US/ NATO v. Russia - Misperceptions.

[Codename Duchess]

24 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I agree, SVP-24 has GPS, and all the other calculations for bombs, the pilot just sets the coordinates and flies through to the determined way-points, and it releases automatically (no human error) based on those calculations. At 5-6 kilometer altitude these bombs have 10-20 meter CEPs, not precision by any standards of course, but still accurate to hit strongholds,  and formations.

Vlad, unless you're dropping a weather sensing bomb immediately beforehand you are not going to realistically get that accuracy on any sort of day.  The US has had standardized dumb bombs with very predictable ballistic patterns for years, and bombing computers EXACTLY like you've described for decades.  That doesn't change mother nature, temperature, wind, and all that.  For that degree of precision you would need known environmental factors at every foot in that area.  You'd also need to fly in an incredibly narrow launch basket that for all intents and purposes is just a huge workload on the pilot.  At 20,000' so many things can move a bomb by more than 20 meters (although last I saw you were claiming 5m CEP).  Even then, my 500lb bomb might hit the building I want, or it might hit the daycare right next door with a 20m CEP.  That's simply unacceptable for urban anti-terorrist warfare.  The results of that practice are many, known, and tragic.  I cannot comprehend how this is justifiable in any human sense.  I know you want to believe in the power of SVP-24, but it's nothing new and nothing perfect.  I am sorry, and I'm sorry for the Syrians who fall in the way.

As for munitions, cluster bombs were designed for conventional war which this is not.  There's a reason why the US has stopped using them, and nowadays we have things like the BLU-129 carbon fiber bomb that doesn't have fragments specifically for these kind of situations.  Flip on RT for some strike footage and you'll see.....something else.

Honestly I think the Russians are trying to get rid of old stocks.  The beauty of our GBU kits is that they bolt on easily to existing weapons, whereas from my understanding the Russian ones are all purpose built from the ground up.  I expect that soon we will see the Russians adapt this style, if they haven't already.  It really increases flexibility.  As it stands now, we're using all sorts of GBU-12 and -38 kits in training because the LDJAM is becoming very prevalent.  It's like how all our missile shoots these days are older munitions.

As for your mortar example, while I won't say that 100% of the time we wouldn't drop a precision weapon on it (because horrible mistakes have been made), you'd bet your ass that we would avoid it at all costs.  I'm not so sure that the RuAF** would have that reservation and I know for sure that the Syrian Air Force wouldn't.

**What's the official name these days?

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[VladimirTarasov]

1 minute ago, Codename Duchess said:

although last I saw you were claiming 5m CEP

For low altitudes it can achieve 5-10 meter CEPs is what I read from some analysis, but for high altitudes this number is not true and it gets more bigger. And thanks for your input cool to hear it from an actual pilot. 

3 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

That's simply unacceptable for urban anti-terorrist warfare

If this was the medium-low intensity warfare like insurgency the US faced in Afghanistan then I would agree with your point. But these guys fight in actual conventional formations, and have army grade equipment in alot of cases.

6 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

As for munitions, cluster bombs were designed for conventional war which this is not.  There's a reason why the US has stopped using them, and nowadays we have things like the BLU-129 carbon fiber bomb that doesn't have fragments specifically for these kind of situations.  Flip on RT for some strike footage and you'll see.....something else.

I know what you're talking about, I seen the footage. But we need to study the case in detail, if RuAF has deliberately dropped a clusterbomb just to hit a few trenches then that is totally not justified and must be brought forth into the UN. 

10 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

As for your mortar example, while I won't say that 100% of the time we wouldn't drop a precision weapon on it (because horrible mistakes have been made), you'd bet your ass that we would avoid it at all costs.  I'm not so sure that the RuAF** would have that reservation and I know for sure that the Syrian Air Force wouldn't.

Considering many factors that could take place, that doesn't justify the rebels side one bit. More so it shows you how embedded they are within the populace, even with their high intensity warfare formations. 

