If there is the slightest hint that Russia is headed towards severe weakening I am sure China will be helping prevent that as much as it can for its own benefit of course. However China has neither the capability nor the political will or vision to help Russia much beyond making business deals.
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
If there is the slightest hint that Russia is headed towards severe weakening I am sure China will be helping prevent that as much as it can for its own benefit of course. However China has neither the capability nor the political will or vision to help Russia much beyond making business deals.
Jura The idiot
General
now I found in Russian Internet
"a Western" map:
which in some places puts Russian air-strikes in agreement with the Russian charts I posted:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/is...-syria-news-thread.t6913/page-160#post-366999
and the biggest difference seems to be between Homs and Hama, where there's a pocket of anti-Assad resistance, and the Western/Russian maps show numerous/no air-strikes there ...
EDIT
I found yet another map of Russian attacks:
just found, is all
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
oh, I've been through this with Mr. Iqbal
in a ThreadDaesh and ISIS/ISIL
starting with
Yesterday I heard Lord West, former First Sea Lord and now a member of the House of Lords ( ), say on BBC Radio 4 that the only way forward is to use local ground forces to destroy ISIS which means cooperating with president Assad and the Russian air force.
Of course the Syrian army cannot go out to destroy ISIS while having armed "moderate" mercenary "rebels" in its rear areas. President Obama should order his "rebels" to either surrender or seek safety over the borders of Turkey, Israel or Jordan. But ( from the BBC website: ) "US President Barack Obama has said the Russian bombing campaign in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad is driving moderate opposition underground and "only strengthening" Islamic State." He thinks politics in Syria should be conducted by foreign sponsored and armed "rebels" and he doesn't even mention "free and fair elections".
Of course the Syrian army cannot go out to destroy ISIS while having armed "moderate" mercenary "rebels" in its rear areas. President Obama should order his "rebels" to either surrender or seek safety over the borders of Turkey, Israel or Jordan. But ( from the BBC website: ) "US President Barack Obama has said the Russian bombing campaign in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad is driving moderate opposition underground and "only strengthening" Islamic State." He thinks politics in Syria should be conducted by foreign sponsored and armed "rebels" and he doesn't even mention "free and fair elections".
The word on BBC Radio 4's today programme is that Obama has said that he will not start a proxy war with Russia over Syria. So there we have it, an effective burn notice for the so called moderate opposition.
Hardly a surprise though and no surprise that the FSA and similar are target no:1.
The US and allies have always wanted Assad out and the current change of mind is simply a pragmatic approach to the reality on the ground (applaudable in its own right) in which Assad is seen as the lesser of the two evils.
The risk; as I am sure that Russia and Syria would see it, would be that any subsequent change to the reality on the ground (Russian coalition defeat of ISIS) could just as easily reverse and at a time when the Russian/Syrians etc will be tired and stretched from a long and hard campaign against ISIS and during which the FSA could be rested and reinforced/requipped and able to restart their campaign from a strong strategic position adjacent to the pro-government heartlands.
No commander worth his salt would leave such a potential threat on his home flank and it makes perfect sense, militarily politically and geographically to hoover up the minnow rebel groups on the periphery, before starting a concerted effort against the main enemy along its full nation wide front and to do so with full strength and without potential distraction/weakness in your rear.
Hardly a surprise though and no surprise that the FSA and similar are target no:1.
The US and allies have always wanted Assad out and the current change of mind is simply a pragmatic approach to the reality on the ground (applaudable in its own right) in which Assad is seen as the lesser of the two evils.
The risk; as I am sure that Russia and Syria would see it, would be that any subsequent change to the reality on the ground (Russian coalition defeat of ISIS) could just as easily reverse and at a time when the Russian/Syrians etc will be tired and stretched from a long and hard campaign against ISIS and during which the FSA could be rested and reinforced/requipped and able to restart their campaign from a strong strategic position adjacent to the pro-government heartlands.
No commander worth his salt would leave such a potential threat on his home flank and it makes perfect sense, militarily politically and geographically to hoover up the minnow rebel groups on the periphery, before starting a concerted effort against the main enemy along its full nation wide front and to do so with full strength and without potential distraction/weakness in your rear.
broadsword
Brigadier
I don't think FSA would be spared in a more intensive campaign against ISIL. They pose a more immediate threat to Assad and so were the first targeted with Russian bombings.
thunderchief
Senior Member
Oh yes, Russian Defense Ministry confirmed what we have been suspecting : crosshair is not aiming point
[QUOTE: Btw,crosshair on published video footage isn't aiming mark, but the focus point of camera used for bomb damage assessment] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE: Btw,crosshair on published video footage isn't aiming mark, but the focus point of camera used for bomb damage assessment] [/QUOTE]
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
still the munitions were unguided or as we like to call them these days DUMB bombs.
Of course well most western aircraft have been geared with cutting edge designation systems and targeting pods that could have been used in place of the drone camera to record the event as well as designate the target for the strike. Russian aircraft tend to lack such due to budget.
The advantage of precision weapons is that if you mark a target you destroy that target, and before any one makes a cross eyed comment I add. So long as the intelligence is good on the selection of that target. IE if the intel was bad then the wrong people get hurt.
The disadvantage of such is that the weapons are expensive.
Old Iron or dumb bombs however are... well even worse. As if you aim for a target and drop there is a chance if everything goes right you will nail the target... or it's just as likely not. It's one of those to whom it may concern situations.
the easiest way to compensate for this is bigger bombs. this means more chances of collateral.
Imagine if you will a busy city. In this city is a factory. that factory is to be destroyed. Today to do that job you send one bomber it drops a precision bomb right down the chimney levels the main building but leaves every thing else untouched.
With Dumb bombs you carpet the whole area and destroy everything.
If you have Friendlies on the ground calling in a strike with precision weapons you can drop just the amount of weapons needed with less risk of hitting your allies.
with unguided weapons your just as likely to kill friend as foe.
Of course well most western aircraft have been geared with cutting edge designation systems and targeting pods that could have been used in place of the drone camera to record the event as well as designate the target for the strike. Russian aircraft tend to lack such due to budget.
The advantage of precision weapons is that if you mark a target you destroy that target, and before any one makes a cross eyed comment I add. So long as the intelligence is good on the selection of that target. IE if the intel was bad then the wrong people get hurt.
The disadvantage of such is that the weapons are expensive.
Old Iron or dumb bombs however are... well even worse. As if you aim for a target and drop there is a chance if everything goes right you will nail the target... or it's just as likely not. It's one of those to whom it may concern situations.
the easiest way to compensate for this is bigger bombs. this means more chances of collateral.
Imagine if you will a busy city. In this city is a factory. that factory is to be destroyed. Today to do that job you send one bomber it drops a precision bomb right down the chimney levels the main building but leaves every thing else untouched.
With Dumb bombs you carpet the whole area and destroy everything.
If you have Friendlies on the ground calling in a strike with precision weapons you can drop just the amount of weapons needed with less risk of hitting your allies.
with unguided weapons your just as likely to kill friend as foe.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Oh yes, Russian Defense Ministry confirmed what we have been suspecting : crosshair is not aiming point
[QUOTE: Btw,crosshair on published video footage isn't aiming mark, but the focus point of camera used for bomb damage assessment]
[/QUOTE]
The UAVs were there looking at the target the Russians wanted to hit, not a random patch of grass.
As such, it is still telling us that the Russian bombing campaign is not very effective.
Fair enough they are using mainly iron bombs, but even then I would have expected better accuracy. Even back during the first Gulf War, US warplanes were able to achieve impressed accuracy with free fall bombs because of their fire control computers.