Syria's military flatters to deceive

[rai kitsune]

By Richard M Bennett

While it is still largely true that the Syrian military remains one of the largest and best-trained forces in the Arab world, it has significantly lost every major conflict with Israel since 1948. Its combat strength has deteriorated dramatically over the past 15 years as its equipment has become increasingly obsolescent, poorly maintained and short of spare parts.

The collapse of the Soviet Union created immense problems of resupply for the Syrians, and the slowdown experienced by the

Syrian economy resulted in a further downgrading of the military's combat efficiency.

This said, the recent military cooperation agreement signed with Iran has offered Damascus a much-needed opportunity to update and re-equip large parts of its armed forces. Spare parts for its Russian weapons, improved electronics and new Iranian-made missile systems will provide a considerable strengthening of combat capability and a possible improvement in morale.

Syria, like its more powerful partner Iran, is desperate to become a serious participant in any negotiations involving the future of the Middle East and is widely suspected of trying to use Hezbollah, its protege in Lebanon, as a lever to help fulfill its geostrategic ambitions.

The risk that Syria runs in adopting the policy of limited confrontation with Israel via a third party is that Israel and indeed the United States may take it as a welcome opportunity to embark on a campaign finally to remove the Assad regime in Damascus.

If Syria has seriously miscalculated over the use of Hezbollah, then the question arises whether the Syrian armed forces could prevent the regime of President Bashar al-Assad from reaping the whirlwind it had so unwisely stirred.

A close analysis of its current military capability would suggest that they could not.

The army

The Syrian army has some 220,000 personnel, with the core of its combat units deployed between the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and the capital city, Damascus. Significant military units are to be found deployed along the Lebanese and Iraqi borders and to the north on the border with Turkey.

The army command also directly controls both the Republican Guard Mechanized Division, which acts as a Praetorian Guard, equipped with the best of Syria's weapons, including T72/72M battle tanks, and the elite 14th Special Forces Division with the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th SF Regiments deployed near the Golan Heights, around the Mount Hermon area and along the Lebanese border.

The army's main war-fighting element comprises three corps formed in 1985 to allow, at least in theory, more flexibility and to improve combat efficiency by decentralizing the command structure. This was an attempt to absorb at least some of the lessons learned during the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon in 1982.

1st Corps. The heavily fortified defense zone between Damascus and the Golan Heights bristles with long-range artillery, anti-tank weapons, mines and bunkers. Behind this is based the army's premier 1st Corps, with its headquarters in Damascus and deployed in an arc from the capital to Der'a on the Jordanian border.

2nd Corps. To the north of Damascus and covering the Lebanese border, with a headquarters in Zebdani, is the 2nd Corps.

3rd Corps. The last of the major formations, the 3rd Corps, formed in the late 1980s, is based in the north and covers Hama, the Turkish and Iraqi borders, and the Mediterranean coastline and is tasked with protecting the complex of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) and missile production and launch facilities. It is headquartered in Aleppo.

Syrian armored and mechanized divisions are still largely structured along traditional Soviet army lines and equipped with some 3,500 aging Russian battle tanks, with another 1,000 in static positions or in store. More than 4,500 armored personnel carriers and 500 self-propelled and 1,500 towed artillery, protected by some 2,000 anti-aircraft guns, make up a substantial and, on paper, powerful military force.

The army also deploys a fairly modern and effective anti-tank missile force with some 6,000 Russian AT3, AT5, AT7, AT10 and AT14, as well as the Euro MILAN (missile infantry light anti-tank). To this can be added more than 5,000 Russian and Iranian man-portable surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

A separate air defense command has some 600 aging Russian SA2, SA3, SA5 and SA6 SAM systems, with only the few SA8 and SA10 being considered modern, and about 4,000 anti-aircraft guns. This important aspect of Syria's defense will probably be the first to benefit from the agreement with Iran, as new radar, missiles, command and control systems are an undoubted priority for Damascus.

Missiles and WMD

Of particular interest is Syria's undoubted strength in missiles and in chemical warfare. This ranges from long-range Scuds to a coast-defense brigade deployed to protect Latakia and other naval bases with four battalions of Russian and Iranian anti-ship missiles, such as the SSC-1B Sepal and C802 systems. The latter recently proved its effectiveness by damaging an Israel warship off the coast of Lebanon.

However, the real Syrian military threat to Israel is provided by the large number of such weapons now available to the missile command based in Aleppo. It has been suggested by some observers that as many as 1,000 Russian or Iranian modified Scuds are deployed on some 60-70 transporter-erector-launchers (TELs), in numerous well-hidden launch silos or housed within a reported 15 massive tunnel complexes constructed in recent years with the help of Iranian and North Korean engineers.

The majority of these missiles are improved Scud-D or Iranian/North Korean versions with ranges of some 700 kilometers with a 500-kilogram warhead. To this can be added some 210 highly mobile Russian SS-21 Scarab short-range missiles. Syria may also have acquired Chinese technology in the form of the M-9 and M-11 missile systems. Syria has two large underground improved Scud-missile production facilities near Aleppo and Hamah built with Iranian, North Korean and Chinese assistance.

