Syrian Civil War: News #5

medo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know a good source of Syrian air force attacks most reported air strikes are Russian but i know that the Syrians are still actively striking enemy positions.

I think it has to be said that amongst the other hero's of the Syrian air campaign i.e Mig-21, Mig-23, Su-22, that the L-39 should have a worthy mention these cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and ease of use have served well for the Syrian armed forces, i think it has to be said despite their main role as a trainer they have served well as a cheap light strike air craft. Russia could convert some of theirs to light strike and offer then to Syria as they are slowly replacing with Yak 130. Russia would only  use them for flying targets or scrap them. I think that the Mi-24 and Mi-8 used as an attack heli are worth mentioning. If it wasn't for the Syrian air force and Soviet aircraft i think the war up till now could have went a lot differently.

I agree, that Russia should supply to Syrian AF their Yak-130, which they ordered. After all even standard Yak-130 could be no worse bomber with its modern digital fire control computer, if they add satellite navigation and data link to it. No worse than Su-25SM. If they install in its nose a radar like Kopyo or Wasp, which also have air to ground modes, than it will be very potent attacker.

i quite agree the yak-130 should be delivered, the Yak 130 has huge potential as a cheap fighter, if L-39 seem to be doing the job then their is no reason why the Yak-130 can't.

d_taddei2 wrote:

medo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know a good source of Syrian air force attacks most reported air strikes are Russian but i know that the Syrians are still actively striking enemy positions.

I think it has to be said that amongst the other hero's of the Syrian air campaign i.e Mig-21, Mig-23, Su-22, that the L-39 should have a worthy mention these cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and ease of use have served well for the Syrian armed forces, i think it has to be said despite their main role as a trainer they have served well as a cheap light strike air craft. Russia could convert some of theirs to light strike and offer then to Syria as they are slowly replacing with Yak 130. Russia would only  use them for flying targets or scrap them. I think that the Mi-24 and Mi-8 used as an attack heli are worth mentioning. If it wasn't for the Syrian air force and Soviet aircraft i think the war up till now could have went a lot differently.

I agree, that Russia should supply to Syrian AF their Yak-130, which they ordered. After all even standard Yak-130 could be no worse bomber with its modern digital fire control computer, if they add satellite navigation and data link to it. No worse than Su-25SM. If they install in its nose a radar like Kopyo or Wasp, which also have air to ground modes, than it will be very potent attacker.

i quite agree the yak-130 should be delivered, the Yak 130 has huge potential as a cheap fighter, if L-39 seem to be doing the job then their is no reason why the Yak-130 can't.

Lot of L-39 saved before Kuweires airbase was souraunded, and Jirah airbase fallen need serious maintenance, only facility capable of doing that is Nairab maintenance factory. So any addition to the air force would be welcomed. SyAF is seriously warn out.

d_taddei2 wrote:

medo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know a good source of Syrian air force attacks most reported air strikes are Russian but i know that the Syrians are still actively striking enemy positions.

I think it has to be said that amongst the other hero's of the Syrian air campaign i.e Mig-21, Mig-23, Su-22, that the L-39 should have a worthy mention these cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and ease of use have served well for the Syrian armed forces, i think it has to be said despite their main role as a trainer they have served well as a cheap light strike air craft. Russia could convert some of theirs to light strike and offer then to Syria as they are slowly replacing with Yak 130. Russia would only  use them for flying targets or scrap them. I think that the Mi-24 and Mi-8 used as an attack heli are worth mentioning. If it wasn't for the Syrian air force and Soviet aircraft i think the war up till now could have went a lot differently.

I agree, that Russia should supply to Syrian AF their Yak-130, which they ordered. After all even standard Yak-130 could be no worse bomber with its modern digital fire control computer, if they add satellite navigation and data link to it. No worse than Su-25SM. If they install in its nose a radar like Kopyo or Wasp, which also have air to ground modes, than it will be very potent attacker.

i quite agree the yak-130 should be delivered, the Yak 130 has huge potential as a cheap fighter, if L-39 seem to be doing the job then their is no reason why the Yak-130 can't.

Perhaps Russia isn't supplying the yak-130 until after the civil war to prevent any being captured and studied by opposing powers (rebels capturing one and giving it to the USA)?

VARGR198 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

medo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know a good source of Syrian air force attacks most reported air strikes are Russian but i know that the Syrians are still actively striking enemy positions.

I think it has to be said that amongst the other hero's of the Syrian air campaign i.e Mig-21, Mig-23, Su-22, that the L-39 should have a worthy mention these cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and ease of use have served well for the Syrian armed forces, i think it has to be said despite their main role as a trainer they have served well as a cheap light strike air craft. Russia could convert some of theirs to light strike and offer then to Syria as they are slowly replacing with Yak 130. Russia would only  use them for flying targets or scrap them. I think that the Mi-24 and Mi-8 used as an attack heli are worth mentioning. If it wasn't for the Syrian air force and Soviet aircraft i think the war up till now could have went a lot differently.

I agree, that Russia should supply to Syrian AF their Yak-130, which they ordered. After all even standard Yak-130 could be no worse bomber with its modern digital fire control computer, if they add satellite navigation and data link to it. No worse than Su-25SM. If they install in its nose a radar like Kopyo or Wasp, which also have air to ground modes, than it will be very potent attacker.

i quite agree the yak-130 should be delivered, the Yak 130 has huge potential as a cheap fighter, if L-39 seem to be doing the job then their is no reason why the Yak-130 can't.

Perhaps Russia isn't supplying the yak-130 until after the civil war to prevent any being captured and studied by opposing powers (rebels capturing one and giving it to the USA)?

With all due respect, there's no way that would ever happen. For a start the "rebels" would need to some how relocate the jet in the first place, and that would be assuming that the SyAAF didn't destroy it to prevent capture, or a responding VKS or SyAAF strike didn't blow it to bits in the immediate aftermath. Also, if it ended up in US hands Russia would cry foul all day with the rest of the world unable to deny it. With all that said I don't think there's anything classified on Yak-130s in the first place. It is just a trainer after all, even if it is the world's best.

The same argument could be used about the VKS having Su-30SM and Su-34 in Himym, or S-400s and Karusah-4. The probability is nil.

South Front update Jan 8th.

short_fuze wrote:FWIW Colonel Cassad has a photo report of the situation in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Some of the photos are GRAPHIC so the link at the end should be followed with caution. However here are three of my favorites - all not graphic so incuded inline.

German MG-3 in use, probably not WW II era, as I am sure an expert will confirm.

Not MG3, most likely Yugoslavian M53 clone as they were exported to Iraq in quite significant quantities. Here its known under two nicknames Sarac which is horse of Serbian national myth hero from old poems and Garonja which means the sooty one.
 
In Yugoslavia this MG 42 variant was built at the state-owned Zavodi Crvena Zastava company as the M53 machine gun using original German machinery, retaining the 7.92×57mm Mauser caliber. By doing so, the Yugoslavians retained the original weapon’s design features, making the M53 a near exact copy of the German MG 42. The only major differences are a slower rate of fire and no anti-aircraft sight mount. The aiming range of the M53 is 2,000 m (2,187 yd), and the terminal range of the bullet is 5,000 m (5,468 yd), the same as the MG 42. MG 42s captured in Yugoslavia at the end of World War II were put into reserve of Yugoslav People’s Army as M53/42s. The last military use of M53s in Yugoslavia was in 1999. Some quantities of M53s were exported to Iraq in the 1980s and saw extensive action during both Gulf wars.  There is evidence that some M53s are still being used by Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq in the ongoing war against ISIS.

I doubt that it is either.

Our german MG-3 has the "Fliegervisier" a special "iron sights" that can be extented to be used against low flying helicopters and jets.



It is mounted right infront of the normal open iron sights, which i love.



The iron sights of the MG in Syria is more bulky and shorter with bulkier range adjuster compared with the serbian sarac. It looks more like MG-51 from Switzerland which is MG3 licenseproduction to their needs.

The MG-51 has more resemblance with it then MG-3 or Sarac M53.

The "flashhider" on german one has several small grooves near its drill not extending far.
The M53 has same flashhider that is horizontally grooved while the one on the syrian one is flat with extra holes.

Of course that is no proof and many different recoil raisers and flash hiders have been build for it and many countries have them and some license produce them.

The suspects are still all NATO affilieted countries.

Werewolf wrote:I doubt that it is either.

Our german MG-3 has the "Fliegervisier" a special "iron sights" that can be extented to be used against low flying helicopters and jets.

It is mounted right infront of the normal open iron sights, which i love.

The iron sights of the MG in Syria is more bulky and shorter with bulkier range adjuster compared with the serbian sarac. It looks more like MG-51 from Switzerland which is MG3 licenseproduction to their needs.

The MG-51 has more resemblance with it then MG-3 or Sarac M53.

The "flashhider" on german one has several small grooves near its drill not extending far.
The M53 has same flashhider that is horizontally grooved while the one on the syrian one is flat with extra holes.

Of course that is no proof and many different recoil raisers and flash hiders have been build for it and many countries have them and some license produce them.

The suspects are still all NATO affilieted countries.

M53 left service long before i served but its still can be seen in some storages, even original German ones were used during 90s, those that werent decomissioned ofc. Unit where my father served in war had two original German MG42s and few original Brens. Those were pulled from storages in Montenegro and sent to my region and issued to reservists. Stuff like MP40, PPS41, M48, M24, Bren, Brno, MG42, Zastava M59/66, Thompson...list is almost endless

Now what i found interesting on that photo from Syria is bipod position, like it was placed to be easier used from buildings or...something.

That's an MG3

3 ID points.

1. Muzzle brake looks like early 70's.
2. Calibre (the MG3 is 7.62 NATO)
3. Disintegrating links for 7.62 Nato.

Also this MG3 has been taken from an emplacement (be that a vehicle, or a tripod) and people have fixed the bipod on the Tripod mount point.

See picture for reference.

Your picture does not work KoteMore.

Werewolf wrote:Your picture does not work KoteMore.

Well I can see it.

The Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons/Hawks) in Latakia Governorate, by the way these guys act, the way they fight, the way they recon and with equipment they are using, I think they were trained by Russian or Iranian advisors, mostly likely Russian advisors.

PapaDragon wrote:

Speechless or tongue tied??

par far wrote:The Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons/Hawks) in Latakia Governorate, by the way these guys act, the way they fight, the way they recon and with equipment they are using, I think they were trained by Russian or Iranian advisors, mostly likely Russian advisors.

I was going to post that video, seems like they are full of new lads. As usual good documenting by ANNA news. Only drawback being they dont have good English subtitles for non-Russian masses and hence getting contained to a smaller audience around the world.

Ivan Sidorenko ‏@IvanSidorenko1  18 hours ago
#Syria #Latakia #Lattakia #SAA #SyrianArmy Desert Falcons (Suqur al-Sahra)

Dima wrote:

par far wrote:The Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons/Hawks) in Latakia Governorate, by the way these guys act, the way they fight, the way they recon and with equipment they are using, I think they were trained by Russian or Iranian advisors, mostly likely Russian advisors.

I was going to post that video, seems like they are full of new lads. As usual good documenting by ANNA news. Only drawback being they dont have good English subtitles for non-Russian masses and hence getting contained to a smaller audience around the world.

Ivan Sidorenko ‏@IvanSidorenko1  18 hours ago
#Syria #Latakia #Lattakia #SAA #SyrianArmy Desert Falcons (Suqur al-Sahra)

"Only drawback being they dont have good English subtitles for non-Russian masses"

The Russians do not do themselves any favors by not providing English captions. I know lots of English speakers who support and appreciate what Russia is doing both in Donbass and in Syria but these untranslated videos leave them out on a limb. The same could be said for the Syrian/Iraqi/Lebanese/Iranians. Paradoxically, the limited vocabulary of the takfiris makes translation of their videos redundant.

Quite an interesting analysis on why Syria is not really attaching ISIS yet. These is the intro, more at http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-does-russia-allies-prioritise-al.html

The question is often asked about the reasons why Russia, Syria, Iran and “Hezbollah” attack mainly but not exclusively al-Qaeda fi bilad al-Shan (Jabhat al-Nusra) and its allies among the Syrian opposition rather than attacking the so-called “Islamic State” group, also known as “ISIS”, “ISIL”, “IS” or “Daesh”. For years, many Middle Eastern analysts consciously believed that a sort of “alliance existed between Assad and ISIS' leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”. This sort of ignorance in Middle Eastern dynamics emanates from a long lasting “conspiracy theory” that managed to affect prestigious media worldwide.

None the less, the Syrian Army command, and now its allies, have avoided clashing with ISIS in many occasions and on several fronts. In few words, ISIS is said to be “much easier and less urgent to defeat than al-Qaeda in Syria”. Also, as key players in the Middle East and the United States of America have benefitted from ISIS presence and expansion in Syria and Iraq for various reasons, so did Assad and his allies.

The answer to such a strategy comes from one of the highest decision makers of the joint operations room in Damascus that includes Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah (3+1).

The 'Nimr' Tiger reveals Syria's latest top secret weapon

https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/685851433837686784

JohninMK wrote:Quite an interesting analysis on why Syria is not really attaching ISIS yet. These is the intro, more at http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-does-russia-allies-prioritise-al.html

The question is often asked about the reasons why Russia, Syria, Iran and “Hezbollah” attack mainly but not exclusively al-Qaeda fi bilad al-Shan (Jabhat al-Nusra) and its allies among the Syrian opposition rather than attacking the so-called “Islamic State” group, also known as “ISIS”, “ISIL”, “IS” or “Daesh”. For years, many Middle Eastern analysts consciously believed that a sort of “alliance existed between Assad and ISIS' leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”. This sort of ignorance in Middle Eastern dynamics emanates from a long lasting “conspiracy theory” that managed to affect prestigious media worldwide.

None the less, the Syrian Army command, and now its allies, have avoided clashing with ISIS in many occasions and on several fronts. In few words, ISIS is said to be “much easier and less urgent to defeat than al-Qaeda in Syria”. Also, as key players in the Middle East and the United States of America have benefitted from ISIS presence and expansion in Syria and Iraq for various reasons, so did Assad and his allies.

The answer to such a strategy comes from one of the highest decision makers of the joint operations room in Damascus that includes Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah (3+1).

The ISIS takfiris make al Qaeda seem moderate. Maybe the strategy is to close the borders to supplies from The Axis Of Evil, allowing the ISIS thugs to be trapped within Syria rather than dispersed here there and everywhere. They then can be safely and totally eradicated?

Claims that the SAA and Hezbollah are deliberately starving Madaya has been completely discredited by a U.N. statement a few months earlier: