Interviews with a Syrian army T-72 commanders

[STURM]

Taking good Soviet tactics and making them bad, over realiance on artillery on to compensate for tactical defiencies, the lack of maneuever even when outflanked, etc.

Pollack mentions that most of these armies however had good unit cohesion and most did not fall apart even when overunned or outflanked. The Syrians performed better in 1982 than they did in 1973 but not much and Jordan actually performed worse in the 1970 clash with Syria than it did in 1967. And the Libyans had fantastic quartermasters/logisticians who ensured that troops in Chad and Uganda were never short of anything :].

A major problem for the Syrian army is that it has lost quite a few officers and NCOs [either dead or through desertions] and it manpower power pool has gotten smaller.

 

[mAIOR]

Just a small FYI, although the general tactics are not the best in the world, in one of the videos, a reporter explains the Syrian point of view. Mostly, the tanks are used as mobile artillery on positions pre-defined by infantry and the AFVs are used with supporting infantry. That's why you see many a video of a single tank rapidly advancing, taking a shot and then withdrawing. Sure their coordination is lacking and they could be more effective. However, it's not bad per se. There is a nice video of the SAA extracting friendlies using three tanks and three BMPs. Quite well coordinated.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbHcA6mXX7o&feature=endscreen&NR=1"]Death of a Tank - Deadly T-72 mission OnBoard +♪HD Sound! & Subtitles- Darayya Syria - YouTube[/nomedia]

This is the video explaining their tactics. Any further info is always welcome.

 

[Waylander]

This video actually shows lots of the problems of the Syrian armoured forces and the Syrian Army in general.

With enough infantry manpower they would have been able to establish a security perimeter around the column with IFVs/APCs backed by tanks rushing the infantry over the open ground in order to occupy the surrounding buildings.

Several of the tanks are standing still right in the middle of the open instead of at least trying to take cover. Part of the reason why they do this may be because of them wanting to be able to cover every direction with every tank. Another reason why proper field of fire and observation discipline is really important. With it you can also use cover much more effectively.

This video is a glaring example of how not to do it. You have tanks firing their main gun right between two other tanks neglecting his own sector of responsibility. Normally the tank with the camera would cover and observe the right side with the on on front of him covering the frontal area and the two to the left covering the left sector. The frontal tank gets hit while the one with the camera turns his turret to the left..

They also tend to drive around corners without trying to show their frontal armor first but instead pivot rather later with lots of their side exposed.

Sure they are lacking manpower and their equipment takes a harsh beating but basic principles of tank warfare should be followed.

 

[stewartash]

Hi, re the video dodgy bit, I too thought someting was a miss with the tank that was destroyed, I've seen 3videos of what appears to be the same 'action', one tank mounted, one APC mounted and from the Vampir group; interesting stuff. Fog of wat I guess!

Hi, seen more 'new' footage re dodgy bit in video; it is although a tank was destroyed! In the real explosion turret lands differantly, plus fire some over deck not just via turret ring.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For which the most striking evample IMO would be the wars fought from 1948 to 2003 in the Middle East in which most, if not all, Arab armies kept repeating the same mistakes. Not that the IDF was infallible, which it's not, but the Arabs could have performed better and achieve better results if only certain 'problems' had been ironed out.

exactly, a good example being the early stages of Bar Lev

the egyptians then made a series of bad tactical decisions re supporting the syrians, ignored some basic first principles about working within aircover and the israelis took advantage of the change of events faster than the opposing forces could react and rectify

 

[STURM]

The biggest 'mistake' was that 2 supposed allies - Sadat and Assad - both went to war for completely different reasons and didn't bother to inform each other. Assad went to war because he was convinced that the Israeli's weren't interested in negotiations and that the only way to take back the Golan was by force. Sadat went to war because he believed that a short war, which would result in the Sinai being recaptured, would jump start the peace talks with Israel. Both leaders were under no illusions that they could actually totally defeat the IDF.

In Pollack's book, he criticises the Syrians for not pushing into the Galilee when opportunity presented itself, but this misses the point that the Syrian objective was to re-take the Golan and then stay put on the defensive, and to let politics come into play - Syrian Corps and Divisional commanders were not authorised to enter Israel proper and to take Israeli territory. The Israeli's of course - which is perfectly understandable - believed that the main aim of Syria and Eqypt was to invade Israel.

Off topic but can anyone confirm that the first use of the AT-3 Sagger was during the 1972 Spring Offensive in South Vietnam, when a South Vietnamese M-48 was knocked out in Kontum Province?

Interestingly, the NVA also used an RPG to shoot down a low flying observation plane? Was this the first recorded use of an RPG against aircraft? In 1979, a Royal Malaysian Air Force [RMAF] S-61A-4 was brought down by an M-79, killing all onboard.

 

[the road runner]

More footage from Daryya.
Can see why Tanks and APC work well ,to remove injured soldiers in a city

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCUwlJgVeAc"]18+ Onboard T-72 Tank missions: Attacking Darayya from the South ++♪Sound Subs - YouTube[/nomedia]