Incredible Footage

[Nidan1]

Syria - Strengthening the protection of SAA tanks in Darayya 26/3

WW2 fashion is back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlQOmODmsec

Plenty of rubble to be had, might as well put it to good use.

They probably can't afford to replace the RA modules.

[Erwin]

"They probably can't afford to replace the RA modules."

An astute observation and significant in the overall picture of how well they are doing.

[Alan8325]

Description as found at liveleak:

"FSA film two SAA T-72 tanks in action - I see 3 rpg hits on first tank: 0:32, 1:50, 4:46. Engine and hydraulic failure - second tank tows it back, and continues firing. Another close call at 6:10 on first tank. Note no reactive armor upgrade on these T-72. Excellent footage."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c56_1363981215

What is that thing that hits the rubble at 6:10? It looks like it's flying sideways or end-over-end. Dud RPG round or some kind of improvised grenade?

[agusto]

What is that thing that hits the rubble at 6:10? It looks like it's flying sideways or end-over-end. Dud RPG round or some kind of improvised grenade?

An improvised rocket propelled grenade? I doubt that the FSA would be able to manufacture one. It also doesnt look like a dud RPG round, maybe its just some piece of metal that flys away?

[Nidan1]

To see these tanks in an urban battleground without ERA attached only proves the lack of upgrading to SAA T-72s.

While they are quite adequate against forces only armed with RPGs, they are still 70's technology, and without the benefit of ERA they are vulnerable to lucky hits, and would be mincemeat in the face of modern fire and forget AT weapons and modern tank guns.

Typical of the way the Soviets and now the Russians and their clients have supplied their Arab partner states. Lots of good looking stuff, but mostly obsolete.

[Alan8325]

An improvised rocket propelled grenade? I doubt that the FSA would be able to manufacture one. It also doesnt look like a dud RPG round, maybe its just some piece of metal that flys away?

Well it was either explosive or heavy enough to blast some chunks and dust out of the debris pile, which leads me to believe that it was launched. I'm guessing it was some type of RPG round that was either a dud, improvised or deflected by an off-screen object, sending it on tumbling path.

[Schmoly War]

No aprils fools im afraid.

Syria - A small battle of a big war (part 1. A trap)

Frontal RPG hit around 7:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1b5FZ0x65I

[Schmoly War]

The aftermath. Man these tanks take some abuse! Look at the RA "replacements"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BmSEhYQ_A

[Vanir Ausf B]

3:50

RPG fired from inside building

[agusto]

Some interesting non-combat footage from Syria:

Remotely controled sniper rifle:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe8_1364361956

Huge (!) StG-44 stash found by FSA rebels:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=86f_1364442659

Several captured FSA tanks:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a9_1364509574

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=007_1364890585

FSA captures military jets. I wonder if they are still operable:

EDIT: The captured planes are armed L-39 Albatros jet trainers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39#Syria

[John Kettler]

If they sell those StG-44s (who knew so many existed and looked so good?) to collectors, the FSAA coffers will overflow. The combat evac of the franged tank was pretty special (did you see the legs of the guy who got out and hooked up the damaged one?), while at the time illustrating the limitations of the POS (the wargamer) tank fist! Sending armor into such incredibly constrained terrain is fundamentally insane. I don't understand why, with all the footage we have of Syrian T-72s in MOUT, not a single one seems to employ the remote controlled 12.7mm NSVT on the roof?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Schmoly War]

If they sell those StG-44s (who knew so many existed and looked so good?) to collectors, the FSAA coffers will overflow. The combat evac of the franged tank was pretty special (did you see the legs of the guy who got out and hooked up the damaged one?), while at the time illustrating the limitations of the POS (the wargamer) tank fist! Sending armor into such incredibly constrained terrain is fundamentally insane. I don't understand why, with all the footage we have of Syrian T-72s in MOUT, not a single one seems to employ the remote controlled 12.7mm NSVT on the roof?

Regards,

John Kettler

In the second interview with the T72M1 driver he said that they could not be operated from the inside, so they decided to take them off.

[Nidan1]

I am beginning to think that there is a real story behind the Abkhazian Network News Agency, the folks that are bringing most of the Youtube footage of the Syrian Government side of things to the world. Why would a small breakaway country from Georgia want to get involved like this?

The network was founded by Marat Musin an expert in financial intelligence (whatever that means), and lecturer at Moscow State University. He sends his reporters into the battlefield in Syria to "counter the advanced information technologies that are used by al-Qaida to make insurgents in the Middle East look like freedom fighters."

Interesting development I think, wars are now fought on the internet as well as on the ground. We all get involved whether we like it or not in this new information age.

[Nidan1]

In the second interview with the T72M1 driver he said that they could not be operated from the inside, so they decided to take them off.

Again examples of obsolete Soviet military hardward being sold to client states. Modern Russian tanks are usually equipped with the new KORD AA MG, but I dont think that they can be fired remotely either. They use the same mounting on a tank as the NSV system so retro fitting tanks is easier.

Since the NSV system is basically out of production it is telling that Syrian tanks still mount this old system.

[Lanzfeld]

The aftermath. Man these tanks take some abuse! Look at the RA "replacements"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BmSEhYQ_A

This is really incredible. The amount of abuse these things take makes me LOVE them! Good up close shots of real damage for modelers.

[John Kettler]

Schmoly War,

Speaking from the perspective of someone who used to do military analysis for a living, what you've come up with is intel gold. The vid confirms claims I saw made during the Cold War that ERA could be penetrated by small caliber munitions and not detonate. Several such blocks were shown exhibiting just such penetrations. Equally obvious were the locations where ERA went off high order from a HEAT hit, leaving nothing but a twisted mounting bracket. If I'm in that tank, I'm happy!

Of additional interest were the field expedients used to restore at least some coverage to areas exposed by ERA block detonation. These included cinder blocks and what looked like ornamental ceramic blocks. Ceramic happens to be part of HEAT protective armor arrays, so this approach makes technical sense. Am not as optimistic regarding the cinder block, though it's better than bare steel. From what I could tell, there's been a concerted effort to cover as much of the tank's top surface as could be managed. This is a clear response to the repeatedly videoed attack from above problem.

Both active IR lights (main gun and TC's) are history, essentially hollowed out wrecks of what they were.

Loved the slat/birdcage armor on that other T-72! What a great modeling project!

Regards,

John Kettler

[agusto]

Schmoly War,

Speaking from the perspective of someone who used to do military analysis for a living, what you've come up with is intel gold. The vid confirms claims I saw made during the Cold War that ERA could be penetrated by small caliber munitions and not detonate. Several such blocks were shown exhibiting just such penetrations. Equally obvious were the locations where ERA went off high order from a HEAT hit, leaving nothing but a twisted mounting bracket. If I'm in that tank, I'm happy!

I ve always asked myself what happens if incendiary rounds or tracer rounds penetrate an ERA block.

Of additional interest were the field expedients used to restore at least some coverage to areas exposed by ERA block detonation. These included cinder blocks and what looked like ornamental ceramic blocks. Ceramic happens to be part of HEAT protective armor arrays, so this approach makes technical sense. Am not as optimistic regarding the cinder block, though it's better than bare steel. From what I could tell, there's been a concerted effort to cover as much of the tank's top surface as could be managed. This is a clear response to the repeatedly videoed attack from above problem.

I think one of the reasons the cinder blocks are placed on the tanks to replace lost ERA blocks is to make it harder for the rebels to find the weakspots in the tanks reactive armor. Considering the short ranges of urban combat, it would probably be possible to aim an RPG or a similar weapon at an unprotected area where the ERA block had been destroyed during a previous engagement. Considering the stressful environment i imagine a battlefield to be, it would probably be hard though to distinguish between and ERA block and a cinder block of the same size and colour. If you look at the more distant images of the tank in the vid Schmoly War posted, you will see that the cinder blocks fit into the pattern of the ERA armor quite well.

[Vark]

Don't forget any object, even a cinder block, will have an impact on the HEAT warhead, as it causes a premature initiation of the jet and thus reduces penetration. Hence the stuffed sacks and caged rubble seen on videos, against a dual warhead though, it's another matter.

[Nidan1]

I ve always asked myself what happens if incendiary rounds or tracer rounds penetrate an ERA block.

I think one of the reasons the cinder blocks are placed on the tanks to replace lost ERA blocks is to make it harder for the rebels to find the weakspots in the tanks reactive armor. Considering the short ranges of urban combat, it would probably be possible to aim an RPG or a similar weapon at an unprotected area where the ERA block had been destroyed during a previous engagement. Considering the stressful environment i imagine a battlefield to be, it would probably be hard though to distinguish between and ERA block and a cinder block of the same size and colour. If you look at the more distant images of the tank in the vid Schmoly War posted, you will see that the cinder blocks fit into the pattern of the ERA armor quite well.

And hence this discussion reinforces some of the things I have been posting about the staying power of so called "modern armed forces".

Here we see the Syrian armored infantry forces which we all agree can be considered a "well equipped" armed force (as were the Iraqis in 1991 and 2003). Using just ERA deployment as a specific example, we have seen that some tank units have ERA and some don't. Without knowing exactly what the SAA is trying to accomplish in the various larger towns, we can see they they are foward deploying tanks and IFVs exposing them to all kinds of AT fire.

They are not going up against a comperable conventional force but the rebels/jihadists seem to have sufficient stocks of RPGs and the like, and they are scoring multiple hits on Syrian T-72s, with and without ERA fitted on board.

What we are not seeing is the SAA logistical system, replacing spent ERA modules or adding ERA to those tanks currently without that extra protection. What we are seeing is inprovised extra armor protection consisting of street rubble and scrap metal. Military folks will be inclined to improvise if they feel that they are not getting proper support from their supply chain. The Syrian Army seems to be no different in that regard but they appear at this stage to be unable to support their armored forces with repairs to their damaged vehicles.

[agusto]

What we are not seeing is the SAA logistical system, replacing spent ERA modules or adding ERA to those tanks currently without that extra protection. What we are seeing is inprovised extra armor protection consisting of street rubble and scrap metal. Military folks will be inclined to improvise if they feel that they are not getting proper support from their supply chain. The Syrian Army seems to be no different in that regard but they appear at this stage to be unable to support their armored forces with repairs to their damaged vehicles.

That is interesting. It means that the rebels are currently able to desroy the SAAs superior heavy weaponry (in this case mainly tanks and IFVs, but probably also aircraft and artillery), wich is the SAAs single most important advantage over the rebels on the battlefield, at a faster rate than it can be replaced by its logistics.

Here we see the Syrian armored infantry forces which we all agree can be considered a "well equipped" armed force (as were the Iraqis in 1991 and 2003). Using just ERA deployment as a specific example, we have seen that some tank units have ERA and some don't. Without knowing exactly what the SAA is trying to accomplish in the various larger towns, we can see they they are foward deploying tanks and IFVs exposing them to all kinds of AT fire.

They are not going up against a comperable conventional force but the rebels/jihadists seem to have sufficient stocks of RPGs and the like, and they are scoring multiple hits on Syrian T-72s, with and without ERA fitted on board.

I think it is the rebels intended strategy to 1) force the SAA to fight a war of attrition against a guerillia-like force in urban terrain, decimine its superior weaponary until a point is reached where the odds are even equipment wise and then 2) start to wage a conventional war against the remaining government forces.

This would work under the circumstances that 1) the rebels can replace human losses faster than the SAA, 2) the amount of losses the SAA can inflict upon the rebels decreases with their loss of crucial equipment (for example tanks) and 3) the SAA cant replace lost crucial equipment at a high enough rate to make up for the rebels ability to replace human losses faster than the SAA

The initially mentioned fact that the SAA seems for example to be unable to repair damaged tanks properly could be interpreted as an indication that the rebels strategy is working and that they are probably going to win the war.

EDIT:

Here is a detailed "strategical" map of the current conflict that is updated regularly (last update: 23rd March 2013):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map

You get an interesting picture of the conflict if you take the below ethno-religious map and imagine it as an overlay over the above strategical map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg/701px-Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg

[Vark]

Or it could just be a salutary warning about such regimes buying Western equipment. Just how long would such MBT's last as supplies dwindled? Their qualitative edge in technology comes at a very high price, requiring an equally sophisticated logistical system. T-72's might seem to be crude, in comparison to M1's and Leopards II's, but they can be kept running with a fair amount of bodging, due to the inherent simplicity of the equipment, as can be seen by this interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFF4Gc9Mb5c

Some of his comments are obviously directed at internal consumption but overall the T-72 seems a typical Soviet design, fit for purpose, nothing more nothing less.

Far more worrying for the regime and the West (petro-funded terrorism and not of the Saudi variety) is this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/syrian-rebels-capture-of-oil-fields-increases-economic-pressures-on-assad/2013/04/06/bc171194-9edb-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html

No matter how crude your tank, it still is a POL resource hog, so when you see fewer SA tanks and those that are present are dug in, you will know trouble, and imminent regime collapse, is around the corner (rather like Germany in 45).

[Nidan1]

This would work under the circumstances that 1) the rebels can replace human losses faster than the SAA, 2) the amount of losses the SAA can inflict upon the rebels decreases with their loss of crucial equipment (for example tanks) and 3) the SAA cant replace lost crucial equipment at a high enough rate to make up for the rebels ability to replace human losses faster than the SAA

The initially mentioned fact that the SAA seems for example to be unable to repair damaged tanks properly could be interpreted as an indication that the rebels strategy is working and that they are probably going to win the war.

I think you are quite right here. The majority of casualties inflicted by the Assad regime have been from artillery and airstrikes. They dont seem to be doing much of anything except destroying their own cities when they go head to head with the rebels on the ground.

[Nidan1]

Or it could just be a salutary warning about such regimes buying Western equipment. Just how long would such MBT's last as supplies dwindled? Their qualitative edge in technology comes at a very high price, requiring an equally sophisticated logistical system. T-72's might seem to be crude, in comparison to M1's and Leopards II's, but they can be kept running with a fair amount of bodging, due to the inherent simplicity of the equipment, as can be seen by this interview

Some of his comments are obviously directed at internal consumption but overall the T-72 seems a typical Soviet design, fit for purpose, nothing more nothing less.

No matter how crude your tank, it still is a POL resource hog, so when you see fewer SA tanks and those that are present are dug in, you will know trouble, and imminent regime collapse, is around the corner (rather like Germany in 45).

I agree completely, for the type of conflict that they might expect to encounter the technology of the T-72 is more than enough for the Syrian Army. They have been a client state of the Soviets and now friendly with the Russians, and have received these weapons systems since the 1960s. They have trained on them and learned to maintain them for decades. I am not suggesting that they should have more sophisticated weapons, I am saying that they might not have the ability to provide adequate logistical supply to the land weapons systems they are now employing, either because the parts are no longer available or because they do not have stocks of parts near the front lines.

[Vark]

Yes, agree. Read between the lines and the tankers reply about the 'plumbing' of the T-72, and their field modifications could quite easily be seen as a veiled comment on the failing supply system. With diminishing fuel supplies, logistical support also suffers and then, the Syrian inability to control territory, without reliance on massive firepower, will be brutally exposed. I think it depends on Russia, if she continues to support and critically, supply Syria, then the war will drag on, if not, Assad's looking for a new foreign residence.

I also agree about spare parts, but don't also forget what an insatiable monster modern warfare is regarding ammo, just how many 125mm HE/Heat rounds do they have? Again, if Putin is allowing Rapira rounds on credit that will help. Don't forget, Syria is killing large numbers of Muslim extremists, as well as FSA combatants, which suits Russia, and by extension the West, quite nicely. Again historical parallels with the highly ambiguous measures taken by the West, during the Iran/Iraq War, where Saddam was used as a way of controlling Iranian extremism.

[Erwin]

Good analysis. One needs to think in those sorts of realpolitik concepts in order to understand why each side does what it does.