Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


War Against ISIS

This is a discussion on War Against ISIS within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Saudis Demolish Historic Shi'ite Neighborhood, Sparking Unrest Recall Iraqi Shiites under Saddam & their uprising. Saudis may not be successful ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.50 average.
Old June 28th, 2017   #3016
Banned Member
Sergeant
Tsavo Lion's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 209
Threads:
Saudis Demolish Historic Shi'ite Neighborhood, Sparking Unrest Recall Iraqi Shiites under Saddam & their uprising. Saudis may not be successful in their reforms given Wahhabi ideology & conservatism.
Т-50 in Syria? That's possible, to try it against the F-22!
Why the US is preparing a new "chemical" provocation against Syria?
Why Iran and Israel may be on the verge of conflict — in Syria At some point Israel will have to get more heavily involved, & then Russia may be asked by Iran to level the playing field.

Last edited by Tsavo Lion; June 28th, 2017 at 03:07 PM.
Tsavo Lion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2017   #3017
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
A ZSU would be a self-propelled anti-air system, like the ZSU-23-4. Mounting that on top of an MT-LB would be tough indeed.
Yes. Sorry I meant a ZSU-23-2 :]
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2017   #3018
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
Yes. Sorry I meant a ZSU-23-2 :]
It's a very common thing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=zu-2...w=1760&bih=862
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2017   #3019
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,987
Threads:
The Turks might be about to strike the Afrin pocket. There's unofficial information that the Russian MPs keeping the Turks and Kurds apart have left, and Turkish military activity is spiking.

Африн - На грани вторжения - Colonel Cassad
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2017   #3020
Banned Member
Sergeant
Tsavo Lion's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 209
Threads:
Dispatch From the Middle East: U.S. Buildup All About Iran
Putin is drowning in Syria- this may be just whishful thinking; the Russians are there "deadly serious & for a long haul"! OTH, Trump May Already Be Blundering into the Next ME War
The bigger scheme of things in our small world: RF, PRC, USA, Central Asia & the ME
ISIS Looks to Expand Presence in N. Afghanistan
Trump is setting up his generals as fall guys for Afghanistan

Last edited by Tsavo Lion; June 30th, 2017 at 02:49 PM.
Tsavo Lion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3021
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
Assuming the Syrians received BMPTs in quantities; would it make sense for BMPT-72s to replace MBTs or would it be more practical to deploy both MBTs and BMPT-72s? Apart from its firepower [virtue of the main gun] and its better protected main gun [compared to the BMPT] I can't think of any advantages to be had in deploying MBTs instead of BMPTs. Naturally, like MBTs, BMPTs will require good infantry support but on paper it would make sense to have MBTs and BMPTs operating together.

Not to get of topic but assuming Western armies had a similar requirement for a BMPT like vehicle to operate in an urban environment; would it make sense for them to develop something based on an existing MBT hull or would auto cannons and turret mounted ATGWs on Bradleys and Warriors do the job? Would having a BMPT like vehicle have been useful to the Americans for the numerous urban engagements they fought in Iraq or were their needs adequately met by Bradleys and TOWs mounted [useful only when the crew is not under direct fire] on HUMVEES?
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3022
Banned Member
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 449
Threads:
The syrians are using the Shilkas they have left for the role of fire support. Those quad autocannons can lay down some serious fire. And of course the adhoc marriages of pickups/trucks with weapons. Beggars can't be choosers.

How many BMPTs did the SAA get? I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?

Anyway, I was looking around at the Stryker variants and found this, it may interest you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_...issile_Vehicle
Quote:
Of the 300 Stryker vehicles in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, nine are M1134 anti-tank vehicles.
And there's the M2 Bradley of course.
Toblerone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3023
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toblerone View Post
The syrians are using the Shilkas they have left for the role of fire support. Those quad autocannons can lay down some serious fire. And of course the adhoc marriages of pickups/trucks with weapons. Beggars can't be choosers.

How many BMPTs did the SAA get? I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?
0. They haven't gotten any so far. One was on display at Khmeimeem. And it was a weird one at that. It was an older Object 199 with the ATGM covers of the newer BMPT-72.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3024
Banned Member
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 449
Threads:
What is it doing there? Is it a demonstrator vehicle for a future BMPT-72 retrofit package for Syria's battered T-72 fleet? Or just to advertise the type as deployed in an "active conflict"?
Toblerone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3025
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toblerone View Post
I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?
Unless I'm mistaken, the Russian army has no plans to induct the BMPT into service. It's unclear whether Uralvagonzavod developed the BMPT because it was hoping to sell it to the Russian army or whether it was simply intended for export. Also, although it was developed based on experiences gained in Chechnya it was only first displayed in 2013.

Personally, I think the BMPT is great piece of kit to have when one's faced with an urban scenario. The question really is whether the BMPT has much utility if it's operated in a non urban, non restrictive environment and whether IFVs fitted with auto/cannons and ATGWs can do the job the BMPT was intended to perform in an urban environment?
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017   #3026
Banned Member
Sergeant
Tsavo Lion's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 209
Threads:
6 Trigger Points: How the Conflict Between the United States and Iran Is Fast Escalating Toward War The US trops in Afghanistan may also play a role, but I hope it won't come to that.
Can the USA fight Iran & NK at the same time with RF & PRC supporting both?
Options Prepared for Trump to Attack North Korea
Tsavo Lion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017   #3027
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
War between the U.S. and Iran is not inevitable. The danger is that the U.S. - because of actions undertaken by Saudi - might be drawn into conflict because of its ''special'' relationship with Saudi. There is also the danger that certain elements in the U.S. administration might actually welcome such a war in the misguided belief that it will in the long term benefit the U.S. and its allies in the region; namely Saudi and Israel. A U.S/Iran war would also give Israel the ideal pretext to enter Lebanon - with Saudi blessing - to try and do what it failed in 2006 : destroy Hezbollah.

It goes without being said that the leadership of IS would be delighted if the U.S. and Iran were in conflict. As it is, IS has benefited from the fact that all its enemies are divided and have separate aims. The biggest irony is that not only IS but also AQ would love to see the Americans having a go at Iran. Any lessening of Iran's commitments to Syria will be bad for Assad but will be good for IS [there will be much celebrating in Raqqa - assuming IS still holds it]; another irony. As such it's hoped that the U.S. will practice realpolitik and think things carefully rather then then continuing what it already has a history of : flawed and shortsighted actions that in the long run prove to be extremely detrimental to the region and to U.S. long term national interests.

As for China ''supporting'' North Korea; bear in mind that China is extremely displeased with recent actions undertaken by the North Korean leadership. The last thing China needs or wants is a war in its backyard. Assuming war does break out and we once again see U.S. troops entering North Korean territory and getting close to the Yalu; we can expect to see Chinese troops entering North Korean to create a buffer zone. Just like how Russia was not happy for NATO to expand to its borders; China will not want U.S. troops on its border. Anything Trump does with regards to North Korea will have to - despite all his rhetoric and beating of war drums - take into account China.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017   #3028
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
An old video [in Russian] from 2014 but nonetheless very interesting. A BMP firing whilst moving at high speed with civilian traffic on the opposite side of the road and nice footage of a MBT; including and oil leak :] At 3.53 a BMP is targeted but it's a very close miss; not sure if it was a ATGW or an IED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz5tXR2B2NI

Assad shown visiting the Russian base at Latakia a few days ago. He gets in the seat of an Su-35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf3lVUtmNcA
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017   #3029
Banned Member
Sergeant
Tsavo Lion's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 209
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
War between the U.S. and Iran is not inevitable. The danger is that the U.S. - because of actions undertaken by Saudi - might be drawn into conflict because of its ''special'' relationship with Saudi. There is also the danger that certain elements in the U.S. administration might actually welcome such a war in the misguided belief that it will in the long term benefit the U.S. and its allies in the region; namely Saudi and Israel. A U.S/Iran war would also give Israel the ideal pretext to enter Lebanon - with Saudi blessing - to try and do what it failed in 2006 : destroy Hezbollah. ..As such it's hoped that the U.S. will practice realpolitik and think things carefully rather than continuing what it already has a history of : flawed and shortsighted actions that in the long run prove to be extremely detrimental to the region and to U.S. long term national interests.
Agreed. Besides, the US wants to make the Saudi the regional gendarmes just like Iran was before 1978. Recall it got some US arms that even Israel didn't; Zionists there want fulfil the dream of "Greater Israel" from Sinai to Euphrates river. For now, de-facto Saudi-Israel alliance is shaping up. But I doubt the top American decision makers will wise up enough or will be able to avoid getting into another blunder. Past empires were very prone to shooting themselves in the foot more often than not, & that's what doomed them. I also doubt that Israel as a Jewish state will be sustainable in the next 10-20-30 years. It's an alien entity that will be dealt with by Arabs once they sort out their squabbles. Recall that Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, French, Italians & British all faced revolts in, & were thrown out of the ME & N. Africa in the last 2 + millennia.
Quote:
Just like how Russia was not happy for NATO to expand to its borders; China will not want U.S. troops on its border. Anything Trump does with regards to North Korea will have to - despite all his rhetoric and beating of war drums - take into account China.
- as well as Russia, which has 23 miles total of common border with NK. Putin sends troops to Russia's border with North Korea Donald Trump warns North Korea of 'determined response' US worries Russia could step up North Korea support to fill China void North Korea sitting on $7 trillion worth of minerals
From their history, the N. Koreans themselves remember the 1st unsuccessful American invasion in 1871, as well as British, French, & Japanese, together with their 2 earlier invasions (1592–98), besides the annexation in 1910-45, so in their mind the continuing US presence in SK & its threats are an affront.
The bottom line is the US doesn't want to surrender its "leading role" in E. Asian affairs by letting SK & Japan go nuclear & rising China become the master of the seas around it.
Tsavo Lion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017   #3030
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsavo Lion View Post
Recall it got some US arms that even Israel didn't;
What kind of arms and when? For the past few decades U.S. policy has always been to ensure that no Arab state gets anything that would give it an edge over Israel. Taking the sale of E-3s to Saudi as an example, it was only with great difficulty that the Reagan administration managed to proceed with the sale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsavo Lion View Post
I also doubt that Israel as a Jewish state will be sustainable in the next 10-20-30 years. It's an alien entity that will be dealt with by Arabs once they sort out their squabbles.
For the past few decades the Arabs have always been more interested in regime survival rather than taking on Israel; this hasn't changed. Even in the 1973 war; Syria went to war to regain the Golan [Assad had no illusions he would get the Golan back by peaceful means] and Egypt by retaking the Sinai and in doing so forcing Israel to the peace table : neither country were under any illusions that their armies would end up in Tel Aviv or Haifa. Even with the 6 Day War; contrary to popular belief that Nasser entered the Sinai because he wanted to wipe out Israel; there is a lot to show that that was not his intention. There is strong basis in the belief that Israel actually wanted a war to weaken the Arabs before they got stronger and to acquire land for strategic depth.

[The War In June]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX-AWBheWQY

As for Israel; it has to choose if it wants land or peace. It can't have both. With the Arabs they have traditionally had greater distrust for other Arab countries rather than Israel. The Arabs have long realised and accepted that Israel will always be there and in the case of Jordan have depended on Israel as protection against other Arab states. The Arabs have actually spent more time plotting and fighting against each other [directly or via proxies] than with Israel. To those who say that the Arabs still wish Israel harm by the fact that they don't officially recognise Israel; my question is which Israel do they officially recognise: the Israel with pre or post June 1967 borders? As for the Arabs eventually sorting out their squabbles; they haven't been able to since the time of the Crusades.

Last edited by STURM; July 1st, 2017 at 03:38 PM.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 PM.