A squad of Pantsirs at the base would have been more than enough to handle those Cruise missiles, some probly did as medo mentioned, hell even some old Tunguska's would be enough, maybe even some Iglas.
BTW does Russia still sell Tunguskas??
AlfaT8 wrote:Well whateve hope there was for cooperation with Trump, they are dashed as F now.
A squad of Pantsirs at the base would have been more than enough to handle those Cruise missiles, some probly did as medo mentioned, hell even some old Tunguska's would be enough, maybe even some Iglas.
BTW does Russia still sell Tunguskas??
ATLASCUB wrote:
Ohh it goes deeper than that. It shows that no one is safe (american "enemies"). It shows that the U.S can challenge Russia on a turf they claimed their own with little consequence and can set up base camp anywhere (like in Raqqa) to challenge them. I always saw that as a BIG BIG mistake for Russia to allow. American troops are in Syria right now with boots on the ground (and they won't get out unless seriously challenged). If you're a state looking to aling yourself with Eurasia and BRICS you'll think twice for sure. "Russia can't protect you" - that's the message. During the Cold War there was respect when it came to military interventions. Not anymore.
Regular wrote:I don't know, but I am thrilled to see how USA and their dogs would attack Syria. We would see how good is Russian AA network and hopefully see some action in the air. Fuck this pussyfooting, it has to be settled once and for all.
calm wrote:The USA said it had proof of weapons of mass destruction... One million people died" #Bolivia
Diplomatic Trolling' Expert Level 2846
PapaDragon wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Papadragon, do you have sources for Serbian forces shooting down cruise missiles during the war?
Shooting down cruises missiles is easy. Fact that Russia didn't shoot any down tells me that this whole thing is done in sync regardless of what politicians might claim in media. Also low bodycount and fact that they targeted just one location with so many missiles speak volumes.
This was PR operation. You can level decent sized country with this many missiles. Using them all on just one airbase is ridiculous.
A Different Voice wrote:PapaDragon wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Papadragon, do you have sources for Serbian forces shooting down cruise missiles during the war?
Shooting down cruises missiles is easy. Fact that Russia didn't shoot any down tells me that this whole thing is done in sync regardless of what politicians might claim in media. Also low bodycount and fact that they targeted just one location with so many missiles speak volumes.
This was PR operation. You can level decent sized country with this many missiles. Using them all on just one airbase is ridiculous.
Agree that the missile strike was not conducted with the intent to do serious harm to Syria or its armed forces. It was a warning/PR exercise by the US.
Not sure I would say that it is "easy" to shoot down a Tomahawk cruise missile. I assume that if Russia was given the details of the strike ahead of time it could have used countermeasures (jammers, etc.) and SAM's to deal with the Tomahawks.
A Different Voice wrote:
I am not a expert but let's say that US launched these cruise missiles at Russia without any details of course, would Russia be able to stop them.
Would need much more details about the hypothetical cruise missile strike to before being able to give a useful answer.
I will say that if a Russian warship in international waters off the US's East coast today launched cruise missiles without warning at various US military bases/airfields on the East coast, then the US could not prevent the missiles from hitting.
What? So your suggesting that firing 60 cruise missiles at Syria isn't considered an act of war, but if Russia responds it is?Vann7 wrote:
Not only that. if Russia does anything like that will be an act of war .
And Americans start a major rage about it . This was not only PR move.
But they wanted to destroy the military base important for Syria to fight ISIS in Homs. Basically NATO major powers wanted to slow down Syrian army progress against ISIS. The more closer the rebels are about to break ,the more false flag and americans "mistakes" of a"Accidental bombing" will happen. as they did before.
calm wrote:comments
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
They can't even do wrong shit right.
Erk wrote:What? So your suggesting that firing 60 cruise missiles at Syria isn't considered an act of war, but if Russia responds it is?Vann7 wrote:
Not only that. if Russia does anything like that will be an act of war .
And Americans start a major rage about it . This was not only PR move.
But they wanted to destroy the military base important for Syria to fight ISIS in Homs. Basically NATO major powers wanted to slow down Syrian army progress against ISIS. The more closer the rebels are about to break ,the more false flag and americans "mistakes" of a"Accidental bombing" will happen. as they did before.
max steel wrote:This may interest you : https://twitter.com/inbarspace/status/850386949697404928
also here (the same) : https://twitter.com/Bivi_17/status/850438241564192768
I don't know how much are they reliable given Russian Mod claiming that out of 59 BGM-109s launched against Shairat only 23 struck targets. The damage to runway, as was stated as a main objective, is minimal to non-existent. Why 62% of Tomahawks never struck a stationary target? Make your own conclusions. What is known for sure now, is that there were no Pantsir AD complexes around the airbase, neither S-300 or S-400 engaged targets.
par far wrote:A Different Voice wrote:PapaDragon wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Papadragon, do you have sources for Serbian forces shooting down cruise missiles during the war?
Shooting down cruises missiles is easy. Fact that Russia didn't shoot any down tells me that this whole thing is done in sync regardless of what politicians might claim in media. Also low bodycount and fact that they targeted just one location with so many missiles speak volumes.
This was PR operation. You can level decent sized country with this many missiles. Using them all on just one airbase is ridiculous.
Agree that the missile strike was not conducted with the intent to do serious harm to Syria or its armed forces. It was a warning/PR exercise by the US.
Not sure I would say that it is "easy" to shoot down a Tomahawk cruise missile. I assume that if Russia was given the details of the strike ahead of time it could have used countermeasures (jammers, etc.) and SAM's to deal with the Tomahawks.
I am not a expert but let's say that US launched these cruise missiles at Russia without any details of course, would Russia be able to stop them.