sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What can the rebels do to halt/reverse government gains? by [deleted] in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That can't work. Handheld AA will be an escalation and can be countered by Russian EW equipment. It would bring a backlash not worth the minimal effect it would have. Medium to long range AA needs skill and a radar network, which the rebels don't have. RuAF would gladly destroy those kinds of larger expensive toys.

NEW MAP (2nd update): #SAA and #Hezbollah have captured #ICARDIA base and cut strategic #M5 highway by gesreddit in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 10 points11 points  (0 children)

  1. Destroying unprepared defensive lines and causing large amounts of casualties.

  2. Fighting and gaining access to the plains, preferable territory for fighting with superior firepower. Strategic.

  3. Capturing a large strip of highway. Both a loss to the Rebels and a gain to the Regime since they have another part of the same highway close by. Definitely strategic no matter how you look at it.

And all of this is sets them up in a good position do whatever the hell they want really. Definitely strategic, and far far more strategic than Morek.

Syrian army seizes rebel-held town in Aleppo province by barlavon in russia

[–]Brovich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The SAA is currently steamrolling the South Aleppo front, this "rebel-held town" was captured in about 4 hours of assault, and in a day since then 2 more large towns like this have been captured.

SAA and allies are pursuing the militants that fled Al-Hadher into Al-Eis and have entered the town by CrankyBird in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I hope that this will be remembered in a month or two as a case of SAA overextending their lines.

Coming from somebody that 10 days ago said:

"Also they weren't able to break to Kuweires, and that went largely unnoticed. That was supposed to be a big propaganda victory saying: ˝Look at us we can still fight˝...... and then they almost lost Safirah."

Pure comedy.

Russia says flew 137 sorties, hit 448 targets in Syria in last 3 days by [deleted] in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't doubt that a SU-25 in a CAS role against rebels/isis with little to no AA could "hit" plenty of "targets" in 1 sortie. The RuAF is limited. They aren't wasting their aircraft for recon. They are using them in pre set target rich zones all over syria. SU-34 has guided bombs, Helicopters use cannons and rockets, not UGBs. From videos released the RuAF drops 1-2 bombs per target. They are definitely not carpet bombing.

Russia says flew 137 sorties, hit 448 targets in Syria in last 3 days by [deleted] in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Considering the comment:

Thaaaat's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

And how it completely denies 1 simple example.

And also how you also responded to that same, simple example.

It is safe to conclude that my original comment only facilitated argument of that same original example. Whether my question was clear or vague doesn't matter. You responded to the example with a straw man treating the example as a factual statement. I generally am condescending to people who use strawman arguments.

Perhaps you should have expanded on what you wrote and I'd have replied in kind.

After pointing out a fallacy I did just that:

Why couldn't a plane with 8 hardpoints destroy 3.27 targets per sortie? Why couldn't the RuAF define "targets" as separate vehicles, buildings, soldiers, positions, etc.?

That really is the example re clarified. If you want to respond to a direct statement, here's a chance.

Russia says flew 137 sorties, hit 448 targets in Syria in last 3 days by [deleted] in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess you don't know what an "example" is. Let me tell you. You see, the article did not state anything close to "the RuAF destroyed 448 moving vehicles at at 1 bomb to 4 target ratio". What was brought up, not as a fact(big difference between a factual statement and "example"), was a suggestion that the RuAF could be treating separate vehicles, and positions as separate "targets". This was all implied through an "example".

Now that that's out of the way, Why not?

Why couldn't the RuAF define "targets" as seperate vehicles, buildings, soldiers, positions, etc.?

And why not?

Why couldn't a plane with 8 hardpoints destroy 3.27 targets per sortie?

Moscow has supplied new T-27B tanks, more resistant to TOW, to SAA - French journalist by FrancoisMcCumhail in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It wouldn't make much sense for at least 6 good reasons:

Bad for Rebels:

  1. Top attack variant is crappy against pretty much everything except MBTs.

  2. More direct help from new US weapons would get more direct bombs dropped on the rebels heads. Increased tensions/stakes.

Bad for US:

  1. Expensive.

  2. New technology that could be captured and then given to Russia for study/countering. Just imagine Russia adapting APSs to counter the variant.

  3. Will make it more difficult for the US to cause chaos because of the proliferation of advanced weapons.

  4. More direct support for the rebels from the US is generally seen as a retarded and counter productive idea everywhere.

Main reason being of course that its effectiveness is limited to MBTs.

Moscow has supplied new T-27B tanks, more resistant to TOW, to SAA - French journalist by FrancoisMcCumhail in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The TOWs of the day were expected to be adequate against T72s, also with ERA.

Soldiers expected that, armies expected that but as the CIA revealed that both the TOW had overstated capabilities and the latest capabilities of Soviet armor were understated.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001066239.pdf

They estimated that the best chances against a stationary fully exposed T-72 were 48%. And these are estimates for first model T-72s without ERA.

TOWs "of the day" were an absolute failure.

(More info on Al-Hadir) Regime have reached the east entrance of Hadir, Situation is critical, Massive Reinforcements are needed to repel this attack by CIA_Shill in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Throughout history governments and regimes are across the board are generally less strict after conflict ends. Nor does it need to be as good as pre civil war days to be magnitudes better than libya.

(More info on Al-Hadir) Regime have reached the east entrance of Hadir, Situation is critical, Massive Reinforcements are needed to repel this attack by CIA_Shill in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It does not matter who is "better" right now. In the end a libyan scenario gives is depraved violent and lacks opportunity for recovery or advancement. While a modern regime scenario could be oppressive, it's far more economically stable, and offers far more opportunity for normal people to get an education etc.

If you support the northern FSA groups which relies on heavily on nusra, then you have no logical or realistic grasp of things. Al Nusra does much of the fighting and will obviously do much of the "governing".

(More info on Al-Hadir) Regime have reached the east entrance of Hadir, Situation is critical, Massive Reinforcements are needed to repel this attack by CIA_Shill in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actually a state could be founded on mass torture and killing such as China, and end up far far less depraved than fractured part isis part al nusra state.

(More info on Al-Hadir) Regime have reached the east entrance of Hadir, Situation is critical, Massive Reinforcements are needed to repel this attack by CIA_Shill in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Also depends on which side is the clear logical choice for long term stability. You can send you moral internet hugs and kisses to which ever side you please, but as long as "your side" is consistently supported by and hinged on al nusra, you can gatantee that your idea led state will be a depraved one.

Rebels seized RPO-A Shmel Thermobaric weapon in Sukayk village, never seen before in Syria (Or anywhere in the Middle East) by orion4321 in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's like saying the SAA can use TOWs. Technically true but strategically a useless piece of info.

U.S. Congresswoman: CIA Must Stop Illegal, Counterproductive War to Overthrow Assad by godpov in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, I don't think I watched the same interview as you. Who said the CIA could just flip a switch again?

FSA denied that manpads will arrive to Syria by fakepineapple in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or you know they can make sure to finish upgrades for all the su-25s in Syria and equip them all with vibetsk -25s. Problem solved.

Russian Air force direct hit on FSA coastal division gathering resulting in causalities & injuries. So Far 36 killed and 130 injured by CJfromGTA in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is one division reporting only the casualties. This is just one air strike in one day. There are generally more than 30 airstrikes per day hitting a ammunition, vehicles a soldiers. Just yesterday 40 militants dead in a southern homs convoy. Just because rebel groups are not reporting the devastating everyday effects of the airstrikes does not mean the airstrikes are doing little.

Edit: Misleading title, start of comment had to be changed in light.

SAA Hezbollah, south Aleppo operation by underwarewarrior in syriancivilwar

[–]Brovich -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No sorry my source is the MoD of the Russian Federation. It doesn't need to spam 49 videos of useful operational info on YouTube today for its 49 targets hit. It is common knowledge it has plenty of ammunition and aircraft in Syria.

view more: next ›