Syrian War: News #22

Well the real question is... did they need T-72s in the first place or would they be better off with cheaper lighter more mobile vehicles...

Using the example given replacing Su-25s with L39s is a very bad thing if those Su-25s were being used in a CAS role, but if they were being used to train pilots then the L39s would be a much more suitable tool for the job.

The questions that need to be answered are... were the T-72s critical to the job, or would light vehicles have been more suited, and also are the units getting these tigrs going to be doing the same things or have they been reassigned into a more patrol based job where tigrs would be much better suited to their new roles...

We need more info really.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:SAA receives Tigr M to replace T-72 losses

https://twitter.com/mansourtalk/status/987030092483317760

well it is not exactly the same thing...

Don't get me wrong,  tigr are useful,  but they are quite different than a Main Battle Tank...

It is like replacing a su25 with a trainer aircraft without armor and with more limited weapons...

Tigr M is far more potent than early T-72 like T-72A/B/M. Tigr M has thermal which makes it deadly at night. Tigr M can drop man sized target from up to 2 km away at night. T-72A/B/M can't do that.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:SAA receives Tigr M to replace T-72 losses

https://twitter.com/mansourtalk/status/987030092483317760

well it is not exactly the same thing...

Don't get me wrong,  tigr are useful,  but they are quite different than a Main Battle Tank...

It is like replacing a su25 with a trainer aircraft without armor and with more limited weapons...

Manned planes are going into dustbin of history. These days wars are geared to counter insurgency. Planes like armed drones are way better than Su-25 for modern warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

George1 wrote:Turkish-backed forces cutoff water supply to 500,000 Syrians in Al-Hasakah

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-backed-forces-cutoff-water-supply-to-500000-syrians-in-al-hasakah/

Terrorists. No wonder Kurds hate Turks.

Tigr M is far more potent than early T-72 like T-72A/B/M. Tigr M has thermal which makes it deadly at night. Tigr M can drop man sized target from up to 2 km away at night. T-72A/B/M can't do that.

You can put thermals in T-72s and they not only have much better fire power they are also rather well protected.

A 125mm HE Frag shell is vastly more powerful than anything you could put in a Tigr and a HEAT round should enable anything to be dealt with on the battlefield.

Manned planes are going into dustbin of history. These days wars are geared to counter insurgency. Planes like armed drones are way better than Su-25 for modern warfare.

But you don't see the Russians send their Su-25s and Su-24/34/35s home now do you.

Su-25s can cover reasonable distances relatively quickly and deliver quite heavy payloads to targets rather more effectively than any drone currently could...

Drones are interesting but have not replaced manned aircraft in most roles yet.

GarryB wrote:

But you don't see the Russians send their Su-25s and Su-24/34/35s home now do you.

Drones are interesting but have not replaced manned aircraft in most roles yet.

There were reports earlier in the week that a couple more Su-24s had trekked down via Iran.

Many drone roles are new ones rather than replacing manned aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

Tigr M is far more potent than early T-72 like T-72A/B/M. Tigr M has thermal which makes it deadly at night. Tigr M can drop man sized target from up to 2 km away at night. T-72A/B/M can't do that.

You can put thermals in T-72s and they not only have much better fire power they are also rather well protected.

A 125mm HE Frag shell is vastly more powerful than anything you could put in a Tigr and a HEAT round should enable anything to be dealt with on the battlefield.

Manned planes are going into dustbin of history. These days wars are geared to counter insurgency. Planes like armed drones are way better than Su-25 for modern warfare.

But you don't see the Russians send their Su-25s and Su-24/34/35s home now do you.

Su-25s can cover reasonable distances relatively quickly and deliver quite heavy payloads to targets rather more effectively than any drone currently could...

Drones are interesting but have not replaced manned aircraft in most roles yet.

MBT are far ore expensive than MRAP. For 100 MBT you can get thousands of MRAP. These days wars are counter insurgancy. MBT are not needed. MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

No country is making manned planes anymore. Jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow is the future of warfare. Modern warfare is counter insurgency. Manned jets are too expensive for that. Manned planes are too difficult to train pilots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

MBT are far ore expensive than MRAP. For 100 MBT you can get thousands of MRAP. These days wars are counter insurgancy. MBT are not needed. MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

Not really. A modern t-72 with thermals and good optics can go on a hill and cover all a small city or bug village and fire from 2-3km HE shells.

A MRAP has a small gun and is totally useless from log distances.

In terms of price modern IFV or MRAPs are not cheap at all.

No country is making manned planes anymore. Jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow is the future of warfare. Modern warfare is counter insurgency. Manned jets are too expensive for that. Manned planes are too difficult to train pilots.

Modern jet drone will be just as expensive as a Su-25 if not more because you also need a pilot, a ground station, a satelitte to controle it, a much more electronics inside for the control. But the drone will have less weapons and less survivability.

Isos wrote:

MBT are far ore expensive than MRAP. For 100 MBT you can get thousands of MRAP. These days wars are counter insurgancy. MBT are not needed. MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

Not really. A modern t-72 with thermals and good optics can go on a hill and cover all a small city or bug village and fire from 2-3km HE shells.

A MRAP has a small gun and is totally useless from log distances.

In terms of price modern IFV or MRAPs are not cheap at all.

No country is making manned planes anymore. Jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow is the future of warfare. Modern warfare is counter insurgency. Manned jets are too expensive for that. Manned planes are too difficult to train pilots.

Modern jet drone will be just as expensive as a Su-25 if not more because you also need a pilot, a ground station, a satelitte to controle it, a much more electronics inside for the control. But the drone will have less weapons and less survivability.

It's easy to train drone pilots. Everyone can be a drone pilot. It's difficult to train jet pilots because of physical requirements. Not many people can qualify for jet pilot training. For every Su-25 you can have hundreds of jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

MBT are far ore expensive than MRAP.

They are but they are also much more survivable... you can make a T-72 able to survive direct hits from TOW... no level of protection could do that for any MRAP.

Also more importantly when this conflict is over the crews of the T-72 are more likely to be alive and can man the vehicle in a real conflict against a real enemy that is also equipped with tanks. MRAPs are really only light patrol vehicles for anti terrorist operations... when the west pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq they will likely dump their MRAPs rather than ship them home...

For 100 MBT you can get thousands of MRAP.

MBTs will have a use beyond this period of anti terrorist fighting and can control rather larger areas of ground. The biggest gun you could fit to an MRAP like a Tigr-M would be a 30mm turret which is not cheap, but its effective anti armour range would be about 2km with the gun and perhaps 2km for point targets and 4kms for area targets. Compared with a T-72 that could potshot targets out to 4-5km with the gun in the right conditions... the 125mm will hit targets out to about 11km with HE shells though obviously much less than that at night or small point targets, but being a direct fire gun it is relatively accurate out to probably 4-5km during the day. and 3-4km at night.

These days wars are counter insurgancy.

Gun platforms are always useful in any conflict... from a 23mm cannon on the back of a light truck through 57mm guns on the back of a heavy truck or a 125mm gun on a heavy armoured tracked platform like an old model tank.

MBT are not needed.

Of course they are needed... they are very useful when correctly used.

MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

Not even close.

Don't get me wrong MRAPs have their use and save a lot of lives over using just unarmoured vehicles... their mobility is excellent and their fire power is reasonable... even a HMG mount with thermals and stabilised mount makes them a very capable system and effective... but in places where RPGs are plentiful a MBT is much safer, though not completely safe either.

No country is making manned planes anymore. Jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow is the future of warfare. Modern warfare is counter insurgency. Manned jets are too expensive for that. Manned planes are too difficult to train pilots.

Not only are the US still making F-35s now and B-21s in the future, they are also planning to put F-15s back in to production, while Russia is producing a wide range of manned aircraft. Training pilots requires a lot of effort and money but it is money that is being spent...

Modern jet drone will be just as expensive as a Su-25 if not more because you also need a pilot, a ground station, a satelitte to controle it, a much more electronics inside for the control. But the drone will have less weapons and less survivability.

Agreed... there are no drones with the protection and fire power of a single Su-25... and there is that dichotomy... a third world enemy or terrorist enemy would generally not have the EM capacity to effect the datalinks so you could probably use drones, but their air defence is probably so weak it makes more sense to use the Su-25. Against a first world opponent a drone would be easier to neutralise than a manned aircraft and that is the problem... a drone will either be very cheap and therefore ineffective, or expensive and then not expendible... cheap drones could be eliminated as a threat even just by shooting them down as they appear, or jamming them, while expensive drones couldn't be risked... so with drones... cheap or expensive... wont be effective in the job of supporting the troops.

Su-25s would be much more useful but when the air defence is too strong you need to soften the air defences first... perhaps by using some drones and stand off SEAD platforms like the Su-34 to eliminate radar and electronics positions first with ARMs and bombs dropped from above the effective ceiling of the air defences...

It's easy to train drone pilots. Everyone can be a drone pilot. It's difficult to train jet pilots because of physical requirements. Not many people can qualify for jet pilot training. For every Su-25 you can have hundreds of jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow.

Drones are easier to take out and not as effective in the CAS role as actual manned aircraft are. Jet pilots are being trained all the time...

GarryB wrote:

MBT are far ore expensive than MRAP.

They are but they are also much more survivable... you can make a T-72 able to survive direct hits from TOW... no level of protection could do that for any MRAP.

Also more importantly when this conflict is over the crews of the T-72 are more likely to be alive and can man the vehicle in a real conflict against a real enemy that is also equipped with tanks. MRAPs are really only light patrol vehicles for anti terrorist operations... when the west pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq they will likely dump their MRAPs rather than ship them home...

For 100 MBT you can get thousands of MRAP.

MBTs will have a use beyond this period of anti terrorist fighting and can control rather larger areas of ground. The biggest gun you could fit to an MRAP like a Tigr-M would be a 30mm turret which is not cheap, but its effective anti armour range would be about 2km with the gun and perhaps 2km for point targets and 4kms for area targets. Compared with a T-72 that could potshot targets out to 4-5km with the gun in the right conditions... the 125mm will hit targets out to about 11km with HE shells though obviously much less than that at night or small point targets, but being a direct fire gun it is relatively accurate out to probably 4-5km during the day. and 3-4km at night.

These days wars are counter insurgancy.

Gun platforms are always useful in any conflict... from a 23mm cannon on the back of a light truck through 57mm guns on the back of a heavy truck or a 125mm gun on a heavy armoured tracked platform like an old model tank.

MBT are not needed.

Of course they are needed... they are very useful when correctly used.

MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

Not even close.

Don't get me wrong MRAPs have their use and save a lot of lives over using just unarmoured vehicles... their mobility is excellent and their fire power is reasonable... even a HMG mount with thermals and stabilised mount makes them a very capable system and effective... but in places where RPGs are plentiful a MBT is much safer, though not completely safe either.

No country is making manned planes anymore. Jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow is the future of warfare. Modern warfare is counter insurgency. Manned jets are too expensive for that. Manned planes are too difficult to train pilots.

Not only are the US still making F-35s now and B-21s in the future, they are also planning to put F-15s back in to production, while Russia is producing a wide range of manned aircraft.  Training pilots requires a lot of effort and money but it is money that is being spent...

Modern jet drone will be just as expensive as a Su-25 if not more because you also need a pilot, a ground station, a satelitte to controle it, a much more electronics inside for the control. But the drone will have less weapons and less survivability.

Agreed... there are no drones with the protection and fire power of a single Su-25... and there is that dichotomy... a third world enemy or terrorist enemy would generally not have the EM capacity to effect the datalinks so you could probably use drones, but their air defence is probably so weak it makes more sense to use the Su-25. Against a first world opponent a drone would be easier to neutralise than a manned aircraft and that is the problem... a drone will either be very cheap and therefore ineffective, or expensive and then not expendible... cheap drones could be eliminated as a threat even just by shooting them down as they appear, or jamming them, while expensive drones couldn't be risked... so with drones... cheap or expensive... wont be effective in the job of supporting the troops.

Su-25s would be much more useful but when the air defence is too strong you need to soften the air defences first... perhaps by using some drones and stand off SEAD platforms like the Su-34 to eliminate radar and electronics positions first with ARMs and bombs dropped from above the effective ceiling of the air defences...

It's easy to train drone pilots. Everyone can be a drone pilot. It's difficult to train jet pilots because of physical requirements. Not many people can qualify for jet pilot training. For every Su-25 you can have hundreds of jet powered drones like Cloud Shadow.

Drones are easier to take out and not as effective in the CAS role as actual manned aircraft are. Jet pilots are being trained all the time...

Modern jet powered attack drones like Cloud Shadow is huge compared to Su-25 and carry much heavier payload including stand off missiles. If Russia used drones in Idlib then wouldn't lost Su-24 and Su-25 pilots to ground fire. Modern drones can be directly controlled from hundreds of km away where pilots are safe in mobile control trucks. Also drones are much cheaper to service and build. Almost all planes used in Libya war for instance are attack drones. Manned jets days are numbered. Russia is no longer developing anymore manned combat planes. All combat planes under development are drones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

GarryB wrote:They are but they are also much more survivable... you can make a T-72 able to survive direct hits from TOW... no level of protection could do that for any MRAP.

MRAP is just a very bad design - The height and steepness of the dropdown stairs, not sufficiently effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP) etc.

Russia should develop an MRAP with T-72 type protection but not follow the bad design of the MRAP.

[quote="ultimatewarrior"][quote="Rodion_Romanovic"]

ultimatewarrior wrote:

Manned planes are going into dustbin of history. These days wars are geared to counter insurgency. Planes like armed drones are way better than Su-25 for modern warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

Please, it is more than demostrated that when a UAV force shows against an enemy with a minimum air defence, drones fall pretty easily. Against low tech enemies, sure, they are fantastic, but against a competent army, not so much.

Su-25s would be much more useful but when the air defence is too strong you need to soften the air defences first... perhaps by using some drones and stand off SEAD platforms like the Su-34 to eliminate radar and electronics positions first with ARMs and bombs dropped from above the effective ceiling of the air defences...

Are you serious ? Su-25 can carry kh-25T and kh-58 anti radar missiles. It is very manoeuvrable at low altitude and can carry fuel tanks. It is the perfect aircraft for SEAD/DEAD. Not to mention its armor and engine separate. Much better than su-34. The advantage of su-34 is the ecm pods and air to air missiles.

Russia should develop an MRAP with T-72 type protection but not follow the bad design of the MRAP.

They already did. BMP-T.

Modern jet powered attack drones like Cloud Shadow is huge compared to Su-25 and carry much heavier payload including stand off missiles. If Russia used drones in Idlib then wouldn't lost Su-24 and Su-25 pilots to ground fire.

Which drone can carry more than a su25 ? No one. Your chinese exemple is a joke, go look for data before spreading bullshit.

If Russia used drones in syria instead of sukhois, Turkey would have installed a no fly zone with its f-16.

MRAP is far more survivable in modern warfare than MBT.

No protection. Huge. Not enough armed. Easy target for TOW/kornet teams.

Isos wrote:

Su-25s would be much more useful but when the air defence is too strong you need to soften the air defences first... perhaps by using some drones and stand off SEAD platforms like the Su-34 to eliminate radar and electronics positions first with ARMs and bombs dropped from above the effective ceiling of the air defences...

Are you serious ? Su-25 can carry kh-25T and kh-58 anti radar missiles. It is very manoeuvrable at low altitude and can carry fuel tanks. It is the perfect aircraft for SEAD/DEAD. Not to mention its armor and engine separate. Much better than su-34. The advantage of su-34 is the ecm pods and air to air missiles.

Russia should develop an MRAP with T-72 type protection but not follow the bad design of the MRAP.

They already did. BMP-T.

The Su-34 has the same or even better armor then the Su-25. That´s why it can be used for CAS. But it is much more expensive then the Su-25, so the best choice for such missions are upgraded Su-25´s.

BMPT. Without the -.

MRAP´s were developed as cheap substitutions for APC´s and AIFV´s. A truck with some armor, nothing more. And it has to be so high to be safe from mines.

The Su-34 has the same or even better armor then the Su-25. That´s why it can be used for CAS. But it is much more expensive then the Su-25, so the best choice for such missions are upgraded Su-25´s.

Only the cockpit. Su-34 would suffer both engines destruction if it is hit by a missile because they are close to each other and unprotected contrary to the su-25.

And it has to be so high to be safe from mines.

A mine with hollow charge will go through easily. They are mostly designed to counter 2001-2012 guerillas/terrorists.

They are so high and so big that atgm can be used easily from max range. IED are not the main threat anymore but atgm are. A blast of kornet in a MRAP full of soldiers will burn half of them badly and destroy the vehicle. And those vehicles have notging to protect themselves from atgm.

Just all the ATGM supplied during syrian and yemen war will be enough gor the next 10 years of conflicts anywhere in Africa/Middle east.

Small drones with hollow charge from the top will also be deadly but they are more complicated to use.

Then western will start making smaller vehicle with APS and IED will be weapon of choice again.

Modern jet powered attack drones like Cloud Shadow is huge compared to Su-25 and carry much heavier payload including stand off missiles. If Russia used drones in Idlib then wouldn't lost Su-24 and Su-25 pilots to ground fire. Modern drones can be directly controlled from hundreds of km away where pilots are safe in mobile control trucks. Also drones are much cheaper to service and build. Almost all planes used in Libya war for instance are attack drones. Manned jets days are numbered. Russia is no longer developing anymore manned combat planes. All combat planes under development are drones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_Cloud_Shadow

Do you even read what you post?

The Cloud Shadow is huge and is a HALE... a High Altitude Long Endurance armed drone that could never off CLOSE Air Support... based on the link you provided this drone weighs less than the weapon payload of the Su-25... the entire drone is 3.2 tons with an amazing weapon capacity of 400kgs... that is pathetic.

Sure if Russia had used drones they wouldn't have lost any pilots... but they also would not have hit any targets either and would have spent rather more money for that pathetic return. Drone pilots are not safe... the terrorists could easily determine where they are and attack them with IEDs.

Drones like this Chinese drones are much more expensive than a cheap simple fighter aircraft. The war in Libya is a civil war and meaningless for the Russians who face HATO and the US. Russia is currently introducing Su-57s... a manned aircraft... they are also introducing lots of transport types, a bomber type and also they are working on a replacement for the Su-25 in the CAS role and a high speed replacement for the MiG-31 interceptor.

MRAP is just a very bad design - The height and steepness of the dropdown stairs, not sufficiently effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP) etc.

Russia should develop an MRAP with T-72 type protection but not follow the bad design of the MRAP.

MRAPs have their purpose, but that purpose is patrol in environments where the main threat is land mines and IEDs and small arms rather than RPGs and ATGMs.

Russia is in the process of transitioning into a new group of families of vehicles... heavy vehicles, medium vehicles, and light vehicles. Their Typhoon family of vehicles would benefit from development of MRAP platforms in terms of mine resistance and light weight armour options, but would not be MRAPs as such.

Russian paramilitary forces would benefit from MRAPs but the Army not so much as they really do not replace BTRs or BMPs.

The Su-34 has the same or even better armor then the Su-25. That´s why it can be used for CAS. But it is much more expensive then the Su-25, so the best choice for such missions are upgraded Su-25´s.

The Su-34 is a medium to deep strike aircraft and is designed for low level very high speed penetration to attack specific targets, which is completely different from the Su-25 that flys low and slow and loiters around the front line attacking targets causing ground forces problems.

The Su-34 is Iskander that flys low and fast, Su-25 is a 152mm artillery piece attacking targets that hold up the advance or cause problems for ground forces moving forward.

MRAP´s were developed as cheap substitutions for APC´s and AIFV´s. A truck with some armor, nothing more. And it has to be so high to be safe from mines.

Sort of... MRAPs were developed to better protect troops who would otherwise be operating in unarmoured vehicles like humvees. Before they were used in combat most Humvee crews assumed because of their size and weight that the Humvee was armoured and had bullet proof glass. It is not and does not so while they were driving them like they were bullet proof they were not. Step one was to put armour on them which make a heavy big vehicle even heavier and unusable, so they looked to alternatives and MRAPs were the solution short of using APCs which had better protection from small arms but were not necessarily better protected from land mines and IEDS which would immobilise them and kill the contents.

MRAPs are also generally wheeled vehicles so have better mobility on roads and lower operating costs than tracked vehicles like BTRs and BMPs.

GarryB wrote:
Russian paramilitary forces would benefit from MRAPs but the Army not so much as they really do not replace BTRs or BMPs.

Not sure if MRAP would be of any help. Apart from the huge problem involved in moving MRAPs from one place to the another, there are several limitations that the MRAP has.


MRAP is not at all effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), which use an explosive charge to propel a specially shaped metal plate at high velocity while simultaneously deforming it into an armor-piercing projectile. In Iraq MRAPs have been blown to bits.

Makes more sense for Russia to develop technologies that can detect and neutralize IEDs before Russian paramilitary, Army enters that area.

MRAP is not at all effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), which use an explosive charge to propel a specially shaped metal plate at high velocity while simultaneously deforming it into an armor-piercing projectile. In Iraq MRAPs have been blown to bits.

EFP are very exotic weapons that terrorists in Iraq have no access to... don't confuse EFPs with IEDs which are just lumps of explosives with rocks and bricks and nuts and bolts packed in with them to create shrapnel.

An example of an EFP would be in a sensor fused submunition used by Soviet and Russian artillery in cluster bombs and rocket artillery where the EFP is released in mid air and deploys a parachute to slow its fall and then it scans the ground below it for metal targets... when it detects one it explodes which deforms a metal plate in the warhead into a shuttle cock shaped projectile that is directed down at the top armour of the target at about 2-3km/s or so.

Such penetrators are blunt and obviously because they are formed during an explosion can't be made from hard penetrator materials otherwise they would shatter.

They can penetrate the thin upper armour of vehicles but are not ideal and certainly not as effective as an RPG HEAT warhead... though they do have the advantage of being effective from a distance away like from 200m above the target whereas most HEAT rounds need to detonate close to the surface they are to penetrate.

Makes more sense for Russia to develop technologies that can detect and neutralize IEDs before Russian paramilitary, Army enters that area.

They already have... they attach them to their ICBM truck brigades to clear the way of mines and IEDS... Combat Approved has a video on them:



They also have other mine clearing vehicles...



Either way it makes sense to have mine and IED resistant vehicles anyway...