Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Countless training camps, Munition depots, HQs have been destroyed,

Which is what the not-Russian airstrikes have also done.  Riddle me this:  What makes the Russian strikes more effective?  Putin is practically begging the US for shared targeting, it certainly can't be a better list of things to hit.

 And experts. SAA has been directly fighting against ISIL,

Which weirdly enough is why the US shot itself in the foot to a large degree.  We tried to support anti-ISIS only rebels, which largely do not exist mind, because supporting people who sometimes fight ISIS but also have a huge hardon for killing Assad does not serve the longer objective of degrading ISIS (or a FSA winning at the expense of Assad's forces just means a weaker anti-ISIS front).

It's bombing the Soviet Union for invading Poland when your objective is to get rid of Hitler.  Not terribly helpful at all.

 Let us not forget that many FSA members went over to ISIL.

Individuals yeah.  Some did.  But the place catching the Russian bombs by and large are the folks who remained loyal to the FSA.  If anything Russia is making joining ISIS a safer proposition than remaining in the FSA.
 

SAA is spread out too much

Which is why if the FSA is defeated ISIS will then get to saw off Assad's head on youtube.  The only real reason we've got some sort of static front is ISIS is fighting both Assad's forces and the FSA.  Remove one, ISIS is stronger for it.  

 

But it will matter not, I'm getting great news from some colleagues of mine. 

Please do go on.  I'm genuinely curious to see what sort of magic powers Russian warheads have in regards to resolving the situation on the ground.  I mean it isn't like anyone has been dropping bombs on ISIS or the FSA for an extended time already.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haiduk, That's a very nice map. Love the colors.

Panzer, I have seen videos of FSA with TOW-2 missile systems before there was a thing called ISIL in Syria. US has been arming groups against Assad and this is not something stupid, US doesn't want competition in the middle east. BTW there are footage of countless targets marked as ISIL being hit on the internet don't make me get the links :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: TOW

Please look up the list of TOW operators globally.  You'll note Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and Luxembourg are all TOW operators.   Seeing a TOW in Syria is about as indicative of US arms shipments as spotting an AK-47 for sale in the US indicates Russian sleeper cells.


BTW there are footage of countless targets marked as ISIL being hit on the internet don't make me get the links :D

Who's labeling them?  Very likely the same folks who do not consider the FSA or ISIS to be separate entities.  From third party observers the majority of Russian strikes are hitting in the FSA/not ISIS areas.  Considering the degree to which Syria is observed, and the fact we watched the Russian planes try to sneak in likely indicates a level of understanding of where Russian munitions are striking beyond slapping a label on a video on youtube.

Regardless, still curious to hear why Russian strikes will do what other strikes have not.  Do you have a chemical weapon that turns Sunnis into Shia?  I imagine that might help.   

So...how about those Russian attack helicopter tactics in Syria!

I have to wonder what sort of target discrimination/designation they're using.  Low and fast isn't the optimal for target acquisition, it usually works best with clearly marked targets.  If they're feeding off of Syrian targetry, I imagine that's going to be interesting results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

It belatedly occurs to me we may be missing useful Russian language resources from this discussion, to include to include the ones sporting English titles, Red Star, Standard Bearer, Technology & Armaments, as well as other official and semiofficial pubs and docs. Given the simply staggering amounts of AV material out there on even very recent weapons, I'd think there'd be at least some coverage of matters helo, even if it's in the familiar, "according to foreign observers" format. Would our Russian colleagues care to look into this, please?

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer perhaps you are right, A ground offensive is needed. But the air force is hitting vital targets. SAA is having troubles in their offensive because of ATGMs already had some heavy losses at Atbin, 9 tanks losses 4 howitzers, A bm-21. There is a breach some where in the line, And SAA is getting thinned out. I'd say sending Russian ground troops would be the most effective. Or finally send some MI-35Ms, And MI-28s with thermal systems because the helicopters providing CAS there are MI-24Ps. Either way a fresh shipment in Tartus has arrived and there are alot of Russian troops and vehicles in this one. But onto the topic without further derailment, 

Looking at CAS from one perspective isn't enough to judge tactics. From what I gather, The area was a known position of enemy activity, So the MI-24s thinned them out for the ground troops. MI-24s aren't flying as low as you think, One ZSU-23 can easily take them out but there are threats of manpads in the area, And manpads are more accurate then a ZSU-23 from a few KMs away. Average patrol altitude of a MI-24 is 130 meters, In strafe runs they can go down to as low as 20 meters, And still be effective. Although with the newer MI-35Ms they'd use the advantage of the thermals and 23mm gun and stay at a further distance being more accurate then the MI-24Ps with a static 30 mm on the side. Either way who is to say the MI-24s in the video are Russian? They could be Syrian too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I for one would hope Russia wouldn't send in ground troops for their own sake.  Syria is a quagmire.  I wouldn't wish that experience on any soldier, there is far too much moral ambiguity. I'd also doubt their effectiveness.  Not a critique of the troops but rather the total lack of any standard to judge good and bad in this fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's too low to get a good hit, He could just go by a Mosque or building and pop flares. Haiduk you should have wished ISIL to have a ZSU-23 it would have been more effective.

 

sburke, I had my doubts about Bashar, He is in some ways not a good guy but he certainly is the best out of all of them. I hope Russian troops do get deployed to Syria, In full formations. BTR-82s, T-72B3s, BMP-2s, SAA needs pressure taken off its back. And I hope I don't sound like I don't care about the troops if they get sent, But if I was called from reserves I'd go without hesitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>He's too low to get a good hit

Our helos were shot down over Sloviansk by MANPADs approx. on the same altitude

>Haiduk you should have wished ISIL to have a ZSU-23 it would have been more effective.

FSA is not ISIS. Alas, Talbiseh in enclave and nobody to help them... BTW how differense, who will cause losses for Russia?.. The more Russia will lose money, soldiers, armor and aircraft in Syria, then better for us. It's just a war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure FSA is not ISIS, They have the same goal though.

Not quite.  ISIL/ISIS goals are regional. FSA is Syria specific.  ISIS/ISIL is also a lot more whacked to the point of destroying antiquities.  If you can't make the distinctions you are in for a bad time.  Witness the US forces relationship with Sunni forces in Iraq.  If you assume all the forces are the same you limit your ability to maneuver within their differences.

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sburke, I worded it wrong, You are correct actually. I meant they both have a goal of taking out the current government in charge in Syria.

and they are probably both against alcohol consumption... the bas***ds.  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vladimir Tarasov,

The description you provided regarding the Mi-35M threw me: on several counts. Since it is an export bird, I was surprised to read it has a glass cockpit, is NVG compatible and a thermal sight. Nor was I aware the Russians had a chin turret mounted 23 mm. Used to be the HIND D sported a 12.7 mm Gatling armed chin turret, while the later HIND E had the very scary twin 30 mm fixed mount. Regarding the (Gen 2!) thermal sight, which was also news to me for an export model, there is no doubt, for I have a basic system description of the FLIR taken straight from the manufacturer's site (firm is NPO GIPO, which makes thermal channels for a bunch of weapons) and explicitly stated to be part of the OPS-24N surveillance and sighting station on the Mi-35M. Have to say I find it confusing to read the Russian Air Force is flying an export bird, rather than an all-up homeland only variant. If the manufacturer's data are real, that Mi-35M thermal system is a technical marvel, since it operates over three separate frequency bands: short, medium and long.

Haiduk,

Great footage, which would be far more useful if I had ground truth for things like height of minaret, height AGL of guy shooting the video, distance and such. The Ukrainian Su-25 pilot is a virtuoso whose skills are absolutely as good as the craziest British Jaguar pilot's reported flying altitude. The Su-25 pilot was operating to Blue Angels levels. I say that having seen the Blue Angels come hurtling down the runway that low before and viewing that astounding feat  of airmanship from very close range. I do think there was an interesting edit in the Su-25 footage, in that the plane (sporting cool digicam) took off, with no apparent external stores but fuel tanks, yet conducted cannon, rocket and bombing, then returned sans even rocket pods. 

Vladimir Tarasov,

Though I don't have the link handy, what I've read (Business Insider?) indicates Russia has a full T-90 company (model unspecified) in Syria now, supposedly for defense only.  

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say sending Russian ground troops would be the most effective. 

Best case: You get Fallujah.  Won with US blood with Iraqis in tow, then lost again because the underlying problems are not resolved/Arabs at war.

Worst case: It isn't like Russian troops have had issues with insurgents before.

This isn't a problem resolved by military might.  Miltiary might is useful for managing the crisis (or keeping it from getting worse) but all Russia will do by propping up Assad is set the stage for the next Sunni revolt.  Unless there's some sort of reconciliation between the Shia ruling elite and Sunni majority it's just going to be a question of when we see ISIS and the FSA again.  
 

Is there a Russian translation of "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" by John Nagl, or perhaps "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1952-1962" by Alistair Horn?  I haven't read anything really good on the Iraq war simply because I sat through it so haven't felt so inclined to seek a good case study.  However sheer military might in this case is ethereal.  ISIS is an open conflict because the Assad regieme is so weak.  You bring down the hammer, retake Syria a city at a time in great cost in blood and treasure (using Russian divisions with the requisite platoon of Syrians to keep it tied in with the host-nation), all you're doing is pushing ISIS back into the shadows that it dwells in quite ably.

And then you've got Russians coming home in boxes because the Syrians are quite content to hide behind someone else and let them catch bullets for a change.

There must be some manner of reconciliation to regain some sort of cohesive Sunni-Shia-other ethnic grouping.  You can't kill your way out of this sort of conflict.  


Or finally send some MI-35Ms, And MI-28s with thermal systems because the helicopters providing CAS there are MI-24

  Riddle me this.  How much better is the war against ISIS in Iraq going with very capable western aviation?  I contend the overall effort would be just as effective with IL-2s or A-1 Skyraiders in place of what's whipping around right now.

In regards to flying too low to be shot down, no such thing.  

 

As to ISIS vs FSA 


Not quite.  ISIL/ISIS goals are regional. FSA is Syria specific.  ISIS/ISIL is also a lot more whacked to the point of destroying antiquities.  If you can't make the distinctions you are in for a bad time.  Witness the US forces relationship with Sunni forces in Iraq.  If you assume all the forces are the same you limit your ability to maneuver within their differences.

More complicated than that even.  Broadly the FSA is a collection of various groups fighting for everything from a Islamic government to a secular democracy...but yes generally one that is contained handily within Syria.  In effect the FSA is collection of Syrian Sunni nationalists groups.  ISIS is a transnational movement with the intent of something between a pan-Arab Caliphate, to something resembling global domination depending on the delusions of the person speaking on their behalf.   Not understanding this difference though is pretty doom and gloom.  You can't win against ISIS in Syria without addressing ISIS in Iraq. 

Worse, he folks who support the FSA strongly reject the Assad regime.  If you destroy the FSA militarily, the alternative isn't reconciliation and returning to normality, it's supporting the much worse and scarier ISIS folks who are still killing the hell out of Alawites.  As I keep saying until you give a reason for the Sunnis to support the government, they're going to join whoever opposes the Alawites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Pansaur...  We learned the lesson that the ME despots (with brutal methods) were actually doing a good job controlling a bubbling morass of hatred and violent insurrection. We have to face the good possibility that Assad is the best person to hold back the tide.  I would not be surprised if our leaders in the "west" are jumping for joy that Putin is beating up movements apparently indiscriminately.  It has been thoroughly embarrassing to watch our ineffectualness - caused arguably by the PC notion that we must get rid of despots in favor of western style democracy that has proven not to work in this region - against ISIS (or any such militant extremist group).  Perhaps a deal was struck to allow Putin to do the necessary dirty work for us, while we in the west can continue to be the good guys and "tut tut" about Russia's perfidiousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



And then you've got Russians coming home in boxes because the Syrians are quite content to hide behind someone else and let them catch bullets for a change.
 

Edited by Nidan1
double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw the outcry that occurred with the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Government tried to hide the casualties, but families back home caused such a stir, that the numbers could not be contained. What will happen now in an age of instant global communications. How long will the Russian people be content to see their sons ( I don't add daughters, because I am not sure how anxious the Russians are to see their young women slaughtered on the battlefield) coming home in boxes from fighting in a conflict so far from home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw the outcry that occurred with the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Government tried to hide the casualties, but families back home caused such a stir, that the numbers could not be contained. What will happen now in an age of instant global communications. How long will the Russian people be content to see their sons ( I don't add daughters, because I am not sure how anxious the Russians are to see their young women slaughtered on the battlefield) coming home in boxes from fighting in a conflict so far from home?

I doubt anybody sees a ground operation of any meaningful size as a possibility. At least not at the moment.

Also, if it were to happen I doubt how many conscripts serving their term Russia would rely on. I expect they'd try to absolutely minimise the amount of people going who aren't professionals, making as much use of proxy fighters as possible, which in turn would lessen the effect of families complaining their young are being forced to go and get slaughtered on a foreign battlefield. In any case a ground operation seems far fetched no?

Edited by Luka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...