Interview with a syrian tank operator

[Maior]

 

This video here explains a lot of the action. The tanks are called to direct their fire to places previously spotted. This is consistent with the videos of those single tanks who race towards a target, fires a round and leaves. Kinda like tank snipers.

 

I'm always amazed by the recoil. So brute a force...

 

Also, tanks are called to deal with snipers. Nice use of the BMPs too. One needs to remember a 30mm explosive shell is still a very potent weapon. It's explosive warhead is almost the size of a rifle grenade.

[Namenlos Ein]

Turn on captions for English subtitles.

[Griffin]

Ever wondered how it looks like when a tank shoots at you?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CpubL48Njpc

[RIPTIDE]

I love Snackbars.

[Invader ZIM]

But only the Allah kind will do... No other snackbars. :D

[G00dnight]

@ Invader, the broken searchlight you mention is a part of its shoktora anti missile system, it emits a ir beam to blind ir guided missiles.

the newer tanks have 2 of them one on each side of the main gun.

 

the side skirts are just a thick rubber matting hanging on hinges so adding a heavy lump of metal and explosive would probably overload the hinges.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for that info G00dnight, but I don't think the Syrian army has any active countermeasure systems for use on their T-72's. At least none that I could find info about.

 

The Shtora usually has a heavy housing that has ribs, because it emits a lot of heat and needs the heatsink housing to be properly cooled. The standard looking searchlight housing we're seeing in these Syrian tank videos seems to be pointing to the fact that these tanks still have the Gen 0 IR night vision system installed. It's really just a standard incandescent searchlight that has a IR filter glass over it so that only those with IR viewers can see the searchlight.

 

The newer tanks that have Shtora would be the T-90, as you had mentioned, which have two mounted systems.

 

http://defense-update.com/products/s/shtora-1.htm

 

 

Edited April 6, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Namenlos Ein]

"Roadworks". Note the civil traffic.

[maturin]

It's right what the interviewee says, clearly. Almost all those vehicles are missing their side skirts.

 

 

Also, notice the applique armor on the T-72's turret.

[Namenlos Ein]

[countto10]

Sounds like the autoloader is better than a manual loader in the opinion of the interviewee.

[Invader ZIM]

Interesting to see.

 

It seems their reverse gear is so slow, that for these tanks, it's better to rotate the hull and keep it in forward, unfortunately exposing the much less protected rear hull to enemy fire.

[maturin]

Or maybe they're having a problem with maintenance and want to baby the transmissions.

[Invader ZIM]

That's certainly a possibility as well. But considering a T-72's reverse gear only allows a maximum speed of 4 km/hr, it seems it's better to swing the whole tank around and keep in foward to be able to get out of the hot zone at a much higher rate of speed the forward gears offer. First time I've seen it being done in practice from the videos.

 

Quite a different doctrine from NATO/Western tanks, that can quickly reverse up to 36 km/hr in many cases, or more.

[BRooDJeRo]

So much money, time and effort to flatten it all. It also doesn't look like many not fighting people live there. You'd almost ask why not 1 big single bomb and be done with it. The end result is the same.

[Namenlos Ein]

[RIPTIDE]

That's certainly a possibility as well. But considering a T-72's reverse gear only allows a maximum speed of 4 km/hr, it seems it's better to swing the whole tank around and keep in foward to be able to get out of the hot zone at a much higher rate of speed the forward gears offer. First time I've seen it being done in practice from the videos.

 

Quite a different doctrine from NATO/Western tanks, that can quickly reverse up to 36 km/hr in many cases, or more.

The driver, though. He'll have problems with visibility reversing in that area.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://youtu.be/D0oXf4wRzWQ?t=9m27s

[Griffin]

Wow Namenlos! That's some serious heavy caliber dueling. Great reflexes on the tanker but I'd still rather be an RPG guy... and not taking on a tank face to face.

[Kaktus29]

actually you have to have quite a lucky RPG shot to make it into a kill.. most of the front of the tank will not be penetrated that easily, unless being fired from basement and hitting the "belly" of the tank at the front..

 

 

i do question the tactics though.. most of the area is evacuated so there are either the Army or alkaida jihadist there.. why not use Artillery strikes more often.. or aviation strikes.. unless if supply problems are there i see no reason why not use arty first..

