Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #7

Worthwhile interview with journalist Eva Bartlett, who has been working in Syria. I had not heard of her, but she's good, and she hits every nail on the head here.

short_fuze wrote:A video showing successful active defense against an ATGM. The protection activates at about 6 seconds in.

LOL terrorist fail..

In reality what happened is the terrorist were trying to target spaceship coming
from space. and used the armored vehicle only as reference..

Maybe this was posted but shows a near 2 weeks old video of t-90 fighting in Aleppo



apparently the sources from the video claims the tank took 9 rpg hits and deflected 1 TOW..
but no images from those claim.

According to Syrian media, the Russian MOD delivered '15' T-90 units to SAA troops, and apparently the T-90's were one of the main key factors responsible in capturing Aleppo. This should put to bed claims that the T-90 series isn't 'combat proven'.

T-90's success in Aleppo is embarrassing the retards who claimed MBT's were obsolete as a concept.

T-90 tanks were aimed at Raqqa

...A year ago if you would of said 15 T-90's would be enough firepower for SAA ground forces to lead operations allowing them to eventually capturing the city of Aleppo, you would of been laughed out the room as a "Russia S-T-R-O-N-K fanboy".

Sure, the VKS PGM strikes helped a lot, softening up the bearded goatf*ckers that is, but you can't win wars on air-power alone, you need ground forces to capture territory.

An interesting article about Washington's chess game in Syria, well worth a read.

http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/17/washington-s-machiavellian-game-in-syria/

magnumcromagnon wrote:According to Syrian media, the Russian MOD delivered '15' T-90 units to SAA troops, and apparently the T-90's were one of the main key factors responsible in capturing Aleppo. This should put to bed claims that the T-90 series isn't 'combat proven'.

T-90's success in Aleppo is embarrassing the retards who claimed MBT's were obsolete as a concept.

T-90 tanks were aimed at Raqqa

...A year ago if you would of said 15 T-90's would be enough firepower for SAA ground forces to lead operations allowing them to eventually capturing the city of Aleppo, you would of been laughed out the room as a "Russia S-T-R-O-N-K fanboy".

Sure, the VKS PGM strikes helped a lot, softening up the bearded goatf*ckers that is, but you can't win wars on air-power alone, you need ground forces to capture territory.

Don't count on it Magnum, those guys will never except the T-90 or any Russian tank, as combat capable, to them the Abrams will always be there "holy grail".

As for those who believe MBTs are obsolete, well there idiots who don't know jack sh#t about ground warfare.

Liberation of Syria in just few minutes. hows' to.

Interesting info.. a page designed by scientist
about the real world impact of nuclear weapons.

this is a fun link.. everyone can check.. to measure what will happen ,
if Russia was to use nuclear weapons..

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


Using just a single 150kt nuclear warhead (used the W-80 american cruise missile as reference)
it can cover completely Azaz city ,that Turkey have been said is sending more hundreds of mercenary to help hold it.

So i made my estimates using visual reference of the ratio of destruction of a 150kt nuclear warhead. and Russia with about ~30 tactical nuclear warheads of 150 kt each. it can cover fully
every inch of land in northern alepo (in the zones Syrian army dont control) and wipe all Turkey and NATO mercenaries deployed there in less than 5 minutes to 10 minutes in a coordinate
tactical nuclear attack that is ,that aims to target every inch of land of northen aleppo.  

When it comes to Eastern Syria that is mostly empty other than Raqqa and Deizzor ,it will be a waste and only those 2 cities nuked and the territory near it.. will totally wipe the terrorist.

-The fire ball of each attack will cover near 1km^2 radius.
-The shock wave overpressure of 5psi will cover about 4km square km. enough pressure to
destroy most buildings and break all bones of the body of any living thing. not even rats will
survive.  
-the third degree burns will cover up to 5km distance radius of the explosion. Those burns
are the worse possible ,penetrate in the bones and people arms or legs will need amputation

means up to 5km of distance of the tactical nuke explosion , it will totally kill or totally disable any terrorist capabilities to fight. anyone in that radius that stay looking at the beatiful  fireball if not totally fried or all its bones broken will be blind for the burns.

If Russia drops 30x nuclear tactical nukes of  150kt each withing 5km distance of each other,
and at very close timing of each other for major psicological impact to Russian enemies in the
turkey border.. then they will observe a ball of fire and smoke covering the whole visible horizon to them ,including Azaz city but also every other town or village too.

For eastern Syria ,in Raqqa -Deir Ezur.. will need less since is mostly empty .  about ~20 tactical nukes will be enough to fully cover all the important zones.

After such attacks.. Russia can give a signal to the Syrian army to just plant a flag on the new
liberated cities.  

However in real practice not all places can be nuked ,since Al bab which the Syrian army
is withing 10km for example have many civilians there. But is just a summary of what kind of possibilities Russia have using nukes.. If 350,000 Turkey army.. or even 2 million of Turks.. cross the border into Syria with tanks the results will be the same. If Russia throw a dozen of tactical nukes on all their territory they moving. People underground on hand made tunnels will neither be save. the over pressure will kill them.. and break all their bones ,this is if they not totally fried with the ball of fire.

That said.. to fully wipe every zone ,every mountain or hill ,every terrorist in any hand made tunnel, or hinding in a hospital or building ,every position of terrorist in Northen Aleppo Russia can totally wipe them ,with just 30~tactical nukes.

but used those only in strategic places only..then about ~10 to 15 nukes.
But in the last case there is no guarantee ,that a major group of few thousands terrorist
rats could be missed if their zone not attacked and Russia did not knew they were there.

and just for curiosity..of Russia capabilities. to counter the people saying Russia cannot defeat turkey, the Tzar bomb with 50mega ton over turkey.. and 1 alone can wipe all Ankara capital.
and about 25 to 30 of them cover 100% of Turkey territory. Of course no one in their right mind
will do such thing..   Just a couple 3 to 5 tactical hits here or there on valuable military positions concentrations of Turkey ARmy,will wipe all 30% of its army ,that is 350,000
soldiers killed in just 15 minutes.  Something like that for sure will make Erdogan understand
that he is just picking a fight with the wrong nation and that Russia can literary crush Turkey
and send it to the stone age in less than 30 minutes.

Will Americans or anyone in NATO step in the line to fight Russia and risk being nuked ,in defense of Turkey and Erdogan that is aiding ISIS and is the major cause of the refugee crisis
in Europe for its aid of terrorism and using its nation as the base of ISIS?

Hardly.. NATO will never fight Russia in defense of a muslin terrorist state. it will totally brake
NATO alliance showing how symbolical is. they will scream and protest ,but will do nothing and  more likely that citizens in all NATO countries,specially Europe suffering the refugee crisis created by US and Turkey will do rallies in support of Russia for defeating Turkey in any war.

I really think Russia will be totally justified to use nuclear weapons against Turkey ,even if the attack fails ,if Erdogan give the order to its airforce to a full scale attack on the Russian base.

Do you mean 150 KILOTONS and not 150 tons?

A 150 KT bomb dropped on Raqqa would simpyl destroy entire city... everything within several kilometer radius would evaporate instantly, including some 150,000 civilians.

AlfaT8 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:According to Syrian media, the Russian MOD delivered '15' T-90 units to SAA troops, and apparently the T-90's were one of the main key factors responsible in capturing Aleppo. This should put to bed claims that the T-90 series isn't 'combat proven'.

T-90's success in Aleppo is embarrassing the retards who claimed MBT's were obsolete as a concept.

T-90 tanks were aimed at Raqqa

...A year ago if you would of said 15 T-90's would be enough firepower for SAA ground forces to lead operations allowing them to eventually capturing the city of Aleppo, you would of been laughed out the room as a "Russia S-T-R-O-N-K fanboy".

Sure, the VKS PGM strikes helped a lot, softening up the bearded goatf*ckers that is, but you can't win wars on air-power alone, you need ground forces to capture territory.

Don't count on it Magnum, those guys will never except the T-90 or any Russian tank, as combat capable, to them the Abrams will always be there "holy grail".

As for those who believe MBTs are obsolete, well there idiots who don't know jack sh#t about ground warfare.

T-90s alone did not reversed the tide in favor of Syrian army. .is the combination
of Russia logistics ,Satellite ,Airforce ,  precision artillery,S-400 ,counter electronics and T-90s , to  keep NATO away and beat the terrorist . one simple mine can defeat a T-90.. and force it to repairs. Or a Javeline/spike missile top attack weapon ,guided by wire. but not sure t-90 tanks are well prepared  against that.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Do you mean 150 KILOTONS and not 150 tons?

A 150 KT bomb dropped on Raqqa would simpyl destroy entire city... everything within several kilometer radius would evaporate instantly, including some 150,000 civilians.

150 kilotons nuclear bomb have about ~5km range..its total destruction zone, Is enough to wipe a small size mini city. but only its urban area ,not the rural zones. all raqqa district have to be
near 30km or maybe more. Aleppo full district is huge ,had to be about 100km wide.
My estimates was about northern Aleppo what capabilities Russia have if really had to do
things very fast. if a major world war 3 started for example and Russia could not continue
wasting time in Syria and had to fight in another front.

the 50 megaton tzar bomb have according to the link i posted about 60km square range of total destruction. Basically the size of a major city ,the metro area. you could also do more damage
destroying water channels ,to flood cities..etc. Or creating a psunami with a nuke in a zone that is closer to the water level..

Raqqa city is essentialy 4x12 km. About 100,000 people live on this area. A 150 kT bomb would make whole city and it's populaton evaporate.

Moral issues put aside, a move like this would either cause WW3 or make Russia a pariah on international political scene. Use of nuclear weapons is not acceptable in our world at any circumstances. You may use thermobaric weapons and get away with it but not nukes.

JohninMK wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:According to Syrian media, the Russian MOD delivered '15' T-90 units to SAA troops, and apparently the T-90's were one of the main key factors responsible in capturing Aleppo. This should put to bed claims that the T-90 series isn't 'combat proven'.

T-90's success in Aleppo is embarrassing the retards who claimed MBT's were obsolete as a concept.

T-90 tanks were aimed at Raqqa

...A year ago if you would of said 15 T-90's would be enough firepower for SAA ground forces to lead operations allowing them to eventually capturing the city of Aleppo, you would of been laughed out the room as a "Russia S-T-R-O-N-K fanboy".

Sure, the VKS PGM strikes helped a lot, softening up the bearded goatf*ckers that is, but you can't win wars on air-power alone, you need ground forces to capture territory.

Not to belittle the impact of the T-90 but as far as I can tell Aleppo is neither captured or surrounded yet.

You don't have to agree, but a month ago they (SAA) were significantly south of Aleppo, and now they're capturing towns on the Northern outskirts of Aleppo, and completely encircling Aleppo. That's why they are trying to advance alongside the YPG to close the border, and capture Azaz and Raqqa. If they didn't capture Aleppo then they wouldn't be moving on to Raqqa, just because there's fighting on the outskirts, doesn't mean it's not under control (same could be said about Lattakia). BTW the link clearly says Syrian media, aka the Pro-govt media, don't you think they would know the situation on the ground better than we would?

Vann7 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:According to Syrian media, the Russian MOD delivered '15' T-90 units to SAA troops, and apparently the T-90's were one of the main key factors responsible in capturing Aleppo. This should put to bed claims that the T-90 series isn't 'combat proven'.

T-90's success in Aleppo is embarrassing the retards who claimed MBT's were obsolete as a concept.

T-90 tanks were aimed at Raqqa

...A year ago if you would of said 15 T-90's would be enough firepower for SAA ground forces to lead operations allowing them to eventually capturing the city of Aleppo, you would of been laughed out the room as a "Russia S-T-R-O-N-K fanboy".

Sure, the VKS PGM strikes helped a lot, softening up the bearded goatf*ckers that is, but you can't win wars on air-power alone, you need ground forces to capture territory.

Don't count on it Magnum, those guys will never except the T-90 or any Russian tank, as combat capable, to them the Abrams will always be there "holy grail".

As for those who believe MBTs are obsolete, well there idiots who don't know jack sh#t about ground warfare.

T-90s alone did not reversed the tide in favor of Syrian army. .is the combination
of Russia logistics ,Satellite ,Airforce ,  precision artillery,S-400 ,counter electronics and T-90s , to  keep NATO away and beat the terrorist . one simple mine can defeat a T-90.. and force it to repairs. Or a Javeline/spike missile top attack weapon ,guided by wire. but not sure  t-90 tanks are well prepared  against that.

It's been stated countless times before, you can't win wars on air power alone. Hitler's Luftwaffe was very powerful and efficient, but it couldn't prevent their Eastern Front/Flank from collapsing, and they couldn't prevent the USSR from conquering Berlin. The VKS PGM strikes were very effective (a life saver even), but you need mechanized armor divisions and ground forces to capture and hold territory.

This video describes the Russian military efforts in Syria in period between September 30, 2015 and February 17, 2016.

http://southfront.org/results-of-russian-air-campaign-in-syria-sep-30-2015-feb-17-2016/

4 Mi-35M, 4 Mi-24P, 1 Mi-8AMTSh. Al Shayrat.

https://twitter.com/MmaGreen/status/700401102064254976

Having equal number of Mi-24P and Mi-35M mean excellent dividing of work time. Mi-24P exclusively active in day time and Mi-35M exclusively active in night time. Mi-35M armed with 16 Ataka ATGMs will be excellent for night time precision attacks on important targets, specially on convoys of terrorists and their supplies.

Damn you John, beat me by split second!!!

Can't wait to see pic of Zeleni Dol and Varyag side by side.

Russian UN Ambassador Churkin hopes there will be no full-scale Russian-Turkish clash... Interfax


Diplomatic talk for "Bring it on you little back stabber, double dare you!"

I'm just hoping that Churkin is being Machievelian in his admonition of Assad for rejecting a cease-fire that would prevent Damascus from making any more gains by stopping its momentum dead in its tracks. I'll defer judgment instead of being hysterical. Russia knows what it's doing.

Perhaps Russia thinks SAA is too crappy to recapture the whole country. After dropping tens of thousands of bombs, SAA failed to capture a single city. A few towns and some villages were captured. True. But that is nothing compared to Allied advance during WW2 which saw the end of Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan within a few years. Ditto with the Spanish civil war. Ditto with the American civil war. Ditto with the Chinese civil war. At this pace, SAA still cannot capture a single city years from now. SAA is not willing to sacrifice manpower to capture places. They only wait until Russian bombs flatten a place then they walk in. So it is reasonable Russia thinks the fighting should stop. It's not going anywhere.

I quote Churkin.

"But if in some way they are knocked off that path -- and this again is my personal opinion -- then a very difficult situation could arise. Including for the Syrians themselves. Because whatever the capabilities of the Syrian army, it was the effective operations of Russian air forces that allowed them to push their opponents back from Damascus."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-envoy-idUSKCN0VR240

Let's face it. If the SAA is good, then it should have captured a city by now. It hasn't. That means SAA is not good. So what's the point of continuing this fighting? For how long? Decades? Centuries? For what? We don't want another Hundred Years War.

ultron wrote:Perhaps Russia thinks SAA is too crappy to recapture the whole country. After dropping tens of thousands of bombs, SAA failed to capture a single city. A few towns and some villages were captured. True. But that is nothing compared to Allied advance during WW2 which saw the end of Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan within a few years. Ditto with the Spanish civil war. Ditto with the American civil war. Ditto with the Chinese civil war. At this pace, SAA still cannot capture a single city years from now. SAA is not willing to sacrifice manpower to capture places. They only wait until Russian bombs flatten a place then they walk in. So it is reasonable Russia thinks the fighting should stop. It's not going anywhere.

I quote Churkin.

"But if in some way they are knocked off that path -- and this again is my personal opinion -- then a very difficult situation could arise. Including for the Syrians themselves. Because whatever the capabilities of the Syrian army, it was the effective operations of Russian air forces that allowed them to push their opponents back from Damascus."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-envoy-idUSKCN0VR240

Let's face it. If the SAA is good, then it should have captured a city by now. It hasn't. That means SAA is not good. So what's the point of continuing this fighting? For how long? Decades? Centuries? For what? We don't want another Hundred Years War.

This is not Russia/SAA UN this is whole eco-system with US/Sauds/Turkey/EU and other evil-doers , all with trade links, blackmails possibility of war. Real one. Maybe Kurds did not want to submit to Russian requirements so they will be let alone for a while? Maybe logistics needs to upload more stuff? words mean little dids a lot. Sure we can speculate but we do not know real situation nor Russian options. So saying thet Russian leadership sucks is pretty much of being drama queen.