12 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

**What's the official name these days?

Russian Aerospace Forces 

[Codename Duchess]

Dude that's like apartment buildings spread over 2-3 blocks in a bigass city.  Nevermind that cluster bombs suck against hard targets like buildings, what in the actual ****.

[panzermartin]

I dig the techincal details but do you think there is any point in this "my bombs are more humane than yours" discussion in this war of anihilation? I think even precision weapons would have a hard time to hit anything here. I'm amazed how even some of the bombs hit their target. Its like Stalingrad only more packed.

 

[VladimirTarasov]

12 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Dude that's like apartment buildings spread over 2-3 blocks in a bigass city.  Nevermind that cluster bombs suck against hard targets like buildings, what in the actual ****.

That's definitely not a justified case, can you get me a confirmation whether or not that was Syrian or Russian? If so definitely a case to bring up. I know rebels can be spread among large areas, but this is not one I'd be proud of. A f*** up on the Syrian or Russian government's side. Is there an aftermath picture/video where we can assess what was targeted? 

Edit: Nvm looks like a SU-30, Russian jet. 

Edited October 30, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[VladimirTarasov]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I dig the techincal details but do you think there is any point in this "my bombs are more humane than yours" discussion in this war of anihilation? I think even precision weapons would have a hard time to hit anything here. I'm amazed how even some of the bombs hit their target. Its like Stalingrad only more packed.

Precision weapons are still going to kill civilians, but the video duchess shared is overkill, and most likely resulted in collateral damage that could have been avoided if cluster munitions weren't used for that mission. I'm not sure if you know, but in S Aleppo there are 1070 apartment projects where it's total rebel control no civilians, where bombs like these could be used without worrying about any collateral damage but I'm not sure if that was the case in the video Duchess shared.

[Machor]

On 17/10/2016 at 7:10 AM, VladimirTarasov said:

On 17/10/2016 at 0:36 AM, JUAN DEAG said:

0:30-0:34

Nailed it!

Poor civvies! I'm sure Russia targeted the population because they are innocent! Which is not the case. Russia has not signed the treaty where cluster bombing is not permitted same as the U.S. And obviously terrorist locations were targeted in this video and it was not a random strike. But of course you will ignore two very important facts. First being that "rebels" hold the city as hostage, and inevitably when they are targeted for the low light Jihadi scum they are it is likely to result in collateral damage.

Erm, we've been here before. Why can't we just agree that Russia is using excessive force? This, in itself, doesn't mean the rebels are any better.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Machor said:

Erm, we've been here before. Why can't we just agree that Russia is using excessive force? This, in itself, doesn't mean the rebels are any better.

I'm just keeping these short as I've got things to do.  In response to this statement, because we should expect more of a nominally civilized country vs head chopping terrorists.  Russia has the means to do better, should do better, and likely could leave Syria a better place, but instead it's content to leave it broken in a way that serves Russia's end.

I'm not even talking about nation building, simply setting the table for the various Syrian factions to yell at each other, working with the west to punish any cease fire violations, and basically following a sort of Bosnia model for resolution.  Not perfect, but certainly a more effective long term solution than letting Assad limp along.

 

 

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Precision weapons are still going to kill civilians, but the video duchess shared is overkill, and most likely resulted in collateral damage that could have been avoided if cluster munitions weren't used for that mission. I'm not sure if you know, but in S Aleppo there are 1070 apartment projects where it's total rebel control no civilians, where bombs like these could be used without worrying about any collateral damage but I'm not sure if that was the case in the video Duchess shared.

It's stupidly reckless.  It's not even like dropping that weapon in an urban area was ever not going to do a lot of harm, which is crossing the line between collateral damage (somewhere in that explosion was a target worthy of destruction in spite of risk to civilians), into willfully killing civilians.

So pretty much war crimes.  

[sburke]

Well if the US were doing that you could damn well be sure there would be a completely different response.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

16 minutes ago, sburke said:

Well if the US were doing that you could damn well be sure there would be a completely different response.

A Ukrainian SU-24 swoops in low over Donetsk, before disgorging a load of cluster bombs on a suspected separatist arms depot the arms depot is located in a former school surrounded by civilian housing,  and there's a clinic in the impact zone.  

How do you think Russia reacts?  How do you think it responds if this becomes a daily activity?

[Machor]

Just to clarify my previous post, of course I meant agreeing that Russia is using excessive force and should stop doing so.

[sburke]

36 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

A Ukrainian SU-24 swoops in low over Donetsk, before disgorging a load of cluster bombs on a suspected separatist arms depot the arms depot is located in a former school surrounded by civilian housing,  and there's a clinic in the impact zone.  

How do you think Russia reacts?  How do you think it responds if this becomes a daily activity?

Why for sure they would say it was possibly okay because the separatists are using the populace as a shield right? Russia would tell everyone to not rush to judgement until we could really clarify what happened.... wow that almost hurt to say that.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

Why for sure they would say it was possibly okay because the separatists are using the populace as a shield right? Russia would tell everyone to not rush to judgement until we could really clarify what happened.... wow that almost hurt to say that.

Actually the more honest answer was they'd set up a air defense system and shoot down an airliner full of Dutch people.  

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Actually the more honest answer was they'd set up a air defense system and shoot down an airliner full of Dutch people.  

Well said. 

[Wicky]

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I don't care if it was in Pyonyang, it provides evidence in that link I shared.

Odd then don't you think that that pic you provided from a barely disguised Russian propaganda website as evidence of practices of terrorists in Syria is from a video circa 2014 when "Hamas Terrorists Fire Rockets from a Gazan School Use Children as Human Shields".   Putinbot fail that one ;-)

 

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Wicky

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Going off of what Wicky said, the reason we are all so doubtful about Russian sources is that the Russian government:

1. Controls all major media outlets in Russia

2. Has dedicated a significant amount of resources to generate media sources that appear at first glance, independent, but instead are in fact wholly controlled by the Russian government, and beholden to its objectives.  

The Western media, for better or worse takes no orders from anyone (although it isn't above various degrees of bias, or just stupid reporting, the fact it's many independent, even competing organizations makes it less likely all those outlets repeat the same mistakes), and when you're looking at official NATO/US Government/whatever information sources, they're obligated to tell you as much.

So there's a build-in distrust of information from Russia, especially information that is only repeated in Russian sources.  

[panzermartin]

Its no secret US/NATO are more careful with civilian casualties. A lot has to do with public opinion being much more harsh with them in case of civilians deaths. They have definetely move on from napalms, and spraying agent Orange in Vietnam. More precise weapons as well that probably Russia cant afford to use in mass. I think I've seen some videos of laser guided bombing by russians in the early phases of the war and honestly they werent as accurate compared to pinpoint strikes from videos from Iraq/Afhganistan. I think thats the first conflict that a russian intervention is so exposed to western media and frankly they are trying a bit harder than before. (Anyone remember the Scuds hitting central Grozny?)

10 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The Western media, for better or worse takes no orders from anyone

Its more transaprent than than Russia's but there are thousands of media sources out there how can someone possibly know? Werent they widely reporting claims of Syria using chemical weapons on rebels that proved to be false/staged? 

And talking about Gaza. The scale was much smaller but it highlighted the hard time even an advanced and more civilized state had in avoiding collateral damage in dense urban areas. They did use banned WP though. Havent seen those yet in Aleppo(or not?)

 

 

 

[Nefron]

14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Even then, my 500lb bomb might hit the building I want, or it might hit the daycare right next door with a 20m CEP.  That's simply unacceptable for urban anti-terorrist warfare.  The results of that practice are many, known, and tragic.  I cannot comprehend how this is justifiable in any human sense.  

 

How is it that what the US does is now supposed to be the standard? What other country has the ability to exclusively use guided weapons in an operation of any significant scale really, even against targets that do not require pinpoint precision to dispatch?

 

11 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

So pretty much war crimes.  

 

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll handle it internally and punish those responsible, if it wasn't an accident of course. 

[Nefron]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

They did use banned WP though. Havent seen those yet in Aleppo(or not?)

 

Not WP, but there are plenty of videos with Russian incendiary attacks. 

[sburke]

41 minutes ago, Nefron said:

 

How is it that what the US does is now supposed to be the standard? What other country has the ability to exclusively use guided weapons in an operation of any significant scale really, even against targets that do not require pinpoint precision to dispatch?

Exactly, why shouldn't the US be held to a different and higher standard?!  Oh wait...... not sure that comes out quite right.    

[hattori]

I must say, to me, this idea that causing less civilian casualties per strike because you used precision weapons is somehow more okay is farcically comical.  This is just my personal opinion though, I'm positive others can rationalize it no problem.

Western media while much better (sorry Vlad, your news media is ridiculous at times to an outsider) than Russian media, at the same time has a completely different set of biases -- their boss is the dollar.  It is views and clicks that drive which stories will be covered, and how much.  The western media is a business, and needs to make money to keep running.  There is a lot of competition in media now, and they are desperate for your business.  You may have heard of our infamous mayor in Toronto, Rob Ford?  (our Donald Trump lite)  Just like Trump, he said stuff that was controversial, spoke his mind when he was angry about something, but was completely lacking any real substance, and clearly had done no research on ANY of the issues effecting this city.  However, he generated a TON of views and clicks, which generate a ton of coverage and articles on him, which after a while, weirdly make him seem like a 'real' candidate who might actually have a clue how to run a city, despite all evidence to the contrary.  If you were pissed off in life, chances are you voted for him.

It is especially noticeable in American news sources -- I have given up on most being credible and non-biased.  The majority now pander to their viewership -- for example, fox clearly goes after right wingers.  All their news articles, guests, everything, cater to this crowd.  Then you get all the left wing media who is clearly selling to their following.  It is fascinating sometimes to see how a news story is covered differently on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.  

Western media is also very lazy now (well, really, budget constraints, they're not going to pay to have reporters everywhere).  You will also frequently get regurgitated news if you trace it back comes from just one source, yet appears in the news to be widely covered by a variety of sources.

Anyways, I will always take our western media, but I do know we have to take it with a grain of salt, and try ourselves to get a variety of sources within our own media.  Sometimes you even need to listen to foreign news to try and get a more detached perspective.

[Machor]

13 hours ago, Machor said:

On 17/10/2016 at 7:10 AM, VladimirTarasov said:

On 17/10/2016 at 0:36 AM, JUAN DEAG said:

0:30-0:34

Nailed it!

Poor civvies! I'm sure Russia targeted the population because they are innocent! Which is not the case. Russia has not signed the treaty where cluster bombing is not permitted same as the U.S. And obviously terrorist locations were targeted in this video and it was not a random strike. But of course you will ignore two very important facts. First being that "rebels" hold the city as hostage, and inevitably when they are targeted for the low light Jihadi scum they are it is likely to result in collateral damage.

Erm, we've been here before. Why can't we just agree that Russia is using excessive force? This, in itself, doesn't mean the rebels are any better.

Sorry to bring this up again, but the point of my post, which apparently got lost, was that Vlad was giving a 180 degree different reaction to the same information based on whether it was being presented by an F-18 pilot or another forum member. Which speaks mountains about how he cognitively processes information, namely that he considers the authority [I'm not using 'authority' as a synonym of trustworthiness here.] of the source first. And the point behind this isn't primarily to go after Vlad (though that, too), but to hark back to the BBC article I had linked to previously (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37766688 ) and its discussion of the Eurasianist hogwash with the relativity of truth. It is simply impossible to argue with a viewpoint that has willingly thrown truth-value out the window.

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Werent they widely reporting claims of Syria using chemical weapons on rebels that proved to be false/staged?

Sorry but Assad's use of chemical weapons is a confirmed fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

They did use banned WP though.

I do believe the collateral casualties in Gaza were at a criminal level and won't stick my head up for Israel, but to be fair to them they were using WP to mark a target right before bombing so that civilians could have a chance to escape. And according to Wikipedia WP isn't banned categorically.

