A screenshot from the video
The Russian Aerospace Forces have destroyed a large column of ISIS trucks and vehicles near the ISIS-held town of Uqayribat in the eastern Hama countryside.
Russian warplanes have increased the number of airstrikes in the area as government forces have launched another push in order to recapture Uqayribat located at an important road linking up Salamiyah and the T4 Airbase.
According to pro-government forces General Suheil Al-Hassan, Commander of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) Tiger Forces, had visited frontlines in eastern Hama before the start of the operation. This may indicate that this push to capture Uqayribat may be more prepared and coordinated than the previous attempts and may lead to a success.
Beautiful
It is that i am only wondering why not use helicopter gunships, with their machine guns and a few missiles? Still watching this cheered me up no end
Guess its due to the fact helicopters take longer to get there and can more easily be spotted
It is matter of choice for the Russians, what means they use to destroy enemy logistic supplied and armed formation. Using attack helicopters has several major drawbacks:
Grad, Uragan, Smerch are rocket artilery, not reactive. Reactive means that it reacts to something. How is reaction a rocket in Russian I wonder. A reactionary artillery :D There is something called explosive reactive armor, called dynamic protection, something not Quite the same. Or is it reactive in that it doesnt fire, but is propelled by a chemical reaction ? Like perspective, in English and other languages a perspective is different from prospective, in Russian perspektivnyj is future or prospective. And then wonder why Russians translating their thoughts to English usually make mess.
I think that the Hardware u are talking about is “thermobaric”! This may be where the confusion was made!
Rocket propulsion is properly called “reactive”, because it relies primarily on 3rd Newton law, known as “law of action and reaction”.
This way the Russians could use the SU-24s and SU 30s as escorts.
agree
Beside what @Jelius Meinel said (100% agree on his words) I would like to note: the helicopter tactics is a USA thing – the Russians are the best in airplanes, not in helicopters. They had few bad lucks with it.
The use of helicopters is to be combined with mechanized and small arms support , which requires timing and precision.
Who told you that? There is copious video footage from e. Hama, Homs, and Raqqa where Ru choppers are flying in swarms above forward units, raining s8 and s13 rockets upon enemy forward positions. One of the reasons why Tigers have enjoyed such success is also due to overhead CAS, and embedded sof. There are many videos of Mi-28 and Ka-52’s doing hunter tactics, engaging dash armor and equipment with argm’s from as far as 10 kms away.
Just one of many examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-46_fxZVgk
Yeah… and Sikorsky wasn’t Russian :)
Polish criminal?
Lol
Ask yourself, what is the most efficient destructive method! Is it helicopter gun ships? Or is it a bomb or 2 from an aircraft! What is a faster reaction method? What has less risk to the forces doing the destroying! What truly is the cheapest destructive force! Ask yourself these questions, find the REAL answers and voila…… u just answered your own question! :)
“This push to capture Uqayribat may be more prepared and coordinated than the previous attempts “. Now that is a beautiful thing .
Wonder how on earth do the jihadist think they can escape the Russian aviation in the desert countryside, with no cover?
American air cover and intelligence ( no pun intended). :)
They do most of the time.
You still overestimate tech. very much – well, it could be You still after 4-5 years still see fx well trained, self thinking, skilled and hard working guerilla infantery such as SDF and ISIS often can be best in many matters.
Here You forget how many Russian and Syrian aviations hasnt seen and how, why, when a.s.o. taken unprepared slow moving SAA´s by surprice.
The last big one was taking palmyra and 30 armed vehicles. People here shouted about the famous new russian night visions. But they didnt put extra guards out even a sandstorm was announced days before that.
They didnt act as an army under hard threat as well. The armed vehicles wasnt spread out so infantery(mainly milisisia) covered them and the opposit , which is the normal warfare.
They also didnt repair their defencelines, which was partly destroyed. ISIS met half broken defence and exact as they had destroyed it.
So its about beliefs in own strengts ignoring the enemy ones. You SAA`s alway talk about havingthe high ground. But if You cant cover the lower, its worth nothing. You also talk about outgunning. But doYouhit any targets or are You just lucky. You have forgotten Your supply lines in the most stupid ways as well.
Your commandstructure are made as classic movies in how to do not. You dont give information up to those helicopters as well as airplanes. At the ground generals dont give information down the ranks and the low ones dont give ranks above them information.
Thats where ISIS (& SDF) are high above You and the chances are.
You can see Your advances to Sukna as well as T2 has been stopped and delayed again. ´Why tanks and airstrikes, when anold man with one leg can advance more with a kalasnikov. And realism as well. Big plans like covering the whole Iraqian border with a few ants on the football field is far out.
So SAA are winning, but has extreme big losses. Let me remind You ISIS hasnt a single airplane or hekicopter, som why should You need that, when You also has 3 times as many soldiers….
I have writen it above, You can hise Empire state building in the desert and take chances and mainly win, if they are realitic. But fine day in minus ISIS.
Yes ISIS came in behind the storm and nightvision doesn’t work in a sandstorm , you can’t hide the empire state building in the desert tech is far more sophisticated than that. The losses are typical with mountainous terrain and vbied attacks which the SDF is neither impervious too either and always suffer heavy losses. Raiding is generally quick attacks but without much strategic results as for gains , ISIS loses more in trying to effect these attacks than is necessary.
The SAA has been quick to learn to develop tactics and small arms combat which has been around for some time and used by smaller army formations for over a century and quite successfully too. The SDF Kurds seem to be losing too many troops to bad and flawed military practices , hope they are not using US tactics that requires a constant flow of fresh bodies.
A while after ISIS entered syria the SAA finally got there shit together.
More dead amerikan proxies… excellent! yanks use proxies as they are too cowardly to do it them selves…