Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #2

auslander wrote:Be prepared, gentlemen and lady, that it's only a matter of time before we lose some machines and boys. You take the King's schilling, sometimes you pay the King's price.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

JohninMK wrote:At the link there is a screen shot showing the position of US and RuAF Su-34 planes at a point in time. I find interesting the relative numbers of each sides' planes actually overflying Syria and how it is only the Russians that seem to be able to find any targets to hit.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/06/us-f-16s-vs-su-34-fullback-over-syria/

The answer is simple; the US planes mentioned in this piece of prolefeed don't exist. There is a no-fly-zone that Russia is enforcing there.

I intentionally didn't mention this piece of prolfeed, you shouldn't have either, because I think this "story" belongs to the same category as that Turkish story.

Let me be a bit more explicit. With that Turkish story, the Russian reportings of the "story" were merely providing NATO a path for saving face.

Sorry, I must have missed the release that said that Russia had implemented a no-fly zone over that bit of Syria. Can you give a link?

In my ignorance I thought that the US/NATO were, like the RuAF, attacking ISIS (perhaps less effectively) in Syria and that they were just staying away from each other. I thought that they have not yet divided the airspace up yet, if it happens. That screen capture is just what one might expect. My only puzzle is that it seems to show 4 not 2 Russian planes.

There are plenty of proofs, reports, and announcements for Russia having established a no-fly-zone over Syria and parts of Turkey and Israel. Some material on the subject is even available in this thread. The content and the tone of the link that you have provided are themselves evidence that the story it is promoting is a fabrication.

However, the no-fly-zone, its details, or its extent is not the subject of this discussion; what matters is that when you include a link in your post, especially one that uses two cartoons as it main body of evidence, you should also provide some reasoning as to why the ridiculous “claim” that is being promoted is a “true claim”, and not just a fabricated one.

Your complicity in the promulgation of an uncorroborated item of prolefeed is an important part of what is wrong here.

For starters, how about just explaining why the “article” you posted relies on cartoons as its main evidence for the “claim” it is promoting, other than the fact that the article is directed toward an audience that are expected to be very unintelligent.

Also, if you post another cartoon in this thread claiming that the martians are sharing the airspace with the Russians over Syria, then is it my duty to do the footwork to provide links for you that disprove such a claim?

I have noticed that in one of your more recent posts (https://www.russiadefence.net/t4532p795-russian-military-involvement-and-aid-to-syria-2#126014), you have continued to again promote this same story and have even made up your fictional scenario. Now, this goes beyond just being illogical and fully establishes the situation as something very suspicious.

From your very first posts on this forum, I have found your posts as being very suspicious. They are at best copy-and-pastes of the material from the MSM. They are numerous and almost always false. The large rate at which you have posted points toward certain obvious conclusions, which I may elaborate on at a later time. The last paragraph of your reply to my post is pure trolling.

Mods, please look into this matter; it is important to make sure this thread doesn’t get wrecked; it already is in a state that may be irretrievable.

auslander wrote:Be prepared, gentlemen and lady, that it's only a matter of time before we lose some machines and boys. You take the King's schilling, sometimes you pay the King's price.

Zhongqing wrote:

auslander wrote:Be prepared, gentlemen and lady, that it's only a matter of time before we lose some machines and boys. You take the King's schilling, sometimes you pay the King's price.

Maybe, maybe not, but who says these are Russian Mi-24s? Syria has 30+ in their inventory. These might be their Mi-24s, or Russian Mi-24s piloted by Syrians. Russia has been training Syrian pilots since the Cold War.

Considering these are supporting the Syrian Army's Hama and Latakia offensives

zg18 wrote:LOL "FSA" propagandists on twitter are showing of downed Apache from Iraq as Russian loss in Hama

These type says terrorists destroyed "dozens" of tanks yesterday , so much of credibility.

Syrian military started to receive Russian infantry equipment

sepheronx wrote:If these Mi-24P are not upgraded models then they are also open to being taken down a lot easier too. So Russia should be using Ka-52 or Mi-28 that have all those gadgets.

zg18 wrote:LOL "FSA" propagandists on twitter are showing of downed Apache from Iraq as Russian loss in Hama

These type says terrorists destroyed "dozens" of tanks yesterday , so much of credibility.

Syrian military started to receive Russian infantry equipment

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

sepheronx wrote:If these Mi-24P are not upgraded models then they are also open to being taken down a lot easier too. So Russia should be using Ka-52 or Mi-28 that have all those gadgets.

Militarov wrote:

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Missiles are expencive you know Also main tool of Mi24 are unguided rockets S5 57mm, they require quite...intime relation with a target to be effective

Regular wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Missiles are expencive you know Also main tool of Mi24 are unguided rockets S5 57mm, they require quite...intime relation with a target to be effective

Are You kidding me? Pilots life is more expensive than helicopter itself. And yes, rockets are main weapons, but 30mm packs a punch, from above it can shred even a tank. Or at least strip it off and put it out of action.

Regular wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Missiles are expencive you know Also main tool of Mi24 are unguided rockets S5 57mm, they require quite...intime relation with a target to be effective

Are You kidding me? Pilots life is more expensive than helicopter itself. And yes, rockets are main weapons, but 30mm packs a punch, from above it can shred even a tank. Or at least strip it off and put it out of action.

Regular wrote:

sepheronx wrote:If these Mi-24P are not upgraded models then they are also open to being taken down a lot easier too. So Russia should be using Ka-52 or Mi-28 that have all those gadgets.

I think they are PM variant. Still they are inferior to Mi-35M. Why Russia doesn't bring it's cutting edge helicopters here, I don't know.

Regular wrote:
I think they are PM variant. Still they are inferior to Mi-35M. Why Russia doesn't bring it's cutting edge helicopters here, I don't know.

Militarov wrote:

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Missiles are expencive you know Also main tool of Mi24 are unguided rockets S5 57mm, they require quite...intime relation with a target to be effective

Cucumber Khan wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Neutrality wrote:My question is why don't they engage them from a safe distance by using long range guidance rockets or the HMG like we've seen the Apache pilots do plenty of times in Iraq. Again, I'm not an expert on this but going in for low strafe runs completely exposes you to heavy calibre weapons on the ground. If they continue like this some idiot on the ground will get lucky with his RPG eventually or a .50cal gun.

Missiles are expencive you know Also main tool of Mi24 are unguided rockets S5 57mm, they require quite...intime relation with a target to be effective

The S-5 was found to be ineffective already during the afghan war, and replaced with the 80 mm S-8. Of the pictures I've seen the Mi-24s seems to be ordinary non-upgraded Mi-24P.