Jump to content


Photo

In Syria


  • Please log in to reply
15491 replies to this topic

#15461 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,970 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1221 PM

 

 

Chlorine gas made some tactical sense in conjunction with air strikes due to its effect on dug in forces.  Sarin gas for the regime made no sense whatever.  

 

And chlorine as a weapon is easy to get in the region as it is still the most common method for water purification.

 

 

I tend to believe reports of SAA chlorine use, I tend not to believe reports of Sarin use.  

 

 

I would believe that is was used in the conflict, maybe by both sides, maybe not. That is the problem if you have chlorine, you put it in an open barrel, put a fan behind and blow it in the direction of an underground bunker, as you have your casualties.


  • 0

#15462 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,765 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1256 PM

 

 

Carpet can into fly.

Question is: can carpet into space?
Anyway, I'll just quote Assad (from my memory) on the chemical issue: Militarily, using chemical weapons only makes sense if you are losing. In advancement, it makes no sense at all.
So, no SHTF moment for SAA for quite a long time means no chems for them murderate terrorists West seems so fond of.

Look at it from the perspective of how Saddam used chemical weapons, for pacification, it makes perfect sense. There is also the point that few of these weapons were persistent.

Look at it from the rebels point of view. They kill their own people once, twice, to get American involvement, I could believe it. Something like a dozen times and over 6 years later, I dont. It makes no bloody sense atall.

 

More like 80.

https://en.wikipedia...yrian_Civil_War


  • 0

#15463 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,580 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1423 PM

 

 

 

Chlorine gas made some tactical sense in conjunction with air strikes due to its effect on dug in forces.  Sarin gas for the regime made no sense whatever.  

 

And chlorine as a weapon is easy to get in the region as it is still the most common method for water purification.

 

 

I tend to believe reports of SAA chlorine use, I tend not to believe reports of Sarin use.  

 

 

I would believe that is was used in the conflict, maybe by both sides, maybe not. That is the problem if you have chlorine, you put it in an open barrel, put a fan behind and blow it in the direction of an underground bunker, as you have your casualties.

 

 

Yep, that's why I believe reports the SAA uses chlorine, because it can seep into underground bunkers that regular munitions might have difficulty reaching.  Combined arms effect.  


  • 0

#15464 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,580 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 1552 PM

During the November 20 airstrike on Syria, the IAF destroyed another Pantsir:

ojbNf3K.jpg

 

One of the units lost was an S2 according to a report today.  Tactics appear to be to run them out of missiles after which they are defenseless.  Their cannons seems to be less useful for self defense than I would have guessed.


  • 0

#15465 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,481 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 1252 PM

The IAF may very well be the most experienced provider of solutions for defended airspace in the world right now. 


  • 0

#15466 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,916 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 1503 PM

There is no Pantsir S2 in the wild. It is all S1somethingsomething, and Syria only had base S1.

Tactics work because poorly prepared positions and not moving after firing.


Edited by bojan, 05 December 2019 - 1503 PM.

  • 0

#15467 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,280 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 1601 PM

Carpet can into fly.

Question is: can carpet into space?Anyway, I'll just quote Assad (from my memory) on the chemical issue: Militarily, using chemical weapons only makes sense if you are losing. In advancement, it makes no sense at all.So, no SHTF moment for SAA for quite a long time means no chems for them murderate terrorists West seems so fond of.
Look at it from the perspective of how Saddam used chemical weapons, for pacification, it makes perfect sense. There is also the point that few of these weapons were persistent.Look at it from the rebels point of view. They kill their own people once, twice, to get American involvement, I could believe it. Something like a dozen times and over 6 years later, I dont. It makes no bloody sense atall.
More like 80.https://en.wikipedia...yrian_Civil_War


There you go, it's far more often than even I thought.
  • 0

#15468 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,580 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 1603 PM

There is no Pantsir S2 in the wild. It is all S1somethingsomething, and Syria only had base S1.

Tactics work because poorly prepared positions and not moving after firing.

 

Noted.  Still, I'm not seeing evidence overall the cannons are particularly effective in any role, and the missile loadout seems too small.  Also not seeing much in the way of decoys?


  • 0

#15469 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 2316 PM

Pantsir was for the mobile tactical battlefield as I recall fighting both fast air and attack helicopters. It is supposed to be the forward part of the defense system with other systems providing protection for them from further back.


  • 0

#15470 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,280 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 0347 AM

Re the Douma report that was posted much earlier as an example of the OPCW ignoring employee's concerns. As Bellingcat points out, it actually proves the opposite.

 

https://www.bellingc...-crucial-facts/

Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report. 

The letter refers to a “redacted report” that was either not published or was heavily updated before it became the final version of  the report. The issues raised in the letter appear to have either been addressed with further work and research, or changed to reflect the concerns of the employee who wrote the letter. 

The fact that the redacted report stated it was “likely” the cylinders were the source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical, while the final report said it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine” is significant. It demonstrates that the OPCW in fact downgraded their confidence in their conclusions in order to include the doubts raised by the author of the letter.

Based on this analysis, it is clear that WikiLeaks, the Daily Mail, La Repubblica, and Stundin have failed to understand the context of this letter and the final Douma report. 

If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner.

 

 

Wikileaks misleading people? How extraordinary, ive never seen such a thing before. :)

 

 

The troll effort at disinformation following the post is also fairly instructive. We have seen very similar here on this grate site.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 06 December 2019 - 0358 AM.

  • 0

#15471 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,105 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 0509 AM

Pantsir was for the mobile tactical battlefield as I recall fighting both fast air and attack helicopters. It is supposed to be the forward part of the defense system with other systems providing protection for them from further back.


Isn't it a bit too lightly protected for that role ? The standard story seem to be that it was designed to provide point defense of area SAM batteries.


Edited by KV7, 06 December 2019 - 0510 AM.

  • 0

#15472 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,916 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 0905 AM

Pantsir is for saving important assets on move, mainly other AD systems.

Tor and Tunguska were for protecting units on march, Tor being more capable and higher in the chan.

 

Had the Yugoslavia used AD assets way Syrians are using them we would have ran out of anything by the end of first week. No evidence of seriously prepared firing positions, reserve positions and shelters for launchers, launchers kept in the same position for days, no attempt on masking, no attempt on counter-SEAD attempts (decoy targets, decoy radar emitters, IR beacons + all 3 combined), no attempt to use masking smoke (surprisingly effective in 1999). Picknick, not a war.


  • 0

#15473 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,481 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 1517 PM

The IAF would probably benefit and prefer the showing of more Syrian competence, as it is in testing mode itself.


  • 0

#15474 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 16 December 2019 - 1826 PM

Pantsir is for saving important assets on move, mainly other AD systems.

Tor and Tunguska were for protecting units on march, Tor being more capable and higher in the chan.

 

Had the Yugoslavia used AD assets way Syrians are using them we would have ran out of anything by the end of first week. No evidence of seriously prepared firing positions, reserve positions and shelters for launchers, launchers kept in the same position for days, no attempt on masking, no attempt on counter-SEAD attempts (decoy targets, decoy radar emitters, IR beacons + all 3 combined), no attempt to use masking smoke (surprisingly effective in 1999). Picknick, not a war.

Yes but these are manned by Arabs and likes who are not going to be terribly flexible in their leadership roles.


  • 0

#15475 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,105 posts

Posted 16 December 2019 - 1911 PM

 

Pantsir is for saving important assets on move, mainly other AD systems.

Tor and Tunguska were for protecting units on march, Tor being more capable and higher in the chan.

 

Had the Yugoslavia used AD assets way Syrians are using them we would have ran out of anything by the end of first week. No evidence of seriously prepared firing positions, reserve positions and shelters for launchers, launchers kept in the same position for days, no attempt on masking, no attempt on counter-SEAD attempts (decoy targets, decoy radar emitters, IR beacons + all 3 combined), no attempt to use masking smoke (surprisingly effective in 1999). Picknick, not a war.

Yes but these are manned by Arabs and likes who are not going to be terribly flexible in their leadership roles.

 

This is hardly the problem, as the SAA is almost an assemblage of militias with a lot of freedom to do what they like. But more to the point, a leader who tried to get their AD unit to be more effective would hardly be frustrated by those higher up. And if anything, the SOP is better than actual practice.

The array of almost comical up-armor projects suggest that there is not much inhibition of experimentation or initiative.