[Codename Duchess]

2 hours ago, Nefron said:

How is it that what the US does is now supposed to be the standard? What other country has the ability to exclusively use guided weapons in an operation of any significant scale really, even against targets that do not require pinpoint precision to dispatch?

Because it's 2016, almost 2017 and Russia is a modern country with modern munitions.  Society at large needs to be held accountable, not just the US.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, hattori said:

I must say, to me, this idea that causing less civilian casualties per strike because you used precision weapons is somehow more okay is farcically comical.  This is just my personal opinion though, I'm positive others can rationalize it no problem.

Western media while much better (sorry Vlad, your news media is ridiculous at times to an outsider) than Russian media, at the same time has a completely different set of biases -- their boss is the dollar.  It is views and clicks that drive which stories will be covered, and how much.  The western media is a business, and needs to make money to keep running.  There is a lot of competition in media now, and they are desperate for your business.  You may have heard of our infamous mayor in Toronto, Rob Ford?  (our Donald Trump lite)  Just like Trump, he said stuff that was controversial, spoke his mind when he was angry about something, but was completely lacking any real substance, and clearly had done no research on ANY of the issues effecting this city.  However, he generated a TON of views and clicks, which generate a ton of coverage and articles on him, which after a while, weirdly make him seem like a 'real' candidate who might actually have a clue how to run a city, despite all evidence to the contrary.  If you were pissed off in life, chances are you voted for him.

It is especially noticeable in American news sources -- I have given up on most being credible and non-biased.  The majority now pander to their viewership -- for example, fox clearly goes after right wingers.  All their news articles, guests, everything, cater to this crowd.  Then you get all the left wing media who is clearly selling to their following.  It is fascinating sometimes to see how a news story is covered differently on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.  

Western media is also very lazy now (well, really, budget constraints, they're not going to pay to have reporters everywhere).  You will also frequently get regurgitated news if you trace it back comes from just one source, yet appears in the news to be widely covered by a variety of sources.

Anyways, I will always take our western media, but I do know we have to take it with a grain of salt, and try ourselves to get a variety of sources within our own media.  Sometimes you even need to listen to foreign news to try and get a more detached perspective.

Mostly I think that is true and the relationship of Advertising dollars also weighs in, you want the audience that advertisers are paying top dollar for.  However within that there is an aspect of being trustworthy that means you are the news source people will turn to when they really do want to understand something and that also carries a lot of weight. Brokaw, Wallace, Rather and Jennings all carried a value that went beyond any news agenda or advertising.   Megan Kelly despite being on Fox has challenged republican rhetoric, most recently with Gingrich and Chris Wallace did a decent job in the debates. Then there is always my preferred outlet, PBS.   Point is western media outlets are not as predictable as people like to complain they are.  Sean Hannity is a talk show political outlet and should not be confused with a news source. Blitzer as well is a TV personality I don't consider a news source. 

Foreign news sources are an excellent way to cut through some of our US bias to understand how others think of our actions, but those sources can also be speaking to their own audience. 

The thing is there is no monolithic news source in the US and I can easily go to other sources if I want. There lies the difference between Russia and the US media. In Russia people are generally fed from an approved gov't source. In the US a lot of folks self censor to the source that tells them what they want to hear.  In both cases it is pretty amazing what people decide is true or not and how they justify it 

Edited October 31, 2016 by sburke

[Nefron]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Exactly, why shouldn't the US be held to a different and higher standard?!  Oh wait...... not sure that comes out quite right.    

But that's not what I'm saying. The US is trying to impose it's standards onto others.

 

9 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Because it's 2016, almost 2017 and Russia is a modern country with modern munitions.  Society at large needs to be held accountable, not just the US.

So? Reading this forum, I'm constantly reminded how the Russian military is almost decades behind NATO in capability.

Seriously, which country except the US can sustain a sizable operation while dropping a guided bomb on every target? I don't think Russia can, do you? I'm sure they'd love being able to do that, it's not like they have anything to gain by being less effective. 

And it's not like they aren't using guided munitions at all. This is pretty good for example: