Syrian War: News #12

SAA getting hammered

Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

Isos wrote:From 2013, T-72 suviving shots of rpg. Even without add-on armor it is still very well protected from the front. It would have been a very dangerous foe in the big steps of europe during cold war.

.....

Nuclear armageddon aside, I am almost sorry Fulda gap never happened just so I could drink some Soviet tank-hater's tears...

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area


Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.

So questions to those who have faced such a threat:

From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?

Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?

What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

These videos in where modern offensive weapons are measured against modern defensive/protective weapons are always interesting to watch. Very impressive from the T-90 and evidence that Russian arms manufacturers' marketing isn't bullshit.

Why are they not using those infrared decoys though?

storm333 wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area


Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed  by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.

So questions to those who have faced such a threat:

From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?

Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?

What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?

With the numbers you are giving (240 and 340), it would mean only 4 seconds of advantage. The sound would need 10 seconds to reach the distance that the missile advances in 14 seconds. And still the launch would be very weak to hear at 3360m combined with the own sound of the tank. The sound only would increase when the missile is very near, just a little before the impact.

The commented by the former NATO military sounds right to me.

Airbornewolf wrote:

storm333 wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area


Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed  by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.

So questions to those who have faced such a threat:

From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?

Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?

What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?

as a former NATO Soldier familiar with the TOW-fammily of ATGM's myself:

No, ATGM's are not audible enough to be detected by the receiving party. with the Launch most of the sound is directed away from the enemy with the rocket engine igniting backwards. they also do not see the rocket's engine as it's in-flight. at best they see the launch flame exhaust in some cases if they happen to look in the right direction with optics. but outside of that for a soldier/sentry its like trying to spot something coming straight at you in an environment where you try to keep an 360 degree situational awareness. chances you see it flying at you are low.

the Tow or any ATGM in general is an very poor weapon to use against infantry. because of its shaped-charge warhead it focuses all its destructive energy into an narrow focused forward attack.
im sure most know, but for those that do not a shaped-charge attack it is in layman's therms basically an copper-cone surrounded with explosives that when ignited results in an extremely hot stream of molten metal that is forced straight at the armor it's impacting.

So you could stand very close to an ATGM strike, but unless you take the missile to your chest odds are good you survive. there is little explosive force going outwards and no shrapnell from the missile itself. as its missile design is not intended to be anti-infantry, but anti-armor.

its more of an waste to use ATGM's on infantry, as they have almost zero effect. its an expensive waste of ordnance and you have a big chance of giving away your position after the enemy figures out its probable launch location after impact. it's command wire's connecting the missile to the launch unit do not incinerate upon impact. even during exercises they had a habit to keep hanging in fences and wash lines. giving a nice trail for the enemy to take a rough guess where it came from.

I was glad we got rid of TOW's at the time and went over to the Panzerfaust-3. it's practical, can be fired from indoors, defeats most armour, you can set its warhead to either Anti-infantry or Anti-Tank and can shoot an low-flying helicopter out of the sky if you want with its Dynarange  computer.

but do not even get me started about the GILL we got as an medium to long range AT weapon in return. that's just over-hyped, over-priced Israeli garbage that can't even distinguish an shipping container from the desert surrounding it.

I guess I am not a military expert, but such missiles can be excellent anti-infantry weapons.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqph30lis-c


There is or was a video on Youtube of four Alawite regime troops walking on a road getting hit with such a missile fired by the FSA; three of them do not get up, while one gets up but is clearly seriously wounded (he does not even bother to check on the other three if they are still alive or not and they are right beside him).

Sorry, but as of now I cannot find this video anywhere.

It is possible that the road's hard pavement created significant shrapnel, which resulted in the missile being more effective against infantry.

So this where the TOW menace began. I hope Trump won't make such deals.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/12/why-is-saudi-arabia-buying-15000-u-s-anti-tank-missiles-for-a-war-it-will-never-fight/

Can good estimates be made on what fraction of moderate owned ATGM stockpiles are being destroyed by russian airstrikes? Also I saw a chart in 2016 that showed the steady decrease of TOW launches by rebels. Why are there still so much launches in 2017?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:So this where the TOW menace began. I hope Trump won't make such deals.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/12/why-is-saudi-arabia-buying-15000-u-s-anti-tank-missiles-for-a-war-it-will-never-fight/

Can good estimates be made on what fraction of moderate owned ATGM  stockpiles are being destroyed by russian airstrikes? Also I saw a chart in 2016 that showed the steady decrease of TOW launches by rebels. Why are there still so much launches in 2017?

Constant resupply (underground tunnels, airdrops). It's not really up to Trump, the weapons will keep flowing in.

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

It is T-62M. It is obvious. I understand that stupid jihadists have 3 years of school on average, and trying to exaggerate their wins. But the rest of the people who spread those fake claims are just the worst. Worse than the jihadists. Fucking morons giving a T-90 a bad name.

SAA captured Ma'arzef in Northern Hama

ult wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.

It is T-62M. It is obvious. I understand that stupid jihadists have 3 years of school on average, and trying to exaggerate their wins. But the rest of the people who spread those fake claims are just the worst. Worse than the jihadists. Fucking morons giving a T-90 a bad name.

Hamster armour pretty evident. And tank looks still up? Not bad for the black sheep of the T-family.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
There is or was a video on Youtube of four Alawite regime troops walking on a road getting hit with such a missile fired by the FSA; three of them do not get up, while one gets up but is clearly seriously wounded (he does not even bother to check on the other three if they are still alive or not and they are right beside him).

So you call the  Legitimate Syrian Government fighting ISIS and Alqaeda that NATO
for many years have been supporting an "alawi regime"  but the terrorist groups ,
who have been beheading women and children and eating human flesh ,gets
a pass by calling them just FSA.  

i though by this time ,even the biggest retard will know there is not such a thing
like "moderates rebels". they are financed and armed by the same people and they
work together too  whenever they need too, for fight the government.

FSA switch back and forth from any terrorist groups and cooperate with them too directly.
since day one they are terrorist ,no different than Alqaeda or ISIS. the only difference
between ISIS,Alqaeda and FSA, is who pay their salaries ,and which zones they have been requested to hold in Syria by NATO major powers. The reason for a split terrorist opposition
in many groups ,is so that if one collapse ,the others continue fighting.




Here is the FSA Commander ,who was popular for eating human flesh.  


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23190533

Not even the corrupt BBC deny it . an FSA commander uploaded his own video of
eating a human heart ..so this are your "moderates fighters."  



This is why i said , the US government are not fools ,they do not commit mistakes in their funding of "moderates" this is how they can get away with financing terrorism.. By calling
them "moderates" of "Free Syrian army" etc. Now their latest tactics is to use combine former
terrorist with YPG kurds and call them, "Syrian democratic forces". but for doing that ,they had
to kill the kurds leader ,who opposed any kind of alliance with former jihadist group fighting
Assad.

in the picture TOP US senator McAin with the leader of ISIS ,Alqaeda fighters and the leader of FSA.. it was a meeting of all the jiahdist demons heads and representatives in just one place.
The war in Syria is the biggest fraud ever in the fight against terrorism. after 911 which was
ANOTHER monumental fraud. And nothing of this will be known by anyone if Russia did not had RT to counter western propaganda ,that have ruled the world with disinformation for so many decades. RT even tried to awaken zombies americans but no one blinked their eyes. too many zombies in the west.

RT which is a Russian Government funded media hinting that 911 was an inside job.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA

for the people saying that the WTC attacks by the government was a "conspiration theory"
Nothing less than Trump saying how the Builders of the wtc were saying it was a bomb.



What happens in Syria is only possible ,because the of the shadow government in US-UK and Israel were allowed to get away with that mass crime. So this is why terrorism flourish in any part that NATO goes. NATO major powers supports terrorism in the world ,fact. and World Trade center attacks was a a controlled demolition with nano bombs and the planes were used as a distraction to hide the bombs. With TRump now in power , he have one chance in a lifetime to fix US corruption and terrorism .but he have a hand tied . He is trying to push towards a world of little bit more sanity ,law and order ,and avoid a world war 3 ,but nobody expect him alone to do much.

There is or was a video on Youtube of four Alawite regime troops walking on a road getting hit with such a missile fired by the FSA; three of them do not get up, while one gets up but is clearly seriously wounded (he does not even bother to check on the other three if they are still alive or not and they are right beside him).

Blast from an explosion can kill anyone, but HEAT warheads are focused explosions are are designed to punch a small calibre hole in very very hard materials and that is what they do.

HEAT warheads can kill people but they are not particularly efficient in doing that. Larger missiles like Hellfire can do it because they have 10kgs of HE, but they are primarily designed to punch through armour.

the Soviets/Russians have dedicated HE Frag versions of their anti tank missiles with a much more effective HE Frag warhead... a Shturm missile with a 5kg HEAT round could punch through 500mm of armour but will likely only kill the guy its plasma beam goes through. The same missile with a HE warhead could hit a light jeep and kill all 6 people inside... the HE round will do nothing to a tank target, while the HEAT model might kill one person and injure 2-3 others in both vehicles.

The next big issue is going to be how to deal with the asshole Kurds, the bastards willl be used against Iran and Russia(more specifically Iran).

Iran better be ready and do more.