Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #5

KiloGolf wrote:

And that's the most unimportant aspect of that aircraft!
Read here:
https://twitter.com/AlRFORCEFREAK/status/563004594994053122
https://twitter.com/AlRFORCEFREAK/status/563002628058382336

It has been converted to carry FAB bombs

And i was wondering for some time why Russia didn't do that .. To use very Big Soviet
Bombers to bomb ISIS ,those bombers ,specially the Bear that is semi armored? and can stay 24 hours in the air.. could be filled with hundreds of Bombs and do carpet bombing for hours easily.
And virtually cover and entire city with Bombs.. They could be used to bombs terrorist forces very spread over a large zone.

After Russia began to bomb Syria with precision bombs.. US and its coalition gave orders
the terrorist to spread as much as possible and move in small groups.. to make less effective the bombing.. IT also help Russia with the aspect of security because can use their modern planes for tactical strikes ..and the big cargo planes for carpet bombing and throw very huge
Fuel Bombs..

Neutrality wrote:So the battle for Aleppo is pretty close then. Has the T90 ever been used in a conflict before? I think this is the first time.

Ukraine (a platoon at least) and Two in Chechnya. Ukrainians still try not to cry about it at night, then go and change diapers.

Militarov wrote:

zg18 wrote:

Neutrality wrote:So the battle for Aleppo is pretty close then. Has the T90 ever been used in a conflict before? I think this is the first time.

It was used briefly and VERY successfully against Ukrainian T-80s and T-64s near Lugansk last summer.

Those reportedly were T72B3 from what i recall.

And T-90As , but they were used only short time period near Lugansk



https://burkonews.info/russian-t-90-tanks-136th-motorized-rifle-brigade-luhansk-region/

KoTeMoRe wrote:Ukraine (a platoon at least) and Two in Chechnya. Ukrainians still try not to cry about it at night, then go and change diapers.

Yeah, Ukrainian tank commander said on video he lost 7 tanks in 5 minutes against single tank in skirmish south of Lugansk.

zg18 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Ukraine (a platoon at least) and Two in Chechnya. Ukrainians still try not to cry about it at night, then go and change diapers.

Yeah, Ukrainian tank commander said on video he lost 7 tanks in 5 minutes against single tank in skirmish south of Lugansk.

And that counts as proof that it was a T-90A?

The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's, T-90A's or T-64's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Zivo wrote:The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's or T-90A's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Yes, that is my recollection as well, but maybe I missed something?

Zivo wrote:The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's, T-90A's or T-64's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Don't forget about Armatas and Ion space cannons and hitler old moon base was also used as lunar artillery bombardment of honorable nazis that only protect the world from evil putin.

We simply cannot argue about the T-90A's performance based on Ukrainian sources. Despite that they are unintentional praising the T-90, their credibility is atrocious. Every tank in that war was a T-90, and every rebel was a russian soldier.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's, T-90A's or T-64's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Don't forget about Armatas and Ion space cannons and hitler old moon base was also used as lunar artillery bombardment of honorable nazis that only protect the world from evil putin.

by looking at your animated graphics of the mi-24 firing its 30mm gun? i can see why it can be useful to use that gun..even if it is fixed.. Russian pilots can flight in circles and that gatlin gun
can cover a wide area.. not the best offensive ..but it still works and can break enemy formations..


So now my question.. is..
Does Russia have any plan to develop a Mi-24/mi-35 with a mobile 30mm chain gun that can fire its gun in 360 degrees at any target..regardless of the direction the helicopter is looking?

Are any plans or discussion in Russia to develop a replacement for the Mi-24 or Mi-35?

Vann7 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's, T-90A's or T-64's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Don't forget about Armatas and Ion space cannons and hitler old moon base was also used as lunar artillery bombardment of honorable nazis that only protect the world from evil putin.

by looking at your animated graphics of the mi-24 firing its 30mm gun?  i can see why it can be useful to use that gun..even if it is fixed.. Russian pilots can flight in circles and that gatlin gun
can cover a wide area..  not the best offensive ..but it still works and can break enemy formations..


So now my question.. is..
Does Russia have any plan to develop a Mi-24/mi-35 with a mobile 30mm chain gun that can fire its gun in 360 degrees at any target..regardless of the direction the helicopter is looking?

Are any plans or discussion in Russia to develop a replacement for the Mi-24 or Mi-35?

Look at the force of the recoil the autocannon imparts in the aircraft. That gun has to be statically mounted.

Russian Il-76TD operating under Syrian flag

Vann7 wrote:
It looks like Turkmenistan are  protesting Russia the use of the caspian sea airspace
to bomb in Syria.. This have to come from Washington DC the orders.. to block Russia
from flying over their side of the caspian sea.  


http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151123/1030606632/putin-caspian-sea-isil-airstrikes.html

What a retarded joke. The only say Turkmenistan has is about the economic exploitation of its zone as divided by
the countries who own Caspian Sea shoreline. Nowhere does this agreement let alone international law extend its
territory to the middle of the Sea. Turkmenistan is still subject to the 7 nm limit for inland seas.

Turkmenistan has outed itself as a US whore. Russia should act accordingly.

BKP wrote:According  to RI, the Jerusalem Post, citing Kuwaiti media, is getting  into the act now. If you check the comments, you'll notice that Patrick Armstrong doesn't believe it.

Report: Russia Begins Ground Operations in Syria
The Jerusalem Post, citing a Kuwaiti newspaper, reports that “Russian forces have already taken over multiple strategic positions and have forced numerous rebel battalions to retreat”
Rudy Panko, 11/23/15

http://russia-insider.com/en/report-russian-ground-forces-begin-operations-syria/ri11384

Standard media procedure: run with unverified stories from secondary sources. Until someone provides something more than "I saw some
recent Russian tanks, therefore Russians must be there" as evidence this is all a big steaming pile of BS.

Werewolf wrote:And that counts as proof that it was a T-90A?

In fact - almost yes, Ukrainian crews were their professional tankman not some conscripts, commander was very professional & open about his experience and never actually said it was T-90A but it`s no brainer if a single tank wrecks havoc on whole tank unit, this is only possible with technological superiority on battlefield. T-90A only fits the bill.

zg18 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:And that counts as proof that it was a T-90A?

In fact - almost yes, Ukrainian crews were their professional tankman not some conscripts, commander was very professional & open about his experience and never actually said it was T-90A but it`s no brainer if a single tank wrecks havoc on whole tank unit, this is only possible with technological superiority on battlefield. T-90A only fits the bill.

Why do you think a well positioned T-72B3 couldn't do the same?

They are similar machines with similar offensive capability.

Guys, you went off-topic, so I'll add a bit more.

Prior to The white humanitarian convoy, the area of the map I will post was controlled by 1st tank brigade of UAF, with T-64BM Bulats, their probably best equipped formation.

In an incredibly short time, the forces were wiped out, Bulat after Bulat knocked out or captured (15+), as well as BMPs and accompanying artillery.

Here is a map of the area.

Map:

There is even a rather convincing geolocation story of that VK pic.

Zivo wrote:Why do you think a well positioned T-72B3 couldn't do the same?

They are similar machines with similar offensive capability.

Nope, T-90A is far better protected. And since they were counterattacking/effecting a breakthrough, it would mean a lot.

Zivo wrote:Why do you think a well positioned T-72B3 couldn't do the same?

They are similar machines with similar offensive capability.

Could be.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:The problem is the Ukrainian press muddied the waters. It could have been either B3's, T-90A's or T-64's. There's no way to tell.

Supposedly T-90's were used during the Luhansk airport assault, but then again, so were tactical nukes...

Don't forget about Armatas and Ion space cannons and hitler old moon base was also used as lunar artillery bombardment of honorable nazis that only protect the world from evil putin.

My favourite one was magical fog machine at Donetsk airport....

BAck to Syria.. is highy likely that Russia will use Ground troops /volunteers from Donetsk
to give a hand in Aleppo and or idlib.. is too important to get those zones for the security
of the Russian base.  I don't think the Russia military will have their 2,000 troops bored
doing nothing asking for action..  they can get 300-500 troops and of those and give a hand to
the Syrian army in operations close to the base.

If US is desperate they can supply the Rebels with NATO Rocket missiles with 200km range.
Russia cannot sit down and just wait their enemies to pull another stunt.. Syrian army for example was bombed not long ago by a "Rebel Pilot" supposedly "defector" using
a soviet plane mig plane "captured" from Assad.. In reality planes supplied by US and Turkey to the Rebels fly from Turkey and do suicide missions on Syria using planes.. 100% a possible
they could try that..

Vann7 wrote:BAck to Syria.. is highy likely that Russia will use Ground troops /volunteers from Donetsk
to give a hand in Aleppo and or idlib.. is too important to get those zones for the security
of the Russian base.  I don't think the Russia military will have their 2,000 troops bored
doing nothing asking for action..  they can get 300-500 troops and of those and give a hand to
the Syrian army in operations close to the base.

If US is desperate they can supply the Rebels with NATO Rocket missiles with 200km range.
Russia cannot sit down and just wait their enemies to pull another stunt.. Syrian army for example was bombed not long ago by a "Rebel Pilot"  supposedly "defector" using
a soviet plane mig plane "captured" from Assad.. In reality planes supplied by US and Turkey to the Rebels fly from Turkey and do suicide missions on Syria using planes.. 100% a possible
they could try that..

Syria does not need Donbas fighters. It has Hezobollah on its side. They can do the job just fine.
All this talk about Russians sending ground forces in one way or another is an example of media
brainwashing. Since they spew articles about this we have it becoming some sort of established
fact.

Vann7 wrote:BAck to Syria.. is highy likely that Russia will use Ground troops /volunteers from Donetsk
to give a hand in Aleppo and or idlib.. is too important to get those zones for the security
of the Russian base.  I don't think the Russia military will have their 2,000 troops bored
doing nothing asking for action..  they can get 300-500 troops and of those and give a hand to
the Syrian army in operations close to the base.

If US is desperate they can supply the Rebels with NATO Rocket missiles with 200km range.
Russia cannot sit down and just wait their enemies to pull another stunt.. Syrian army for example was bombed not long ago by a "Rebel Pilot"  supposedly "defector" using
a soviet plane mig plane "captured" from Assad.. In reality planes supplied by US and Turkey to the Rebels fly from Turkey and do suicide missions on Syria using planes.. 100% a possible
they could try that..

Got to give you 10/10 for your vivid imagination.

Noway anyone capable of handling arms is going to be leaving Donetsk for a while yet.

US MLRS is a different ball game to anything ISIS have and that ain't gonna happen. Same as a suicide plane, there is proper radar coverage now with Su-30SM carrying AAM, again no.

The real danger is and so far, thank goodness, the ISIS arms merchants have not got MANPADs. This must be intentional. Russia must have said something about the potential result of such an event.

Vann7 wrote:
by looking at your animated graphics of the mi-24 firing its 30mm gun?  i can see why it can be useful to use that gun..even if it is fixed.. Russian pilots can flight in circles and that gatlin gun
can cover a wide area..  not the best offensive ..but it still works and can break enemy formations..


So now my question.. is..
Does Russia have any plan to develop a Mi-24/mi-35 with a mobile 30mm chain gun that can fire its gun in 360 degrees at any target..regardless of the direction the helicopter is looking?

Are any plans or discussion in Russia to develop a replacement for the Mi-24 or Mi-35?

No such plans for a very good reason, the recoil is far to high of a 30mm, even the much less powerful M230 of Apache which has just 30x113mm rounds has already problems coming from the recoil. The russians use much more powerful round 30x165mm which is used in BMP's to crack other IFV's and such a cannon with that recoil but in a GSh-30K version is certainly not possible nor would i recommend anyone even dreaming about it. There is no attack helicopter that can turn its gun 360° in azimuth. The highest azimuth which a helicopter has is the Rooivalk and Havoc which have 220°, no info on Z-10 and the the only higher azimuth was appaerantly on RAH-66 with 240°. There is just no point of 360° turreted gun. If you have a turreted gun for 360° there is something with your tactics that i would consider checking first than considering such an unnecessary feature. That is why strike groups exist that are flying at enemy forces from opposite directions, bombing their targets and then retreat in the direction where the other strike team is coming from and provide fire on the forces which have survived and return fire.

In fact - almost yes, Ukrainian crews were their professional tankman not some conscripts, commander was very professional & open about his experience and never actually said it was T-90A but it`s no brainer if a single tank wrecks havoc on whole tank unit, this is only possible with technological superiority on battlefield. T-90A only fits the bill.

Would say is more of training than technology.

zg18 wrote:
In fact - almost yes, Ukrainian crews were their professional tankman not some conscripts, commander was very professional & open about his experience and never actually said it was T-90A but it`s no brainer if a single tank wrecks havoc on whole tank unit, this is only possible with technological superiority on battlefield. T-90A only fits the bill.

Yeah or it could have been Armata if we use that kind of logic

It was most likely a T-72B3 because the B3 modification was chosen by the MOD to bring all the outdated T-72 models up to T-90 standards.