Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The second RPG comes in from the upper left side of the screen at :23 and :24 and strikes the deck to the right of the turret. There is no smoke grenade that I can see. The second round may have been a dud. It appears to have failed to explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The first explode looks like weakened AT mine, second like broken RPG grenade, so I can say rebels have old soviet equipment from 3rd world countries, some weapon looks like with run out guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The first hit is from a projectile of some sort. You can clearly see it fly in from the right side of the screen. No way could it be a mine unless some rebel has one hell of a strong throwing arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Any hint on the (AT?) weapon used in this footage? It looks like one of those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-11_recoilless_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-10_recoilless_rifle put mounted on a homemade trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 It looks like one of those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-11_recoilless_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-10_recoilless_rifle put mounted on a homemade trailer. Nope. Dismounted BMP-1 gun? Libya paves the way: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The first hit is from a projectile of some sort. You can clearly see it fly in from the right side of the screen. No way could it be a mine unless some rebel has one hell of a strong throwing arm. Oh, yes you right, I just always watch on left side, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why all this muslims always fight's with Soviet weapon, where the m16, abrams, m113, bradly, etc? Soviet Union make big mistake when give weapon to all 3rd world Papuans, someday we all regret about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why all this muslims always fight's with Soviet weapon, where the m16, abrams, m113, bradly, etc? Not generally true. Take Saudi Arabia for example, they make exclusive use of western military equipment. The Mujahedeen during the first Afgahnistan War in the 80s and 70s also used mainly western equipment. Nope. Dismounted BMP-1 gun? I think you are right - if you look closely, the gun in the video is electrically triggered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The Mujahadeen used mainly Soviet weapons, as it was easier to get ammo, and their more rugged construction suited the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Werent they supplied with large quantities of Stinger AA missiles by the US, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Caught part of some "Incredible Footage" this AM on C-Span. Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander, U.S. Central Command, & Navy Adm. William McRaven, commander, U.S. Special Operations Command in*Senate Armed Services committee hearing on Capitol Hill. Some interesting comments. As for the Chemical weapons in Syria.... "We (US) can disrupt the movement but we can't prevent or stop dispersal of chemical weapons from Syria." *The*Israeli airstrike in Syria in January is said to have targeted a shipment of SA-17 missiles headed for Lebanon (Shia).*Hizbullah has Chemical Weapons but*lack a delivery system (like*SA-17 missiles) but the real player will be whomever captures the Chemical Weapons 1st. Rebels can sell to the highest bidders. Extremists simply move it up the food chain to be used in their next "ground zero" in their own war.** Marine Gen. James Mattis said he had personally been assured by a leader of Sunni Arab state (most likely Saudi Arabia) that they WILL develop their own nuclear weapons if Iran (Shia) is allowed to develop theirs.*He went on to say "2013 will be the year of reckoning with Iran." As incredible as the footage from Syria has been, it may become the B-Movie before years end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob. Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I have never been in the military so obviously I have no idea but just from the great links in this thread and a few other videos I am just wondering - is there something I am missing, or are they having problems with combined arms? Can't they bring any soldiers with them because the infantry is too vulnerable? Or are they "not even trying" and just doing as much damage as possible?!? I mean, why do they drive their tanks into the city without a single infantry soldier with them? I'd think that at best they score a few lucky shots when randomly shooting into the windows or maybe against some overconfident FSA fighters but I can't imagine they can really make a difference in this city fighting? And then they lose vehicle after vehicle with no gain at all and maybe later when they actually need them for a non-urban area they are missing them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 *The*Israeli airstrike in Syria in January is said to have targeted a shipment of SA-17 missiles headed for Lebanon (Shia).*Hizbullah has Chemical Weapons but*lack a delivery system (like*SA-17 missiles) but the real player will be whomever captures the Chemical Weapons 1st. Rebels can sell to the highest bidders. Extremists simply move it up the food chain to be used in their next "ground zero" in their own war.** SA-17 is not a delivery system for chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Marine Gen. James Mattis said he had personally been assured by a leader of Sunni Arab state (most likely Saudi Arabia) that they WILL develop their own nuclear weapons if Iran (Shia) is allowed to develop theirs.