 

Russians used Tor-1 Buratino fuel-air explosives in liquidating Saudi mercs in Chechnya with tremendous success, US used chemical weapons(white phosphorous) to cleanse Falluja resistance etc..

 

Syria sadly cannot afford chem weapons for political reasons and Russia hasn't provided them with Buratino flamethrower which would be perfect for such environment.. only safe place for the rats would be in the sewer at that point..

 

[LARGE]

actually you have to have quite a lucky RPG shot to make it into a kill.. most of the front of the tank will not be penetrated that easily, unless being fired from basement and hitting the "belly" of the tank at the front..

 

 

i do question the tactics though.. most of the area is evacuated so there are either the Army or alkaida jihadist there.. why not use Artillery strikes more often.. or aviation strikes.. unless if supply problems are there i see no reason why not use arty first..

 

Russians used Tor-1 Buratino fuel-air explosives in liquidating Saudi mercs in Chechnya with tremendous success, US used chemical weapons(white phosphorous) to cleanse Falluja resistance etc..

 

Syria sadly cannot afford chem weapons for political reasons and Russia hasn't provided them with Buratino flamethrower which would be perfect for such environment.. only safe place for the rats would be in the sewer at that point..

 

 

what about the 152 caliber they ve got? I think that should do the job just fine...

[FanBoy2006.01]

Wow Namenlos! That's some serious heavy caliber dueling. Great reflexes on the tanker but I'd still rather be an RPG guy... and not taking on a tank face to face.

 

Yes, fighting in built up areas are horrible. A shot can come from any direction and there are lots of spots for your enemy to hide.

 

But in the end only dedicated ant-tank weapons can take out a tank (And some other stuff that causes huge explosions.). On the other hand, if you are on foot there are a hell of allot of horrible things that can happen to you...

Edited October 17, 2013 by FanBoy2006.01

[FanBoy2006.01]

@ Kaktus29

 

White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are mostly poisonous, although mustard gas is "corrosive" to human skin and flesh.

 

If white phos is a chemical weapon then so are all explosives and propellants as well. Because of the the chemical reaction that takes place when the stuff is used.

 

And, as far as I know, flamethrowers have been banned by international treaty.

 

But I have have heard a claim in the news last week that Syria dropped incendiary weapons on civilians.

 

Bare in mind that I said CLAIM.

[karambiatos]

@ Kaktus29

 

White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are mostly poisonous, although mustard gas is "corrosive" to human skin and flesh.

 

If white phos is a chemical weapon then so are all explosives and propellants as well. Because of the the chemical reaction that takes place when the stuff is used.

 

And, as far as I know, flamethrowers have been banned by international treaty.

 

But I have have heard a claim in the news last week that Syria dropped incendiary weapons on civilians.

 

Bare in mind that I said CLAIM.

 

hasnt the use white phosphorous against human targets been banned as well, or is that a, it only applies to people that arent us, kind of law?

 

What the russian call flamethrower MLRS, actually use thermobaric warheads, and besides how does one shoot a flamethrower from a rocket.

[SFAL]

@ Kaktus29

 

White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are mostly poisonous.....

technicaly white phosphorous just as napalm is a chemical weapon. The diffrence is that its not a nerv agent or irritant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtvobBbn_Fg

If white phos is a chemical weapon then so are all explosives and propellants as well. Because of the the chemical reaction that takes place when the stuff is used.

 

Not true.. since most explosive material is stable on its own... C4...cordite...etc...

And, as far as I know, flamethrowers have been banned by international treaty.

 

And land mines...and hollow points....etc.... yeah right...

But I have have heard a claim in the news last week that Syria dropped incendiary weapons on civilians.

If you watch the mainstream media than its true... if you have critical thinking well then you reallise that its a fake story... just like the nerv gas attack.... done by saudi mercinaries....and they even brag about it....on YOUTUBE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSSfPQ8TvrU

 

Bare in mind that I said CLAIM.

 

hasnt the use white phosphorous against human targets been banned as well, or is that a, it only applies to people that arent us, kind of law?

emmm what do you mean by that? if they arent us....then are they 2nd class humans? color of skin? or what?

......and besides how does one shoot a flamethrower from a rocket.

the flamethrower is a DELIVERY SYSTEM. So the rocket is the flamethrower...and the thermobaric warhead is the "flame". 21st century version. Very stable and it does not endanger own personel.

.