  • 0

#15476 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,631 posts

Posted 17 December 2019 - 1557 PM

Probably caused by sharp stones launched from slings or similar. Or former battle damage.

I am supprised MP vehicle is not equipped with detachable wire mesh screen guard. I guess they could be called in theory to perform civil roles as riot control.

   Now with Russian improvisation attached

79680456_1048294185512998_18505790270482

79899540_1048294092179674_25808266496625


  • 0

#15477 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,021 posts

Posted 19 December 2019 - 0050 AM

 

 

Pantsir is for saving important assets on move, mainly other AD systems.

Tor and Tunguska were for protecting units on march, Tor being more capable and higher in the chan.

 

Had the Yugoslavia used AD assets way Syrians are using them we would have ran out of anything by the end of first week. No evidence of seriously prepared firing positions, reserve positions and shelters for launchers, launchers kept in the same position for days, no attempt on masking, no attempt on counter-SEAD attempts (decoy targets, decoy radar emitters, IR beacons + all 3 combined), no attempt to use masking smoke (surprisingly effective in 1999). Picknick, not a war.

Yes but these are manned by Arabs and likes who are not going to be terribly flexible in their leadership roles.

 

This is hardly the problem, as the SAA is almost an assemblage of militias with a lot of freedom to do what they like. But more to the point, a leader who tried to get their AD unit to be more effective would hardly be frustrated by those higher up. And if anything, the SOP is better than actual practice.

The array of almost comical up-armor projects suggest that there is not much inhibition of experimentation or initiative.

 

Except AD is a network thing and the leadership is about allowing local commanders to exercise good discipline in all things tactical and not have to call up senior leadership for everything. Even within the Soviet hierarchy system, there was a lot of expectation that ground units exercise good field discipline run by unit commanders, who were also responsible for being part of that network. My guess is that it take a very senior officer to approve a relocation of a AD asset. 


  • 0

#15478 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,580 posts

Posted 19 December 2019 - 0842 AM

The Serbian model seems to be applicable.  Perhaps Bojan can say what the balance for tactics was between command direction from the top and small unit initiative from the bottom in Serbia's war with NATO.

 

What I can't figure out is why in the these Israeli videos there's only one thing that looks like a Panstir to choose from (shouldn't the missile be playing multiple choice?), and why the Russians would build all their SAM systems in the same manner.  Didn't they read about the cruise of the Emden in 1914?  The ability to disguise is a core battlefield survival tactic.  I also don't understand why the Russians designed a system with guns that apparently can't seem to shoot down missiles that are attacking it.  


Edited by glenn239, 19 December 2019 - 0844 AM.

  • 0

#15479 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,916 posts

Posted 19 December 2019 - 1343 PM

General rule was that after firing battery had to displace to a reserve position*. It was up the battery commander to arrange such movement. Each group moved one battery at the time, and in order to enable faster movement number of launchers in battery was reduced to 1/2 (2 for SA-3, 3 for SA-6). This did not really diminish firepower of the battery as both SA-3 and SA-6 can only fire at a single target (with two missiles), so additional launch vehicles are just for a reserve ammo in case of the "Cold war style" mass-attack.

Also, after using search radar it was SOP to displace if anything was in the airspace. Search radars were only used for up the 20 seconds, as it was found out that ARMs can not really get good enough fix on it in that timeframe.

It was found out that old P-12 search radars are fully immune to ARMs due the frequency it operated on. OTOH, it was easy to jam.

Firing positions were arranged as widely dispersed as possible, in order to prevent multiple loses from a same hit. Masking nets (including anti-IR ones) were widely used, and were quite effective. Positions were additionally hidden by the vegetation if possible, and "armored" by emplacements made from tree trunks, which showed to be quite effective vs fragments from the near misses.

False targets were used, including written off radars from SA-2 (which were retired in 1997). "ARM catchers" were used, both reflector and active types.

 

*Reserve positions were pre arranged by the engineer units, and I am guessing this is the most problematic part for Syrians, as engineer units are desperately needed elsewhere.


Edited by bojan, 20 December 2019 - 1355 PM.

  • 0

#15480 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,580 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 1019 AM

What about field testing and small unit initiative?  The F-16 kill was a little unorthodox in that it was apparently almost right from below.  Was that innovation at the command level, field level, or just luck, or did I remember it wrong?


  • 0