It is believed by some intelligence sources that between 150 and 200 of the longest-range missiles are equipped with CBW warheads. There is considerable evidence that Sarin nerve agents and HD (mustard gas) are produced at facilities just north of Damascus and near Hamah, while the deadly VX nerve agent is produced at a petrochemical complex just south of Homs. Anthrax has reportedly been produced by the Damascus-based Scientific Research Council.

The air force

The Syrian air force still appears, at least on paper, to be highly impressive with a strength of some 40,000 personnel and reportedly some nine fighter and bomber squadrons and 17 air defense fighter squadrons.

These are equipped with 90 Su-22, 134 MiG-23, 20 Su-24, 198 MiG-21, 40 MiG-25 and 60 MiG-29 combat aircraft and 48 Mi-24/25 attack helicopters. They are armed with a wide variety of relatively modern Russian and French air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles. Most of the main air bases are well provided with hardened shelters, camouflaged dispersal sites and heavy air defense.

However, the fact that about half of the aircraft are currently non-operational and the limited amount of annual flying hours, with little or no advanced training, for the combat pilots place significant limits on the air force's actual combat capability.

There is little doubt that Syria's pilots are both brave and committed, but the hard reality is that the air force could not sustain more than a day or two, at most, of full-scale conflict with its Israeli neighbors.

The navy

The 5,000-strong Syrian navy is unlikely to play any significant part in any future conflict with Israel. Its small force of eight elderly fast missile boats, two anti-submarine patrol craft and a handful of other minor vessels based in the ports of Latakia, Baniyas, Minat al-Bayda and Tartus are probably destined to provide no more than useful target practice for Israel's warships.

AFI Research provides expert information on the world's intelligence services, armed forces and conflicts. Contact rbmedia@supanet.com.

(Copyright 2006 AFI Research. Used with permission.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG28Ak02.html

found in a post on militaryphots.net made some itneresting reading i thought.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, this is one of a handful of pretty good reports floating around on the Internet. Another one I have specifies that most of the MILANs will likely not work in some way shape or form due to age and storage conditions. Makes sense to me

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

As ever it is down to how it's used and how they fight.

The current conflict in lebanon, points to things like the 23mm ZSU's being more important than the t-55's because they are easier to conceal and can be used against both ground forces and helicopters.

Things like the long range missiles really don't have the accuracy to engage mobile targets and to have any chance would need a responsive effective C3I system that is unlikely to be available.

If the Syrians could use them it would be by targeting key internal sites that they believed the US would quickly sieze, such as airports and docks.

these are about the only targets large enough for a weapon with the CEP of a Scud-B to be able to target. In this respect if as the CM:SF scenario suggests they had 6 months notice, they wouldn't have time to do what makes sense, namely to trade range for throw weight.

N Korean, and Iranian missile development has been largely focused on getting long ranges by cutting the payload, where as what would suit Syria best in an invasion, isn't the ability to land 250kg on the Runway at Akrita on Cyprus , but 2,500Kg's on the US held runway at Damascus.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yup, this is one of a handful of pretty good reports floating around on the Internet. Another one I have specifies that most of the MILANs will likely not work in some way shape or form due to age and storage conditions. Makes sense to me

Steve

The Soviets said pretty much the exact same thing about the Egyptians right after Sadat kicked them out, basically: "No way those Moslem monkeys can maintain a Sagger, never mind keep qualified on it. Them Third Worlders just ain't up to keeping a complicated AT missile in working order."

As it turned out during the Yom Kippur war, the Soviets were wrong. Lotta Israeli tanks got tagged by Sagger, before the Israelis started taking them seriously.

Maybe the Syrians are dumber than the Egyptians, and maybe keeping a Milan firing-capable is a whole lot harder than keeping an AT-3 firing-capable.

But then again, mebbe not.

[Battlefront.com]

Bigduke,

Maybe the Syrians are dumber than the Egyptians, and maybe keeping a Milan firing-capable is a whole lot harder than keeping an AT-3 firing-capable.

One of the long standing advantages of Soviet technology is its robustness. One of the long standing complaints about Western technology is its level of complexity. If an AT-3 was delivered in working condition (that is a key point ) 20 years ago and a Milan was delivered around the same time, I'd put my money on the AT-3 working before teh MILAN

I think the assumption that the MILANs won't work is that they do have a shelf life, the Syrians have been cut off from assistance, and they have a poor reputation for equipment maintainence in general. I've seen some reports that suggest rather large chunks of their armor and most of their planes are not in operational condition. A piece of the puzzle cited was the military's overall budget. After subracting out pay, housing, clothing, food, etc. it appears there wasn't much left for equipment upkeep.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Wow, 20 years is a while. I wonder how long those missiles last in their hermetically-sealed packages, any Milan specialists out there?

The Sagger is no AK, that's for sure, it comes in this cute little suitcase and every time you open it (which you have to to train) you expose the missile and its wire connectors to elements and operators and so on.

OHH the Egyptians only had to keep their Saggers functional for about a year and change, before they got to shoot them off against the Israelis.

Shelf-life has never been a Soviet strong suit, and somehow I think the Euros would make Milan last a long time, as they expected to keep it in inventory a long time. But two decades is a while, I'll give you that.

That said, if the Iranians and so on can make their FROGs work decades after they got them from the Soviets, so I would assume the Syrians would have a chance of making the Milans work - if they wanted to.

But that's assuming a rational defence command that has figured out tanks are a waste of resources for the weaker side in modern vehicle-focused warfare, which is definately the case for the Syrians vs. the Israelis, never mind the Americans.

[MikeyD]

"...the United States may take it as a welcome opportunity to embark on a campaign finally to remove the Assad regime"?

That line certainly caught my eye. Finally remove?

I also like the strategic use of the term 'regime'. Couldn't possibly refer to the Assad 'presidency' or the Assad 'government', could we? Maybe we should start referring to the 'Bush Regime' while we're at it. After all, both got their jobs due to links with their daddies, with the assistance of powerful Saudi financial backers, and hold onto power through unscrupulous behavior.

[ July 31, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Dirtweasle]

Not really. Regime is more about the form or system of government than it is the chief executive and/or head of government, which here in the States is a unitary executive.

When one speaks of the Assad Regime or the Hussein Regime, what is meant is the Baathist system.

So, when some call for or allude to "Regime change in America" what they are saying is to change out the system.

Of course, the lunatics suffering from Moore's Disease, denizens of the fever swamp, simply use it as a snarky throw away line. The hard left on the other hand I take seriously when they say it and write it.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I also like the strategic use of the term 'regime'. Couldn't possibly refer to the Assad 'presidency' or the Assad 'government', could we? Maybe we should start referring to the 'Bush Regime' while we're at it. After all, both got their jobs due to links with their daddies, with the assistance of powerful Saudi financial backers, and hold onto power through unscrupulous behavior.

Take you Michael Moore politcal drivel to a different forum

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

I also like the strategic use of the term 'regime'. Couldn't possibly refer to the Assad 'presidency' or the Assad 'government', could we? Maybe we should start referring to the 'Bush Regime' while we're at it. After all, both got their jobs due to links with their daddies, with the assistance of powerful Saudi financial backers, and hold onto power through unscrupulous behavior.

Take you Michael Moore politcal drivel to a different forum </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yup, this is one of a handful of pretty good reports floating around on the Internet. Another one I have specifies that most of the MILANs will likely not work in some way shape or form due to age and storage conditions. Makes sense to me

Steve

This report states that someone who is very close to Syria has working Milan rockets.

AP Report

Could of course just be clueless journos.

Would a Merkava feel threatened by a Milan?

All the best

Andreas

[MikeyD]

"Take you Michael Moore politcal drivel to a different forum"

Michael Moore is a true American patriot. What's you're problem? Got stock in Haliburton or something?

[David Chapuis]

George W Bush my hero. Dont pick on him anymore.

[Battlefront.com]

Ohhhhhhhh kaaaaaaaaaaay... let's keep the political stuff out of here.

As for the Milan report... I don't doubt that some of Syria's Milan inventory is sitting with Hezbollah right now. The question is if any of them work or not From what I've read that is the question. At the moment I'm thinking that they will have a high dud rate in CM:SF.

Steve

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

let's keep the political stuff out of here.

My point exactly.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Don't know exactly what ATGMs Hezbollah's been firing at IDF AFVs and troops, but they seem to be working pretty well, judging from the ever growing casualty list among men and vehicles. While Israel's been fairly open about the names, ranges,

warhead and the like for the rockets being used against northern Israel, I haven't seen anything even close on the ATGM front.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Just got some clarification on Hezbollah's ATGM inventory. Read the article before, but evidently some key parts didn't impress themselves much. Five different types, and maybe three guidance modes:

MCLOS, SACLOS, laser beamrider! Details are in the article posted by akd here. More could be learned by careful investigation of each ATGM attack scene, for most of the missile survives warhead detonation.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000930;p=7

Regards,

John Kettler

[hellfish]

This thread title drives me bonkers everytime I see it. "Flatters to deceive"??? What the hell does that mean? Why am I the only one driven nuts by it?

[Sergei]

You're not alone. :mad:

[Sergei]

Hmm. Maybe the background article was originally linked to a news article which gave the "flatter" context, but there just is no link back to the news article?

[cassh]

fytinghellfish - it is a reasonably common phrase used to indicate poor performance/results where ostensibly it/they should be better. Google the phrase and you'll see how often it is used by journalist reviewing food or sports teams that underwhelm for example...

[hellfish]

It's a stupid phrase and should never, ever be used.

[Yeknodathon]

Almost flatters to believe.

[cassh]

fytinghellfish - Although a little contrived I don't hate it. I think that English is a little richer for phrases such as this... but I take your point, that it is somewhat idiomatic, ambiguous, and pompous. Reminds me of myself...

[Battlefront.com]

I think that English is a little richer for phrases such as this

It's also one good reason to hate the language I know people that make up stuff like this and don't even realize they are making it up. When there are pretty much no rules, how does one know they are breaking them? As they say, English is a fairly easy language to learn, an extremely difficult language to master.

Steve