Russia intervenes in Syria

[GrauGeist]

Something that I've noticed with the Russian offensive, is that they're using WP and free-fall bombing in target areas unlike the NATO forces, who have been using guided munitions.

My concern is the density of civilians in these areas, while at risk by guided munitions, are certainly between a rock and a hard place with the Russian's method.

 

[javlin]

Here's PRAVA take on him:

Canada's new PM: Obama lite - English pravda.ru

O'bama lite?? he is wasting no time...

 

[at6]

I saw a report about ISIS in Afghanistan, where they have taken over one region and are training children from the age of three or four to use pistols and rifles to kill the "enemy" with out hesitation. Makes me wonder if there is anything such as a civilian in their territory. I might have to agree with the Russian way of dealing with ISIS.

 

[javlin]

I hear you AT we really have not had a war without civilian involvement/causalities since WWI I would venture to guess?WWIII may of already started with more and more players and alliances and we do not even realize it yet..

 

[GrauGeist]

I saw a report about ISIS in Afghanistan, where they have taken over one region and are training children from the age of three or four to use pistols and rifles to kill the "enemy" with out hesitation. Makes me wonder if there is anything such as a civilian in their territory. I might have to agree with the Russian way of dealing with ISIS.

Shades of Vietnam...

I hear you AT we really have not had a war without civilian involvement/causalities since WWI I would venture to guess?WWIII may of already started with more and more players and alliances and we do not even realize it yet..

There really has been no war in history that hasn't seen civilians caught in the crossfire.

Sadly, in this modern age, it has become acceptable to hide as a civilian and conduct a guerrilla war. This also leads to an increased "civilian" body count when these fighters are killed, because the media doesn't differentiate between civilian dead and "civilian" combatants.

 

[Thorlifter]

I don't think the Russians have ever been overly concerned about collateral damage

 

[at6]

Since technically IS fighters aren't actually military and indistinguishable from anyone else, they might be considered " collateral damage" when they are killed.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Much nonsense here but interesting NTL ...

Russia's Propeller-Driven 'Bear' Bomber Still Has Claws | War Is Boring

 

[Lucky13]

Man, to have a target like that while flying a squad of A-10s...............

.....now, now....don't get too excited! (I'd love to be the pilot in one of them though)

 

[fastmongrel]

With a target neatly lined up like that a Polikarpov Po2 armed with a machine gun firing incendiary would do the job.

 

[GrauGeist]

With a target neatly lined up like that a Polikarpov Po2 armed with a machine gun firing incendiary would do the job.

Or imagine a strafing duo of P-47s with HVARs on the hardpoints for extra excitement

 

[parsifal]

Much nonsense here but interesting NTL ...

Russia's Propeller-Driven 'Bear' Bomber Still Has Claws | War Is Boring

why much nonsense?

 

[parsifal]

There are two problems when fighting an enemy like ISIL. The first is target identification. They have this nasty habit of embedding themselves amongst the civilian poulation. Every time you hit a legit target, you are likely also to hit a non-military target. Hitting civilans for us is now a war crime, but not for them. Our ROEs dont allow us to do anything other than exercise all the care we can to not hit non-military targets.

Collateral damage is not just an unfortunate side effect that if we had the nuts to do it, we should. we absolutely should not. Every time we hit a nonj-legit target, we upset someone, and just increase the hatred for us, and the pacifists in our own country get stronger.

This is the new dynamic of modern warfare. Weve got the firepower, thats the easy bit. We need the accuracy to go with it. thats the hard bit, None of those old antiques, including the A-10, or the Tu-95, can deliver the whole equation, and thats exactly what we need right now

 

[GrauGeist]

why much nonsense?

That article is pumping the Tu-95 up to be some awesome piece of hardware, but anything the Bear can do, the B-52 can do better - faster, higher, farther, bigger warload and it's older than the Tu-95, too.

 

[at6]

ISIL uses dumb bombs. Theirs have two legs.

 

[bobbysocks]

That article is pumping the Tu-95 up to be some awesome piece of hardware, but anything the Bear can do, the B-52 can do better - faster, higher, farther, bigger warload and it's older than the Tu-95, too.

that is true.... IS is an enemy that lacks an adequate and accurate SAM system or AA so even old ww2 aircraft would be effective tools fighting them. I think the WP bombs the Russians are using or a cluster bomb would be effective against those rows of truck than a laser guided missile.

 

[GrauGeist]

The photos and videos I have seen, where WP has been used, is on/around structures

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...why much nonsense?"

The article discusses the Bear without admitting that it's a jet ... a turboprop albeit ... but nontheless , a jet. And are turboprops really that different in maintenance-needs than turboprops ..? I would think that Bears would be more demanding - maintenance wise - than B-52s. Those counter-rotating props must set up some nasty harmonics for the airframe to absorb?

 

[GrauGeist]

...Those counter-rotating props must set up some nasty harmonics for the airframe to absorb?

They also made it sound like the Bear was unique both in it's sonic prop-tips (many others, like the Skyraider dit it) and in overall sound output (B-36 was also a champ in high noise level)

 

[parsifal]

Its unique, but only from the Russian point of view. These old fossils did a lot of good work for the Russians back in the 60s and 70s.

They carried an impressive array of stand off weaponary back then, albeit, it was difficult to hit the side of a barn door with the missiles they carried. They were trained to attack in groups of about 15 a/c, launching more or less simultaneously. they usually carried 2 AS-4 Kitchen missiles, which was nuclear capable, sort of accurate and a stand off range of several hundred kilometres. They were assigned the task of taking out the US carriers during any serious confrontation.

This is a reasonable summary of Russian cruise missile rocketry. I don't think its anything to be dismissed lightly.

Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles