Jump to content


Photo

In Syria


  • Please log in to reply
14478 replies to this topic

#14461 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:22 PM


 
 


 
What makes you think the Pantsir is a high priority target for the IAF? 
 
Syria has now 37 Pantsir systems. It has attacked dozens upon dozens of air defense sites, and yet only twice had it decided it was important enough to destroy Pantsir systems. Explain this logic.
 

 
What's the basis of your claim that the IAF got a Pantsir every time they've gone after them?

The basis for my claim is that if it's seen as a high priority enough goal for the IAF, they can devote sufficient resources to defeat any number of air defense systems in Syria as they please.

Theoretically, the Pantsir can be overwhelmed fairly easily if it's just a standalone system, enabling its saturation from a standoff system via dirt cheap JDAM bombs.
  • 0

#14462 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:25 PM

Well, one thing is for certain - the SAA can't be happy at losing 2 Pantsir systems.  


  • 0

#14463 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,043 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 12:33 PM

Well, one thing is for certain - the SAA can't be happy at losing 2 Pantsir systems.  

Not so long ago they were loosing entire cities and provinces  to head cutters, so now two SAM launchers are not big deal.


  • 0

#14464 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,043 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 12:41 PM

 

Well I'm convinced, the Russians along with their Syrian and Iranian allies, are vastly superior to the Zionists and need to smack them down once and for all.

 

The Russians are claiming 7 missiles shot down attacking Damascus.  The IAF shows hitting two SA-22's.  Did they look like Damascus to you?  To me it seems like the IAF attacked Damascus and came up blank, then went after the AD units and hit two of them.  The fact the IAF released the video I wonder at - they're practically showing the Russians the tutorial on how to upgrade these things for better self-protection.  

 

7 missiles is daytime attack (probably recon one), two Pantsyrs  were destroyed following night  - as probably they somehow were detected during first attack.

Note Israelis are shading crosshair when missile is far from target, probably they do not want to show something (ground observers laser tagging the target?). And yes, protecting from visually controlled missile seems like not so hard task - just scatter few dozens of old trucks and standard containers around the positions...


  • 0

#14465 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:42 PM

Seems that the Russians also benefiet - historically they've always seen benefiets to observing their SAM systems in action in the ME, especially when these actions resulted in defeat.  Here, they have full ELINT and surveillance of the battlefield environment, so are seeing the IAF's tricks at no direct cost. 

 

I think the IAF video makes the case that SAM systems should have self-defence protection systems, (smoke, jammers, or even a fricking ground mouted 1/4" steel wall that pops up on the threat vector in the last moments).  Has an SA-22 gun ever successfully protected the launcher?  Heck, even ejection seats might not be a bad idea if the SAM is able to tell the crew they have some seconds to get out....


Edited by glenn239, Yesterday, 12:47 PM.

  • 0

#14466 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:47 PM

 

 

Well I'm convinced, the Russians along with their Syrian and Iranian allies, are vastly superior to the Zionists and need to smack them down once and for all.

 

The Russians are claiming 7 missiles shot down attacking Damascus.  The IAF shows hitting two SA-22's.  Did they look like Damascus to you?  To me it seems like the IAF attacked Damascus and came up blank, then went after the AD units and hit two of them.  The fact the IAF released the video I wonder at - they're practically showing the Russians the tutorial on how to upgrade these things for better self-protection.  

 

7 missiles is daytime attack (probably recon one), two Pantsyrs  were destroyed following night  - as probably they somehow were detected during first attack.

Note Israelis are shading crosshair when missile is far from target, probably they do not want to show something (ground observers laser tagging the target?). And yes, protecting from visually controlled missile seems like not so hard task - just scatter few dozens of old trucks and standard containers around the positions...

 

 

Strongly agree that the IAF is showing the SAA the value in upping the number of decoy targets.  I do not fully understand why the IAF has released these images, actually.  A few months ago I mentioned to you that no two S-400's should look alike, that their actual appearance in all cases should be closely guarded secrets and that, like German merchant raiders in the world wars, their crews could play with decoy kits to change their appearances on the fly.  These videos seem to suggest this idea also is viable - if that 2nd SA-22 had looked like a truck, the attacking missile would have had more like a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong target, the other truck. 


  • 0

#14467 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sopron, Hungary
  • Interests:history, music

Posted Yesterday, 01:11 PM

 

https://www.timesofi...i-raid-reports/

 

Israel launched airstrikes for the first time in daylight.

Syria responded for the first time with a surface-surface missile.

 

Israeli Iron Dome missiles intercept the surface-surface missiles, and so far the type of missile was not mentioned.

 

One Syrian report claimed 10 missiles were fired at the Damascus airport and targets near al-Kiswah. Russia later reported that all 7 missiles were intercepted with 100% accuracy. 

Images of impacts should emerge, as usual, in about 2 days.

 

 

 

So the victorious Israeli forces reached a point when Syria joined Hez and Pals with SS missiles?


  • 0

#14468 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,043 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 01:16 PM

 


 

Strongly agree that the IAF is showing the SAA the value in upping the number of decoy targets.  I do not fully understand why the IAF has released these images, actually.  A few months ago I mentioned to you that no two S-400's should look alike, that their actual appearance in all cases should be closely guarded secrets and that, like German merchant raiders in the world wars, their crews could play with decoy kits to change their appearances on the fly.  These videos seem to suggest this idea also is viable - if that 2nd SA-22 had looked like a truck, the attacking missile would have had more like a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong target, the other truck. 

 


  • 0

#14469 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted Yesterday, 01:42 PM

tanklift-thumb-570x370-122303.jpg


  • 0

#14470 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:30 PM

 

 

Well I'm convinced, the Russians along with their Syrian and Iranian allies, are vastly superior to the Zionists and need to smack them down once and for all.

 

The Russians are claiming 7 missiles shot down attacking Damascus.  The IAF shows hitting two SA-22's.  Did they look like Damascus to you?  To me it seems like the IAF attacked Damascus and came up blank, then went after the AD units and hit two of them.  The fact the IAF released the video I wonder at - they're practically showing the Russians the tutorial on how to upgrade these things for better self-protection.  

 

7 missiles is daytime attack (probably recon one), two Pantsyrs  were destroyed following night  - as probably they somehow were detected during first attack.

Note Israelis are shading crosshair when missile is far from target, probably they do not want to show something (ground observers laser tagging the target?). And yes, protecting from visually controlled missile seems like not so hard task - just scatter few dozens of old trucks and standard containers around the positions...

 

 

The IAF always blurs the edges in combat footage, whether it is footage from munitions or drones. Probably to avoid showing lines of data that are shown on these edges. Ground observers aren't really useful when the entire area is surrounded by tall sand barriers, or when the missile uses optical guidance rather than laser guidance.

 

 

 

 

Well I'm convinced, the Russians along with their Syrian and Iranian allies, are vastly superior to the Zionists and need to smack them down once and for all.

 

The Russians are claiming 7 missiles shot down attacking Damascus.  The IAF shows hitting two SA-22's.  Did they look like Damascus to you?  To me it seems like the IAF attacked Damascus and came up blank, then went after the AD units and hit two of them.  The fact the IAF released the video I wonder at - they're practically showing the Russians the tutorial on how to upgrade these things for better self-protection.  

 

7 missiles is daytime attack (probably recon one), two Pantsyrs  were destroyed following night  - as probably they somehow were detected during first attack.

Note Israelis are shading crosshair when missile is far from target, probably they do not want to show something (ground observers laser tagging the target?). And yes, protecting from visually controlled missile seems like not so hard task - just scatter few dozens of old trucks and standard containers around the positions...

 

 

Strongly agree that the IAF is showing the SAA the value in upping the number of decoy targets.  I do not fully understand why the IAF has released these images, actually.  A few months ago I mentioned to you that no two S-400's should look alike, that their actual appearance in all cases should be closely guarded secrets and that, like German merchant raiders in the world wars, their crews could play with decoy kits to change their appearances on the fly.  These videos seem to suggest this idea also is viable - if that 2nd SA-22 had looked like a truck, the attacking missile would have had more like a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong target, the other truck. 

 

 

Not really. It's not a striking campaign against just targets that look like targets. With not so modern technology, it's fairly easy to verify where decoys are. For example, if a target is emitting radio waves that match those of the expected target's frequencies, then it's a valid target. If it doesn't emit anything, then it's a false target. 


  • 0

#14471 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:19 PM

 

 


 

Strongly agree that the IAF is showing the SAA the value in upping the number of decoy targets.  I do not fully understand why the IAF has released these images, actually.  A few months ago I mentioned to you that no two S-400's should look alike, that their actual appearance in all cases should be closely guarded secrets and that, like German merchant raiders in the world wars, their crews could play with decoy kits to change their appearances on the fly.  These videos seem to suggest this idea also is viable - if that 2nd SA-22 had looked like a truck, the attacking missile would have had more like a 50/50 chance of hitting the wrong target, the other truck. 

 

 

 

Has the SAA been supplied with decoys?


  • 0

#14472 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted Yesterday, 04:28 PM

 

How can a system be out in the open and fighting and dug in and hiding at the same time?   Even tanks seem to have better self-protection equipment than these SA-22 (thanks MZ) systems seem to show.

 

Use multiple prepared positions, camouflage, decoys etc. Hull down Pantsyr might not be invulnerable, but it might help increase an odds.

Fire and than immediately move.

Don't stand in the middle of the fucking runway like an idiot (second part of the video).


  • 0

#14473 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:58 PM

Is SA-22 equipped with something like the Arena defense system?   According to Wiki that can defend against missiles up to 700 meters per second.  


  • 0

#14474 Leo Niehorster

Leo Niehorster

    Meow

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Military History

Posted Yesterday, 05:37 PM

 

Roman Alymov

According to this article from 2012, total number of generals in Rus Army was about 700. So 460 general officers in combat command positions is quite logical number,

 

I very much doubt that of 700 Russian generals, 460 (~65%) are combat command officers. Of those 700 — as in any military force — most are in administrative/logistics/other rear echelon positions.


Edited by Leo Niehorster, Yesterday, 05:43 PM.

  • 0

#14475 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted Yesterday, 06:39 PM

 

 

How can a system be out in the open and fighting and dug in and hiding at the same time?   Even tanks seem to have better self-protection equipment than these SA-22 (thanks MZ) systems seem to show.

 

Use multiple prepared positions, camouflage, decoys etc. Hull down Pantsyr might not be invulnerable, but it might help increase an odds.

Fire and than immediately move.

Don't stand in the middle of the fucking runway like an idiot (second part of the video).

 

 

Good tactics, but they would require that Syrian air defense units solve their seemingly intractable problems with lack of initiative and indifference to training (some of which I've heard attributed to fatalism).  I don't expect those problems to be solved absent major changes in institutional culture.


  • 0

#14476 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Today, 01:08 AM

Is SA-22 equipped with something like the Arena defense system?   According to Wiki that can defend against missiles up to 700 meters per second.  

This will be absolutely useless. APS is good for premature destruction of HEAT warheads but won't stop detonation and fragmentation. And those are things that will kill your AA at APS working range with ease.
  • 0

#14477 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted Today, 08:14 AM

So no difference to the SA-22 crew survival whether the incoming warhead detonates on their lap or goes off 50 yards away?


  • 0

#14478 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Today, 08:32 AM

Crew survival - kinda. Vehicle survival - barely. And yeap, usually APS intercepts incoming projectile MUCH closer than 50 yards. Thing is - it's not entirely consistent to put APS on vehicle which itself serves as big scale APS.

Edited by GARGEAN, Today, 08:33 AM.

  • 0

#14479 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,564 posts

Posted 42 minutes ago

More prepared fall back positions, more, and more effective, decoys, the use of SA-10's in passive cueing role (not necessarily as active shooters), more armor and kit on the vehicle for crew survival, better close-in self protection measures such as Arena-type systems, passive jammers, smoke generators.  Maybe even SA-24 crews in support?  That's the list of potential countermeasures/upgrades I'm wondering about.

 

For the Russians, the lessons look pretty clear to me from what we are seeing courtesy of the Israelis and their kill videos that Russian doctrine has dropped the ball on close-in defenses on their high-value SAM systems.   A damaged/inoperable SAM unit can be returned to factory and repaired more cheaply than building another unit, and a crew that survives an attack bolsters the morale and fighting elan of the entire SAA air defense forces.  


Edited by glenn239, 41 minutes ago.

  • 0




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (2)