IRAQ - Fight on Islamic State: News #1

TR1 wrote:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1402790352

And here is the video I was talking about. Kornet knocking out Abrams from the front.

BTW I love the explanations- no no, in most cases Abrams survived RPG-7 hits!

And? In that same video you see T-55 being hit by an RPG in the turret...and the crew later abandons the tank without any catastrophic detonation. What an amazing succes11!!!!

Well that sure a huge flame. Cook off are scary.

Looking more at the vid. Well if it's indeed from front then.. The jet wholly penetrate the front armor and then whatever remains from the jet continue towards the armor bulkhead that separating ammo and hull, perhaps the ammo door are still open then..cook off.

So the claim of over 900 mm penetration for Kornet is true. Glad to hear that.

TR1, you are a very mean person.

(I am no angel either)

flamming_python wrote:Found some more pics; only this time of other burnt-out Yankee gear; Humvees, and is that a Striker I see? Or some other type of AFV?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/12/islamic_state_retake.php#ixzz3MJ5H9fgl

Now the fanboys' myths are being broken and they're finding out that their gear are merely mortal just like all the rest of stuff produced by man around the world; and just the same as with any other military equipment, when it comes across competent fighters armed with modern weapons, as opposed to illiterate ragheads with 60s Soviet RPG-launchers - at least some of that expensive, desert-camo painted, luxuriously angled gear is going to end up charred, black and lifeless.

lol

What tank would you prefer to be in on the battlefield? Would you prefer M1A2 or a T-90MS? Or maybe some modernized T-80U? M1's are doing fabulously well during this conflict - there are no recorded cases of turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive cuz of one RPG. That destroyed M1 which was posted here recently isn't a proof of anything, it was captured, packed with explosives and blown up only then.

So far out of all III generation tanks M1 came as the safest one for the crew. It's ammo is located at the back of the turrent and the only way for the crew to be baked alive would be if some kind of round punched through the front armor to the back of the turrent, igniting the rounds stored there. Alternatively, you may try to hit it from the back but even then the chances of the crew sdying would be smaller as there are blowout screens.

The only good side of T-72 is that it's ammo is stored in a way that makes it hard to hit - but once you hit it, the crew has no chances of surviving. An M1 crew that suffered a cookoff would still be able to return to base unscathed.

Actually it is a proof of fanboys like you which TR1 already has pointed out, when for promotion crappy videos like Bill2 TOW used against TNT filled T-72 Monkey Model, fanboys like you argued it is the ammunition, not explosives filled up, same case for lot of other vehicles used in iraq,syria and even lybia

And what does it prove? Does it prove that T-72 is as safe as M1? Do you think that only monkey models are so vulnerable and if they hit ammo storage compartment of a non-monkey model, the ammunition would miraculously teleport to the moon to explode there? The vulnerability of T-64/72/80 tanks to catastrophic explosions is because of the way they are designed. You can't eliminate these flaws unless you go back to the drawing board - but your result would be a completely new tank.

Stealthflanker wrote:

TR1 wrote:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1402790352

And here is the video I was talking about. Kornet knocking out Abrams from the front.

BTW I love the explanations- no no, in most cases Abrams survived RPG-7 hits!

And? In that same video you see T-55 being hit by an RPG in the turret...and the crew later abandons the tank without any catastrophic detonation. What an amazing succes11!!!!

Well that sure a huge flame. Cook off are scary.

Looking more at the vid. Well if it's indeed from front then.. The jet wholly penetrate the front armor and then whatever remains from the jet continue towards the armor bulkhead that separating ammo and hull, perhaps the ammo door are still open then..cook off.

So the claim of over 900 mm penetration for Kornet is true. Glad to hear that.

I don't think that the ammounition bustle door was still open, the point in this case of frontal penetration would have no need for open ammunition bustle door, the Kornet penetrates front armor and the copper jet flattens little bit out after it defeats the armor and enters the crew compartment, since the backside of the turret is literally unarmored for such a high powerful penetrator it goes through it like hot knife through butter (literally) and the remaining hole that is probably bigger than the entrance hole of the frontal armor, is big enough to let in the cockoff ammunition flames into crew compartment and kill the crew. Ammunition bustles greatley reduce such a scenario but are not as magically immune to ammunition cockoffs entering crew compartment like people love to argue in such cases like here.

lol

What tank would you prefer to be in on the battlefield? Would you prefer M1A2 or a T-90MS? Or maybe some modernized T-80U?

If i had to i would choose T-90Ms over any other tank, safest and best FCS with autotrack/lockon, but that is besides the point.

M1's are doing fabulously well during this conflict - there are no recorded cases of turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive cuz of one RPG.

Because that is the only thing that matters? Fact is that the M1 didn't performe as flawless as fanboys like you like to point out, Abrams were destroyed or knocked out by single RPG hits to the side hull and that is also the reason why TUSK with ARAT 1st gen ERA was introduced because they were penetrating. Now that you are trying to push your agenda with that the only thing that matters are "flying turrets" and not the fact that the tank was destroyed in any way like it is visible in the video above is another point of fanboyism, exclusive and directed perceptions in what way a tank is destroyed.

That destroyed M1 which was posted here recently isn't a proof of anything, it was captured, packed with explosives and blown up only then.

Actually it is a proof of fanboys like you which TR1 already has pointed out, when for promotion crappy videos like Bill2 TOW used against TNT filled T-72 Monkey Model, fanboys like you argued it is the ammunition, not explosives filled up, same case for lot of other vehicles used in iraq,syria and even lybia, but you elegantly ignored his statement that was posted long before your fanboyistic mumbling.

As Sa'iqa wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Found some more pics; only this time of other burnt-out Yankee gear; Humvees, and is that a Striker I see? Or some other type of AFV?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/12/islamic_state_retake.php#ixzz3MJ5H9fgl

Now the fanboys' myths are being broken and they're finding out that their gear are merely mortal just like all the rest of stuff produced by man around the world; and just the same as with any other military equipment, when it comes across competent fighters armed with modern weapons, as opposed to illiterate ragheads with 60s Soviet RPG-launchers - at least some of that expensive, desert-camo painted, luxuriously angled gear is going to end up charred, black and lifeless.

lol

What tank would you prefer to be in on the battlefield? Would you prefer M1A2 or a T-90MS? Or maybe some modernized T-80U? M1's are doing fabulously well during this conflict - there are no recorded cases of turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive cuz of one RPG. That destroyed M1 which was posted here recently isn't a proof of anything, it was captured, packed with explosives and blown up only then.

I'll take the T-90MS.
Wouldn't want a T-80U though. That's basically a Russian version of the M1 Abrams - only with worse crew survivability and vulnerability to HEAT warheads from the side.

There are no recorded cases of any T-90 turrets flying 20m upwards or an entire crew burning alive because of one RPG either.

Even T-72Bs proved themselves in Chechnya, there were reports of some tanks taking upwards of 10 RPG hits with no penetration.
Then there is that video of one T-72B firing a few rounds against another one as a means of demonstrating its armour to the audience, with the hit tank driving back under its own power at the end of the spectacle. Can't find it right now.

So far out of all III generation tanks M1 came as the safest one for the crew. It's ammo is located at the back of the turrent and the only way for the crew to be baked alive would be if some kind of round punched through the front armor to the back of the turrent, igniting the rounds stored there. Alternatively, you may try to hit it from the back but even then the chances of the crew sdying would be smaller as there are blowout screens.

I do agree that the M1 Abrams is an excellent tank with great crew survivability, due to the bustle ammo storage which is something that almost no other tank possess to the same degree.
However, you are wrong if you think that all the ammo in an M1 is always stored in the bustle. Given that the M1's gun is manually loaded, there will be times when there is a round in the crew compartment; namely while the loader is fetching it and loading it into the gun. Albeit the tank is more spacious than the T-90 and the chances of a penetrating round actually hitting the loader and his round are pretty low.

With the T-90 on the other hand, there is never a round in the crew compartment at all unless the crew decides to store extra rounds there. With the T-90MS, there is no need for that at all, as extra ammo can be stored in the turret bustle instead.
It is true though, that the T-90 ammo compartment is not separated from the crew nearly to the extent that the M1s ammo bustle is separated from the crew; and that a direct hit to the ammo propellent of one of the rounds will lead to a catastrophic cook-off.
But this would require a direct hit to the T-90s ammo compartment - which is harder to hit than the ammo bustle of the M1 Abrams.

Still though, of course on balance I'd rather have a tank whose ammo is easier to hit and cook but which won't kill all the crew in the process and destroy the tank, than a tank whose ammo is harder to hit but which if hit will most likely kill everyone and cause problems for tank recovery.
So the M1 Abrams wins here. But it's only one point out of many - crew survivability is all-important but still only one of dozens of characteristics key to a successful modern MBT.

The only good side of T-72 is that it's ammo is stored in a way that makes it hard to hit - but once you hit it, the crew has no chances of surviving. An M1 crew that suffered a cookoff would still be able to return to base unscathed.

The T-90 has many other advantages over the M1 Abrams.

For starters its smaller and has a lower profile. That means that it's less likely to get hit in the first place and it would be harder to target specific subsystems by intention. And don't give me the 'modern FCS is 100% accurate' rubbish, loved by some Abrams/Leopard fanboys.

The T-90 is more fuel-efficient with a 45% greater range, and is also less of a maintenance hog than the M1 Abrams is. If you have the US Army's entire logistics train behind you, then you're golden. If your platoon is cut off and needs to travel for some time - you're actually more survivable in a tank that's less likely to break-down or run out of fuel.

The T-90 is also lighter, by a whole 30%. While the ground pressure is likely to be similar; there would be certain roads and bridges that just won't be able to take the weight of an M1 Abrams, or would be less passable under that weight. I would think that the T-90 could do some better maneuvers too and have better obstacle clearance, w/o all that weight to lug-around - would come in handy in an urban battlefield. With a T-90; you'll have an easier time and have more mobility; that would give you more options on the battlefield, and also off - when you might want to take the path less traveled to avoid ambushes or whatever else.

I don't know what passive counter-measures the M1 Abrams employs but it clearly doesn't have an direct analogue to the Naikdka with its IR-reducing properties, nor the Shtora, with its optical/IR dazzlers. Which makes it more more likely to be hit by guided AT missiles than the T-90 is, or even successfully targetted.

Unless you have one of the latest M1 Abrams models; you'd also find yourself having to pop-up from the turret in order to shoot either machine gun. With the T-90; one of the machine guns is co-axial and the other is remote-controlled, giving it safer anti-infantry capabilties.

If I met any helicopters while in my tank.. to be honest I do think that modern FCS is up to the job with the tank's main cannon, but still - employing a projectile able to maneuver in reaction to changes in velocity; like the Refleks guided missile shooting out of the T-90s barrel - would have a higher chance of taking down an air target than a high-velocity tank shell firing out of the M1 Abrams would.

Actually it is a proof of fanboys like you which TR1 already has pointed out, when for promotion crappy videos like Bill2 TOW used against TNT filled T-72 Monkey Model, fanboys like you argued it is the ammunition, not explosives filled up, same case for lot of other vehicles used in iraq,syria and even lybia

And what does it prove? Does it prove that T-72 is as safe as M1? Do you think that only monkey models are so vulnerable and if they hit ammo storage compartment of a non-monkey model, the ammunition would miraculously teleport to the moon to explode there? The vulnerability of T-64/72/80 tanks to catastrophic explosions is because of the way they are designed. You can't eliminate these flaws unless you go back to the drawing board - but your result would be a completely new tank.

The T-64/80 has a different ammo-storage configuration to the T-72. Time you learned that.
The T-72 is not as safe as the Abrams in this regard; but it is about on the same level as most other Western tanks which have some ammo not completely separated from the crew-compartment - such as the Leopard. Yet I don't see anyone complaining about them.

The reason why T-72 series do disproportionately feature as burnt-out husks or as exploding vehicles - is because they were taken on by competent opponents with modern weapons - while the Abrams/Leopards/etc 'mobile bunker' designs... were never employed against anyone other than rag-heads, with the whole logistical, training & firepower apparatus of 1st world militaries right behind them.
How many T-90s do you think were lost fighting the Chechen invasion of Dagestan in 1999? None - and for the same reasons.

The fanboys are now getting to grips with reality - in Iraq. The lesson should probably have been learnt earlier - in Lebanon, when Israel's mechanized assault on Hezzie positions with their latest tanks faltered with high-losses and destroyed vehicles - due to the wrong tactics.
It's a slow painful process, but I'm sure they fanboys will cope.

Even T-72Bs proved themselves in Chechnya, there were reports of some tanks taking upwards of 10 RPG hits with no penetration. Then there is that video of one T-72B firing a few rounds against another one as a means of demonstrating its armour to the audience, with the hit tank driving back under its own power at the end of the spectacle. Can't find it right now. wrote:

That's the video 30:00 starting.

TheArmenian wrote:TR1, you are a very mean person.

(I am no angel either)

Is this place open to public :3 ?

Most tanks and humvees in Iraq are destroyed by IED's not RPG's.

@Saiga and F-15:

M1 Axx is in fact a cousin of Leopard 2. No, in more detalis, M1 is the degenerated form of Leopard 2.

Compared to Leopard 2, M1 does not have spaced modular amour. It does not use ERA like T-xx. It does not have APS like T-90 and T-90AM. And it use turbine engine, unlike Leopard or T-xx.

That's mean M1 has excessive weight but inferior effectiveness of protection system. Meanwhile T-90 has comparable or even better protection with 20 tons less. And with Leopard 2 similar weight, M1 Abrams cannot compete against.

Know what, M1 used Leopard tank gun with lincense. And Germany only sells lincese if it already has something better.

And M1 cannot fire ATGM while Leopard and T-xx can. And T-64/72/80/90 use automatic loader while M1 still uses human loader. And Leopard and T-90 have already advanced far far away with newest models while M1 still stays at the same position.

Remember a M1 was hitted by Bradley's autocannon from behind, and the gun destoyed the M1's engine ? Ah, super tank M1 was destroyed by 25mm autocannon      Meanwhile, T-90's posterior part was design to withstand stronger gun.

And look at that, frontal armour of M1 was hit by ATGM


And by APFSDS


And size armour was punctured by B41 aka RPG-7. Yes, old man RPG-7


And the legendary photo which M1 Abrams was punctured by T-55 rifled cannon's AP shell.


Another things about of the UK's Challenger was punctured by RPG


And look at this


Hahahahahahaha... super tank of superpower United States can be easily destroyed from the rear and the side, by 30mm BMP autocannon.

The use of turbine engine in M1 is one of the most stupid traits of this tank. Gas turbine engine only has high fuel effeciency at very high working rate, at low level of working it has a very terrible effeciency. Meanwhile, diesel engine has greater effeciency at all level of working.

You can already see that in many cases, the tanks have to move in difficult terrain and in urban area with low speed. And you can see how the M1 turbine engine consume fuel in these cases.

Today Russia can make 1250hp diesel engine for tank, and Ukrainian is 1500hp. Germany also use diesel engine of 1500hp. And the U.S. still going with stupid turbine engine.

Given the T-90AM is 47.5 tons, 1250/47.5 = 26.32. Meanwhile in M1 is 1500/62 = 24.19, lower than T-90.

In 2005, while M1 Abrams was jerking off in storage, Iraqi T-72 went on in a parade.

This is the truth of the so-called super tank of the superpower U.S.

The Israelis are buying land from isis terriosts in Mosul and other iraqi cities. Hopefully Mosul is taken over soon by the Iraqi army.


http://www.ibtimes.co.in/russia-plans-war-israel-moscow-push-hezbollah-assad-regime-into-direct-confrontation-617923

Arabic news says that in 2015 50% of Iraq's budget will be for defense & security, because of the oil price drop and terror situation.

par far wrote:The Israelis are buying land from isis terriosts in Mosul and other iraqi cities. Hopefully Mosul is taken over soon by the Iraqi army.


http://www.ibtimes.co.in/russia-plans-war-israel-moscow-push-hezbollah-assad-regime-into-direct-confrontation-617923

I hope they spend all their money on it. They are taking a gamble and are not likely to win.

iraqidabab wrote:Arabic news says that in 2015 50% of Iraq's budget will be for defense & security, because of the oil price drop and terror situation.

I don't think so. Reason being that the estimate is under the assumption that Iraq will remain as a western block supplied nation.


* Iraq has many deliveries of equipment that the US has delayed for undisclosed reasons.

* The only countries that have supplied Iraq during this crisis is Russia and Iran.

* Who started this problem in the first place? Nobody is going to forget this.


Eastern block prices are significantly lower and also far more honest.

iraqidabab wrote:Most tanks and humvees in Iraq are destroyed by IED's not RPG's.

True, but for the lack of the RPG-29


I read somewhere several years ago that there was only one or two instances the RPG-29 was used. Its a success story.

US Troops Under Fire; Baghdad Gets Hundreds of MRAPs

WASHINGTON — The 320 US soldiers and Marines at Al Asad air base in western Iraq have been coming under "regular" mortar fire from insurgent forces for several weeks, Defense Department spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters Monday.

While Warren insisted that the attacks have been "wholly ineffective" and "no US personnel, no US equipment have been impacted in any way," this was the first time that the Pentagon acknowledged that the 2,100 US troops in Iraq have been in danger since deploying late last year.

In addition to the Marines from a Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force training units with the Iraqi Army's 7th Division at Al Asad, there are another 170 US soldiers from the Army's 1st Infantry Division training another four Iraqi Army battalions near Taji, which is just northwest of Baghdad.

Both sites were major US bases during the American war there from 2003-2011.

Warren added that the US is currently establishing two other sites to train a total of nine Iraqi and three Kurdish battalions in Irbil in the Kurdish-controlled north and Besmaya, which is just south of Baghdad.

The Besmaya Combat Training Center was transferred to the Iraqi Army in July 2011, and was intended for use as a training site for Iraqi Army-purchased M1A1 Abrams tanks.

While the last of the 3,100 US troops President Obama has committed to training and advising the Iraqi Army are arriving, equipment is also flowing into the country.

Over the past two weeks, 250 US-made mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles have been sent to Iraq: 225 to the Iraqi Security Forces and 25 to the government in Kurdistan, according to the US Central Command.

The cost of refurbishing the vehicles was $9,832,500, a command spokesman told Defense News,adding in an email that "all of the MRAPs were located and repaired in the CENTCOM Area of Operations and will be used by Iraqi and Kurdish defense forces to fight ISIL."

The Iraqi Embassy in Washington tweeted out a picture on Monday that showed what appeared to be Caiman MRAPs being offloaded from trucks.

And if other recent proposed deals are signed off on by the government in Baghdad, plenty more armor is on its way.

In December, the US State Department announced that Baghdad has requested 175 more Abrams tanks and other vehicles at a cost of $2.4 billion. Baghdad also requested 1,000 Humvees for a price tag of $579 million.

Iraq had previously taken delivery of over 250 Abrams tanks from the United States.

The Pentagon continues to insist that US troops will not participate in combat in Iraq against the Islamic State (IS) group, but that US forces have the right to self-defense. Meanwhile, the Shiite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi is continuing to try and reach out to the Sunni tribes fighting IS in the west and north of Baghdad.

Abadi tweeted on Monday that he "urged the need for a tribal revolt" against IS during a meeting with the governor of Sunni-dominated Anbar province.

last hope for iraq is for the shias to cut themselfs off from crazy sunnistan, they will be always a tribal jihadi sympathetic dagger in ther back spilling ther blood

Kurdish militias force Islamic State militants out of centre of Kobane

“The gangs of mercenaries currently control less than 20% of the Kobane territory,” said a representative of the Kurdish forces

BEIRUT, January 6. /TASS/. Kurdish self-defence fighters have forced the Islamic State (IS) militants on Monday out of their positions in the centre of Kobane in northern Syria. The self-defence forces said in a communiquй that the Kurdish militias have completely cleared of mujahedeen the city’s administrative district that had been occupied by them more than three months ago, the Firat news agency reported. “The gangs of mercenaries currently control less than 20% of the Kobane territory,” said a representative of the Kurdish forces.

Militias have also driven the IS militants out of the strategic Mistanour Hill. During the operation, 19 terrorists were killed. Stockpiles of weapons and ammunition have been found at their bases.

The U.S. Central Command said there had been eight air strikes on Kobane on Sunday that destroyed 11 IS fighting positions. The IS advance into Kobane has sent thousands of refugees fleeing across the nearby Turkish border. Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed in the battle for the town. IS militants control large swathes of both Syria and neighbouring Iraq.

According to Kurdish sources, the enemy is most fiercely resisting the militias in the city’s east in the Kaniya Kurda area. The Kobane siege continues for the 112th day. The militia fighters have been successfully battling mujahedeen in the north and southeast of the city near the Turkish border.

The situation in the north-eastern Syria in the Hasika province where IS groups have penetrated from neighbouring Iraq continues to aggravate. According to local reports, the Kurdish fighters pressed by the superior enemy forces have had to leave three settlements there.

Army units stationed south of the city of Qamishli have managed to rebuff militants’ attempts to seize the Ghazal and Ahmadi Hills. Syrian troops have prevented explosions of five car bombs near their checkpoints. A large number of Arab mercenaries have been killed during the clashes, said an officer involved in the operation.

The Islamic State gangs have reappeared in the area of Palmyra and attacked Syrian army positions near the Al-Shaer gas field. In the central province of Hama (220 km from Damascus) the radicals tried to block the highway running through Al-Salamiyah to the north of the country that is used as the troops’ supply route.

In the satellite town of Duma, 12 km from the capital there were clashes involving two warring groups - Jaysh al-Islam, led by Zahran Alloush - a prominent figure in the armed opposition and the leader of the Islamic Front, and Jaish al Ummah associated with the extremist group Jabhat al-Nusra. The Al-Watan newspaper reported that Alloush within several hours defeated his enemies, arresting their warlords. As many as 1,500 people surrendered to him. According to experts, the in-fighting on the outskirts of Damascus is weakening the camp of the armed groups opposing the Syrian army.

Al Nusra groups in Khan el-Sheikh to the south-west of the Syrian capital have made another attempt to block the Damascus-Quneitra highway, but were rebuffed. According to Al-Watan, the extremists have lost 34 people, but failed to seize any of the roadblocks. Nevertheless, the threat to the Syrian capital still persists in this sector, given that militants groups control most of the settlements of the Quneitra province.

US Sends Additional Equipment to Iraq for Fight Against IS: State Dept.

Iraqi Air Force Kills 17 Islamic State Militants: Reports

The Iraqi forces' airstrikes killed 17 Islamic State militants in western Kirkuk.

MOSCOW, January 10 (Sputnik) — At least 17 Islamic State (IS) militants have been killed in airstrikes on the northern city of Kirkuk, carried out by the Iraqi Air Force, Iraqi News reported Saturday.

“The IA strike resulted in killing 17 ISIL terrorists in western Kirkuk,” a local security source was quoted as saying by the news outlet.

Islamic State (IS), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has taken over large portions of Iraq and neighboring Syria. Both the countries' armed forces, as well as local Kurdish militia, are battling the jihadist group.

In addition, IS is targeted by airstrikes carried out by the US-led international coalition, which has also vowed to train and equip Iraqi military and the so-called moderate Syrian opposition.

French MPs Okay Extension of Military Campaign Against Islamic State

France Will Send Aerocarrier to Persian Gulf for Fight Against IS

France’s President Francois Hollande said that France’s only aircraft carrier in service can be used for military operations against the Islamic State.

PARIS, January 15 (Sputnik) — France’s only aircraft carrier in service Charles de Gaulle can be used for military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq, the country's President Francois Hollande stated.

“Thanks to the Charles de Gaulle we can also conduct operations in Iraq if necessary… The aircraft carrier will work in close cooperation with the coalition forces,” Hollande said while visiting the ship Wednesday.

Last week, the local Mer et Marine military news site reported that the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Persian Gulf on its way to India, where it is set to take part in military drills in April.

An international coalition, led by the United States, has been carrying out airstrikes against the (IS) in Iraq since August 2014, expanding the attacks to include IS targets in Syria in September. The extremist group has seized vast territories in both countries and declared a caliphate on the areas under its control, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.

The first French airstrikes against IS were carried out in Iraq in mid-September.

Saudi Arabia Building 600-Mile-Long Wall Along Iraqi Border

Saudi Arabia is erecting a 600-mile-long barrier along its border with Iraq; the Kingdom hopes the combined fence and ditch will protect it from an invasion at the hands of the Islamic State.

MOSCOW, January 15 (Sputnik), Ekaterina Blinova — The Saudi Kingdom hopes a planned 600-mile-long wall separating it from Iraq will protect it from ongoing turmoil triggered by the Islamic State's advance in the region.

"Like the Great Wall of China, built in 220-206 BC, Saudi Arabia's wall is meant to contain foreign invaders, and a similar, if less costly, barrier in under construction along Saudi Arabia's 1,000-mile southern border with Yemen," United Press International reported.

The barrier combines a fence and a ditch, and is meant to protect the Kingdom from the Islamic State fighters who have seized much of northern Iraq. According to the media outlet, the wall comprises "40 watchtowers, five layers of fence, sand embankments and radar and camera installations." The wall will stretch from the western border town of Tureif to Hafal al-Batin, on the border of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Riyadh has not yet announced the cost of the construction.

The project had initially been proposed in 2006, during the Iraqi civil war, but construction started only in 2014, after ISIS seized much of the Iraqi north, as well as western Iraq, which borders the Kingdom. It is worth mentioning that the Islamic State sees the conquest of Saudi Arabia as a "sacred" goal, since the country is home to Islam's two most revered cities, Mecca and Medina, the Telegraph underscores.

Meanwhile Riyadh has sent additional 30,000 troops to the region to ensure that construction proceeds safely. It should be noted that last week, on January 5, Islamic State insurgents attacked a Saudi military contingent at the Suweif border post, 25 miles from the town of Arar, which borders the Iraqi province of Anbar. During the clash, Saudi General Oudah al-Belawi was killed along with the other senior officer and a guard. The attackers were shot dead by Saudi troops; one of the militants blew himself up with a suicide belt, the Telegraph added.

Al-Shofra reported, citing Elaph, an independent Arabian daily, that Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry has identified the four militants as Saudi nationals. On Wednesday, January 7, Saudi security forces launched a large-scale military operation in the Arar region and detained several terror suspects allegedly linked to the deadly border incident, the media outlet noted.

What goes around comes around, their little financed terrorists they traind and send out to countries USrael dislikes they have enough explosives to blow your little wall, if they want they come.