*He went on to say "2013 will be the year of reckoning with Iran." Gen. James Mattis was subsequently fired for saying that. At least the second and probably the third flag officer to get McArthur'ed over Iran. I have never been in the military so obviously I have no idea but just from the great links in this thread and a few other videos I am just wondering - is there something I am missing, or are they having problems with combined arms? Can't they bring any soldiers with them because the infantry is too vulnerable? Or are they "not even trying" and just doing as much damage as possible?!? I mean, why do they drive their tanks into the city without a single infantry soldier with them? I'd think that at best they score a few lucky shots when randomly shooting into the windows or maybe against some overconfident FSA fighters but I can't imagine they can really make a difference in this city fighting? And then they lose vehicle after vehicle with no gain at all and maybe later when they actually need them for a non-urban area they are missing them... The reason you don't see them is that they are trying to not be seen. Unless you desire a new orifice, hanging around in plain sight is a pretty bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 assads troops executing civilians/prisioners of war in the streets of homs, syria (graphic): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbA4euT_eYM i cant believe it that some people support this regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 assads troops executing civilians/prisioners of war in the streets of homs, syria (graphic): i cant believe it that some people support this regime. Both sides have been executing civilians/prisoners of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 SA-17 is not a delivery system for chemical weapons. Thank you for the correction. What would Hizbullah do with a few SA-17s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Probably shoot down a few Israeli jets. Or at least try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Gen. James Mattis was subsequently fired for saying that. At least the second and probably the third flag officer to get McArthur'ed over Iran. Technically everyone was congratulating Gen. James Mattis on his "retirement" The General was (under oath I assume) unequivocal and very clear that is what he was told by a leader of Sunni Arab state. His answers to the questions about a singular Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear development were essentially Israel AND Sunni Arab states are NOT going to stand by and watch Iran nuke up. The US may be involved in a strike but may not as well. Gen. James Mattis response to the what about the WMD aka Chemical Weapons was pretty clear. We can expect this to occur and we can try to disrupt it but we can not stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Both sides have been executing civilians/prisoners of war. Yeah, but if the government lets its forces get away with such stuff, how can they claim the moral highground and call the rebels terrorists? They are terrorists themselves! It is right to rebel against a government that legitimates such atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Probably shoot down a few Israeli jets. Or at least try. Probably why the Israeli jets blew up SA-17s 1st? I think with our "sequester" US is moving 1 Carrier out of the Gulf but Gen. James Mattis assured the Senators we had enough people and equipment to execute any military options required and we (as well as our regional partners) are keeping "very close" observation of who is doing what in and around Syria and Iran as well. So how is CMSF2 going to model Drones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Probably why the Israeli jets blew up SA-17s 1st? That would be a reasonable guess. So how is CMSF2 going to model Drones? Do we know that it will? Drones are not really a high intensity war platform. For any first-world military with a modern air force and air defense system they would be fairly easy to shoot down. But if they were included I would think that it would function similar to any other airstrike except probably more precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Yeah, but if the government lets its forces get away with such stuff, how can they claim the moral highground and call the rebels terrorists? Because they quite literally are? On one hand, you have government forces killing prisoners of war, on the other, you have the FSA beheading suspected collaborators, beating vendors for selling "western propaganda" and outright looting even otherwise neutral civilian communities. They are terrorists themselves! It is right to rebel against a government that legitimates such atrocities. Is it also legitimate to kill or deport ethnic and religious minorities? Or is it just an inconvenient side-track that we should ignore until they establish (Sunni-majority) democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Thank you for the correction. What would Hizbullah do with a few SA-17s? That is what a lot of people are wondering. Why is Russia through Iran supplying Hizbollah with state-of-the art SAM systems? The Syrian Rebels don't have an air force. IAF? maybe. sending a message to NATO? maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 That is what a lot of people are wondering. Why is Russia through Iran supplying Hizbollah with state-of-the art SAM systems? The Syrian Rebels don't have an air force. IAF? maybe. sending a message to NATO? maybe. It is a guarantee, that NATO will not be able to bomb Syria! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts