Syrian War: News #19

Just like in Vietnam when the knew they won't take over the country, they burn everything. Assholes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/1102795523470184448

New airstrikes by russian and saa on idlib.

Qalaat Al Mudiq
@QalaatAlMudiq
·
13m
#Syria: renewed #SyAF airstrikes on town of #Saraqeb (video) in E. #Idlib and Talmenes near #MaaretNuman. Sirens heard in #Idlib-city amidst fear of airstrikes.

In the refered to the less modern, less powerfull and less capable part of its arsenal, Syria is likely to work in order to finish the war with a good compromise in their arsenals.

The war still will be long, and Syria very likely will put to work the weapons which exhaustion is positive for them.

The heavy weapons likely to be exhausted in Russia, Continental Asia and Syria by the end of the war would be:

ZIS-2
M-240
S-23
M1938 76mm
B-4(M)
KS-30
Be-6/12
GT-MU
AT-T
Vasilek
M-10 M1938
Su-122
M-43
BTR-40
D-48
D-44
M-160
D-74
BRDM-1
T-34
ZIS-3
A-19 M1931/7
ML-20 M1937
BMD-20
BM-13
SU-100
61-K M1939
BTR-50
BM-24
KS-19
ZPU-1/2/4
MiG-15
BS-3
BTR-152
BM-14
FROG-7
D-1
ZSU-57-2
SA-9
S-60
52-K KS-12 M1939
PT-76

Exhausted in Russia and Continental Asia by the end of the war:

SA-4 (maybe totally exhausted too)
SA-5
SA-3 (including not self-propelled SA-26)
SA-2
ZU-23(-2)
Nona-K

Exhausted in Russia by the end of the war:

M-30
D-20
MiG-21
BTR-60
M-46
T-54/55/62
T-64 (oriented to Novorussia)

In fact all the weapons marked in red should be exhausted in Russia at this point, or very soon.

Basis of Russian help in the following years:

D-30
(M)T-12
BMD-1
BMP-1
BRDM-2

The war of Syria had a very important human impact in the Syrian Armed Forces and in the entire country, but by the end, will be a strong failure in terms of weakening the military strenght of Syria and Russia after its intervention.

In terms of not recoverable loses, between the weapons of the first group, which total exhaustion can be expected also in Syria, the most important would be the FROG-7 and the ZSU-57-2. The decline of the first has been very important in the entry of Iranian and North Korean Surface-Surface systems in the Syrian Armed Forces (because Russia wanted to keep intact their arsenals of newer Surface-Surface weapons like the SS-1).

In the following comment you can see a more concrete preview about the presence of the weapons likely to continue in the Syrian arsenals after the end of the war:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1321p125-russian-arms-supplies-to-syria#250044

eehnie wrote:

eehnie wrote:One important detail. Under this scheme of procurement (Russia+Asia), until today, Syria likely has been able to keep their arsenals in the levels previous to the war, despite the important loses.

The most difficult replacement for Syria is for the loses on the armament more modern than the listed in this scheme. Then obviously Syria will try to keep safer this armament to avoid loses on them. In the other side, one of the main goals of the US and their allies is to reduce it, targeting them in the battlefield with their paramilitary forces.

In order to keep its military strength in the pre-war level, Syria is likely to keep by the end of the war, between the oldest, less powerfull and less capable Russian heavy armament that I habitually mark in red and in pink (like in the previous comments, Syria must keep:

1017+ M-30 After exhaustion in Russia
0800 M-46 After exhaustion in Russia
0100 D-20 After exhaustion in Russia
1860 BTR-60 After exhaustion in Russia
3150 T-54/55/62 After exhaustion in Russia
0220 MiG-21 After exhaustion in Russia
2212- SA-5 + SA-2 + SA-3 + SA-4 + ZU-23(-2) After exhaustion in Russia and Continental Asia

0636 D-30
0100 (M)T-12
2600 BMP-1
1125 BRMD-2
0186 Nona-K After exhaustion in Russia and Continental Asia

By the end of the war Syria has also the opportunity of cleaning a little its arsenals. A good and logical use of the resources by Syria would lead to the exhaustion in Russia, Continental Asia and Syria (in this order) of the rest of the weapons marked in red, except the T-64 which use is more oriented toward Novorussia.

Very likely the most difficult area to keep this level would be the air defense heavy weapons. If there is not enough to keep this level, Chinese weapons like the Type 55 37mm are likely to emerge. In other areas, the situation would follow the same patern, but except in the case of heavy mortars Syria can have an important number of spare parts in adition of keeping the pre-war level.

Obviously this includes not the most modern, powerfull, and capable part of the Syrian arsenals, which conservation would follow a different way, and likely is payed by Syria.

All it means very low impact of the war of Syria for Russia on attrition.

The following formulation is important to know what is ongoing:

2212- SA-5 + SA-2 + SA-3 + SA-4 + ZU-23(-2) After exhaustion in Russia and Continental Asia

It means that by the end of the war, Syria can have more SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-4 than at the begin of the war, to compensate in part a possible reduction in other older systems of air defense artillery. And it explains very well the degree of failure of the attacks of Israel to the Syrian Air Defense. The situation of the SA-4 is very weak by itself in Asia and in overall terms. The weapon has not been present in Syria in the war, and may not return again. The SA-5, instead has been present in the war, endangering foreign hostile aircrafts even outside of the territory of Syria despite to be present in low numbers, and its exhaustion is not something that Syria would like. The fact that Israel has not been able to achieve the exhaustion of this weapon in Syria is a clear sign of the big failure of their attacks to the Syrian Air Defense.

"Rebels" using long-range rockets in Idlib towards Latakia is concerning. Russia needs to get serious about this threat or potentially be open to embarrassment if the rebels get a solid strike on the air base. Firing to both Tartus and Latakia is a message of the the new capability.

Which.. obviously... leads to the problem of time. The more time they have, they better this capability will get.

ATLASCUB wrote:"Rebels" using long-range rockets in Idlib towards Latakia is concerning. Russia needs to get serious about this threat or potentially be open to embarrassment if the rebels get a solid strike on the air base. Firing to both Tartus and Latakia is a message of the the new capability.

Which.. obviously... leads to the problem of time. The more time they have, they better this capability will get.

Russia waited to see how turkey/nato relation get bad.

Now that it's sur they won't attack kurds because of US, Russia will take the north.

Then Turkey will have no more those militias to attack kurds but will need to attack the kurds by themselves very fast. If they don't, kurds will get much more powerfull in a stabilzed "Kurdistan".

So the relation with nato will be dead and Turkey will have to make an alliance with Russia and china (mil and eco).

Then russia will get the Bosphorus and access to mediteranean for the next 20 years for sure. Will sell mig-35 and probably the lmfs with a special turkish variant. China will buy ports. Nato will need to change all their code, IFF, radar, communication ...

One should seperate NATO actions on Syria from Turkish actions, since NATO(i.e. US) interests in Syria are in high conflict with Turkish interests.

Russia wont "take" Bosphorus. Turkey did not even lose Bosphorus after World War I. And there seems no way to lose it unless WW3 happens and Turkey aligns with losers.

However, if US continues to be a fool then Turkey will let Russian Navy pass through Bosphorus without dispute, since EastMed is quite hot and anti Turkish.

As for China, Russia should be aware of Chinese actions even more than Turkey. Millions of Chinese are claimed to be settling in Siberia. Chinese are dangerously expanding. I would not trust Chinese.

Turkey will try to play the role it had played during World War 2. Because Turkey is at such a place that any world war or confrontation will mean suffering for Turkey if it participates in it. So, equal amount of desire for Turkey to be independent from NATO as much as from Russia.

But, if Russians help Turks against Israeli/US alliance over EastMed, then it will mean trust level is increased and Turkey will continue to coordinate with Russia on Syria even more. Turkish army already started to patrol over Idlib front. This might seem as if it is something negative at first look. But it means Turkey does take risk at a time when it is pressurized. So this risk include US as well.

Depending upon US actions, we will stay in NATO or be a country "non grata" in it and eventually leave. Until then, WW3 would have already started.

However, if US continues to be a fool then Turkey will let Russian Navy pass through Bosphorus without dispute, since EastMed is quite hot and anti Turkish.

U can close the straits to Russia only when at war with her. In that case, u may get nuked & loose control of those straits. NATO won't save u. Ankara knows all this.

Since Russia has coast to Black Sea, yes it can navigate through Bosphorus freely. But we know that a large fleet passage through Mediterranean will spark issues and US will ask to create "problems" for Russia. Or ask for US vessels to pass through Black Sea. Turkish control for passages do not include much choice in peace time due to Montreux. But in crucial times such alignments would help.

And, a scenario with nukes would end up a useless world already, not just Bosphorus...

Or ask for US vessels to pass through Black Sea.
And, a scenario with nukes would end up a useless world already, not just Bosphorus...

They can come to the Black Sea but that won't change the weather there. Russia can sink them all from shore, planes, subs & ships in their home waters.
I hope it won't come to that, but tactical nukes used on ur military will ensure minimum Russian & civilian casualties in the capture of the Straits.
OTH, Russia may keep a big force in the Med. Sea & reinforce it from he N/Pac. Fleets. Most of the Black Sea Fleet ships can go around Europe & back home via the internal waterways. Once the IRANRUD & Eurasian Canal r built, they can in/out via the Caspian Sea: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201604091037748591-trans-iran-canal-prospects-analysis/

https://www.if24.ru/kanal-iranrud-krupnejshij-proekt-rossii-v-irane/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Canal#Recent_developments

Turkey won't be used by the US anymore & will lose a lot more than it'll gain by trying to use US & NATO in interfering with Russia in the straits.

AbdulhamidtheSecond wrote:Since Russia has coast to Black Sea, yes it can navigate through Bosphorus freely. But we know that a large fleet passage through Mediterranean will spark issues and US will ask to create "problems" for Russia. Or ask for US vessels to pass through Black Sea. Turkish control for passages do not include much choice in peace time due to Montreux. But in crucial times such alignments would help.

And, a scenario with nukes would end up a useless world already, not just Bosphorus...

Like I said on other tread, most likely Russia simply asked Turkey for permission to sail this sub through Bosphorus for Syria ops

It's not like this is a big deal for Turkey, costs them nothing

Using nukes against a nuke-free country like Turkey would make Russia a bandit country in international community, as I said, unless Turkey is a belligerent sided with countries which deployed nukes against Russia in Turkey (which would be the case if Turkey continued to be a NATO satellite)

But it is irrelevant to discuss this with current situation.

Besides, it is very hard to defend a city known as the world's desire surely, but using tactical nukes against it you would destroy that city with all heritage in it. Military issues aside, it would yield a serious war crime.

Nuking urban areas itself should be prohibited. It is horrible. And here, Turkey is not a country deploying strategic missile silos near populated areas. But Russia&US do.

Edit: Nukes in Incirlik Air Base (B61s) are getting old and reaching their end life period. Their replacement is highly unlikely by US since current relations are not good to deploy even aircrafts, yet nukes.

No need to take Bosphorus by force. If Turkey go out of Nato they will be on the US list of the "to invade countries".

Their only hope will be to make an alliance with russia which will consists mainly on letting russian total free access to bosphorus.

Their armement don't help them neother as its mainly US stuff or made with US standards. They would last a week before being totally destroyed by NATO. That's why they buy s-400 and try to dev their own industry (but still with US standards).

Turkey needs to know how leave nato without being destroyed. Tgey need stronger eco ties with China, military alliance with Russia and buy russian weapons, and diplomatically they need to be supported by more country.

Russian mil. doctrine allows the use of nukes against states allied with nuclear weapons armed states. Since NATO has 3 such states, Turkey may get hit in case of war with Russia.
She will stay in NATO, unless expelled, until her mil. capabilities r better than now & at a level  a lot higher than Iran.
The US may try a regime change but i doubt they'll change her policies much in the long run, even if they succeed.
The Turks r still too proud to become a vassal to any1.

Erdogan said Turkey will join development of S500, dont know if a political move or something serious. Usually he utters such things before every elections and then forgets them forever.

Turkish defence industry achieved very good levels of technology after 1974 Cyprus operation. A NATO country felt for a first time what means to conduct an operation under an embargo coming from countries which supplied everything. From those times on, Turkish defence industry developed steadily and now not bad at all for a country which was totally non-industrial before 1970s.

Turkish products are mostly of US standards. But this starts to be a problem for components that are bought from other NATO countries. Turkey rapidly, in some cases gradually indigenizates those components. Yes, there are still a lot of them. But this is a progress.

For example, since Azerbaijan uses Russian made weapons, Turkish company Aselsan developed special equipments for Azerbaijani helicopters&armored vehicles in Azerbaijani modernization programme. Also SOM missiles delivered to Azerbaijan which are originally produced for F-16s. These examples show that if you have an industry and produce your own things by yourself, you can adapt.

Americans claim S400s wont work since they are non NATO. But Turkish engineers together with Russian engineers can make S400s talk with other Turkish assets. Actually AFAIK IFF system of these S400s will use Turkish decoder/encoders integrated to Russian made interface.

These things aside, beware China. Never trust Chinese. This is a historical thing we Turks know very well. Pakistan and Iran will cry for what they did with China. And perhaps Russia, if does not take measures...

Russia and Turkey are cooperating... what is all this bullshit about Russia nuking Turkey?

The Turks know what's good for them, with Crimea under RF control; they r "at a gun point".
I read a Russian retied general quoted that it could come to that if Turkey got hostile, after the Su-24 shoot down. The US can't do anything about it, just keep sending ships to the Black Sea to show that they carry for "Ukraine's, Georgia's, Bulgaria's & Romania's security". In a few years, those states will regret ever joining the rotten & stinking NATO that is decomposing already.

Romania and Poland are two dumbest country ever hosting US assets at the doorstep of Russia..

AbdulhamidtheSecond wrote:Romania and Poland are two dumbest country ever hosting US assets at the doorstep of Russia..

And they tied not Turkey, with US nuclear weapons in their own territory.

AbdulhamidtheSecond wrote:Using nukes against a nuke-free country like Turkey would make Russia a bandit country in international community

...

Edit: Nukes in Incirlik Air Base (B61s) are getting old and reaching their end life period. Their replacement is highly unlikely by US since current relations are not good to deploy even aircrafts, yet nukes.

Turkey is not a nuke-free country. Turkey is one of the few close allies of the US that allowed them to install nuclear weapons in their own territory directed against Russia.

eehnie, I want to bomb you with those B61s which you always dumbly claim same shit every time without a reasonable military argument.

AbdulhamidtheSecond wrote:eehnie, I want to bomb you with those B61s which you always dumbly claim same shit every time without a reasonable military argument.

Neither you nor your country control these weapons, the US controls the nuclear weapons placed in your country.

Declarations do not move your country from the position of one of the closest allies of the US in the world. Facts do.

They r hedging their bets until their own nukes r ready:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/turkey-recep-erdogan-may-go-nuclear-10537998
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-has-150-nuclear-weapons-in-five-nato-countries-turkish-parliament-report-121667

I wonder why such an "ally" did not let us acquire Patriot systems after they made us cancel HQ9 system from China and let us wait for 17 months and then forced us to go with Russian S-400 deal which caused even discussing of CAATSA sanctions against Turkey in US congress?

If 50 1960-era B61 bombs whose deployment would take hours after an escalation, definitely not militarily a suitable option for nuclear confrontation since already ICBM and IRBM systems are much more speedy and effective. Those bombs have one function left, wait until dismantled...

If you think those 50 B61s is the biggest threat thst Turkey poses against Russia, why would Russians start a project like Turkish Stream that is very crucial for Russian energy security?

Dumb arguments as always from eehnie, nothing surprises anybody with sane mind.

Those nukes can also be used against Iran or Pakistan. Also, the US uses them to show that they trust & would defend Turkey Against Russia/Iran & to keep her in NATO. Thus, they don't want to rock the boat by withdrawing them now.