Syrian Civil War: News

Israeli warplanes have attacked a shipment of Russian missiles inside a Syrian government stronghold, officials say, a development that threatened to add another volatile layer to regional tensions from the Syrian civil war.

The revelation came as the government of President Bashar al-Assad met a key deadline in an ambitious plan to eliminate Syria's entire chemical weapons stockpile by mid-2014 and avoid international military action.

The announcement by a global chemical weapons watchdog that the country has completed the destruction of equipment used to produce the deadly agents highlights Assad's willingness to cooperate, and puts more pressure on the divided and outgunned rebels to attend a planned peace conference.

An Obama administration official confirmed the Israeli airstrike overnight, but provided no details. Another security official said the attack occurred late on Wednesday in the Syrian port city of Latakia and that the target was Russian-made SA-125 missiles.

There was no immediate confirmation from Syria.

Since the civil war in Syria began in March 2011, Israel has carefully avoided taking sides, but has struck shipments of missiles inside Syria at least twice this year.

The Syrian military, overstretched by the civil war, has not retaliated, and it was not clear whether the embattled Syrian leader would choose to take action this time. Assad may decide to again let the Israeli attack slide, particularly when his army has the upper hand on the battlefield inside Syria.

Israel has repeatedly declared a series of red lines that could trigger military intervention, including the delivery of "game-changing" weapons to the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group.

Israel has never officially confirmed taking action inside Syria to avoid embarrassing Assad and sparking a potential response. But foreign officials say it has done so several times when Israeli intelligence determined that sophisticated missiles were on the move.

In January, an Israeli airstrike in Syria destroyed a shipment of advanced anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hezbollah, according to US officials. And in May, it was said to have acted again, taking out a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles at a Damascus airport.

The Fateh-110s have advanced guidance systems that allow them to travel up to 200 miles per hour with great precision. Their solid-fuel propellant allows them to be launched at short notice, making them hard to detect and neutralise.

Israel has identified several other weapons systems as game changers, including chemical weapons, Russian-made Yakhont missiles that can be fired from land and destroy ships at sea, and Russian SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles. Israel's January airstrike is believed to have destroyed a shipment of SA-17s.

Syrian activists and opposition groups reported strong explosions on Wednesday night that appeared to come from inside an air defence facility in Latakia. They said the cause of the blasts was not known.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/israel-strikes-russian-weapons-syria

Seems Isreal destroyed syrian pechora-2M which will put alot of questions about the efficiency of these missile against israel airforce

Syrian base targeted in blast may have housed advanced missiles

They could have been S-400s, if not properly deployed and integrated, they can be bombed by a competent AF.

Plus, Pechora ain't exactly a cutting edge complex.

TR1 wrote:They could have been S-400s, if not properly deployed and integrated, they can be bombed by a competent AF.

Plus, Pechora ain't exactly a cutting edge complex.

It's along time since syria got their S-125 , i don't think they didn't depoly it till now , anyway we should remember that israel has the lastest of the arm techonology from USA .

ahmedfire wrote:It's along time since syria got their S-125 , i don't think they didn't depoly it till now , anyway we should remember that israel has the lastest of the arm techonology from USA .

They've been deployed since at least February 2012.

SOC wrote:

ahmedfire wrote:It's along time since syria got their S-125 , i don't think they didn't depoly it till now , anyway we should remember that israel has the lastest of the arm techonology from USA .

They've been deployed since at least February 2012.

Yes ,and they deployed/tested it
Pictures
http://worlddefensereview.blogspot.com/2012/07/syrian-pechora-2m-air-defence-missile.html

Right, but at the time of the strike, was the network operational? Were all components of the system even on at the time?

The country has been torn apart, I doubt they could even make truly effective use of something self-contained at this point.

T-72 will receive a God like status after the war in Syria is over 

TR1 wrote:Right, but at the time of the strike, was the network operational? Were all components of the system even on at the time?

The country has been torn apart, I doubt they could even make truly effective use of something self-contained at this point.

We have no way of knowing for sure, but the satellite pic released by the US does show the battery spread out in a formation as it would be when deployed operationally.

Viktor wrote:T-72 will receive a God like status after the war in Syria is over 

at least this tank will gain a good reputation despite the NATO's propaganda. What is interesting, after the Chechen war where tanks proved being rather useless in urban area someone learned his lesson and found the way to use them efficiently. Plus usage of IFV rather than wheeled APCs despite NATOs great
emphasis put on those latter ones

T-72 performance does not prove that it's such a good machine but rather that its opponents lack modern At weapons.

Remember that the armor of Syrian T-72s is thinner than that of western tanks. And it's relatively easy to hit a weak spot, which either sends the turret in the air or at least fries the crew.

if these T-72AV's were sent to fight against an enemy that has large quantity of modern RPGs/ATGMs or against Leo2A4/M1A1 with gulf war era penetrators - the result would be a one sided massacre of T-72s...

Another good image of T-72 in action

As Sa'iqa wrote:T-72 performance does not prove that it's such a good machine but rather that its opponents lack modern At weapons.

Remember that the armor of Syrian T-72s is thinner than that of western tanks. And it's relatively easy to hit a weak spot, which either sends the turret in the air or at least fries the crew.

if these T-72AV's were sent to fight against an enemy that has large quantity of modern RPGs/ATGMs or against Leo2A4/M1A1 with gulf war era penetrators - the result would be a one sided massacre of T-72s...

you are wrong, yes, they have portable AA weapon and yes, it is not regular fight of two well equipped armies and yes, terrorists can use urban area as an advantage. This is why I gave Chechen example if you didn't catch it. It is not armor but tactics which matters this time

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=412508382208054&set=a.317988374993389.1073741828.313638228761737&type=1&theater

This lesson is as old as tank warfare... look at the rubbish tanks the Germans used to take over Europe during WWII, or the Sherman tanks the Israelis used successfully in their various conflicts.

Using the correct tactics... ie ammo in the armoured autoloader only, and properly trained and alert and competent crews who work together and it is no worse than any other vehicle.

All tanks have weakpoints... even western tanks.

The critical thing is that you don't store large amounts of ammo near the weak spots where a penetration can set off an explosion.

As Sa'iqa wrote:T-72 performance does not prove that it's such a good machine but rather that its opponents lack modern At weapons.

Remember that the armor of Syrian T-72s is thinner than that of western tanks. And it's relatively easy to hit a weak spot, which either sends the turret in the air or at least fries the crew.

if these T-72AV's were sent to fight against an enemy that has large quantity of modern RPGs/ATGMs or against Leo2A4/M1A1 with gulf war era penetrators - the result would be a one sided massacre of T-72s...

So you are comparing an older tank to a newer one and saying it would lose....dude.....

Sorta... People see an obsolete tank and claim it's good because it fares well against an underequipped enemy. You may send FT-17s against some african tribe armed with spears and bows and claim it's greatness on that basis.

T-72AV wouldn't fare well against a well equipped enemy. T-90MS or latest versions of T-72B would.

As Sa'iqa wrote:T-72 performance does not prove that it's such a good machine but rather that its opponents lack modern At weapons.

Remember that the armor of Syrian T-72s is thinner than that of western tanks. And it's relatively easy to hit a weak spot, which either sends the turret in the air or at least fries the crew.

if these T-72AV's were sent to fight against an enemy that has large quantity of modern RPGs/ATGMs or against Leo2A4/M1A1 with gulf war era penetrators - the result would be a one sided massacre of T-72s...

T-72 is the tank, the workhorse of Syrian Army which at the moment is doing pretty well at cleaning their country from worshipers of evil and prehistoric. 

Director of Uralvagonzavod in one interview said that on a average, destroyed T-72 receives 15 hits from different AT guided and ungudied weapons. 

Thats why I said its a tank that will receive God like status by the end of this war. Syrian Army is entering narrow streets with T-72, using it even without support from troops ect and still

making notable progress on all fronts.

GarryB wrote:This lesson is as old as tank warfare... look at the rubbish tanks the Germans used to take over Europe during WWII, or the Sherman tanks the Israelis used successfully in their various conflicts.

Using the correct tactics... ie ammo in the armoured autoloader only, and properly trained and alert and competent crews who work together and it is no worse than any other vehicle.

All tanks have weakpoints... even western tanks.

The critical thing is that you don't store large amounts of ammo near the weak spots where a penetration can set off an explosion.

sometimes old lessons are still not learned. You gave the example of WWII, fair enough. Many years went on and the same lesson came back in Grozny. Learning is a good idea.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Sorta... People see an obsolete tank and claim it's good because it fares well against an underequipped enemy. You may send FT-17s against some african tribe armed with spears and bows and claim it's greatness on that basis.

T-72AV wouldn't fare well against a well equipped enemy. T-90MS or latest versions of T-72B would.

it's all speaking of a theorist. A warfare is not the hardware only. It is also a tactics, morale of the soldiers, the level of their skills and fight experience, terrain, weather conditions. Specifications themselves don't win. I don't know how much time did you use to spend in a tank or IFV and how many soldiers did you use to teach, but I guess not many. The Warsaw Pact didn't collapse because of obsolete weapon, and putting aside the usage of the weapon of mass destruction we don't know for certain who would win in case of WWIII in Europe. What I meant in my previous post was, after months of losses Syrian Army learned its lesson and introduced an efficient tactics for tanks in this war. No more no less.

Viktor wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:T-72 performance does not prove that it's such a good machine but rather that its opponents lack modern At weapons.

Remember that the armor of Syrian T-72s is thinner than that of western tanks. And it's relatively easy to hit a weak spot, which either sends the turret in the air or at least fries the crew.

if these T-72AV's were sent to fight against an enemy that has large quantity of modern RPGs/ATGMs or against Leo2A4/M1A1 with gulf war era penetrators - the result would be a one sided massacre of T-72s...

T-72 is the tank, the workhorse of Syrian Army which at the moment is doing pretty well at cleaning their country from worshipers of evil and prehistoric. 

Director of Uralvagonzavod in one interview said that on a average, destroyed T-72 receives 15 hits from different AT guided and ungudied weapons. 

Thats why I said its a tank that will receive God like status by the end of this war. Syrian Army is entering narrow streets with T-72, using it even without support from troops ect and still

making notable progress on all fronts.

one comment: they enter without the direct support, but they have one. Someone observes the situation and directs their fire, someone points out possible dangerous situations, someone says: 'Stop! Slowly forward... Stop!', someone gives support of infantry when the time has come. In fact they don't fight alone

Qalamoun Mountains offensive. Details here: and in Russian here:

Pyrrus wrote:sometimes old lessons are still not learned. You gave the example of WWII, fair enough. Many years went on and the same lesson came back in Grozny. Learning is a good idea.

Grozny is a lesson on how You don't fight urban warfare. Soviet army of 80ies would never make such mistakes and would have steamrolled Chechnya in a matter of months. Chechens were using soviet tactics too, they didn't invent anything new.

Pyrrus wrote:What I meant in my previous post was, after months of losses Syrian Army learned its lesson and introduced an efficient tactics for tanks in this war. No more no less.

How well they are implemented is another question. Losses are not helping.

Pyrrus wrote:one comment: they enter without the direct support, but they have one. Someone observes the situation and directs their fire, someone points out possible dangerous situations, someone says: 'Stop! Slowly forward... Stop!', someone gives support of infantry when the time has come. In fact they don't fight alone

They do in fact fight alone. Observers are what Russian tanks relied on 2nd Chechen war. But infantry was doing all the work and there were no 5 tanks stationed in the open or crammed in a alley. No one clears buildings near tanks so anytime anyone can pop out RPG from such angle that even best tank would be toasted. I'm sure Syrian infantry is definitely not on same level as Russians. Not the same fighting spirit, not the same character, professionalism, courage. Syrian SF is non operational and just look what impact Russian spetsnaz caused in Chechnya. They basically dragged first war on their own. In fact Russians were even in foreign land while SAA fights on it's own soil. They have to be happy that insurgents, terrorists and all other factions are so incompetent and will be exhausted and exterminated soon. After war is over I expect Syrian military to be reformed if finances will allow this.

Regular: I agree with you about minimal usage of special forces. Probably because Syrian Army has been prepared for entirely another possible conflict in the past. This somehow explains their losses at the beginning of this war. Now there are some reports about the using Syrian special units, but nothing in details. But these reports were about cleaning up villages and districts from remnants of terrorists more than about serious operations. Russian Army has far more special units than Syria and they could send regiments, divisions to Chechna. Probably Syrians not. Of course you can say, they had much time to train more units. I wouldn't argue with that. They probably chose the option: more soldiers in shorter time, not quality. Training SF is more time consuming. But I wouldn't like to carry on about it, as I have not enough data about that. Once more about those tanks fighting alone. For me it is when the commander has to look for targets on his own, looking for another position for the tank (relocating) on his own. In short leading two other members of the crew without the help of anyone else. In the situation I mentioned above the company commander does it for him from the observing point with the help of the sniper looking for targets, dangers etc. And yes, physical job of cleaning up the area ALWAYS does infantry (or another unit acting as an infantry). This is my point of view

Regular: about the Soviet Era. During the existence of the Warsaw Pact the tactics of all armies was more or less similar or even the same. As for urban area fights, usage of tanks was taken as minimal because that time they were prone of portable AT devices (reacting armour wasn't broadly used as much as it is now). So it was established groups from infantry: fire group supporting: first sappers cleaning area and entrances from mines and then assault group during attack. The possible usage of tanks was as a component of the fire group before the assault. But as you probably rightly suppose, this way cause losses amongst attacking soldiers. I presume Syrians can't afford mass losses any more so modernized that previous tactics into a new one with a tank directly, from the close position destroying positions of defenders (sometimes it is also howitzer Akatzya) to clean way for infantry. Take notice, sometimes soldiers are carried at the building entrance by the IFV like BMP 2, its rear doors is next to building doors. All to decrease to minimum possible losses.