have closed in enough to point out direction. The problem is that the attack was expected and the movement routes were well known.

[quote="Militarov"]

JohninMK wrote:A bit more on those sub-munitions.


Actually it holds 15 SPBEs not only 6.

What, even the Russian 'official' press can't get it right

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Blindly charging in with armour against medium range ATGMs has failed many times before and will again.

What they need is not Russian leadership on the ground... they need is a tank with optics that can see TOW crews before they fire their missiles... the best solution to a TOW attack is a 125mm HE shell... the problem is that T-55s don't have the optics that can detect a TOW team 4km away let alone allow them to open fire on them before the missile hits.

They really needed a forward observer to spot TOW launch positions and pass back coordinates for artillery or air attack.

Well you wont see them though optic of any tank on time to be honest, ATGMs are being dealt by infantry, recon and artillery. If you detect ATGM team via your tank optronics than its probably way too late for you anyways, what would help them alot are countermeasures which they do not have. And they need to learn "scout and shoot" tactics this rushing wont do any good.

They need just tactical follow up on troop movement. If those Pidorgs can follow up their strikes with El Cheapo drones, why don't the Iranians help out the Saa. Even without drones, it just takes better planning and infantry movement. At those ranges they're out of the small firearms enveloppe, and well within mortar enveloppe. So before the muj can fire up, the soldierss should have closed in enough to point out direction. The problem is that the attack was expected and the movement routes were well known.

Since many of those fights took place on fairly open field, some wheeled scout vehicle should go to "attract" attack, when you see where they are, mortar the shit out of them, at least its easy to obtain shitload of 60mm mortars these days half of the armies even stopped using them they can be bought like Orbit bubblegums.

And this scout and shoot is why US formed RSTA "cavalary" units with M1127 Strykers, fast, agile, light... they do not rush with tanks first, that does not work and it kinda never worked post WW2.

JohninMK wrote:

Militarov wrote:

JohninMK wrote:A bit more on those sub-munitions.


Actually it holds 15 SPBEs not only 6.

What, even the Russian 'official' press can't get it right

Even "military press journalists" often write crap, deal with it thats how press works

Syrian Towbois are having a field day. How can crews of such immobile ATGM act with impunity is beyond me, an infantry guy. We will see what awaits them when Iranians will be balls deep in action.

Infrared blinders that you see on modern MBTs would be effective.

This is serious..
Russia says found evidence of American and british citizens in Afganistan
that are military instructors training about 3,000 ISIS jihadist..  

Is there anyone still skeptic about the fact that Anglozionist powers ,US-UK
but also Israel being real terror states?

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20151008/1028199814/isil-afghanistan-militants.html

So this is what NATO is doing in Afganistan.. training ISIL fighters in Russian language
,for sure it is with the goal to be used against Russia.. 3,000 jihadist is not enough for an
army but they could be used to attack FIFA 2018 for example and detonate bombs in
many Russian cities..in a coordinated attack.. this is crazy ridiculous ,i hope Russia takes this
information to a new level and made it public world wide and demand an explanation.

SU34 with 4x KAB 500 taking off

Neutrality wrote:Infrared blinders that you see on modern MBTs would be effective.

If you are refering to ELTIC Black Fox or BAE Adaptiv, they are expencive, not really tested, hard for maintenance and most importantly unavailable for markets like Syria. Actually most importantly their effectiveness is thing to argue about alot.

Regular wrote:Syrian Towbois are having a field day. How can crews of such immobile ATGM act with impunity is beyond me, an infantry guy.

Not really...





Allah Snackbar #FSA fanboy gets blown to hell by the #SAA. #Syria
https://twitter.com/Hamosh84/status/651889701985476608/video/1